__________________________________________________________________ Title: The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 8: Infamy-Lapparent Creator(s): Herbermann, Charles George (1840-1916) Print Basis: 1907-1913 Rights: From online edition Copyright 2003 by K. Knight, used by permission CCEL Subjects: All; Reference LC Call no: BX841.C286 LC Subjects: Christian Denominations Roman Catholic Church Dictionaries. Encyclopedias __________________________________________________________________ THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA AN INTERNATIONAL WORK OF REFERENCE ON THE CONSTITUTION, DOCTRINE, DISCIPLINE, AND HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH EDITED BY CHARLES G. HERBERMANN, Ph.D., LL.D. EDWARD A. PACE, Ph.D., D.D. CONDE B PALLEN, Ph.D., LL.D. THOMAS J. SHAHAN, D.D. JOHN J. WYNNE, S.J. ASSISTED BY NUMEROUS COLLABORATORS IN FIFTEEN VOLUMES VOLUME 8 Infamy to Lapparent New York: ROBERT APPLETON COMPANY Imprimatur JOHN M. FARLEY ARCHBISHOP OF NEW YORK __________________________________________________________________ Infamy Infamy (Lat. in, not, and fama, fame.) Infamy is loss of a good name. When this has been brought about by regular legal process, terminating in a conviction in a court of justice, no injury is done to the criminal by publishing the fact. The same thing can be said when the scandalous repute in which a person is held is matter of common knowledge. The canon law seems to require a pre-existing public opinion against an individual before the investigation in a judicial inquiry can be narrowed to any particular person. Infamy in the canonical sense is defined as the privation or lessening of one's good name as the result of the bad rating which he has, even among prudent men. It constitutes an irregularity, i.e. a canonical impediment which prevents one being ordained or exercising such orders as he may have already received. It is twofold in species, infamy of law (infamia juris) and infamy of fact (infamia facti). Infamy of law is contracted in one of three ways. Either the law itself attaches this juridical ineligibility and incapacity to the commission of certain crimes, or makes it contingent upon the decision of a judge, or finally connects it with the penalty imposed by him. This kind of infamy is incurred chiefly by those guilty of duelling (whether as principals or seconds), rape (as likewise those who co-operate in it), attempt to marry during the lifetime of the actual consort, heresy, real simony, etc. Infamy of law may be removed either by canonical purging or by application to the Holy See. Infamy of fact is the result of a widespread opinion, by which the community attributes some unusually serious delinquency, such as adultery or the like, to a person. This is more of an unfitness than an irregularity properly so called, unless sentence in court has been pronounced. It ceases therefore when one has shown by a change of life extending over a period of two or probably three years that his repentance is sincere. TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906); SLATER, Manual of Moral Theology (New York, 1908); GASPARRI, De Sacra Ordinatione (Paris, 1893); WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1904). JOSEPH F. DELANY. Infanticide Infanticide Child-murder; the killing of an infant before or after birth. According to the French Criminal Code the word is limited to the murder of the new-born infant. In English it has been used for the deprivation of life from the moment of conception up to the age of two or three years. Except under Hebrew and Christian law, the killing of very young children by their parents has almost invariably been either legally permitted or at least practised with impunity. Economic reasons more than any others had led to the killing of infants before or after birth and have continued to exert an unfortunate influence even down to our own day. In Oriental countries certain poetic and religious traditions were appealed to in justification of the custom of killing infants, but as a rule the economic basis for it is clear. In many countries it was the custom to get rid of many of the female infants because they were unproductive, and generally expensive, members of the family. Sometimes usage required large dowries to be given with them. In India infanticide continued to be practised until far into the nineteenth century, notwithstanding the efforts of the British Government to put an end to it. In Greece and Rome, even at the height of their culture, the custom of exposing infants obtained, and in China and Japan delicate or deformed children were abandoned, or even healthy females, where there were male children in the family. Missionaries have done much to break up the custom and many children have been saved by them in the last few generations to be reared in the light of Christianity. Christianity first opposed a formal and effectual barrier to infanticide. Immediately after the Emperor Constantine's conversion he enacted two laws (about A. D. 320) directed against child-murder which are still found in the Theodosian Code (lib. XI, tit. xxvii). The first, to remove temptation, provided funds out of the imperial treasury for parents over-burdened with children; the second accorded all the rights of property of exposed infants to those who had had the charity to save and nurture them. In modern times even in Christian countries two causes have led to post-natal infanticide: one, the disgrace attendant upon illegitimacy; the other, an economic reason. Illegitimate children were sacrificed partly for the concealment of shame, but often to escape the burden of the child's support. The crime occurs most frequently where illegitimacy is most frequent and, according to statistics, is least common in Ireland. In countries where children are readily received without question into institutions, infanticide is rare. In France the law forbids inquiry into paternity, and arrangements are made for the state care of the children. In Russia even more liberal provision is made for the state care of any child whose parents cannot or will not care for it. The question of child-murder by mothers has always been a difficult legal problem. Under a statute of James I of England, the mother had to account for the death of her infant or be held responsible for it. In 1803 trials for infanticide were placed under the ordinary rules of evidence. The presumption now is that every new-born child found dead was born dead unless the contrary is proved. This rule of English law holds in the United States. Infanticide has been quite common in European countries during the nineteenth century for two sordid reasons: one was the neglect of infants in the process of what was known as baby-farming, the other was the desire to obtain insurance money. This abuse has been regulated in various ways, but baby-farming and child-insurance still seriously increase the death-rate among infants. PRE-NATAL INFANTICIDE The murder of an infant before birth. This is more properly called foeticide. Among the ancient philosophers and medieval theologians there was considerable discussion as to when the human embryo could be said to possess human life. This is no longer a question among modern biologists. At the very moment of conception a human being comes into existence. At any time after this the deprivation of life in this living matter, if done deliberately, is murder. The laws of most States in the Union are so framed that conditions may not be deliberately created which would put the life of the foetus in danger, or which would bring about an abortion before the foetus is viable, unless it has been decided in a consultation of physicians that the lives of both mother and child are in danger and only one of them can be saved. The comparative safety of the Cæsarean section has also worked in the direction of safeguarding the life of the unborn child. The killing of a viable child because it is impossible to deliver it by the natural birth passages is now condemned by physicians all over the world. Craniotomy, that is, the crushing of the skull of a living child in order to facilitate its delivery, where great difficulty was encountered, was a common teaching in medical schools a generation ago, but the stand taken by the Church has had its effect in gradually bringing about a change of teaching and a recognition of the right of the child to life. Craniotomy on the living child is now never considered justifiable. When it is definitely known that the foetus is dead, crushing methods may be employed to extract it piecemeal, but this procedure is much more dangerous for the mother than Cæsarean section. Many drugs are purchased by women with the idea that they will produce abortion without endangering the mother's life. No such drugs are known to modern medical science. There are drugs in the pharmacop ia which produce abortions, but only by affecting the mother very seriously. Abortion sometimes occurs after the taking of certain drugs supposed to produce it; but the premature birth is not due to the drug, it is caused by other influences. Twenty percent of all pregnancies end in premature births. The unfortunate woman who has had recourse to the drug then imagines that she has committed infanticide, and in intention she has; but the actual event has not been the result of the drug, unless that drug was one of the poisonous kind known as "abortifacients" and abortion took place in the convulsion which followed. It is absolutely certain that no known drug will produce abortion without producing very serious effects upon the mother, and even gravely endangering her life. (For the teaching of the Church on pre-natal infanticide, see ABORTION.) BROUARDEL, L'Infanticide (Paris, 1907); TARDIEU, L'Infanticide (Paris, 1868); RYAN, Infanticide, its Prevalence, Prevention and History (Fothergill Gold Medal S. A.), (London, 1862); BOURDON, L'Infanticide dans les législations anciennes et modernes (Douai, 1896). -- All the standard works on medical jurisprudence have chapters on this subject. JAMES J. WALSH. Stefano Infessura Stefano Infessura Born at Rome about 1435; died about 1500. He devoted himself to the study of law, took the degree of Doctor of Laws, and acquired a solid legal knowledge. He was for a while judge in Orte, whence he came to the Roman University as professor of Roman law. Under Sixtus IV (1471-84) his office was affected by the financial measures of that pope, who frequently withheld the income of the Roman University, applied it to other uses, and reduced the salaries of the professors. Infessura was also for a long time secretary of the Roman Senate. He was entangled in the conspiracy of Stefano Porcaro against Nicholas V (1453), which aimed at overturning the papal Government and making Rome a republic (Pastor, Gesch. der Päpste, 4th ed., I, 550 sq.) Infessura also belonged to the antipapal faction, formed among the paganizing Humanists of the Roman Academy under Pomponio Leto (op. cit., II, 322 sqq.) He is particularly well known as the author of a work, partly Latin and partly Italian, the Diarium urbis Romae (Diario della Città di Roma), a chronicle of the city from 1294 to 1494. The historical information is not of special value until the time of Martin V and Eugene IV, or rather until the pontificates of Paul II (1484-1492), Sixtus IV (1471-84), Innnocent VIII (1484-1492), and the first part of the reign of Alexander VI. The antipapal and republican temper of the author, also his partisan devotion to the Colonna, and his personal animosity, led him to indulge in very severe charges and violent acusations of the popes, especially Sixtus IV. He put down in his chronicle every fragment of the most preposterous and malevent gossip current in Roman society; even obvious falsehoods attributed to him. He is therefore not considered a reliable chronicler. It is only with the greatest caution and after very careful criticism that his work can be used for the papal history of his time. The Diarium was first edited by Eccard (Corpus historicum medii aevi, II, 1863-2016); afterwards, with omission of the most scandalous parts by Muratori (Scriptores rerum Italicarum, III, ii, 1111-1252); a critical edition of the text is owing to Tommasini, Diario della Città di Roma di Stefano Infessura scribasenato (Fonti per la storia d'Italia, VI, Rome, 1890). TOMMASINI, Il diario do Stefano Infessuar in Archivia della Societa romana di storia patria, XI (Rome, 1888), 481-640; IDEM, Nuovi documenti illustrativi del Diario di Stef. Infessura, XII (Rome, 1889), 5-36; PASTOR, Geschichte der papste, 4th ed., II, passim, especially 646-649. J.P. KIRSCH Infidels Infidels (Latin in, privative, and fidelis.) As in ecclesiastical language those who by baptism have received faith in Jesus Christ and have pledged Him their fidelity and called the faithful, so the name infidel is given to those who have not been baptized. The term applies not only to all who are ignorant of the true God, such as pagans of various kinds, but also to those who adore Him but do not recognize Jesus Christ, as Jews, Mohammedans; strictly speaking it may be used of catechumens also, though in early ages they were called Christians; for it is only through baptism that one can enter into the ranks of the faithful. Those however who have been baptized but do not belong to the Catholic Church, heretics and schismatics of divers confessions are not called infidels but non-Catholics. The relation in which all these classes stand to the Catholic Church is not the same; in principle, those who have been baptized are subjects of the Church and her children even though they be rebellious children; they are under her laws or, at least, are exempt from them only so far as pleases the Church. Infidels, on the contrary, are not members of the ecclesiastical society, according to the words of St. Paul: Quid mihi de his qui fortis sunt, judicare? (I Cor., v, 12); they are entirely exempt from the canon law; they need to be enlightened and converted, not punished. Needless to say, infidels do not belong to the supernatural state; if they receive supernatural graces from God, it is not through the channels established by Jesus Christ for Christians, but by a direct personal inspiration, for instance, the grace of conversion. But their condition is not morally bad; negative infidelity, says St. Thomas (II-II, q. x, a. 1), does not partake of the nature of sin, but rather of punishment, in the sense that ignorance of the Faith is a consequence of original sin. That is why the condemnation by the Church of proposition lxviii of Baius: Infidelits pure negativa, in his quibus Christus non et praedicatus, peccatum est (purely negative infidelity in those to whom Christ has not been preached is a sin), was fully justified. But it is different with regard to positive infidelity, which is a sin against faith, the most grievous of all sins, apostasy. Being endowed with reason, and subject to natural law, infidels are not excluded from the moral order; they can perform acts of natural virtue; and so the ecclesiastical authorities had to condemn proposition xxv of Baius which declared that: Omnia infidelium opera peccata sunt, et philosophorum virtutes vitia (all works of infidels are sinful, and all the virtues of the philosophers are vices; cf. St. Thomas, loc. cit., a. 4; Hurter, Theol. dogm., III, thes. cxxvi and cxxvii). Daily experience moreover proves incontestably that there are infidels who really religious, charitable, just, true to their word, upright in their business, and faithful to their family duties. One can say of them, as the Scriptures say of Cornelius the centurion, that their prayers and their alms are acceptable to God (Acts, x, 4). It was especially among such well-meaning infidels that the Church of Jesus grew up, and it is from their ranks that she gains her recruits at the present day in missionary lands. The Church, mindful of the order of the Saviour: Go, teach all nations (Matt., xxviii, 12), has always considered the preaching of the Gospel among the infidels and their conversion by her apostolic missionaries to be one of her principal duties. This is not the place to recall the history of the missions, from the labours of St. Paul, the greatest of missionaries, and those who gave the light of faith to the Greek and Roman world, and those who converted the barbarian peoples, down through the ages when the phalanxes of religious men rushed to the conquest of the Orient, the Far East, and America, to the present-day pioneers of the religion of Jesus Christ; the multitude of heroes and martyrs and the harvest of souls that have been won to the true Faith. Doubtless, we still are far from having but one fold and one shepherd; nevertheless, there is not to-day a province or race of men so remote, but has not heard the name of Him by whom all men must be saved and has given children to the Church. The work of the missions is placed, as is well known, under the care and direction of the congregation of cardinals that bears the admirable name Da Propaganda Fide (for the propagation of the Faith), instituted by Gregory XV in 1622. Ever encouraged and developed by the popes, it is the directing body on whom the evangelical labourers in infidel lands depend. It sends them forth and grants them their powers, it established the prefectures Apostolic and the vicariates, and it is the tribunal to whose decision the missionaries submit their controversies, difficulties, and doubts. Thought there is a general obligation on the Church to toil for the conversion of infidels, yet it is not incumbent on any particular persons, unless on those priests charged with the care of souls who have infidels within their territory. For the distant fields of labour missionaries, priests, members of religious orders, both men and women, who voluntarily offer themselves for the apostolic work, are recruited in Catholic countries. Native Christians are not excluded from the ranks of the clergy, and it is a duty of the missionaries to provide themselves prudently with auxiliary workers in their missions. To draw the infidels to the Faith, the missionaries ought, like St. Paul, to make themselves all things to all men, adopt the customs of the country, acquire the native language, establish schools and charitable institutions, preach especially by their example, and show in their lives how the religion they have come to teach is to be practiced (cf. Instr. of the Prop. to the Vicars Apostolic of China, in the Collectanea S. C. de Prop. Fide, n. 328). They and their catechists are to instruct with zeal and patience to those who are anxious to know the true religion, admitting them to baptism after longer or shorter period of probation, as was done in the case of the catechumens in ancient times. But the conversion of infidels must be free and without compulsion, otherwise it will not be genuine and lasting (cap. 9, tit. vi, lib. V, de Judaeis). It cannot be denied that at various epochs, notably under Charlemagne and later in Spain, there were forced conversions, which may be explained, though not excused, by the custom of the age; but the Church was not responsible for them, as it has constantly taught that all conversions should be free. On several occasions it expressly forbade the baptism of Jews and infidels against their will, and even the baptism of children without their parents consent, unless they were in imminent danger of death (cf. Collect. cit., De subjecto baptismi). In the rite of administering baptism the Church still asks the questions: Quid petis ab Ecclesia Dei? Vis baptizari? Though ecclesiastical law does not affect the acts of infidels as such, yet the Church has to pass judgment on the validity of these acts and their juridical consequences when infidels come within the fold by baptism. No act of an infidel can have any value from the point of view of the spiritual society to which he does not belong; he is incapable by Divine law of receiving the sacraments, notably Holy orders (evidently we are not speaking here of a purely material reception); nor can he receive or exercise any ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The acts of infidels are to be considered in the light of natural law, to which they, like all men, are subject, and in accordance with the Divine law, in so far as it determines the secondary natural law. This applies principally to the case of matrimony. The marriage of infidels is valid as a contract under natural law, not as a sacrament, though at times this word has been applied to it (cf. Encycl. Arcanum); it is subject only to the impediments of natural law and, at times, to those of the civil law also, but it is not affected by the impediments of canon law. However the Church does not recognize polygamy as lawful among infidels; as to divorce strictly so called, it admits it only under the form of the Casus Apostoli, also known as the privilege of the Faith or the Pauline privilege; this consists in a convert being permitted to abandon his partner, who remains an infidel, if the latter refuse to continue the common life without endangering the faith of the convert (cf. DIVORCE, I, B, 1); under such circumstances the convert may marry a Catholic. As to acts which are prohibited or void in virtue of canon law alone, they are valid when performed by infidels; thus, the impediment of the remoter degrees of consanguinity and affinity, etc., does not affect the marriages of infidels. But the juridical consequences of the acts, performed by them when infidels, begin to exist at the moment of and in virtue of their baptism; consequently, a converted widower may not marry a relative of his late wife without dispensation; and again, a man who has had two wives before his conversion is a bigamist and therefore irregular. Most of the laws passed by the Church refer to the relations between its subjects and infidels in not only religious but also civil affairs. Speaking generally, the faithful are forbidden to take part in any religious rites, considered as such, of pagans, Mohammedans, or Jews, and all the more to practice them through a kind of survival of their primitive superstitions. If this prohibition is inspired not so much by a fear of the danger of perversion as by the law forbidding the faithful to communicate in sacris with non-Catholics, aversion to false religions and especially from idol worship justifies the rigor of the law. To mention but the principal acts, the faithful are forbidden to venerate idols, not only in their temples, but also in private houses, to contribute to the building or repairing of pagan temples or of mosques, to carve idols, to join in pagan sacrifices, to assist at Jewish circumcisions, to wear idolatrous images or objects having an acknowledged religious significance, so that the fact of wearing them is looked upon as an act of pagan worship, and finally to make use of superstitious and especially idolatrous practices in the acts of civil or domestic life. Some very delicate questions may arise in connection with the last prohibition; for instance, we may recall the celebrated controversy concerning the Chinese rites (see CHINA). On the other hand, it is not forbidden to enter temples and mosques out of mere curiosity if no act of religion be performed, or to eat food that has been offered to false gods, provided that this be not done in a temple or as a sacred repast, and that it be done without scandal; or to observe customs or perform acts which are not in themselves religious, even though pagans join superstitious practices to them. Not only is it not forbidden, but it is permissible and one might say obligatory to pray even publicly for infidel princes, in order that God may grant their subjects peace and prosperity; nothing is more conformable to the tradition of the Church; thus Catholics of the different rites in the Ottoman Empire pray for the sultan. In this place mention may be made of the ecclesiastical law forbidding the faithful to marry infidels, a prohibition which is now a diriment impediment, rendering a marriage null and void unless a dispensation has been obtained (see DISPARITY OF WORSHIP). It is easy to see that there is a real danger to the faith and religious life of the Catholic party in the intimacy of married life and in the difficulties in the way of a Christian education of the children; and, if that party be the wife, in the excessive authority of the husband and the inferior condition of the wife in infidel countries; consequently, this dispensation is granted only with difficulty and when the precautions dictated by prudence have been taken. The laws regulating the dealings between Catholics and infidels in civil life were inspired also by religious motives, the danger of perversion, and the high idea entertained in the ages of faith of the superiority of Christians to infidels. These regulations, of course, did not refer to all acts of civil life; moreover, they were not directed against all infidels indifferently, but only against Jews; at the present day they have fallen almost completely into desuetude. In the early Middle Ages, Jews were forbidden to have Christian slaves; the laws of the decretals forbade Christians to enter the service of Jews, or Christian women to act as their nurses or midwives; moreover, Christians when ill were not to have recourse to Jewish physicians. These measures may be useful in certain countries to-day and we find them renewed, at least as recommendations, by recent councils (Council of Gran, in 1858; Prague, in 1860; and Utrecht, in 1865). As for the Jews, they were ordinarily restricted to certain definite quarters of the towns into which they were admitted, and had to wear a dress by which they might be recognized. Modern legislation has given the Jews the same rights as other citizens and the intercourse between them and Catholics in civil life is no longer governed by ecclesiastical law. (See JEWS AND JUDAISM; MOHAMMED AND MOHAMMEDANISM.) A. BOUDINHON Infinity Infinity (Lat. infinitas; in, not, finis, the end, the boundary). Infinity is a concept of the utmost importance in Christian philosophy and theology. DEFINITION The infinite, as the word indicates, is that which has no end, no limit, no boundary, and therefore cannot be measured by a finite standard, however often applied; it is that which cannot be attained by successive addition, not exhausted by successive subtraction of finite quantities. Though in itself a negative term, infinity has a very positive meaning. Since it denies all bounds -- which are themselves negations -- it is a double negation, hence an affirmation, and expresses positively the highest unsurpassable reality. Like the concepts of quantity, limit, boundary, the term infinity applies primarily to space and time, but not exclusively, as Schopenhauer maintains. In a derived meaning it may be applied to every kind of perfection: wisdom, beauty, power, the fullness of being itself. The concept of infinity must be carefully distinguished from the concept of "all-being". Infinity implies that an infinite being cannot lack any reality in the line in which it is infinite, and that it cannot be surpassed by anything else in that particular perfection; but this does not necessarily mean that no other being can have perfections. "All-being", however, implies that there is no reality outside of itself, that beyond it there is nothing good, pure, and beautiful. The infinite is equivalent to all other things put together; it is the greatest and most beautiful; but besides it, other things both beautiful and good may exist (for further explanation, see below). It is objected that, if there were an infinite body, no other body could exist besides it; for the infinite body would occupy all space. But the fact that no other body could exist besides the infinite body would be the result of its impenetrability, not of its infinity. Spinoza defines: "Finite in its kind is that which can be limited by a thing of the same kind." (Ethics, I def. ii). If he intended only to say: "Finite is that from which another thing of the same kind, by its very existence, takes away perfection", no fault could be found with him. But what he means to say is this: "Finite is that, besides which something else can exist; infinite therefore is that only which includes all things in itself." This definition is false. Many confound the infinite with the indeterminate. Determination (determinatio) is negation, limitation (negatio, limitatio), says Spinoza. Generally speaking, this is false. Determination is limitation in those cases only where it excludes any further possible perfection, as for example, the determination of a surface by a geometrical figure; but it is no limitation, if it adds further reality, and does not exclude, but rather requires a new perfection, as for example, the determination of substance by rationality. The mere abstract being, so well known to metaphysicians, is the most indeterminate of all ideas, and nevertheless the poorest in content; the infinite, however, is in every way the most determinate idea, in which all possibilities are realized, and which is therefore the richest in content. According to Hobbs, we call a thing infinite if we cannot assign limits to it. This definition is also insufficient: infinite is not that whose limits we cannot perceive, but that which has no limit. DIVISION The different kinds of infinity must be carefully distinguished. The two principal divisions are: (1) the infinite in only one respect (secundum quid) or the partially infinite, and the infinite in every respect (simpliciter) or the absolutely infinite; (2) the actually infinite, and the potentially infinite, which is capable of an indefinite increase. Infinite in only one respect (viz. extension) is ideal space; infinite in only one respect (viz. duration) is the immortal soul; infinite in every respect is that being alone, which contains in itself all possible perfections and which is above every species and genus and order. Potentially infinite is (e.g.) the path of a body which moves in free space; potentially infinite is also the duration of matter and energy, according to the law of their conservation. For this motion and this duration will never cease, and in this sense will be without end; nevertheless, the path and the duration up to this instant can be measured at any given point and are therefore in this sense finite. Hence they are infinite not according to what they actually are at a given moment, but according to what they are not yet and never actually can be; they are infinite in this, that they are ever and forever progressing without bounds, that there is always the "and so forth". The actually infinite, however, is now and at every moment complete, absolute, entirely determined. The immeasurable omnipresent spirit does not advance from point to point without end, but is constantly everywhere, fills every "beyond" of every assignable point. Hegel calls potential infinity the improper (schlechte), actual infinity the true infinity. THE INFINITY OF GOD The actual infinity of God in every respect is Catholic dogma. In accordance with the Holy Bible (III Kings, viii, 27; Ps. cxliv, 3; cxlvi, 5; Ecclus., xliii, 29 sqq., Luke, i, 37, etc.) and unanimous tradition, the Vatican Council at its Third Session (cap. i) declared God to be almighty, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and will and every perfection, really and essentially distinct from the world, infinitely blessed in Himself and through Himself, and inexpressibly above all things that can exist and be thought of besides Him. The infinity of God can also be proved from philosophy. God is the self-existing, uncreated Being whose entire explanation must be in Himself, in Whom there can be no trace of chance; but it would be mere chance if God possessed only a finite degree of perfection, for however high that degree might be, everything in the uncreated Being -- His perfections, His individuality, His personality -- admit the possibility of His possessing a still higher degree of entirety. From outside Himself, God cannot be limited, because, being uncreated, He is absolutely independent of external causes and conditions. Limitation would be chance; the more so because we can maintain not only that any given finite degree of perfection may be surpassed, but also, in a positive way, that an infinite being is possible. Moreover, if God were finite, the existence of other gods, His equals or even His superiors in perfection would be possible, and it would be mere chance if the y did not exist. Of such gods, no trace can be found, while on the other hand, God's infinity is suggested by various data of experience, and in particular by our unbounded longing after knowledge and happiness. The more man a man is, and the more he follows his best thoughts and impulses, the less he is satisfied with merely finite cognitions and pleasures. That the essential cravings of our nature are not deceptive, is demonstrated at once by experience and speculation. From the infinity of God it is easy to deduce all His perfections: His unity, simplicity, immutability, etc., though these may be proved also by other means. Many of God's attributes are nothing else than His infinity in a particular respect, e.g. His omnipotence is but the infinity of His power; His omniscience, the infinity of His knowledge. Whatever is known to be a pure unalloyed perfection, must be an attribute of God on account of His infinity. We say a pure unalloyed perfection; for God, just because He is infinite does not possess all perfections in the same way. Only pure perfections -- i.e. those which include in their concept no trace of imperfection whatsoever -- are contained in Him formally. We must therefore ascribe to Him the attributes wise, powerful, amiable, etc., without any restriction, because these are all pure perfections. Of the so-called mixed perfections, which include besides the positive reality also some imperfections, as e.g., extension, contrition, courage, sound reasoning, and clear judgment, He possesses only the perfection without the connected imperfection. His is, for example, the all-pervading presence, without composition; love for the good without having committed sin; power without having to overcome fear; knowledge without formal reasoning or formal judgment. He possesses, therefore, the mixed perfections in a higher form -- eminently, i.e. in the only form which is worthy of the infinite. But even the pure perfections are contained in Him in a higher form than in the creature, in which they are dependent, derived, finite. God's perfection and that of the creature are the same analogically only, not univocally. The error of Anthropomorphism consists just in this, that it ascribes to God human perfections, without first refining them; whereas Agnosticism errs in its contention that, of all the pure and good qualities which are found in creatures, none can be ascribed to God. Those modern writers too are mistaken, who hold the best form of religious sentiment to be that which comprises the largest number of elements, and if needs be, of contradictions. According to them, we should call God both finite and infinite; finite to escape Agnosticism, infinite to escape Anthropomorphism. But it is evident that the highest and absolute truth cannot be a compound of contradictions. The dogma of God's infinity is not only of the greatest import for theology in the strictest sense of the term (i.e. the treatise on God), but it throws new light upon the malice of sin, which, on the account of Him Who is offended, becomes objectively infinite; upon the infinite majesty of the Incarnate Word and the boundless value of His merits and satisfaction; upon the necessity of the Incarnation, if God's justice required an adequate satisfaction for sin. INFINITY AND MONISM How imperatively thought demands that infinity be ascribed to the self-existent Being is best shown by the fact, that all those who have at any time identified, and especially those who nowadays identify God and the world -- in short, all Monists -- almost universally speak if the infinity of their God. But this is an error. One has but to open one's eyes to see that the world in imperfect, and therefore finite. It avails nothing for the Monists to assume that the world is infinite in extension; all that could be inferred from this supposition would be an infinitely extended imperfection and finiteness. Nor do they gain anything by staking their hopes on evolution, and predicting infinity for the future of the world; uncreated existence involves infinity at every moment, at this present instant as well as at any future time, and not only potential but real, actual infinity. Others therefore maintain that the world is not their God, but an emanation from God; they must consequently grant that God has parts -- else nothing could emanate from Him -- and that these parts are subject to imperfections, decay, and evil -- in short that their God is not infinite. Hence others assert that the things of this world are not parts of the Absolute, but its manifestations, representations, forms, qualities, activities, accidents, attributes, affections, phenomena, modifications. But if these are not mere words, if the things of this world are really modifications etc. of the Absolute, it follows again that, as much as it is in finite things, the Absolute is subject to limitation, evil and sin, and is therefore not infinite. This leads many to take the last step by asserting that the things of this world are nothing in them selves, but simply thoughts and conations of the Absolute. But why has not the Absolute grander and purer conceptions and volitions? Why has it contented itself for thousands of years with these realistic self-represent ations, and not even yet attained with certainty an idealistic conception of reality? Turn as one may, in spite of all efforts to evade the consequence, the god of Monism is not an infinite being. The Monists object that God as conceived by Theists is a finite thing, since He is not in Himself all reality, but has outside Himself, the reality of the world. However, it has been stated above that infinity and totality are two entirely different ideas, and that infinity does not, in every supposition, exclude the existence of other things besides itself. We say, not "in every supposition", for it may be that the infinite could not be infinite if certain beings existed. A being uncreated or independent of God, or a Manichfan principle of evil, cannot exist beside the infinite God, because it would limit His absolute perfections. This is the time-honored proof for the unity of God, the grand thought of Tertullian (Adv. Marcion., I, iii), "if God is not one, He is not at all." But that besides God there are creatures of His, reflections from His light, illuminated only by Him and in no way diminishing His light, does not limit God Himself. God, on the contrary, would be finite, if His creatures were identical with Him. For creatures are essentially of mixed perfection, because essentially dependent; infinite is only that which is pure perfection without any admixture of imperfection. If, therefore, one wants to form the equation: infinite = all, it must be interpreted: infinite = everything uncreated; or better still: infinite = all pure perfections in the highest and truest sense. Taken in the monistic view, viz. that there can be no reality besides the infinite, this equation is wrong. The identification, how ever, of "infinite" and "all" is very old, and served as a basis of Eleatic philosophy. Another very common objection of Monists against the theistic conception of God is, that being personal, He cannot be infinite. For personality, whether conceived as individuality or as self-consciousness or as subsistent being, cannot exist without something else as its opposite; but wherever there is something else, there is no infinity. Both premises of this argument are false. To assert that infinity is destroyed wherever something else exists, is but the repetition of the already rejected statement that infinity means totality. Equally unwarranted is the assertion that personality requires the existence of something else. Individuality means not hing more than that a thing is this one thing and not another thing, and it is just as much this one thing, whether anything else exists or not. The same is true of self-consciousness. I am aware of myself as Ego, even though nothing else exist, and I have no thought of any other being; for the Ego is something absolute, not relative. Only if I desire to know myself as not being the non-Ego, to use the expression of Fichte -- I necessarily must think of that non-Ego, i.e. of something as not-myself. The subsistence of intellectual beings, i.e. personality in the strictest sense of the term, implies only that I am a being in and for myself, separate from everything else and in no way part of anything else. This would be true, even though nothing else existed; in fact, it would then be truer than ever. Far from excluding personality God is personal in the deepest and truest meaning, because He is the most independent being, by Himself and in Himself in the most absolute sense (see PERSON). HISTORY Concerning the philosophers before Aristotle, Suarez pertinently remarks that they "scented" the infinity of God (subodorati sunt). In many of them we meet the infinity of God or of the First Cause, though in many cases it be only infinity in extension. Plato and Aristotle assert in substance the infinity of the Highest Being in a more adequate sense, though blended with errors and obscurities. The Stoics had various ideas that would have led them to admit the infinity of God, had not their Pantheism stood in the way. The conceptions of Philo's Jewish-Alexandrian philosophy were much purer; the same may be said to a certain degree of the neo-Platonism of Plotinus, who was largely influenced by Philo. Plotinus originated the terse and trenchant argument: God is not limited; for what should limit Him? ("Enn. V", lib. V, in "Opera omnia", Oxford, 1885, p. 979). Against Plotinus, however, it may be objected that true infinity is as little consistent with his doctrine of emanations as with the more or less pantheistic tendencies of the Indian philosophy. The Christian writers took their concepts of the infinity of God from the Bible; the speculative development of these ideas, however, needed time. St. Augustine, being well acquainted with Platonic philosophy, recognized that whatever could be greater, could not be the First Being. Candidus, a contemporary of Charlemagne, perceived that the limitations of all finite beings point towards a Creator, Who determines the degrees of their perfection. Abelard seems to teach that God, being superior to everything else in the reason of His existence, must also be greater in His perfections. A book, which is sometimes ascribed to Albert the Great, derives God's infinity from His pure actuality. All these reasons were collected, developed, and deepened by the Scholastics of the best period; and since then the speculative proof for the infinity of God has, in spite of some few objectors, been considered as secure. Even Moses Mendelssohn writes: "That the necessary Being contains every perfection which it has, in the highest possible degree and without any limitations, is developed in numberless text-books, and so far nobody has brought a serious objection against it" ("Gesammelte Schriften", II, Leipzig, 1893, p. 355). Kant's attempt to stigmatize the deduction of infinity from self-existence as a return to the ontological argument, was a failure; for our deduction starts from the actually existing God, not from mere ideas, as the ontological argument does. Among Christians, the dogma itself has rarely been denied, but the freer tendencies of modern Protestantism in the direction of Pantheism, and the views of some champions of Modernism in the Catholic Church, are in fact, although not always in expression, opposed to the infinity of God. INFINITY OF CREATURES The knowledge we have about the infinity of creatures leaves much to be desired. It is certain that no creature is infinite in every regard. However great it may be, it lacks the most essential perfection: self-existence, and whatever else is necessarily connected with it. Moreover, philosophers and theologians are practically unanimous in declaring that no creature can be infinite in an essential predicate. As to the questions whether an accident (e.g. quantity) is capable of infinity, whether the creation could be infinite in extension. Whether there can be an infinite number of actual beings, or whether an infinite number is at all possible -- as to these questions they are less in harmony, though the majority lean towards the negative answer, and in our time this number seems to have increased. At any rate the infinite world, of which the old Greek philosophers dreamt and the modern Materialists and Monists talk so much, lacks every proof, and, as to the infinite duration of the world, it is contradicted by the dogma of its temporal beginning. The mathematicians too occupy themselves with the infinite, both with the infinitely small and the infinitely large, in the treatises on infinite series, and infinitesimal calculus, and generally in all limit operations. The infinitely small is represented by the sign 0, the infinitely large by a character that looks like the number "8" turned on its side. Their relation is expressed by the ratio 1/0 = (infitely large) All mathematiians agree as to the method of operating with the two quantities; but there is much division amongst philosophers and philosophizing mathematicians as to their real meaning. The least subject to difficulties are perhaps the following two views. The infinite in mathematics may be take n as the potentially infinite, i.e. that which can be increased or diminished without end; in this view it is a real quantity, capable of existence. Or one may take it as the actually infinite, viz. that which by actual successive addition or division can never be reached. In this view it is something which can never exist in reality, or from the possibility of whose existence we at best abstract. It is a limit which exists only as a fiction of the mind (ens rationis). Or if the infinitely small is considered as an absolute zero, but connoting different values, it is really a limit, but as far as it connotes other values, only a logical being. Thus at times Leibniz calls both the infinitely small and the infinitely large fictions of the mind (mentis fictiones) and compares them to imaginary quantities. Carnot calls the differential an être de raison; Gauss speaks of a façon de parler. OTTO ZIMMERMAN Infralapsarians Infralapsarians (Lat., infra lapsum, after the fall). The name given to a party of Dutch Calvinists in the seventeenth century, who sought to mitigate the rigour of Calvin's doctrine concerning absolute predestination. As already explained (see CALVINISM), the system evolved by Calvin is essentially supralapsarian. The fundamental principle once admitted, that all events in this world proceed from the eternal decrees of God, it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that the fall of man was not merely foreseen and permitted, as the Catholic doctrine teaches, but postivitely decreed, as a necessary means to the Divine end in creating Man, the manifestation of God's power in condemning, as well as of His mercy in saving, souls. It was this corollary of Calvinism, viz., that God created some men for the express purpose of showing His power through their eternal damnation, that brought on the troubles associated with the name of Arminius (see ARMINIANISM). In their controversies with opponents, within and without the pale of Calvinism, the Infralapsarians had the advantage of being able to use, or abuse, for the purpose of argument, the texts of Scripture and the Fathers which establish the dogma of original sin. But since, to remain Calvinists at all, they were obliged to retain, even if they did not insist upon, the principle that God's decrees can in no wise be influenced or conditioned by anything outside of Himself, the difference between them and the more outspoken Supralapsarians seem to have consisted simply in a divergent phrasing of the same mystery. To the sould which is foreordained to eternal misery without any prevision of its personal demerits, it matters little whether the decree of condemnation date from all eternity or -- "Five thousand years 'fore its creation, Through Adam's cause. JAMES F. LOUGHLIN Giovanni Inghirami Giovanni Inghirami Italian astronomer, b. at Volterra, Tuscany, 16 April, 1779; d. at Florence, 15 August, 1851. He was of a noble family which produced two other distinguished scholars, Tommaso (1470-1516), humanist, and Francesco (1772-1846), archaeologist, brother of Giovanni. His education was received in is native cit at the College of Saint Michael, conducted by the Piarists, popularly called the "Scolopi". This order he joined at the age of seventeen, and later became professor of mathematics and philosophy at Volterra, where one of his pupils was the future Pius IX. In 1805 he travelled int he north of italy, and was engaged for some months in scientifice work at Milan. He was called to Florence to fill the twofold office of professor of mathematics and astronomy at the College of the Scolopi, known from the adjacent church as the College of San Giovannino, and of director of the college observatory established by the Jesuit, Leonard Ximenes. His first publications were articles on hydraulcis, statics, and astronomy, astronomical tables, and elementary text-books on mathematics and mathematical geography. In 1830 after observations extending over fourteen years, he published, with the patronage of the Grand Duke Ferdinand III, a "Carta topografica e geometica della Toscana" on the scale of 1:200,000 -- a work of high merit. When the Berlin Academy of Sciences undertook the construction of an exhaustive astronomical atlas, he was assigned a section. His performance of this task won great praise. he became successively provincial and general of his order, but is failing heath and his love for scientific work caused him to resign the latter office, which had required his taking up residence in Rome, and to accept the position of vicar-general. He returned to Florence and, although almost blind for some years, continued his teaching until afw months before his death. Simplicity and piety were dominant traits of his character. The scientific works of Inghirami include: numerous articles published in the "Astronomische Nachrichen", in Zach's "Monatliche Correspondenz zur Beförderung der Erd-u. Himmelskunde" and in his own "collezione di opusculi e notizie di Scienze" (4 vols., Florence, 1820-30); "Tavole Astronomiche universali portatili" (ibid., 1811), and "Effemeridi di Venere e Giove ad uso di naviganti pel meridiano di Parigi" (ibid., 1821-24). ANTONELLI, Sulla vita e sulle opere di Giov. Inghirami (Florence, 1854); VON REUMONT, Beitrage sur italienischen Geschichle, VI) Berlin, 1857), 472 sq. PAUL H. LINEHAN Ingleby, Venerable Francis Venerable Francis Ingleby English martyr, born about 1551; suffered at York on Friday, 3 June, 1586 (old style). According to an early but inaccurate calendar he suffered 1 June (Cath. Rec.Soc. V, 192). Fourth son of Sir William Ingleby, knight, of Ripley, Yorkshire, by Anne, daughter of Sir William Malory, knight, of Studley, he was probably a scholar of Brasenose College, Oxford, in and before 1565, and was a student of the Inner Temple in 1576. On 18 August, 1582 he arrived at the English College, Reims, where he lived at his own expense. He was ordained subdeacon at Loan on Saturday, 28 May, deacon at Reims, Saturday, 24 September, and priest at Loan, Saturday 24 December, 1583 and left for England Thursday, 5 April 1584. (These four dates are all new style). He laboured with great zeal in the neighbourhood of York, where he was arrested in the spring of 1586, and lodged in the castle. He was the one of the priests for harbouring whom the Venerable Margaret Clitherow (q. v.) was arraigned. At the prison door, while fetters were being fastened on his legs he smilingly said, "I fear me I shall be overproud of my boots." He was condemned under 27 Eliz. c. 2 for being a priest. When sentence was pronounced he exclaimed, "Credo videre bona Domini in terra viventium". Fr. Warford says he was short but well-made, fair-complexioned, with a chestnut beard, and a slight cast in his eyes. JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT University of Ingolstadt University of Ingolstadt The University of Ingolstadt (1472-1800), was founded by Louis the Rich, Duke of Bavaria. The privileges of a studium generale with all four faculties had been granted by Pope Pius II, 7 April, 1458, but ovwing to the unsettled condition of the times, could not be put into effect. Ingolstadt, modelled on the University of Vienna, had as one of its principal aims the furtherance and spread of Christian belief. For its material equipment, an unusually large endowment was provided out of the holdings of the clergy and the religious orders. The Bishop of Eichstatt, to whom diocese Ingolstadt belongs, was appointed chancellor. The formal inauguration of the university took place on 26 June, 1472, and within the first semester 489 students matriculated. As in other universites prior to the sixteenth century, the faculty of philosophy comprised two sections, the Realists and the Nominalists, each under its own dean. In 1496 Duke George the Rich, son of Louis, established the Collegium Georgianum for poor students in the faculty of arts, and other foundations for similar purposes were subsequently made. Popes Adrian VI and Clement VII bestowed on the universit additional revenues from ecclesiastical property. At the height of the humanistic movement, Ingolstadt counted among its teachers a series of remarkable savatns and writers; Conrad Celtes, the first poet crowned by the German Emperor; his disciple Jacob Locher, surnamed Philomusos; Johann Turmair, known as Aventinus from his birthplace, Abensber, editor of the "Annales Boiorum" and of the Bavarian "Chronica", father of Bavarian history and founder (1507) of the"Sodalitas litteraria Angilostadensis". Johanees Reuchlin, restorer of the Hebrew language and literature, was also for a time at the university. Although Duke William IV (1508-50) and his chancellor, Leonhard von Eck, did their utmost during thirty years to keep Lutheranism out of Ingolstadt, and though the adherents of the new doctrine were obliged to retract or resign, some of the professors joined the Lutheran movement. Their influence, however, wa counteracted by the tireless and successful endeavours of the foremost opponent of the Reformation, Dr. Johann Maier, better known as Eck, from the name of his birth-place, Egg, on the Gunz. He taught and laboured (1510-43) to such good purpose that Ingolstadt, during the Counter-Reformation, did more than any other university for the defence of the Catholic Faith, and was for the church in Southern Germany what Wittenberg was for Protestantism in the north. In 1549, with the approval of Paul III, peter Canisus, Salmeron, Claude Lejay, and other Jesuits were appointed to professorships in theology and philosophy. About the same time a college and a boarding school for boys were established, though they were not actually opened until 1556, when the statutes of the university were revised. In 1568 the profession of faith in accordance with the Council of Trent was required of the rector and professors. In 1688 the teaching in the faculty of philosophy passed entirely in the hands of the Jesuits. Though the university after this change, in spite of vexations and conflicts regarding exemption from taxes and juridical autonomy, enjoyed a high degree of prosperity, its existence was frequently imperilled during the troubles of the Thirty Years War. But its fame as a home of earning was enhanced by men such as the theologian, Gregory of Valentia; the controversialist, Jacob Gretser (1558-1610); the moralist, Laymann (1603-1609); the mathematician and cartographer, Philip Apian; the astronomer, Christopher Scheiner (1610-1616), who, with the helioscope invented by him, discovered the sun spots and calculated the ime of the sun's rotation; and the poet, Jacob Balde, from Ensisheim in Alsacc, professor of rhetoric. Prominent among the jurists in the seventeenth century were Kaspar Manz and Christopher Berold. During the latter half of that century, and especially in the eighteenth, the courses of instruction were improved and adapted to the requirements of the age. After the founding of the Bavarian Academy of Science at Munich in 1759, an anti-ecclesiastical tendency sprang up at Ingolstadt and found an ardent supporter in Joseph Adam, Baron of Ickstatt, whom the elector had placed at the head of the university. Plans, moreover, were set on foot to have the university of the third centenary the Society of Jesus was suppressed, but some of the ex-Jesuits retained their professorships for a while longer. A movement was inaugurated in 1772 by Adam Weishaupt, professor of canon law, with a view to securing the triumph of the rationalistic "enlightment" in Church and State by means of the secret society of "Illuminati" (q.v.), which he founded. But this organization was suppressed in 1786 by the Elector Carl theodore, and Weishaupt was dismissed. On 25 November, 1799, the elector Maximilian IV, later King Maximilian I, decreed that the university, which was involved in financial difficulties, should be transferred to Landshut; and this was done in the following May. Among its leading professors towards the close were Winter the church historian, Schrank the naturalist, and Johann Michael Sailer, writer on moral philosophy and pedagogy, who later became Bishop of Ratisbon. ERMAN-HORN, Bibliographie d. deutschen Universitaten, II (Leipzig, 1904); ROTMAR, Annales Ingolstad. Academiae (Ingolstadt, 1580); MEDERER, Annales, Ingolstadienses Academiae (Ingolstadt, 1782); PRANTL, Geschichte der Ludwigs-Maximilians Universitat in Ingolstadt, Landshut, Munchen (Munich, 1872); ROMSTOCK, Die Jesuitennullen Prantls (Eichstatt, 1898) (a reply to Prantl's charges against the Jesuits); VERDIERE, Historie de l'universite d'Inglostadt (Paris, 1887); RASHDALL, Universities etc., II (Oxford, 1895), pt. 1; BAUCH, Die Anfange des Humanismus in Ingolstadt (1901). KARL HOEBER Ingram, Venerable John Venerable John Ingram English martyr, born at Stoke Edith, Herefordshire, in 1565; executed at Newcastle-on-Tyne, 26 July, 1594. He was probably the son of Anthony Ingram of Wolford, Warwickshire, by Dorothy, daughter of Sir John Hungerford. He was educated first in Worcestershire, then at the English College, Reims, at the Jesuit College, Pont-a-Mousson, and at the English College, Rome. Ordained at Rome in 1589, he went to Scotland early in 1592, and there frequented the company of Lords Huntly, Angus, and Erroll, the Abbot of Dumbries, and Sir Walter Lindsay of Balgavies. Captured on the Tyne, 25 November, 1593, he was imprisoned successively at Berwick, Durgam, York, and in the Tower of London, in which place he suffered the severest tortures with great constancy, and wrote twenty Latin epigrams which have survived. Sent north again, he was imprisoned at York, Newcastle, and Durgam, where he was tried in the company of John Bostle (q. v.) and George Swalwell, a converted minister. He was convicted under 27 Eliz. c. 2 (which made the mere presence in England of a priest ordained abroad high treason), though there was no evidence that he had ever exercised any priestly function in England. It appears that some one in Scotland in vain offered the English Government a thousand crowns for his life. JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT Jean-Auguste Dominique Ingres Jean-Auguste Dominique Ingres A French painter, b. at Montauban, 29 August, 1780; d. at Paris, 14 January, 1867. His father sent him to study at Toulouse. At the age of sixteen he entered into the famous studio of David, in Paris. Steeped in the theories of Mengs and Wincklemann, he had broken away from the conceits and libertinism of the eighteenth century and led art back to nature and the antique. In Davids view the antiques was but the highest expression of life, freed from all that is merely transitory, and removed from the caprices from whim and fashion. Ingres accepted his master's programme in its entirety. But what in David's case made up a homogenous system, answering the twin faculties of his vast and powerful organism, meant quite another matter for the pupil. The young artist was gifted with a wondrous sensitiveness for reality. No one has ever experienced such sharp, penetrating, clear cut impressions with an equal aptitude for transferring them in their entirety to paper or canvas. But these exceptional gifts were handicpped by an extreme lack of inventiveness and originality. Unfortunatley David's teaching filled him with the belief that high art consisted in imitating the antique, and that the dignity of a painter constrained him to paint historical subjects. Throughout his life Ingres did violence to himself to paint scenes of the order of his master's "Sabines", as he suceeded in doing in his "Achilles receiving the messengers of Agamemnon" (Pais, Ecole des Beaux-Arts), which in 1801 won the "Prix de Rome". but instead of being a living historical or poetical scene, this painting is but a collection of studies, stitched together with effort, and without any real unity of result. Thus it was that there was always in Ingres a curious contradiction between his temperament and his education, between his ability and his theories. And this secret struggle between his realistic longings and his idealistic convictions explains the discords of his work. In the beginning, however, his youth was the main factor. Perhaps, too, his obscurity, the dearth of important orders, and the necessity of earning his living were all in his favour. Never was he greater or more himself than during this period of his career (1800-1820). His absoulte realism and his intransigeance caused him to be looked on in David's school as an eccentric and revolutionary individual. Ingres had been friendly with a Florentine sculptor named Bartolini, and was strongly atracted by the works of the early Renaissance period, and by that art throbbing with life, and almost feverish in its manner of depicting nature, such as we find examples of in the works of Donatello and Filippo Lippi. He grew enthusiastic over archaic schools, over the weird poems of Ossian, over medieval costumes, in a word, over everything which by being unconventional seemed to him to draw nearer to reality, or at least gave him new thrills and sensations. He was put down as "Gotic", as an imitatior of Jean de Bruges (Jan van Eyck) and all the works he produced at this time bear the mark of oddity. This is especially true of his prtraits. Those of "Madame Rivière" (Louvre, 1804), "Granet" (Aix-en-Provence, 1806), "Madame Aymon "La Belle Zélie)" (Rouen, 1806), "Madame Devançay" (Chantilly, 1807), and of "Madame Se Senones" (Nantes, 1810) are unrivalled in all the world, and take a place next to the immortal creations of Titian and Raphael. Never was there completer absence of "manner", forgetfulenss of set purpose, of systematic or poetical effort, never did a painter give himself up more fully torealism, or submit more absoultely to his model, to the object before him. No work brings home to us more clearly the expression of something definite unless it be those little portrait sketches drawn by this same artist in the days of his poverty and sold at twenty francs each, and which are now famous as the "Ingres crayons". The finest are to be seen at the Louvre and in the Bonnat Collection at Paris and Bayonne. In 1806 Ingres set out for Rome, and in the Vatican he saw the frescoes of the greatest of the decorators, the master of the "Parnassus" and the "School of Athens". He at once persuaded himself that this was absolute beauty, and that these paintings held within them formulæ and concepts revealing a full definition of art and of its immutable laws. And it is to this mistake of his that we owe not a few of his finest works; for had he not wrongly thought himself a classicist, he would not have felt himself bound to adopt the essential constituent of the clasical language, namely, the nude figure. The nude, in modern realism, hints at the unusual, suggests something furtive and secret, and takes a place in the programme of the realists only as something exceptional. Whereas with Ingres, thanks to the classical idealism of his doctrine, the nude was always a most important and sacred object of study. And to this study he applied, as in all his undertakings, a delicacy and freshness of feeling, an accuracy of observation toned down by a slightly sensual touch of charm, which place these paintings among his most precious works. Never was the joy of drawing and painting a beautiful body, of reproducing it in all the glory and grace of tis youth, mastered by a Frenchman to such an extent, nor in a way so akin to the art of the great painters. "OEdipus" and the "Girl Bathing" (1808), the "Odalisque" (1814), the "Source" (1818) -- all these canvases are in the Louvre -- are among the most beautiful poems consecrated to setting forht the noblest meaning of the human figure. And yet they remain but incomparable "studies". The painter is all the whhile incapable of blending his sensations, of harmonizing them with one another so as to form a tableau. This same taste for what is quaint led Ingres at this period to produce a host of minor anecdotal or historical works such as "Raphael and the Fornarina", "Francesca da rimini" (1819, in the Angers Museum), etc., works that at times display the wit, the romance, and the caprice of a quattrocento miniature. here the style becomes a part of the reality, and the archaism of the one only serves to bring out more clearly the originality of the other. In work of this order nothing the artist has left us is more complete than his "Sixtine Chapel" (Louvre, 1814). This magnificent effort, small in size though it is, is perhaps the most complete, the best balanced, the soundest piece of work the master ever wrought. At this time David, exiled by the Restoration, left the French school without a head, while the Romantic school, with the "Medusa" of Gericault (1818) and the "Dante" of Delacroix (1822), was clamouring for recognition. Ingres, hitherto but little known in his solitude in Italy, resolved to return to France and strike a daring blow. As early as 1820 he sent to the Salon his "Christ conferring the keys on Peter" (Louvre), a cold and restrained work which won immense success among the classicists. The "Vow of Louis XIII" (Montauban, 1824), a homage to Raphael, appeared opportunely as a contrast to Delacrois's "Massacre of Scio". Henceforward Ingres was looked up to as the leader of the traditional School, and he proves his claim to the title by producing the famous "Apotheosis of Homer" (Louvre, 1827). This marks the beginning of a new period, in which Ingres, absorbed in decorative works, is nothing more than the upholder of the classical teaching. Over and over again he did himself violence in composing huge mechanical works like the "St. Symphorin" (Autun, 1835), "The Golden Age" (Dampierre, 1843-49), the "Apotheosis of Napoleon", "Jesus in the midst of the Doctors" (Montauban, 1862), works that entailed most persevering labour, and which after all are but groups of "Studies", mosaics carefully inset and lifeless. Some of Ingres most beautiful portraits, those of Armand Bertin (Louvre, 1831), of Cherubini (Louvre, 1842), and of Madame d'Haussonville (1845) belong to this period. But gradually he gave up portrait- painting, and wished only to be the painter of the ideal. yet he was less so now than ever before. In his latest works his deficiency of composition becomes more and more evident. His life was uneventful. In 1820 he left Rome for Florence, and in 1824 he settled in Paris, which he never left save for six years (1836-1842) which he spent in Rome as director of the Villa Medici. He died at the age of 87, having continued to work up to his last day. perhaps his prestige and his high authority counted for something in the renaissance of decorative painting that took place in the middle of the nineteenth century. But his undoubted legacy was a principle of quaintness or oddity and eccentricity, which was copied by artists like Signol and Jeanniot. Ingres was a naturalist who persisted in practising the most idealistic style of art which was ever attempted in the French School. Like his great rival delacrois, he may be said to have been a lonely phenomenon in the art of the nineteenth century. GAUTIER, Les Beaux-Arts en Europe (Paris, 1855); DELECLUZE, Louis David, son ecole et son temps (Paris, 1855); DELABORDE, Ingres, sa vie, sa doctrine (Paris, 1870); BLANCE, Ingres (Paris, 1870); DUVAL, L'Atelier d'Ingres (Paris, 1878); LAPAUZE, Les dessins d'Ingres (Paris, 1901): 7 vols.in folio. and 1 vol. of printed matter); DE WYZEWA, L'aervre peint de J.D. Ingres (Paris, 1907): D'AGEN, Ingres, d'apres une correspondance inedite (Paris, 1909). LOUIS GILLET Ingulf Ingulf Abbot of Croyland, Lincolnshire; d. there 17 December 1109. he is first heard of as secretary to William the Conqueror, in which capacity he visited England in 1051. After making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem he entered the Norman monastery of Fontenelle, or Saint-Wandrille, under Abbot Gerbert, who appointed him prior. The English Abbey of Croyland falling vacant, owing to the deposition by Lanfranc of Abbot Ulfeytel, Ingulf was nominated to the office in 1087 at the special instance of King William. he was not only an able but a kindly man, as was shown by his successful efforts to obtain his predecessor's release from Glastonbury, where he was confined, and his return to Peterborough (the house of his profession), where he died. Ingulf governed Croyland for twenty-four years, and with success, though in the face of many difficulties, not the least being his own bad health, for he suffered greatly from gout. Another of his troubles was the partial destruction by fire of the abbey church, with the sacristies, vestments, and books. An event of his abbacy was the interment in Croyland church of the Saxon Earl Walthe of Northumbria, who was executed by William's orders, and was a martyr as well as a national hero in the popular estimation. ORDERCIUS, VITALIS, Historia Ecclesiastica, pars II, lib. IV (ed. MIGNE, Paris, 1855), 364 [ORDERICUS is the onlly extant authority for the few fact known about Ingulf's life. the chronicle known as his Historia Anglicana, containing many autobiographical details, is a fourteenth-or fifteenth-century forgery]: see also FREEMAN, Conquest of England, IV (Oxford, 1871), 600, 601, 690. D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR Richard of Ingworth Richard of Ingworth (INGEWRTHE, INDEWURDE). A Franciscan preacher who flourished about 1225. he first appears among the friars who accompanied Agnellus to England in 1224, and is supposed to have been the first of the Franciscans to preach north of the Alps. He was already a priest and well on in years at the time of his arrival, and was responsible for the establishment of the first Franciscan house in London. The first convents at Oxford and Northampton were likewise indebted to his efforts, and he served for a time as custodian at Cambridge. In 1230 he acted as vicar of the English Province during the absence of Agnellus at a general chapter at Assisi, and was subsequently appointed provincial minister of Ireland by John Parens. In 1239, during the generalship of Albert of Pisa, he relinquished this position and set out as a missionary for the Holy Land, during which pilgrimage he died. ECCLESTON, De Adventu fratrum Minorum in Anglican; BREWER, ed., Mon. Franciscana, I, in Rolls Series; LITTLE in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v.; Eng. Hist. Rev., Oct., 1890. STANLEY J. QUINN Injustice Injustice (Lat. in, privative, and jus, right). Injustice, in the large sense, is a contradiction in any way of the virtue of justice. Here, however, it is taken to mean the violation of another's strict right against his reasonable will, and the value of the word right is determined to be the moral power of having or doing or exacting something in support or furtherance of one's own advantage. The goods whose acquisition or preservation is contemplated as the object of right belong to different categories. There are those which are bound up with the person, whether there is question of body or soul, such as life and limb, liberty, etc., as likewise that which is the product of one's deserts, such as good name; and there are those things which are extrinsic to the individual, such as property of whatever sort. The injury perpetrated by a trespass on a man's right in the first instance is said to be personal, in the second real. All injury, like every kind of moral delinquency, is either formal or material according as it is culpable or not. It is customary also to distinguish between that species of injurious action or attitude which involves loss to the one whose right is outraged, such as theft, and another which carries with it no such damage, such as an insult which has had no witnesses. The important thing is that in every kind of injury such as we are considering, the offense is against commutative justice. That is, it is against the virtue which, taking for granted the clear distinction of rights as between man and man, demands that those rights be conserved and respected even to the point of arithmetical equality. Consequently, whenever the equilibrium has been wrongfully upset, it is not enough to atone for the misdeed by repentance or interior change of heart. There is an unabatable claim of justice that the wronged one be put back in possession of his own. Otherwise the injury, despite all protestations of sorrow on the part of the offender, continues. Hence, for example, there must be apology for contumely, retraction for calumny, compensation for hurt to life and limb, restitution for theft, etc. No one therefore can receive absolution for the sin of injustice except in so far as he has a serious resolution to rehabilitate as soon as he can and in such measure as is possible the one whose right he has contemned. It is an axiom among moralists that "scienti et volenti non fit injuria", i.e., no injury is offered to one who knowing what is done consents to it. In other words, there are rights which a man may forego, and when he does so, he cannot complain that he has been deprived of them. Some limitations, however, are necessary to prevent the abuse of a principle which is sufficiently obvious. First of all a man must really know, that is, he must not be the victim of a purely subjective persuasion, which is in fact false and which is the reason of his renunciation. Secondly, the consent which he gives must not be forced such as might be yielded at the point of a pistol, or such as might be elicited under pressure of extreme necessity taken advantage of by another. Lastly, the right must be such as can be given up. There are some rights which as a result of either the natural or the positive law cannot be surrendered. Thus a husband cannot by his antecedent willingness legitimize the adultery of his wife. His right is inalienable. So also one could not accede to the request of a person who would not only agree to be killed, but would plead for death as a means of release from suffering. The right which a man has to life cannot be renounced, particularly if it be remembered that he has no direct dominion over it. This ownership resides with God alone. Hence the infliction of death by a private person, even in response to the entreaties of a sufferer to be put out of misery, would always be murder. JOSEPH F. DELANEY Pope Innocent I Pope Innocent I Date of birth unknown; died 12 March, 417. Before his elevation to the Chair of Peter, very little is known concerning the life of this energetic pope, so zealous for the welfare of the whole Church. According to the "Liber Pontificalis" he was a native of Albano; his father was called Innocentius. He grew up among the Roman clergy and in the service of the Roman Church. After the death of Anastasius (Dec., 401) he was unanimously chosen Bishop of Rome by the clergy and people. Not much has come down to us concerning his ecclesiastical activities in Rome. Nevertheless one or two instances of his zeal for the purity of the Catholic Faith and for church discipline are well attested. He took several churches in Rome from the Novatians (Socrates, Hist. Eccl., VII, ii) and caused the Photinian Marcus to be banished from the city. A drastic decree, which the Emperor Honorius issued from Rome (22 Feb., 407) against the Manicheans, the Montanists, and the Priscillianists (Codex Theodosianus, XVI, 5, 40), was very probably not issued without his concurrence. Through the munificence of Vestina, a rich Roman matron, Innocent was enabled to build and richly endow a church dedicated to Sts. Gervasius and Protasius; this was the old Titulus Vestinæ which still stands under the name of San Vitale. The siege and capture of Rome by the Goths under Alaric (408-10) occurred in his pontificate. When, at the time of the first siege, the barbarian leader had declared that he would withdraw only on condition that the Romans should arrange a peace favourable to him, an embassy of the Romans went to Honorius, at Ravenna, to try, if possible, to make peace between him and the Goths. Pope Innocent also joined this embassy. But all his endeavours to bring about peace failed. The Goths then recommenced the siege of Rome, so that the pope and the envoys were not able to return to the city, which was taken and sacked in 410. From the beginning of his pontificate, Innocent often acted as head of the whole Church, both East and West. In his letter to Archbishop Anysius of Thessalonica, in which he informed the latter of his own election to the See of Rome, he also confirmed the privileges which had been bestowed upon the archbishop by previous popes. When Eastern Illyria fell to the Eastern Empire (379) Pope Damasus had asserted and preserved the ancient rights of the papacy in those parts, and his successor Siricius had bestowed on the Archbishop of Thessalonica the privilege of confirming and consecrating the bishops of Eastern Illyria. These prerogatives were renewed by Innocent (Ep. i), and by a later letter (Ep. xiii, 17 June, 412) the pope entrusted the supreme administration of the dioceses of Eastern Illyria to Archbishop Rufus of Thessalonica, as representative of the Holy See. By this means the papal vicariate of Illyria was put on a sound basis, and the archbishops of Thessalonica became vicars of the popes. On 15 Feb., 404, Innocent sent an important decretal to Bishop Victricius of Rouen (Ep. ii), who had laid before the pope a list of disciplinary matters for decision. The points at issue concerned the consecration of bishops, admissions into the ranks of the clergy, the disputes of clerics, whereby important matters (causæ majores) were to be brought from the episcopal tribunal to the Apostolic See, also the ordinations of the clergy, celibacy, the reception of converted Novatians or Donatists into the Church, monks, and nuns. In general, the pope indicated the discipline of the Roman Church as being the norm for the other bishops to follow. Innocent directed a similar decretal to the Spanish bishops (Ep. iii) among whom difficulties had arisen, especially regarding the Priscillianist bishops. The pope regulated this matter and at the same time settled other questions of ecclesiastical discipline. Similar letters, disciplinary in content, or decisions of important cases, were sent to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse (Ep. vi), to the bishops of Macedonia (Ep. xvii), to Decentius, Bishop of Gubbio (Ep. xxv), to Felix, Bishop of Nocera (Ep. xxxviii). Innocent also addressed shorter letters to several other bishops, among them a letter to two British bishops, Maximus and Severus, in which he decided that those priests who, while priests, had begotten children should be dismissed from their sacred office (Ep. xxxix). Envoys were sent by the Synod of Carthage (404) to the Bishop of Rome, or the bishop of the city where the emperor was staying, in order to provide for severer treatment of the Montanists. The envoys came to Rome, and Pope Innocent obtained from the Emperor Honorius a strong decree against those African sectaries, by which many adherents of Montanism were induced to be reconciled with the Church. The Christian East also claimed a share of the pope's energy. St. John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople, who was persecuted by the Empress Eudoxia and the Alexandrian patriarch Theophilus, threw himself on the protection of Innocent. Theophilus had already informed the latter of the deposition of John, following on the illegal Synod of the Oak (ad quercum). But the pope did not recognize the sentence of the synod, summoned Theophilus to a new synod at Rome, consoled the exiled Patriarch of Byzantium, and wrote a letter to the clergy and people of Constantinople in which he animadverted severely on their conduct towards their bishop (John), and announced his intention of calling a general synod, at which the matter would be sifted and decided. Thessalonica was suggested as the place of assembly. The pope informed Honorius, Emperor of the West, of these proceedings, whereupon the latter wrote three letters to his brother, the Eastern Emperor Arcadius, and besought Arcadius to summon the Eastern bishops to a synod at Thessalonica, before which the Patriarch Theophilus was to appear. The messengers who brought these three letters were ill received, Arcadius being quite favourable to Theophilus. In spite of the efforts of the pope and the Western emperor, the synod never took place. Innocent remained in correspondence with the exiled John; when, from his place of banishment the latter thanked him for his kind solicitude, the pope answered with another comforting letter, which the exiled bishop received only a short time before his death (407) (Epp. xi, xii). The pope did not recognize Arsacius and Atticus, who had been raised to the See of Constantinople instead of the unlawfully deposed John. After John's death, Innocent desired that the name of the deceased patriarch should be restored to the diptychs, but it was not until after Theophilus was dead (412) that Atticus yielded. The pope obtained from many other Eastern bishops a similar recognition of the wrong done to St. John Chrysostom. The schism at Antioch, dating from the Arian conflicts, was finally settled in Innocent's time. Alexander, Patriarch of Antioch, succeeded, about 413-15, in gaining over to his cause the adherents of the former Bishop Eustathius; he also received into the ranks of his clergy the followers of Paulinus, who had fled to Italy and had been ordained there. Innocent informed Alexander of these proceedings, and as Alexander restored the name of John Chrysostom to the diptychs, the pope entered into communion with the Antiochene patriarch, and wrote him two letters, one in the name of a Roman synod of twenty Italian bishops, and one in his own name (Epp. xix and xx). Acacius, Bishop of Beræa, one of the most zealous opponents of Chrysostom, had sought to obtain re-admittance to communion with the Roman Church through the aforesaid Alexander of Antioch. The pope informed him, though Alexander, of the conditions under which he would resume communion with him (Ep. xxi). In a later letter Innocent decided several questions of church discipline (Ep. xxiv). The pope also informed the Macedonian bishop Maximian and the priest Bonifatius, who had interceded with him for the recognition of Atticus, Patriarch of Constantinople, of the conditions, which were similar to those required of the above-mentioned Patriarch of Antioch (Epp. xxii and xxiii). In the Origenist and Pelagian controversies, also, the pope's authority was invoked from several quarters. St. Jerome and the nuns of Bethlehem were attacked in their convents by brutal followers of Pelagius, a deacon was killed, and a part of the buildings was set on fire. John, Bishop of Jerusalem, who was on bad terms with Jerome, owing to the Origenist controversy, did nothing to prevent these outrages. Through Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage, Innocent sent St. Jerome a letter of condolence, in which he informed him that he would employ the influence of the Holy See to repress such crimes; and if Jerome would give the names of the guilty ones, he would proceed further in the matter. The pope at once wrote an earnest letter of exhortation to the Bishop of Jerusalem, and reproached him with negligence of his pastoral duty. The pope was also compelled to take part in the Pelagian controversy. In 415, on the proposal of Orosius, the Synod of Jerusalem brought the matter of the orthodoxy of Pelagius before the Holy See. The synod of Eastern bishops held at Diospolis (Dec., 415), which had been deceived by Pelagitis with regard to his actual teaching and had acquitted him, approached Innocent on behalf of the heretic. On the report of Orosius concerning the proceedings at Diospolis, the African bishops assembled in synod at Carthage, in 416, and confirmed the condemnation which had been pronounced in 411 against Cælestius, who shared the views of Pelagius. The bishops of Numidia did likewise in the same year in the Synod of Mileve. Both synods reported their transactions to the pope and asked him to confirm their decisions. Soon after this, five African bishops, among them St. Augustine, wrote a personal letter to Innocent regarding their own position in the matter of Pelagianism. Innocent in his reply praised the African bishops, because, mindful of the authority of the Apostolic See, they had appealed to the Chair of Peter; he rejected the teachings of Pelagius and confirmed the decisions drawn up by the African Synods (Epp. xxvii-xxxiii). The decisions of the Synod of Diospolis were rejected by the pope. Pelagius now sent a confession of faith to Innocent, which, however, was only delivered to his successor, for Innocent died before the document reached the Holy See. He was buried in a basilica above the catacomb of Pontianus, and was venerated as a saint. He was a very energetic and active man, and a highly gifted ruler, who fulfilled admirably the duties of his office. Epistolæ Pontificum Romanorum, ed. COUSTANT, I (Paris, 1721); JAFFÉ, Regesta Rom. Pont., I (2nd ed.), 44-49; Liber Pontificalis, ed. DUCHESNE, I, 220-224; LANGEN, Geschichte der römischen Kirche, I, 665-741; GRISAR, Geschichte Roms und der Päpste im Mittelalter, I, 59 sqq., 284 Sqq.; WITTIG, Studien zur Geschichte des Papstes Innocenz I. und der Papstwahlen des V. Jahrh. in Tübinger Theol. Quartalschrift (1902), 388-439; GEBHARDT, Die Bedeutung Innocenz I. für die Entwicklung der päpstlichen Gewalt (Leipzig, 1901). J.P. KIRSCH Pope Innocent II Pope Innocent II (Gregorio Papereschi) Elected 14 Feb., 1130; died 24 Sept., 1143. He was a native of Rome and belonged to the ancient family of the Guidoni. His father's name is given as John. The youthful Gregory became canon of the Lateran and later Abbot of Sts. Nicholas and Primitivus. He was made Cardinal-Deacon of the Title of S. Angelo by Paschal II, and as such shared the exile of Gelasius II in France, together with his later rival, the Cardinal-Deacon Pierleone. Under Callistus II Gregory was sent to Germany (1119) with the legate Lambert, Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia. Both were engaged in drawing up the Concordat of Worms in 1122. In the following year he was sent to France. On 14 Feb., 1130, the morning following the death of Honorius II, the cardinal-bishops held an election and Gregory was chosen as his successor, taking the name of Innocent II; three hours later Pietro Pierleone was elected by the other cardinals and took the name of Anacletus II. Both received episcopal consecration 23 Feb.; Innocent at Santa Maria Nuova and Anacletus at St. Peter's. Finding the influential family of the Frangipani had deserted his cause, Innocent at first retired into the stronghold belonging to his family in Trastevere, then went to France by way of Pisa and Genoa. There he secured the support of Louis VI, and in a synod at Etampes the assembled bishops, influenced by the eloquence of Suger of St-Denis, acknowledged his authority. This was also done by other bishops gathered at Puy-en-Velay through St. Hugh of Grenoble. The pope went to the Abbey of Cluny, then attended another meeting of bishops, November, 1130, at Clermont; they also promised obedience and enacted a number of disciplinary canons. Through the activity of St. Norbert of Magdeburg, Conrad of Salzburg, and the papal legates, the election of Innocent was ratified at a synod assembled at Würzburg at the request of the German king, and here the king and his princes promised allegiance. A personal meeting of pope and king took place 22 March, 1131, at Liège, where a week later Innocent solemnly crowned King Lothair and Queen Richenza in the church of St. Lambert. He celebrated Easter, 1131, at St-Denis in Paris, and 18 October opened the great synod at Reims, and crowned the young prince of France, later Louis VII. At this synod England, Castile, and Aragon were represented; St. Bernard and St. Norbert attended and several salutary canons were enacted. Pentecost, 1132, the pope held a synod at Piacenza. The following year he again entered Rome, and on 4 June crowned Lothair emperor at the Lateran. In 1134 the pope, at the request of the emperor, ordered that Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and the island of Greenland should remain under the jurisdiction of Hamburg (Weiss, "Weltgeschichte", V, 21). On the departure of the emperor, innocent also left and went to Pisa, since the antipope still held sway in Rome. At Pisa a great synod was held in 1135 (Hefele, "Conciliengeschichte", V, 425) at which were present bishops of Spain, England, France, Germany, Hungary, etc. In the spring of 1137 Emperor Lothair, in answer to the repeated entreaties of the pope, began his march to Rome. The papal and imperial troops met at Bari, 30 May, 1137, and the pope was again conducted into Rome. Anacletus still held a part of the city, but died 25 Jan., 1138. Another antipope was chosen, who called himself Victor IV, but he, urged especially by the prayers of St. Bernard, soon submitted, and Innocent found himself in undisturbed possession of the city and of the papacy. To remove the remnants and evil consequences of the schism, Innocent II called the Tenth Ecumenical Council, the Second of the Lateran. It began its sessions on 4 April, 1139 (not 8 April, as Hefele writes, V, 438). One thousand bishops and other prelates are said to have been present. The official acts of Anacletus II were declared null and void, the bishops and priests ordained by him were with few exceptions deposed, the heretical tenets of Pierre de Bruys were condemned. Thirty canons were made against simony, incontinence, extravagance in dress among the clergy, etc. Sentence of excommunication was pronounced upon Roger, who styled himself King of Sicily, and who after the departure of the emperor had invaded the lands granted to Rainulph. In 1139 St. Malachy, Archbishop of Armagh, left Ireland to visit the shrine of the Apostles. Innocent received him with great honours and made him papal legate for all Ireland, but would not grant him permission to resign his see in order to join the community of St. Bernard at Clairvaux (Bellesheim, "Ireland", I, 356). In the East, Innocent II curbed the pretension to independence on the part of William, Patriarch of Jerusalem and of Raoul, Patriarch of Antioch (Hergenröther, II, 410). After the death of Alberic, Archbishop of Bourges, in 1141, Louis VII of France wanted to secure the nomination of a man of his own choice whom the chapter did not consider the fit person, and they chose Pierre de La Châtre, whereupon Louis refused to ratify the election. The bishop-elect in person brought the matter to Rome, and Innocent, finding after due examination that the election had been made according to the requirements of ecclesiastical law, Confirmed it and himself gave the episcopal consecration. When Pierre returned to France, Louis would not allow him to enter his diocese. After useless negotiations Innocent placed France under interdict. Only during the reign of the next pope was the interdict removed and peace restored. In the trouble between Alfonso of Spain and Alfonso Henríquez who was making Portugal an independent monarchy and had placed his kingdom under the protection of the Holy See, Innocent acted as mediator (Aschbach, "Gesch. Span. u. Port.", 1833, 304, 458). Ramiro II, a monk, had been elected King of Aragon. Innocent II is said to have given him dispensation from his vows, though others claim that this is a calumny spread by the enemies of the pope (Damberger, "Weltgeschichte ", VIII, 202). Several minor synods were held during the last few years of the life of Innocent, one at Sens in 1140, at Vienne in 1141 and in the same year at Vienne and Reims; in 1142 at Lagny, in which Ralph, the Duke of Vermandois is said to have been excommunicated by the legate Yvo of Chartres for having repudiated his lawful wife and married another (Hefele, V, 488). A synod was held under the presidency of the papal legate 7 April, 1141, at Winchester; and 7 Dec., 1141, at Westminster. During his pontificate Innocent II enrolled among the Canonized saints of the Church: at Reims in 1133, St. Godehard, Archbishop of Reims; at Pisa in 1134, St. Hugo, Bishop of Grenoble, who had died in 1132, and had been a zealous defender of the rights of Innocent; at the Lateran in 1139, St. Sturmius, Abbot of Fulda (Ann. Pont. Cath., 1903, 412). To St. Norbert, the founder of the Premonstratensians, he granted in 1131 a document authorizing him to introduce his rule at the cathedral of Magdeburg (Heimbucher, "Die Orden u. Congr.", II, Paderborn, 1907, 55); to St. Bernard he in 1140 gave the church of Sts. Vincent and Anastasius near Rome (ibid., 1, 428); he also granted many privileges to others. His letters and privileges are given in Migne (P. L., CLXXIX). According to the "Liber Pontificalis" (ed. Duchesne, II, 379) he ordained eighteen deacons, twenty priests, and seventy bishops. He was buried in St. John Lateran, but seven years later was transferred to Santa Maria in Trastevere. Innocent II is praised by all, especially by St. Bernard, as a man of irreproachable character. His motto was: "Adjuva nos, Deus salutaris noster". The policy of Innocent is characterized in one of his letters: "If the sacred authority of the popes and the imperial power are imbued with mutual love, we must thank God in all humility, since then only can peace and harmony exist among Christian peoples. For there is nothing so sublime as the papacy nor so exalted as the imperial throne" (Weiss, V, 25). BRISCHAR in Kirchenlex., s. v.; DENZINGER, Enchiridion (10th ed., Freiburg, 1907), 167. See also under ANACLETUS II. FRANCIS MERSHMAN Pope Innocent III Pope Innocent III (Lotario de' Conti) One of the greatest popes of the Middle Ages, son of Count Trasimund of Segni and nephew of Clement III, born 1160 or 1161 at Anagni, and died 16 June, 1216, at Perugia. He received his early education at Rome, studied theology at Paris, jurisprudence at Bologna, and became a learned theologian and one of the greatest jurists of his time. Shortly after the death of Alexander III (30 Aug., 1181) Lotario returned to Rome and held various ecclesiastical offices during the short reigns of Lucius III, Urban III, Gregory VIII, and Clement III. Pope Gregory VIII ordained him subdeacon, and Clement III created him Cardinal-Deacon of St. George in Velabro and Sts. Sergius and Bacchus, in 1190. Later he became Cardinal-Priest of St. Pudentiana. During the pontificate of Celestine III (1191-1198), a member of the House of the Orsini, enemies of the counts of Segni, he lived in retirement, probably at Anagni, devoting himself chiefly to meditation and literary pursuits. Celestine III died 8 January, 1198. Previous to his death he had urged the College of Cardinals to elect Giovanni di Colonna as his successor; but Lotario de' Conti was elected pope, at Rome, on the very day on which Celestine III died. He accepted the tiara with reluctance and took the name of Innocent III. At the time of his accession to the papacy he was only thirty-seven years of age. The imperial throne had become vacant by the death of Henry VI in 1197, and no successor had as yet been elected. The tactful and energetic pope made good use of the opportunity offered him by this vacancy for the restoration of the papal power in Rome and in the States of the Church. The Prefect of Rome, who reigned over the city as the emperor's representative, and the senator who stood for the communal rights and privileges of Rome, swore allegiance to Innocent. When he had thus re-established the papal authority in Rome, he availed himself of every opportunity to put in practice his grand concept of the papacy. Italy was tired of being ruled by a host of German adventurers, and the pope experienced little difficulty in extending his political power over the peninsula. First he sent two cardinal legates to Markwuld to demand the restoration of the Romagna and the March of Ancona to the Church. Upon his evasive answer he was excommunicated by the legates and driven away by the papal troops. In like manner the Duchy of Spoleto and the Districts of Assisi and Sora were wrested from the German knight, Conrad von Uerslingen. The league which had been formed among the cities of Tuscany was ratified by the pope after it acknowledged him as suzerain. The death of the Emperor Henry VI left his four-year old child, Frederick II, King of Sicily. The emperor's widow Constance, who ruled over Sicily for her little son, was unable to cope singly against the Norman barons of the Sicilian Kingdom, who resented the German rule and refused to acknowledge the child-king. She appealed to Innocent III to save the Sicilian throne for her child. The pope made use of this opportunity to reassert papal suzerainty over Sicily, and acknowledged Frederick II as king only after Constance had surrendered certain privileges contained in the so-called Four Chapters, which William I had previously extorted from Adrian IV. The pope then solemnly invested Frederick II as King of Sicily in a Bull issued about the middle of November, 1198. Before the Bull reached Sicily Constance had died, but before her death she had appointed Innocent as guardian of the orphan-king. With the greatest fidelity the pope watched over the welfare of his ward during the nine years of his minority. Even the enemies of the papacy admit that Innocent was an unselfish guardian of the young king and that no one else could have ruled for him more ably and conscientiously. To protect the inexperienced king against his enemies, he induced him in 1209 to marry Constance, the widow of King Emeric of Hungary. Conditions in Germany were extremely favourable for the application of Innocent's idea concerning the relation between the papacy and the empire. After the death of Henry VI a double election had ensued. The Ghibellines had elected Philip of Swabia on 6 March, 1198, while the Guelfs had elected Otto IV, son of Henry the Lion and nephew of King Richard of England, in April of the same year. The former was crowned at Mainz on 8 September, 1198, the latter at Aachen on 12 July, 1198. Immediately upon his accession to the papal throne Innocent had sent the Bishop of Sutri and the Abbot of Sant' Anastasio as legates to Germany, with instructions to free Philip of Swabia from the ban which he had incurred under Celestine III, on condition that he would bring about the liberation of the imprisoned Queen Sibyl of Sicily and restore the territory which he had taken from the Church when he was Duke of Tuscany. When the legates arrived in Germany, Philip had already been elected king. Yielding to the wishes of Philip, the Bishop of Sutri secretly freed him from the ban upon his mere promise to fulfil the proposed conditions. After the coronation Philip sent the legates back to Rome with letters requesting the pope's ratification of his election; but Innocent was dissatisfied with the action of the Bishop of Sutri and refused to ratify the election. Otto IV also sent legates to the pope after his coronation at Aachen, but before the pope took any action, the two claimants of the German throne began to assert their claims by force of arms. Though the pope did not openly side with either of them, it was apparent that his sympathy was with Otto IV. Offended at what they considered an unjust interference on the part of the pope, the adherents of Philip sent a letter to him in which they protested against his interference in the imperial affairs of Germany. In his answer Innocent stated that he had no intention of encroaching upon the rights of the princes, but insisted upon the rights of the Church in this matter. He emphasized especially that the conferring of the imperial crown belonged to the pope alone. In 1201 the pope openly espoused the side of Otto IV. On 3 July, 1201, the papal legate, Cardinal-Bishop Guido of Palestrina, announced to the people, in the cathedral of Cologne, that Otto IV had been approved by the pope as Roman king and threatened with excommunication all those who refused to acknowledge him. Innocent III made clear to the German princes by the Decree "Venerabilem" which he addressed to the Duke of Zähringen in May, 1202, in what relation he considered the empire to stand to the papacy. This decretal, which has become famous, was afterwards embodied in the "Corpus Juris Canonici". It is found in Baluze, "Registrum Innocentii III super negotio Romani Imperii", no. lxii, and is reprinted in P. L., CCXVI, 1065-7. The following are the chief points of the decretal: + The German princes have the right to elect the king, who is afterwards to become emperor. + This right was given them by the Apostolic See when it transferred the imperial dignity from the Greeks to the Germans in the person of Charlemagne. + The right to investigate and decide whether a king thus elected is worthy of the imperial dignity belongs to the pope, whose office it is to anoint, consecrate, and crown him; otherwise it might happen that the pope would be obliged to anoint, consecrate, and Crown a king who was excommunicated, a heretic, or a pagan. + If the pope finds that the king who has been elected by the princes is unworthy of the imperial dignity, the princes must elect a new king or, if they refuse, the pope will confer the imperial dignity upon another king; for the Church stands in need of a patron and defender. + In case of a double election the pope must exhort the princes to come to an agreement. If after a due interval they have not reached an agreement they must ask the pope to arbitrate, failing which, he must of his own accord and by virtue of his office decide in favour of one of the claimants. The pope's decision need not be based on the greater or less legality of either election, but on the qualifications of the claimants. Innocent's exposition of his theory concerning the relation between the papacy and the empire was accepted by many princes, as is apparent from the sudden increase of Otto's adherents subsequent to the issue of the decretal. If after 1203 the majority of the princes began again to side with Philip, it was the fault of Otto himself, who was very irritable and often offended his best friends. Innocent, reversing his decision, declared in favour of Philip in 1207, and sent the Cardinals Ugolino of Ostia and Leo of Santa Croce to Germany with instructions to endeavour to induce Otto to renounce his claims to the throne and with powers to free Philip from the ban. The murder of King Philip by Otto of Wittelsbach, 21 June, 1208, entirely changed conditions in Germany. At the Diet of Frankfort, 11 November, 1208, Otto was acknowledged as king by all the princes, and the pope invited him to Rome to receive the imperial crown. He was crowned emperor in the Basilica of St. Peter at Rome, 4 October, 1209. Before his coronation he had solemnly promised to leave the Church in the peaceful possession of Spoleto, Ancona, and the gift of Countess Matilda; to assist the pope in the exercise of his suzerainty over Sicily; to grant freedom of ecclesiastical elections; unlimited right of appeal to the pope and the exclusive competency of the hierarchy in spiritual matters; he had, moreover renounced the "regalia" and the jus spolii, i. e., the right to the revenues of vacant sees and the seizure of the estates of intestate ecclesiastics. He also promised to assist the hierarchy in the extirpation of heresy. But scarcely had he been crowned emperor when he seized Ancons, Spoleto, the bequest of Matilda, and other property of the Church, giving it in vassalage to some of his friends. He also united with the enemies of Frederick II and invaded the Kingdom of Sicily with the purpose of wresting it from the youthful king and from the suzerainty of the pope. When Otto did not listen to the remonstrances of Innocent, the latter excommunicated him, 18 November, 1210, and solemnly proclaimed his excommunication at a Roman synod held on 31 March, 1211. The pope now began to treat with King Philip Augustus of France and with the German princes, with the result that most princes renounced the excommunicated emperor and elected in his place the youthful Frederick II of Sicily, at the Diet of Nuremberg in September, 1211. The election was repeated in presence of a representative of the pope and of Philip Augustus of France at the Diet of Frankfort, 2 December, 1212. After making practically the same promises to the pope which Otto IV had made previously, and, in addition, taking the solemn oath never to unite Sicily with the empire, his election was ratified by Innocent and he was crowned at Aachen on 12 July, 1215. The deposed emperor Otto IV hastened to Germany immediately upon the election of Frederick II, but received little support from the princes. In alliance with John of England he made war upon Philip of France, but was defeated in the battle of Bouvines, 27 July, 1214. Then he lost all influence in Germany and died on 19 May, 1218, leaving the pope's creature, Frederick II, the undisputed emperor. When Innocent ascended the papal throne a cruel war was being waged between Philip Augustus of France and Richard of England. The pope considered it his duty, as the supreme ruler of the Christian world, to put an end to all hostilities among Christian princes. Shortly after his accession he sent Cardinal Peter of Capua to France with instructions to threaten both kings with interdict if they would not within two months conclude peace or at least agree upon a truce of five years. In January, 1198, the two kings met between Vernon and Andely and a truce of five years was agreed upon. The same legate was instructed by the pope to threaten Philip Augustus with interdict over the whole of France if within a month he would not be reconciled with his lawful wife, Ingeburga of Denmark, whom he had rejected and in whose stead he had taken Agnes, daughter of the Duke of Meran. When Philip took no heed of the pope's warning Innocent carried out his threat and on 12 December, 1199, laid the whole of France under interdict. For nine months the king remained stubborn, but when the barons and the people began to rise in rebellion against him he finally discarded his concubine and the interdict was lifted on 7 September, 1200. It was not, however, until 1213 that the pope succeeded in bringing about a final reconciliation between the king and his lawful wife Ingeburga. Innocent also had an opportunity to assert the papal rights in England. After the death of Archbishop Hubert of Canterbury, in 1205, a number of the younger monks of Christ Church assembled secretly at night and elected their sub-prior, Reginald, as archbishop. This election was made without the concurrence of the bishop and without the authority of the king. Reginald was asked not to divulge his election until he had received the papal approbation. But on his way to Rome the vain monk assumed the title of archbishop-elect, and thus the episcopal body of the province of Canterbury was apprised of the secret election. The bishops at once sent Peter of Anglesham as their representative to Pope Innocent to protest against the uncanonical proceedings of the monks of Christ Church. The monks also were highly incensed at Reginald because, contrary to his promise, he had divulged his election. They proceeded to a second election, and on 11 December, 1205, cast their votes for the royal favourite, John de Grey, whom the king had recommended to their suffrages. The controversy between the monks of Christ Church and the bishops concerning the right of electing the Archbishop of Canterbury, Innocent decided in favour of the monks, but in the present case he pronounced both elections invalid; that of Reginald because it had been made uncanonically and clandestinely, that of John de Grey because it had occurred before the invalidity of the former was proclaimed by the pope. Not even King John, who offered Innocent 3000 marks if he would decide in favour of de Grey, could alter the pope's decision. Innocent summoned those monks of Canterbury who were in Rome to proceed to a new election and recommended to their choice Stephen Langton, an Englishman, whom the pope had called to Rome from the rectorship of the University of Paris, in order to create him cardinal. He was duly elected by the monks and the pope himself consecrated him archbishop at Viterbo on 17 June, 1207. Innocent informed King John of the election of Langton and asked him to accept the new archbishop. The king, however, had set his mind on his favourite, John de Grey, and flatly refused to allow Langton to come to England in the capacity of Archbishop of Canterbury. He, moreover, wreaked his vengeance on the monks of Christ Church by driving them from their monastery and taking possession of their property. Innocent now placed the entire kingdom under interdict which was proclaimed on 24 March, 1208. When this proved of no avail and the king committed acts of cruelty against the clergy, the pope declared him excommunicated in 1209, and formally deposed him in 1212. He entrusted King Philip of France with the execution of the sentence. When Philip threatened to invade England and the feudal lords and the clergy began to forsake King John, the latter made his submission to Pandulph, whom Innocent had sent as legate to England. He promised to acknowledge Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, to allow the exiled bishops and priests to return to England and to make compensation for the losses which the clergy had sustained. He went still further, and on 13 May, 1213, probably of his own initiative, surrendered the English kingdom through Pandulph into the hands of the pope to be returned to him as a fief. The document of the surrender states that henceforth the kings of England were to rule as vassals of the pope and to pay an annual tribute of 1000 marks to the See of Rome. On 20 July, 1213, the king was solemnly freed from the ban at Winchester and after the clergy had been reimbursed for its losses the interdict was lifted from England on 29 June, 1214. It appears that many of the barons were not pleased with the surrender of England into the hands of the pope. They also resented the king's continuous trespasses upon their liberties and his many acts of injustice in the government of the people. They finally had recourse to violence and forced him to yield to their demands by affixing his seal to the Magna Charta. Innocent could not as suzerain of England allow a contract which imposed such serious obligations upon his vassal to be made without his consent. His legate Pandulph had repeatedly praised King John to the pope as a wise ruler and loyal vassal of the Holy See. The pope, therefore, declared the Great Charter null and void, not because it gave too many liberties to the barons and the people, but because it had been obtained by violence. There was scarcely a country in Europe over which Innocent III did not in some way or other assert the supremacy which he claimed for the papacy. He excommunicated Alfonso IX of Leon, for marrying a near relative, Berengaria, a daughter of Alfonso VIII, contrary to the laws of the Church, and effected their separation in 1204. For similar reasons he annulled, in 1208, the marriage of the crown-prince, Alfonso of Portugal, with Urraca, daughter of Alfonso of Castile. From Pedro II of Aragon he received that kingdom in vassalage and crowned him king at Rome in 1204. He prepared a crusade against the Moors and lived to see their power broken in Spain at the battle of Navas de Tolosa, in 1212. He protected the people of Norway against their tyrannical king, Sverri, and after the king's death arbitrated between the two claimants to the Norwegian throne. He mediated between King Emeric of Hungary and his rebellious brother Andrew, sent royal crown and sceptre to King Johannitius of Bulgaria and had his legate crown him king at Tirnovo, in 1204; he restored ecclesiastical discipline in Poland; arbitrated between the two claimants to the royal crown of Sweden; made partly successful attempts to reunite the Greek with the Latin Church and extended his beneficent influence practically over the whole Christian world. Like many preceding popes, Innocent had at heart the recovery of the Holy Land, and for this end undertook the Fourth Crusade. The Venetians had pledged themselves to transport the entire Christian army and to furnish the fleet with provisions for nine months, for 85,000 marks. When the crusaders were unable to pay the sum, the Venetians proposed to bear the financial expenses themselves on condition that the crusaders would first assist them in the conquest of the city of Zara. The crusaders yielded to their demands and the fleet started down the Adriatic on 8 October, 1202. Zara had scarcely been reduced when Alexius Comnenus arrived at the camp of the crusaders and pleaded for their help to replace his father, Isaac Angelus, on the throne of Constantinople from which he had been deposed by his cruel brother Alexius. In return he promised to reunite the Greek with the Latin Church, to add 10,000 soldiers to the ranks of the crusaders, and to contribute money and provisions to the crusade. The Venetians, who saw their own commercial advantage in the taking of Constantinople, induced the crusaders to yield to the prayers of Alexius, and Constantinople was taken by them in 1204. Isaac Angelus was restored to his throne but soon replaced by a usurper. The crusaders took Constantinople a second time on 12 April, 1204, and after a horrible pillage, Baldwin, Count of Flanders, was proclaimed emperor and the Greek Church was united with the Latin. The reunion, as well as the Latin empire in the East, did not last longer than two generations. When Pope Innocent learned that the Venetians had diverted the crusaders from their purpose of conquering the Holy Land he expressed his great dissatisfaction first at their conquest of Zara, and when they proceeded towards Constantinople he solemnly protested and finally excommunicated the Venetians who had caused the digression of the crusaders from their original purpose. Since, however, he could not undo what had been accomplished he did his utmost to destroy the Greek schism and latinize the Eastern Empire. Innocent was also a zealous protector of the true Faith and a strenuous opponent of heresy. His chief activity was turned against the Albigenses who had become so numerous and aggressive that they were no longer satisfied with being adherents of heretical doctrines but even endeavoured to spread their heresy by force. They were especially numerous in a few cities of Northern an in Southern France. During the first year of his pontificate Innocent sent the two Cistercian monks Rainer and Guido to the Albigenses in France to preach to them the true Faith and dispute with them on controverted topics of religion. The two Cistercian missionaries were soon followed by Diego, Bishop of Osma, then by St. Dominic and the two papal legates. Peter of Castelnau and Raoul. When, however, these peaceful missionaries were ridiculed and despised by the Albigenses, and the papal legate Castelnau was assassinated in 1208, Innocent resorted to force. He ordered the bishops of Southern France to put under interdict the participants in the murder and all the towns that gave shelter to them. He was especially incensed against Count Raymond of Toulouse who had previously been excommunicated by the murdered legate and whom, for good reasons, the pope suspected as the instigator of the murder. The count protested his innocence and submitted to the pope, probably out of cowardice, but the pope placed no further trust in him. He called upon France to raise an army for the suppression of the Albigenses. Under the leadership of Simon of Montfort a cruel campaign ensued against the Albigenses which, despite the protest of Innocent, soon turned into a war of conquest (see ALBIGENSES). The culminating point in the glorious reign of Innocent was his convocation of the Fourth Lateran Council, which he solemnly opened on 15 November, 1215. It was by far the most important council of the Middle Ages. Besides deciding on a general crusade to the Holy Land, it issued seventy reformatory decrees, the first of which was a creed (Firmiter credimus), against the Albigenses and Waldenses, in which the term "transubstantiation" received its first ecclesiastical sanction. The labours of Innocent in the inner government of the Church appear to be of a very subordinate character when they are put beside his great politico-ecclesiastical achievements which brought the papacy to the zenith of its power. Still they are worthy of memory and have contributed their share to the glory of his pontificate. During his reign the two great founders of the mendicant orders, St. Dominic and St. Francis, laid before him their scheme of reforming the world. Innocent was not blind to the vices of luxury and indolence which had infected many of the clergy and part of the laity. In Dominic and Francis he recognized two mighty adversaries of these vices and he sanctioned their projects with words of encouragement. The lesser religious orders which he approved are the Hospitallers of the Holy Ghost on 23 April, 1198, the Trinitarians on 17 December, 1198, and the Humiliati, in June, 1201. In 1209 he commissioned the Cistercian monk, Christian, afterwards bishop, with the conversion of the heathen Prussians. At Rome he built the famous hospital Santo Spirito in Sassia, which became the model of all future city hospitals and exists to the present time (see Walsh, "The Popes and Science", New York, 1908, p. 249-258; and the article HOSPITALS). The following saints were canonized by Innocent: Homobonus, a merchant of Cremona, on 12 January, 1199; the Empress Cunegond, on 3 March, 1200; William, Duke of Aquitaine in 1202; Wulstan, Bishop of York, on 14 May, 1203; Procopius, abbot at Prague, on 2 June, 1204; and Guibert, the founder of the monastery at Gembloux, in 1211. Innocent died at Perugia, while travelling through Italy in the interests of the crusade which had been decided upon at the Lateran Council. He was buried in the cathedral of Perugia where his body remained until Leo XIII, a great admirer of Innocent, had it transferred to the Lateran in December, 1891. Innocent is also the author of various literary works reprinted in P. L., CCXIV-CCXVIII, where may also be found his numerous extant epistles and decretals, and the historically important "Registrum Innocentii III super negotio imperii". His first work, "De contemptu mundi, sive de miseria conditionis humanæ libri III" (P. L., CCXVII, 701-746) was written while he lived in retirement during the pontificate of Celestine III. It is an ascetical treatise and gives evidence of Innocent's deep piety and knowledge of men. Concerning it see Reinlein "Papst Innocenz der dritte und seine Schrift 'De contemptu mundi" (Erlangen, 1871). His treatise "De sacro altaris mysterio libri VI" (P. L., CCXVII, 773-916) is of great liturgical value, because it represents the Roman Mass as it was at the time of Innocent. See Franz, "Die Messe im deutschen Mittelalter" (Freiburg, 1902), 453-457. It was printed repeatedly, and translated into German by Hurter (Schaffhausen, 1845). He also wrote "De quadripartita specie nuptiarum" (P. L., CCXVII, 923-968), an exposition of the fourfold marriage bond, namely, 1. between man and wife, 2. between Christ and the Church, 3. between God and the just soul, 4. between the Word and human nature and is entirely based on passages from Holy Scripture. "Commentarius in septem psalmos poenitentiales" (P. L., CCXVII, 967-1130) is of doubtful authorship. Among his seventy-nine sermons (ibidem, 314-691) is the famous one on the text "Desiderio desideravi" (Luke, xxii, 15), which he delivered at the Fourth Lateran Council. Gesta Innocentii, written by an unknown contemporary, edited with valuable critical notes by BALUZE (Paris, 1686). The Gesta were also edited by MURATORI in Rerum ltalicarum Scriptores ab anna 500 ad 1500, III (Milan, 1723-51), i, 480 sq., and reprinted in P. L., CCXIV, cviii-ccxxxviii. Concerning their historical value see ELKAN, Die "Gesta Innocentii III." im Verhältniss zu den Regesten desselben Papstes (Heidelberg, 1876). The principal modern sources are: HURTER, Geschichte des Papstes Innocenz III. und seiner Zeitgenossen (4 vols., Hainburg, 1841-4); the following six studies by LUCHAIRE, all published at Paris: Innocent III, Rome et l'Italie (1904); Innocent III, la croisade des Albigeois (1905); Innocent III, to papauté et l'empire (1906); Innocent III, la question d'Orient (1907): Innocent III, les royautés vassales du Saint-Siège (1908); Innocent III, le concile de Latran et la réforme de l'église (1908); BARRY, The Papal Monarchy (New York, 1903), 282-332; JORRY, Histoire du Pape Innocent III (Paris, 1853); DELISLE, Mémoire sur les actes d'Innocent III, suivi de l'itinéraire de ce pontife (Paris, 1857); DEUTSCH, Papst Innocenz III. und sein Einfluss auf die Kirche (Breslau, 1876); GASPARLIN, Innocent III, le siège apostolique, Constantin (Paris, 1875); SCHWEMER, Innocenz III. und die deutsche Kirche während des Thronstreites von 1198-1208 (Strasburg, 1882); LINDEMANN, Kritische Darstellung der Verhandlungen Innocenz III. mit den deutschen Gegenkönigen (Magdeburg, 1885); ENGELMANN, Philipp von Schwaben und Innocenz III. während des deutschen Thronstreites (Berlin, 1896); WINKELMANN, Philipp von Schwaben und Otto IV. (2 vols., Leipzig, 1873-8); MOLITOR, Die Decretale "Per venerabilem" von Innocenz III. und ihre Stellung im öffentlichen Rechte der Kirche (Münster, 1876); GÜTSCHOW, Innocenz III. und England (Munich, 1904); NORGATE, John Lackland (New York, 1902); GASQUET, Henry the Third and the Church (London, 1905), 1-26; LINGARD, History of England, II (Edinburgh, 1902), 312-376; PIRIE-GORDON, Innocent the Great (London, 1907), somewhat fantastic; NORDEN, Papsttum und Byzanz (Berlin, 1903), 133-238; HILL, A History of European Diplomacy, I (New York, 1905), 313-331; MULLANY, Innocent III in American Catholic Quarterly Review, XXXII (Philadelphia, 1907), 25-48; FEIERFEIL, Innocenz III. und seine Beziehungen zu Böhmen (Teplitz, 1905); BÖHMER, Regesta imperii, V.; Die Regesten des Kaiserreiches unter Philipp, Otto IV., Friedrich II., Heinrich (VII.), Konrad IV., Heinrich Raspe, Wilhelm und Richard, 1198-1272, newly edited by FICKER and WINKELMANN (Innsbruck, 1881-1901). MICHAEL OTT Pope Innocent IV Pope Innocent IV (Sinibaldo de' Fieschi) Count of Lavagna, born at Genoa, date unknown; died at Naples, 7 December, 1254. He was educated at Parma and Bologna. For some time he taught canon law at Bologna, then he became canon at Parma and in 1226 is mentioned as auditor of the Roman Curia. On 23 September,1227, he was created Cardinal-Priest of San Lorenzo in Lucina; on 28 July, 1228, vice-chancellor of Rome; and in 1235 Bishop of Albenga and legate in Northern Italy. When Celestine IV died after a short reign of sixteen days, the excommunicated emperor, Frederick II, was in possession of the States of the Church around Rome and attempted to intimidate the cardinals into electing a pope to his own liking. The cardinals fled to Anagni and cast their votes for Sinibaldo de Fiesehi, who ascended the papal throne as Innocent IV on 25 June, 1243, after an interregnum of 1 year, 7 months, and 15 days. Innocent IV had previously been a friend of Frederick II. Immediately after the election the emperor sent messengers with congratulations and overtures of peace. The pope was desirous of peace, but he knew from the experience of Gregory IX how little trust could be put in the emperor's promises. He refused to receive the latter's messengers, because, like the emperor himself, they were under the ban of the Church. But two months later he sent Peter, Archbishop of Rouen, William of Modena, who had resigned his episcopal office, and Abbot William of St. Facundus as legates to the emperor at Melfi with instructions to ask him to release the prelates whom he had captured while on their way to the council which Gregory IX had intended to hold at Rome. The legates were furthermore instructed to find out what satisfaction the emperor was willing to make for the injuries which he had inflicted upon the Church and which caused Gregory IX to put him under the ban. Should the emperor deny that he had done any wrong to the Church, or even assert that the injustice had been done on the side of the Church, the legates were to propose that the decision should be left to a council of kings, prelates, and temporal princes. Frederick entered into an agreement with Innocent on 31 March, 1244. He promised to yield to the demands of the Curia in all essential points, viz., to restore the States of the Church, to release the prelates, and to grant amnesty to the allies of the pope. His insincerity became apparent when he secretly incited various tumults in Rome and refused to release the imprisoned prelates. Feeling himself hindered in his freedom of action on account of the emperor's military preponderance, and fearing for his personal safety, the pope decided to leave Italy. At his request the Genoese sent him a fleet which arrived at Civitavecchia while the pope was in Sutri. As soon as he was notified of its arrival, he left Sutri in disguise during the night of 27-28 June and hastened over the mountains to Civitavecchia, whence the fleet brought him to Genoa. In October he went to Burgundy, and in December to Lyons, where he took up his abode during the following six years. He at once made preparations for a general council, which on 3 January, 1245, he proclaimed for 24 June of the same year. Innocent had nothing to fear in France and proceeded with great severity against the emperor. At the Council of Lyons the emperor was represented by Thaddeus of Suessa, who offered new concessions if his master were freed from the ban; but Innocent rejected them, and having brought new accusations against the emperor during the second session, on 5 July, solemnly deposed him at the third session, on 17 July. He now ordered the princes of Germany to proceed to the election of a new king, and sent Philip of Ferrara as legate to Germany to bring about the election of Henry Raspe, Landgrave of Thuringia. The pope's candidate was elected on 22 May, 1246, at Veitshochheim on the Main. Most of the princes, however, had abstained from voting and he never found general recognition. The same may be said of the incapable William of Holland, whom the papal party elected after Henry Raspe died on 17 February, 1247. But Innocent IV was determined upon the destruction of Frederick II and repeatedly asserted that no Hohenstaufen would ever again be emperor. All attempts of St. Louis IX of France to bring about peace were of no avail. In 1249 the pope ordered a crusade to be preached against Frederick II, and after the emperor's death (13 December, 1250), he continued the struggle against Conrad IV and Manfred with unrelenting severity. On 19 April, 1251, Innocent IV set out for Italy and entered Rome in October, 1253. The crown of Sicily devolved upon the Holy See at the deposition of Frederick II. Innocent had previously offered it to Richard of Cornwall, brother of Henry III of England. Upon his refusal, he tried Charles of Anjou and Edmund, son of Henry III of England. But after some negotiation they also refused owing to the difficulty of dislodging Conrad IV and Manfred who held Sicily by force of arms. After the death of Conrad IV, 20 May, 1264, the pope finally recognized the hereditary claims of Conrad's two-year-old son Conradin. Manfred also submitted, and Innocent made his solemn entry into Naples, 27 October, 1254, but Manfred soon revolted and defeated the papal troops at Foggia (2 Dec., 1254). In England, Innocent IV made his power felt by protecting Henry III against the lay as well as the ecclesiastical nobility. But here and in other countries many just complaints arose against him on account of the excessive taxes which he imposed upon the people. In Austria, he confirmed Ottocar, the son of King Wenzel, as duke, in 1252, and mediated between him and King Béla of Hungary in 1254. In Portugal, he appointed Alfonso III administrator of the kingdom, because the people were disgusted at the immorality and the tyranny of his father, Sancho III. He favoured the missions in Prussia, Russia, Armenia, and Mongolia, but owing to his continual warfare with Frederick II and his successors he neglected the internal affairs of the Church and allowed many abuses, provided they served to strengthen his position against the Hohenstaufen. He approved the rule of the Sylvestrines on 27 June, 1247, and that of the Poor Clares on 9 August, 1253. The following saints were canonized by him: Edmund Rich, Archbishop of Canterbury, on 16 December, 1246; William, Bishop of St-Brieuc, in 1247; Peter of Verona; Dominican inquisitor and martyr, in 1253; Stanislaus, Bishop of Cracow, in the same year. He is the author of "Apparatus in quinque libros decretalium", which was first published at Strasburg in 1477, and afterwards reprinted; it is considered the best commentary on the Decretals of Gregory IX. The registers of Innocent IV were edited by Elie Berger in four volumes (Paris, 1881-98) and his letters, 762 in number, by Rodenberg in "Mon. Germ. Epp. sæculi XIII", II (1887), 1-568. A Short biography of Innocent IV was written by his physician, NICOLAS DE CORBIA. It was published by MURATORI, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, III (Milan, 1723-51), 1, 589-593. The modern sources are: DESLANDRES, Innocent IV et la chute des Hohenstaufen (Paris, 1908); WEBER, Der Kampf zwischen Papst Innocenz IV. und Kaiser Friedrich II. bis zur Flucht des Papstes nach Lyon (Berlin, 1900); FOLZ, Kaiser Friedrich II. und Papst Innocenz IV., ihr Kampf in den Jahren 1243-1245 (Leipzig, 1886); RODENBERG, Innocenz IV. und das Königreich Sicilien (Halle, 1892); MAUBACH, Die Kardinäle und ihre Politik um die Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts (Bonn, 1902); ALDINGER, Die Neubesetzung der deutschen Bistümer unter Papst Innocenz IV. (Leipzig, 1900); HAUCK, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, IV (Leipzig, 1903), 808-851; BERGER, S. Louis et Innocent IV; étude sur les rapports de la France et du saint-siège (Paris, 1893); MASETTI, I pontefici Onorio III, Gregorio IX, ed Innocente IV a fronte dell' Imperatore Federico II (Rome, 1884); MICHAEL, Papst Innocenz IV. und Oesterreich in Zeitschrift für kath. Theologie, XIV (Innsbruck, 1890), 300-323; IDEM, Innocenz IV. und Konrad IV., ibidem, XVIII (1894), 457-472; GASQUET, Henry the Third and the Church (London, 1905), 205-353. MICHAEL OTT Pope Innocent V Pope Bl. Innocent V (PETRUS A TARENTASIA) Born in Tarentaise, towards 1225; elected at Arezzo, 21 January, 1276; died at Rome, 22 June, 1276. Tarentaise on the upper Isère in south-eastern France was certainly his native province, and the town of Champagny was in all probability his birthplace. At the age of sixteen he joined the Dominican Order. After completing his education, at the University of Paris, where he graduated as master in sacred theology in 1259, he won distinction as a professor in that institution, and is known as "the most famous doctor", "Doctor famosissimus" For some time provincial of his order in France, he became Archbishop of Lyons in 1272 and Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia in 1273. He played a prominent part at the Second =8Ccumenical Council of Lyons (1274), in which he delivered two discourses to the assembled fathers and also pronounced the funeral oration on St. Bonaventure. Elected as successor to Gregory X, whose intimate adviser he was, he assumed the name of Innocent V and was the first Dominican pope. His policy was peaceable. He sought to reconcile Guelphs and Ghibellines in Italy, restored peace between Pisa and Lucca, and mediated between Rudolph of Hapsburg and Charles of Anjou. He likewise endeavoured to consolidate the union of the Greeks with Rome concluded at the Council of Lyons. He is the author of several works dealing with philosophy, theology and canon law, some of which are still unpublished. The principal among them is his "Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard" (Toulouse, 1652). Four philosophical treatises: "De unitate formæ", "De materia cæli", "De æternitate mundi", "De intellectu et voluntate", are also due to his pen. A commentary on the Pauline Epistles frequently published under the name of Nicholas of Gorran (Cologne, 1478) is claimed for him by some critics. Liber Pontificalis, ed. DUCHESNE, II (Paris, 1892), 457; CIACONIUS-OLDOINUS, Vitæ et res gestæ Pontif. Rom., II (Rome, 1677), 203-206; MOTHON, Vie du bienheureux Innocent V (Rome, 1896); BOURGEOIS, Le Bienheureux Innocent V (Paris, 1899); TURINAZ, Un pape savoisien (Nancy, 1901); SCHULZ in the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, V (New York, 1909), 504. N.A. WEBER Pope Innocent VI Pope Innocent VI (ETIENNE AUBERT) Born at Mont in the Diocese of Limoges (France); elected at Avignon, 18 December 1352; died there, 12 September, 1362. He began his career as professor of civil law at Toulouse where he subsequently rose to the highest judicial position. Having entered the ecclesiastical state he became successively Bishop of Noyon (1338), of Clermont (1340), cardinal-priest (1342), Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia, and Grand Penitentiary (1352). The conclave which elected him to the papacy is remarkable for the fact that the first certain election capitulation was framed by the cardinals present, each of whom bound himself to divide, in case of election, his power and revenues with the College of Cardinals. Aubert took this engagement but with the restriction; "in so far as it was not contrary to church law". When the choice fell on him, one of his first pontifical acts declared the pact illegal and null, because it contained a limitation of the Divinely conferred papal power. The new pope also gave immediate proofs of the thoroughly ecclesiastical spirit which was to animate his policy. Shortly after his coronation the numerous ecclesiastics who had flocked to Avignon in search of preferment received a peremptory order to repair, under penalty of excommunication, to their respective places of residence. Some appointments to benefices made by his predecessor were repealed, numerous reservations abolished, and pluralities disapproved. Luxury was banished from the papal court and the obligation of following this example set by the pope imposed upon the cardinals. To the auditors of the Rota, whose services were gratuitous, a fixed income was assigned in the interest of a more impartial administration of justice. As the territory of the Papal States had been usurped by petty princes, Innocent VI sent Cardinal Gil de Albornoz (q. v.) to Italy with unlimited power. Success on the battle-field and diplomatic skill enabled this legate to restore papal authority in the States of the Church. Pope Innocent viewed favourably the imperial coronation of the German king, Charles IV, at Rome, but at the same time exacted from him a solemn pledge that be would leave Rome the very day on which the ceremony would take place. Charles was crowned on Easter Sunday, 1355, by the Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia and faithfully observed his promise. The following year he issued the celebrated "Golden Bull", against which the pope protested because it silently passed over the papal claims to confirm the German kings and to administer the empire during a vacancy. Objection was also made in 1359 to the emperor's resolution to undertake a reform of the German clergy independently of the pope; Charles's reformatory plans, however, subsequently received ecclesiastical approbation. The mutual peaceful dispositions prevented any conflict of a serious character. Innocent VI sought to terminate the war between France and England, and finally through his intervention the Peace of Brétigny was concluded in 1360. To protect the papal residence against the bands of freebooters that were then devastating France, Innocent increased the fortifications of Avignon; but before these were completed he was attacked and constrained to buy off his assailants by an enormous ransom. He used with but little success the severest ecclesiastical penalties against Peter I of Castile (1350-69), who had repudiated and poisoned his wife and is deservedly known as "the Cruel". His efforts to restore peace between Castile and Aragon were fruitless, so also his plans for a crusade and for the reunion of the Eastern Church with Rome. At the request of Emperor Charles IV he instituted (1354) for Germany and Bohemia the feast of the Holy Lance and Nails (Lanceæ et Clavorum). He renewed the previous privileges of the mendicant orders, then in conflict with Richard Fitzralph, Archbishop of Armagh. Although tainted with nepotism he ranks among the best of the Avignon popes. His patronage of arts and his moral integrity are generally recognized. For his Bulls consult Bullarium Rom., ed. COCQUELINES, III. pt. II (Rome, 1741), 314-324; BALUZIUS, Vitæ pap. Avenion., I (Paris, 1693), 321-62, 918-74, 1433-36; Liber Pontificalis, ed. DUCHESNE, II (Paris, 1892), 487, 491-93; MARTÈNE, Thesaurus novus anecdotarum, II (Paris, 1717), 843-1072. BÖHMER, Regesta imperii, VIII (Innsbruck, 1889), 782-93; DEPREZ, Innocent VI, lettres closes, patentes et curiales se rapportant à la France (Paris, 1909); BERLIÈRE, Suppliques d'Innocent VI in Anal. Vatic. belg., V (Namur, 1910); CERRI, Innocenzo papa VI (Turin, 1873); WERUNSKY, Italienische Politik Papst Innocenz VI. und König Karl IV. (Vienna, 1878); DAUMET, Innocent VI et Blanche de Bourbon (Paris, 1899); MOLLAT, Innocent VI et les tentatives de paix entre la France et l'Angleterre (1353-55) in Rev. d'hist. ecclés., XI (1909), 729-43; PASTOR, Geschichte der Päpste, tr. ANTROBUS, I (London, 1891), 93-95; CREIGHTON, History of the Papacy, I (New York, 1901), 54-55; CHEVALIER, Bio-bibliog. N.A. WEBER Pope Innocent VII Pope Innocent VII (Cosimo de' Migliorati) Born of humble parents at Sulmona, in the Abruzzi, about 1336; died 6 November, 1406. He studied at Perugia, Padua, and finally at Bologna, where he graduated under the famous jurist Lignano. After teaching jurisprudence at Perugia and Padua for some time, he accompanied his former professor, Lignano, to Rome, where he was received into the Curia by Urban VI (1378-89). Shortly after his arrival in Rome, Urban sent him as papal collector to England, where he remained about ten years. Upon his return to Rome he became Bishop of Bologna in 1386, and on 5 December, 1387, Archbishop of Ravenna. The latter see he held until 15 September, 1400. In 1389, Boniface IX created him Cardinal-Priest of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, and sent him as legate to Lombardy and Tuscany in 1390. He was universally esteemed for his piety and learning, and was an able manager of financial affairs. On 17 October, 1404, he was elected and took the name of Innocent VII. His reign fell in the time of the Western Schism; the rival pope was Benedict XIII (1394-1423). Previous to his election, Innocent VII, like the other cardinals, had taken the oath to leave nothing undone, if needs be even to lay down the tiara, in order to terminate the schism. Shortly after his accession he took steps to keep his oath by proclaiming a council, but the disturbances which occurred in Rome brought the pope's good intentions to naught. The revolutionary element among the Romans rose up against the temporal authority of the pope, and King Ladislaus of Naples hastened to Rome to assist the pope in suppressing the insurrection. For his services the king extorted various concessions from Innocent, among them the promise that he would not make any agreement with the rival pope without stipulating that the king's rights over Naples should remain intact. Not content with these concessions, which Innocent made for the sake of peace, Ladislaus desired to extend his rule over Rome and the ecclesiastical territory. To attain his end he aided the Ghibelline faction in Rome in their revolutionary attempts in 1405. Innocent had made the great mistake of elevating his unworthy nephew, Ludovico Migliorati, to the cardinalate. This act of nepotism is the one blemish in the short reign of the otherwise virtuous pope. But it cost him dear. The cardinal, angered because the Romans rebelled against his uncle, waylaid a few of the most influential among them on their return from a conference with the pope, and had them brought to his house in order to murder them. The people were highly incensed at this cruel deed, and the pope had to flee for his life, although he was in no way responsible for his nephew's crime. He took up his abode in Viterbo until the Romans requested him to return in 1406. They again acknowledged his authority, but a squad of troops which King Ladislaus of Naples had sent to the aid of Colonna was still occupying the Castle of Sant' Angelo and made frequent sorties upon Rome and the neighbouring territory. Only after Ladislaus was excommunicated did he yield to the demands of the pope and withdraw his troops. In the midst of these political disturbances Innocent neglected what was then most essential for the well-being of the Church, the suppression of the schism. His rival, Benedict XIII, made it appear that the only obstacle to the termination of the schism was the unwillingness of Innocent VII. The reasons why Innocent did practically nothing for the suppression of the schism were: the troubled state of affairs in Rome, his mistrust in the sincerity of Benedict XIII, and the hostile attitude of King Ladislaus of Naples. Shortly before his death he planned the restoration of the Roman University, but his death brought the movement to a standstill. Vita Innocentii VII in Liber Pontificalis, ed. DUCHESNE, II (Paris, 1892), 508-10, 531-3, 552-4; and in MURATORI, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores ab anno 500 ad 1500, III (Milan, 1723-51), ii, 832 sq.; BRAND, Innocenzo VII ed il delitto di suo nipote Ludovico Migliorati in Studi e Documenti di Storia e Diritto, XXI (Rome, 1900); BLIEMETZRIEDER, Das Generalkonzil im grossen abendlandischen Schisma (Paderborn, 1904); IDEM, Die Konzilsidee unter Innocenz VII. und König Ruprecht von der Pfalz in Studien und Mitteilungen aus dem Benediktiner und dem Cistercienser Orden, XXVII (Brünn, 1906), 355-68; VERNET, Le Pape Innocent VII et les Juifs in L'Université Catholique, XV (Lyons. 1894), 399-408; KNEER, Zur Vorgeschichte Papst Innocenz VII. in Historisches Jahrbuch, XII (Munich, 1891), 347-351. MICHAEL OTT Pope Innocent VIII Pope Innocent VIII (Giovanni Battista Cibò) Born at Genoa, 1432; elected 29 August, 1484; died at Rome, 25 July, 1492. He was the son of the Roman senator, Aran Cibò, and Teodorina de' Mari. After a licentious youth, during which he had two illegitimate children, Franceschetto and Teodorina, he took orders and entered the service of Cardinal Calandrini. He was made Bishop of Savona in 1467, but exchanged this see in 1472 for that of Molfetta in south-eastern Italy and was raised to the cardinalate the following year. At the conclave of 1484, he signed, like all the other cardinals present, the election capitulation which was to bind the future pope. Its primary object was to safeguard the personal interests of the electors. The choice fell on Cibò himself who, in honour of his countryman, Innocent IV, assumed the name of Innocent VIII. His success in the conclave, as well as his promotion to the cardinalate, was largely due to Giuliano della Rovere. The chief concern of the new pope, whose kindliness is universally praised, was the promotion of peace among Christian princes, though he himself became involved in difficulties with King Ferrante of Naples. The protracted conflict with Naples was the principal obstacle to a crusade against the Turks; Innocent VIII earnestly endeavoured to unite Christendom against the common enemy. The circumstances appeared particularly favourable, as Prince Djem, the Sultan's brother and pretender to the Turkish throne, was held prisoner at Rome and promised co-operation in war and withdrawal of the Turks from Europe in case of success. A congress of Christian princes met in 1490 at Rome, but led to no result. On the other hand, the pope had the satisfaction of witnessing the fall of Granada (1491) which crowned the reconquest of Spain from the Moors and earned for the King of Spain the title of "Catholic Majesty". In England he proclaimed the right of King Henry VII and his descendants to the English throne and also agreed to some modifications affecting the privilege of "sanctuary". The only canonization which he proclaimed was that of Margrave Leopold of Austria (6 Jan., 1485). He issued an appeal for a crusade against the Waldenses, actively opposed the Hussite heresy in Bohemia, and forbade (Dec., 1486) under penalty of excommunication the reading of the nine hundred theses which Pico della Mirandola had publicly posted in Rome. On 5 Dec., 1484, he issued his much-abused Bull against witchcraft, and 31 May, 1492, he solemnly received at Rome the Holy Lance which the Sultan surrendered to the Christians. Constantly confronted with a depleted treasury, he resorted to the objectionable expedient of creating new offices and granting them to the highest bidders. Insecurity reigned at Rome during his rule owing to insufficient punishment of crime. However, he dealt mercilessly with a band of unscrupulous officials who forged and sold papal Bulls; capital punishment was meted out to two of the culprits in 1489. Among these forgeries must be relegated the alleged permission granted the Norwegians to celebrate Mass without wine. See "Bullarium Romanum", III, iii (Rome, 1743), 190-225. BURCHARD, Diarium, ed. THUASNE, I (Paris, 1883); INFESSURA, Diario della Città di Roma, ed. TOMMASINI in Fonti per la Storia d'Italia, V (Rome, 1890); CIACONIUS-OLDOINUS, Vitæ et Res gestæ Pontif. Rom., III (Rome, 1677), 89-146; SERDONATI, Vita d' Innocenzo VIII (Milan, 1829); PASTOR, Geschichte der Päpste (4tb ed., Freiburg, 1899), 175-285: bibliog. XXXVII-LXIX; tr. ANTROBUS, (2nd ed., St. Louis, 1901), V, 229-372; CREIGHTON, A History of the Papacy, new ed., IV (London and New York, 1903), 135-182; GARNETT in The Renaissance Cambridge Modern History, I (New York, 1903), 221-225; ROSCOE, Lorenzo de' Medici (London, 1865), 214-229, 362; KRÜGER, The Papacy (tr., New York, 1909), 146, 151-153. N.A. WEBER Pope Innocent IX Pope Innocent IX (Giovanni Antonio Facchinetti) Born at Bologna, 22 July, 1519; elected, 29 October, 1591; died at Rome, 30 December, 1591. After successful studies in jurisprudence in his native city he was graduated as doctor of law in 1544, and proceeded to Rome, where Cardinal Nicolò Ardinghelli chose him as his secretary. Later he entered the service of Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, who appointed him his ecclesiastical representative at the head of the Archdiocese of Avignon and subsequently called him to the management of his affairs at Parma. In 1560 he was named Bishop of Nicastro in Calabria, and in 1562 was present at the Council of Trent. Sent as papal nuncio to Venice by Pius V in 1566, he greatly furthered the conclusion of that alliance (Pope, Venice, Spain) against the Turks which ultimately resulted in the victory of Lepanto (1571). In 1572 he returned to his diocese, but resigning his see he removed to Rome. In 1575 he was named Patriarch of Jerusalem, and on 12 December, 1583, created Cardinal-Priest of the Title of the Four Crowned Martyrs -- whence the frequent designation "Cardinal of Santiquattro". During the reign of the sickly Gregory XIV the burden of the papal administration rested on his shoulders, and on this pontiff's death the Spanish party raised Facchinetti to the papal chair. Mindful of the origin of his success, he supported, during his two months' pontificate, the cause of Philip II of Spain and the League against Henry IV of France. He prohibited the alienation of church property, and in a consistory held on 3 November, 1591, informed the cardinals of his intention of constituting a reserve fund to meet extraordinary expenses. Death, however, did not permit the realization of his vast schemes. He left numerous, though still unpublished, writings on theological and philosophical subjects: "Moralia quædam theologica", "Adversus Machiavellem", "De recta gubernandi ratione", etc. His bulls are printed in the "Bullarium Romanum", ed. Cocquelines, V, pt. I (Rome, 1751), 324-32. CIACONIUS-OLDOINUS, Vitæ et res gesta Pontif. Rom., IV (Rome, 1677), 235-48; MOTTA, Otto Pontificati del Cinquecento (1555-1591) in Arch. stor. Lombard., 3rd series, XIX (1903), 372-373; RANKE, Die römischen Päpste, II (9th ed., Leipzig, 1889), 150, tr. FOWLER, II (London, 1901), 157; BRISCHAR in Kirchenlexikon, s. v. N.A. WEBER Pope Innocent X Pope Innocent X (Giambattista Pamfili) Born at Rome, 6 May, 1574; died there, 7 January, 1655. His parents were Camillo Pamfili and Flaminia de Bubalis. The Pamfili resided originally at Gubbio, in Umbria, but came to Rome during the pontificate of Innocent VIII. The young man studied jurisprudence at the Collegio Romano and graduated as bachelor of laws at the age of twenty. Soon afterwards Clement VIII appointed him consistorial advocate and auditor of the Rota. Gregory XV made him nuncio at Naples. Urban VIII sent him as datary with the cardinal legate, Francesco Barberini, to France and Spain, then appointed him titular Latin Patriarch of Antioch, and nuncio at Madrid. He was created Cardinal-Priest of Sant' Eusebio on 30 August, 1626, though he did not assume the purple until 19 November, 1629. He was a member of the congregations of the Council of Trent, the Inquisition, and Jurisdiction and Immunity. On 9 August, 1644, a conclave was held at Rome for the election of a successor to Urban VIII. The conclave was a stormy one. The French faction had agreed to give their vote to no candidate who was friendly towards Spain. Cardinal Firenzola, the Spanish candidate was, therefore, rejected, being a known enemy of Cardinal Mazarin, prime minister of France. Fearing the election of an avowed enemy of France, the French party finally agreed with the Spanish party upon Pamfili, although his sympathy for Spain was well known. On 15 September he was elected, and ascended the papal throne as Innocent X. Soon after his accession, Innocent found it necessary to take legal action against the Barberini for misappropriation of public moneys. To escape punishment Antonio and Francesco Barberini fled to Paris, where they found a powerful protector in Mazarin. Innocent confiscated their property, and on 19 February, 1646, issued a Bull ordaining that all cardinals who had left or should leave the Ecclesiastical States without papal permission and should not return within six months, should be deprived of their ecclesiastical benefices and eventually of the cardinalate itself. The French Parliament declared the papal ordinances null and void, but the pope did not yield until Mazarin prepared to send troops to Italy to invade the Ecclesiastical States. Henceforth the papal policy towards France became more friendly, and somewhat later the Barberini were rehabilitated. But when in 1652 Cardinal Retz was arrested by Mazarin, Innocent solemnly protested against this act of violence committed against a cardinal, and protected Retz after his escape in 1654. In Italy Innocent had occasion to assert his authority as suzerain over Duke Ranuccio II of Parma who refused to redeem the bonds (monti) of the Farnesi from the Roman creditors, as had been stipulated in the Treaty of Venice on 31 March, 1644. The duke, moreover, refused to recognize Cristoforo Guarda, whom the pope had appointed Bishop of Castro. When, therefore, the new bishop was murdered while on his way to take possession of his see, Innocent held Ranuccio responsible for the crime. The pope took possession of Castro, razed it to the ground and transferred the episcopal see to Acquapendente. The duke was forced to resign the administration of his district to the pope, who undertook to satisfy the creditors. The papal relations with Venice, which had been highly strained during the pontificate of Urban VIII, became very friendly during Innocent's reign. Innocent aided the Venetians financially against the Turks in the struggle for Candia, while the Venetians on their part allowed Innocent free scope in filling the vacant episcopal sees in their territory, a right which they had previously claimed for themselves. In Portugal the popular insurrection of 1640 had led to the secession of that country from Spain, and to the election of Juan IV of Braganza as King of Portugal. Both Urban VIII and Innocent X, in deference to Spain, refused to acknowledge the new king and withheld their approbation from the bishops nominated by him. Thus it happened that towards the end of Innocent's pontificate there was only one bishop in the whole of Portugal. On 26 November, 1648, Innocent issued the famous Bull "Zelo domus Dei", in which he declares as null and void those articles of the Peace of Westphalia which were detrimental to the Catholic religion. In his Bull "Cum occasione", issued on 31 May, 1653. he condemned five propositions taken from the "Augustinus" of Jansenius, thus giving the impulse to the great Jansenist controversy in France. Innocent X was a lover of justice and his life was blameless; he was, however, often irresolute and suspicious. The great blemish in his pontificate was his dependence on Donna Olimpia Maidalchini, the wife of his deceased brother. For a short time her influence had to yield to that of the youthful Camillo Astalli, a distant relative of the pope, whom Innocent raised to the cardinalate. But the pope seemed to be unable to get along without her, and at her instance Astalli was deprived of the purple and removed from the Vatican. The accusation, made by Gualdus (Leti) in his "Vita di Donna Olimpia Maidalchini" (1666), that Innocent's relation to her was immoral, has been rejected as slanderous by all reputable historians. CIAMPI, Innocenzo X Pamfili e la sua corte (Imola, 1878); FRIEDENSBURG, Regesten zur deutschen Geschichte aus der Zeit des Pontifikats Innocenz X in Quellen und Forschungen, edited by the Prussian Historical Institute in Rome, V (1902), VI (1903); RANKE, Die römischen Päpste, tr. FOSTER, II (London, 1906), 321-9; BAROZZI E BERCHET, Relazioni degli stati Europei lette al senato dagli Ambasciatori Veneti nel secolo decimosettimo, Serie III: Italia, Relazioni di Roma, II (Venice, 1878), 43-161; PALATIUS, Gesta Pontificum Romanorum, IV (Venice. 1688), 571-94. MICHAEL OTT Pope Innocent XI Pope Innocent XI (Benedetto Odescalchi) Born at Como, 16 May, 1611; died at Rome, 11 August, 1689. He was educated by the Jesuits at Como, and studied jurisprudence at Rome and Naples. Urban VIII appointed him successively prothonotary, president of the Apostolic Camera, commissary at Ancona, administrator of Macerata, and Governor of Picena. Innocent X made him Cardinal-Deacon of Santi Cosma e Damiano on 6 March, 1645, and, somewhat later, Cardinal-Priest of Sant' Onofrio. As cardinal he was beloved by all on account of his deep piety, charity, and unselfish devotion to duty. When he was sent as legate to Ferrara in order to assist the people stricken with a severe famine, the pope introduced him to the people of Ferrara as the "father of the poor", "Mittimus patrem pauperum". In 1650 he became Bishop of Novara, in which capacity he spent all the revenues of his see to relieve the poor and sick in his diocese. With the permission of the pope he resigned as Bishop of Novara in favour of his brother Giulio in 1656 and went to Rome, where he took a prominent part in the consultations of the various congregations of which he was a member. He was a strong candidate for the papacy after the death of Clement IX on 9 December, 1669, but the French Government rejected him. After the death of Clement X, King Louis XIV of France again intended to use his royal influence against the election of Odescalchi, but, seeing that the cardinals as well as the Roman people were of one mind in their desire to have Odescalchi as their pope, he reluctantly instructed the cardinals of the French party to acquiesce in his candidacy. After an interregnum of two months, Odescalchi was unanimously elected pope on 21 September, 1676, and took the name of Innocent XI. Immediately upon his accession he turned all his efforts towards reducing the expenses of the Curia. He passed strict ordinances against nepotism among the cardinals. He lived very parsimoniously and exhorted the cardinals to do the same. In this manner he not only squared the annual deficit which at his accession had reached the sum of 170,000 scudi, but within a few years the papal income was even in excess of the expenditures. The whole pontificate of Innocent XI is marked by a continuous struggle with the absolutism of King Louis XIV of France. As early as 1673 the king had by his own power extended the right of the régale over the provinces of Languedoc, Guyenne, Provence, and Dauphiné, where it had previously not been exercised, although the Council of Lyons in 1274 had forbidden under pain of excommunication to extend the régale beyond those districts where it was then in force. Bishops Pavillon of Alet and Caulet of Pamiers protested against this royal encroachment and in consequence they were persecuted by the king. All the efforts of Innocent XI to induce King Louis to respect the rights of the Church were useless. In 1682, Louis XIV convoked an Assembly of the French Clergy which, on 19 March, adopted the four famous articles, known as "Déclaration du clergé français" (see GALLICANISM). Innocent annulled the four articles in his rescript of 11 April, 1682, and refused his approbation to all future episcopal candidates who had taken part in the assembly. To appease the pope, Louis XIV began to pose as a zealot of Catholicism. In 1685 he revoked the Edict of Nantes and inaugurated a cruel persecution of the Protestants. Innocent XI expressed his displeasure at these drastic measures and continued to withhold his approbation from the episcopal candidates as he had done heretofore. He irritated the king still more by abolishing the much abused "right of asylum" in a decree dated 7 May, 1685. By force of this right the foreign ambassadors at Rome had been able to harbour in their palaces and the immediate neighbourhood any criminal that was wanted by the papal court of justice. Innocent XI notified the new French ambassador, Marquis de Lavardin, that he would not be recognized as ambassador in Rome unless he renounced this right. But Louis XIV would not give it up. At the head of an armed force of about 800 men Lavardin entered Rome in November, 1687, and took forcible possession of his palace. Innocent XI treated him as excommunicated and placed under interdict the church of St. Louis at Rome where he attended services on 24 December, 1687. The tension between the pope and the king was still increased by the pope's procedure in filling the vacant archiepiscopal See of Cologne. The two candidates for the see were Cardinal Wilhelm Fürstenberg, then Bishop of Strasburg, and Joseph Clement, a brother of Max Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria. The former was a willing tool in the hands of Louis XIV, and his appointment as Archbishop and Elector of Cologne would have implied French preponderance in north-western Germany. Joseph Clement was not only the candidate of Emperor Leopold I of Austria but of all European rulers, with the exception of the King of France and his servile supporter, King James II of England. At the election, which took place on 19 July, 1688, neither of the candidates received the required number of votes. The decision, therefore, fell to the pope, who designated Joseph Clement as Archbishop and Elector of Cologne. Louis XIV retaliated by taking possession of the papal territory of Avignon, imprisoning the papal nuncio and appealing to a general council. Nor did he conceal his intention to separate the French Church entirely from Rome. But the pope remained firm. The subsequent fall of James II of England destroyed French preponderance in Europe and soon after Innocent's death the struggle between Louis XIV and the papacy was settled in favour of the Church. Innocent XI did not approve the imprudent manner in which James II attempted to restore Catholicism in England. He also repeatedly expressed his displeasure at the support which James II gave to the autocratic King Louis XIV in his measures hostile to the Church. It is, therefore, not surprising that Innocent XI had little sympathy for the Catholic King of England, and that he did not assist him in his hour of trial. There is, however, no ground for the accusation that Innocent XI was informed of the designs which William of Orange had upon England, much less that he supported him in the overthrow of James II. It was due to Innocent's earnest and incessant exhortations that the German Estates and King John Sobieski of Poland in 1683 hastened to the relief of Vienna which was being besieged by the Turks. After the siege was raised, Innocent again spared no efforts to induce the Christian princes to lend a helping hand for the expulsion of the Turks from Hungary. He contributed millions of scudi to the Turkish war fund in Austria and Hungary and had the satisfaction of surviving the capture of Belgrade, 6 Sept., 1688. Innocent XI was no less intent on preserving the purity of faith and morals among the clergy and the faithful. He insisted on a thorough education and an exemplary life of the clergy, reformed the monasteries of Rome, passed strict ordinances concerning the modesty of dress among Roman ladies, put an end to the ever increasing passion for gambling by suppressing the gambling houses at Rome and by a decree of 12 February, 1679, encouraged frequent and even daily Communion. In his Bull "Sanctissimnus Dominus", issued on 2 March, 1679, he condemned sixty-five propositions which favoured laxism in moral theology, and in a decree, dated 26 June, 1680, he defended the Probabiliorism of Thyrsus González, S.J. This decree (see authentic text in "Etudes religieuses", XCI, Paris, 1902, 847 sq.) gave rise to the controversy, whether Innocent XI intended it as a condemnation of Probabilism. The Redemptorist Francis Ter Haar, in his work: "Ben. Innocentii PP. XI de probabilismo decreti historia" (Tournai, 1904), holds that the decree is opposed to Probabilism, while August Lehmkuhl, S.J., in his treatise: "Probabilismus vindicatus" (Freiburg, 1906), 78-111, defends the opposite opinion. In a decree of 28 August, 1687, and in the Constitution "Coelestis Pastor" of 19 November, 1687, Innocent XI condemned sixty-eight Quietistic propositions (see QUIETISM) of Miguel de Molinos. Towards the Jansenists Innocent XI was lenient, though he by no means espoused their doctrines. The process of his beatification was introduced by Benedict XIV and continued by Clement XI and Clement XII, but French influence and the accusation of Jansenism caused it to be dropped. His "Epistolæ ad Principes" were published by Berthier (2 vols., Rome, 1891-5), and his "Epistolæ ad Pontifices", by Bonamico (Rome, 1891). IMMICH, Papst Innocenz XI. (Berlin, 1900); MICHAUD, Louis XIV et Innocent XI (4 vols., Paris, 1882 --) written from Gallican standpoint; GÉRIN, Le Pape Innocent XI et la révolution anglaise de 1688 in Revue des questions historiques, XX (Paris, 1876); IDEM, Le Pape Innocent XI et la Révocation de l'Edit de Nantes, ibidem, XXIV (1878); IDEM, Le pape Innocent XI et l'Election de Cologne en 1688, ibidem, XXXIII (1883); IDEM, Le Pape Innocent XI et le siège de Vienne en 1683, ibidem, XXXIX (1886); FRAKNOI, Papst Innocenz XI. und Ungarns Befreiung von der Türkenherrschaft, translated into German from the Hungarian by JEKEL (Freiburg im Br., 1902); GIUSSANI, Il conclave di Innocenzo XI (Como, 1901). A contemporary biography by LIPPI was newly edited by BERTHIER (Rome, 1889). Sea also HORVARTH in Catholic University Bulletin, XV (Washington, 1909), 42-64; cf. ibid., IX 1903, 281. MICHAEL OTT Pope Innocent XII Pope Innocent XII (ANTONIO PIGNATELLI) Born at Spinazzolo near Naples, 13 March, 1615; died at Rome, 27 September, 1700. Re entered the Roman Curia at the age of twenty and was successively made vice-legate at Urbino, inquisitor in Malta, and Governor of Perugia. Under Innocent X he became nuncio in Tuscany, and Alexander VII sent him as nuncio to Poland, where he regulated the disturbed ecclesiastical affairs and united the Armenians with Rome. In 1668 he became nuncio at Vienna. Innocent XI created him Cardinal-Priest of San Pancrazio fuori le mura and Bishop of Faenza on 1 September, 1682, then Archbishop of Naples in 1687. After the death of Alexander VIII the cardinals entered the conclave at Rome on 11 February, 1691, but neither the French nor the Spanish-Hapsburg faction among the cardinals could carry its candidate. A compromise resulted in the election of Cardinal Pignatelli on 12 July, 1691. In his Bull "Romanum decet Pontificem" (22 June, 1692), which was subscribed and sworn to by the cardinals, he decreed that in the future no pope should be permitted to bestow the cardinalate on more than one of his kinsmen. Towards the poor, whom he called his nephews, he was extremely charitable; he turned part of the Lateran into a hospital for the needy, erected numerous charitable and educational institutions, and completed the large court-house "Curia Innocenziana", which now serves as the Italian House of Commons (Camera dei Deputati). In 1693 he induced King Louis XIV of France to repeal the "Declaration of the French Clergy", which had been adopted in 1682. The bishops who had taken part in the "Declaration" sent a written recantation to Rome, whereupon the pope sent his Bull of confirmation to those bishops from whom it had been withheld. In 1696 he repeated his predecessor's condemnation of Jansenism and in his Brief "Cum alias" (12 March, 1699) he condemned twenty-three semi-Quietistic propositions contained in Fénelon's "Maximes". Towards the end of his pontificate his relations with Emperor Leopold I became somewhat strained, owing especially to Count Martinitz, the imperial ambassador at Rome, who still insisted on the "right of asylum", which had been abolished by Innocent XI. It was greatly due to the arrogance of Martinitz that Innocent XII advised King Charles II of Spain to make a Frenchman, the Duke of Anjou, his testamentary successor, an act which led to the "War of the Spanish Succession". Bullarium Innocentii XII (Rome, 1697); RANKE, Die römischen Päpste, tr. FOSTER, History of the Popes, II (London, 1906), 425-7; KLOPP, Hat der Papst Innocenz XII im Jahre 1700 dem Könige Karl II von Spanien gerathen, durch ein Testament den Herzog von Anjou zum Erben der spanischen Monarchie zu ernennen in Historisch-Politische Blätter, LXXXIII (Munich, 1879), 25-46 and 125-150; BRISCHAR in Kirchenlex., s. v. MICHAEL OTT Pope Innocent XIII Pope Innocent XIII (Michelangelo Dei Conti) Born at Rome, 13 May, 1655; died at the same place, 7 March, 1724. He was the son of Carlo II, Duke of Poli. After studying at the Roman College he was introduced into the Curia by Alexander VIII, who in 1690 commissioned him to bear the blessed hat (berettone) and sword (stocco) to Doge Morosini of Venice. In 1695 he was made Titular Archbishop of Tarsus and nuncio at Lucerne, and in 1697, nuncio at Lisbon. Clement XI created him Cardinal-Priest of Santi Quirico e Giulitta on 17 May, 1706, conferred on him the Diocese of Osimo in 1709, and that of Viterbo in 1712. Sickness compelled him to resign his see in 1719. After the death of Clement XI he was elected pope in a stormy conclave on 8 May, 1721. In memory of Innocent III, to whose lineage he belonged, he chose the name of Innocent XIII. Soon after his succession he invested Emperor Charles VI with the Kingdom of Sicily and received his oath of allegiance in 1722. When, a year later, the emperor invested the Spanish prince Don Carlos, with Parma and Piacenza, the pope protested on the ground that these two duchies were under papal suzerainty. His protests, however, remained unheeded. Like his predecessor, be gave an annual pension to the English Pretender, James III, the son of the dethroned Catholic King, James II, and even promised to aid him with 100,000 ducats, in case an opportunity should offer itself to regain the English Crown by force of arms. He also assisted the Venetians and especially the Island of Malta in their struggle against the Turks. In the dispute of the Jesuits with the Dominicans and others, concerning the retention of various Chinese Rites among the Catholic converts of China, Innocent XIII sided with the opponents of the Jesuits. When in 1721 seven French bishops sent a document to Rome containing a petition to suppress the Constitution "Unigenitus" in which Clement XI had condemned the errors of Quesnel, Innocent XIII not only condemned the writing of the bishops, but also demanded unconditional submission to the Constitution. He was, however, weak enough to yield to French pressure and raise the unworthy Prime Minister Dubois to the cardinalate. He, indeed, exhorted the minister to change his wicked life, but his exhortations remained useless. (For a milder view of Dubois see Bliard, "Dubois, cardinal et premier ministre", Paris, 1901.) In a Bull of March, 1723, he regulated numerous abuses in Spain and was assisted in the execution of this Bull by King Philip V of Spain. The fears which were raised in the beginning of his pontificate that he would yield to nepotism were entirely groundless. He elevated his brother to the cardinalate, but did not allow his revenues to exceed 12,000 scudi as had been stipulated by Pope Innocent XII. MAYER, Papstwahl Innocenz' XIII (Vienna. 1874); Leben Papst Innocentii XIII (Cologne. 1724); MICHAUD, La fin de Clément XI et le commencement du pontificat d'Innocent XIII in Internationale theologische Zeitschrift, V, 42-60, 304-331. MICHAEL OTT University of Innsbruck Innsbruck University Innsbruck University, officially the ROYAL IMPERIAL LEOPOLD FRANCIS UNIVERSITY IN INNSBRUCK, originated in the college opened at Innsbruck in 1562 by Blessed Peter Canisius, at the request and on the foundation of the Emperor Ferdinand I of Austria, who in this way made effective his long-cherished plans for an institute of higher learning for the people of Tyrol. The imperial edict of foundation was read from every pulpit in Tyrol on 12 May, 1562, and the school opened under the direction of the Fathers of the newly founded Society of Jesus on 24 June of the same year as a gymnasium with four classes, in which elements, grammar, and syntax were taught. A fifth and lowest class of elements was added in 1566. In 1599 Ferdinand expressed the wish that the programme of studies be widened so as to include a studium universale. This was done, however, only in 1606, when a new building for the gymnasium was completed, whereupon courses in philosophy (dialectics) and theology (casuistry and controversies) were begun, the other subjects being rhetoric, humanities, syntax, and upper and lower grammar. Logic was added in 1619. Until 1670 the erecting of the gymnasium into a university had been repeatedly discussed and planned, but without result. In 1670-71 the course in philosophy was extended to three years; in 1671-72 two chairs of scholastic theology were founded, as well as one of law (institutiones) and in the following year two of jurisprudence and one of canon law. In 1672 also the gymnasium was raised to the rank of an academy, and in 1673 this academy received the name and rank of a university, although lectures in medicine did not begin until 1674. The Emperor Leopold I of Austria promulgated the imperial decree of foundation in 1677, and it was in the same year that Pope Innocent XI granted the new university the customary rights and privileges. The faculty then consisted of fifteen professors: five for theology, four each for philosophy and law, and two for medicine. Of these, three of the professors of theology, all of those of philosophy and the professor of canon law in the law faculty were Jesuits; two members of the secular clergy lectured in the first-named faculty, and the rest were laymen. The complete organization of these four faculties followed ten years later. The chancellor of the university was the Prince-Bishop of Brixen, in the Tyrol, who was usually represented in Innsbruck by a vice-chancellor. Until 1730 the university remained essentially unchanged. The number of professors rose to eighteen. The eighteen years following, however, witnessed a widening of the study plan; the Government of Maria Theresa began to interfere more directly in the inner work of the university. During the next period, from 1748 to 1773, this state domination increased, reaching a maximum under Joseph II. In 1773 when, upon the suppression of the Society of Jesus, the Jesuits, who up to this had made up one-half of the professors and under whom the theological faculty became the most eminent of the four, ceased to lecture, the university numbered 911 students, distributed as follows: 325 in theology, 116 in law, 43 in medicine and 437 in philosophy. Joseph II published an order for the suppression of the university on 29 November, 1781, but on 14 September, 1782 issued a decree allowing it to he continued as a lyceum with two university faculties, philosophy and theology, and facilities for the study of law and medicine. In 1783 the Government established at Innsbruck a general theological seminary for the whole of Tyrol, only to close it again in 1790. The university was recalled to life by Joseph's successor, Leopold II, to be again suppressed by the Bavarian Government in 1810, leaving a lyceum with merely philosophical and theological courses. This condition of affairs lasted until 1817, when courses in law and medicine were added. From the departure of the Jesuits in 1773 until 1822, when it was completely suppressed, the theological faculty, in which the principles of Josephinism and Gallicanism reigned almost supreme, ad been in continual conflict with the Bishop of Brixen, who had no right of supervision, not even over purity of doctrine, which suffered grievously in the interval. At one time even the "Imitation of Christ" was a forbidden book. In 1826 the university was again restored, this time by the Emperor Francis II of Austria. It consisted at first of only two full faculties, philosophy and law. In 1857, mainly through the efforts of Vincent Gasser, Prince-Bishop of Brixen, the theological faculty was added and entrusted once more to the Jesuits, who have since, with two exceptions, been the sole professors. The complete organization of the restored university was reached when the medical faculty was reconstituted in 1869. The most illustrious teachers of the university have been and are mainly in the theological faculty. Since the restoration of the latter in 1857 the best known of these have been: in dogmatic theology, Cardinal Steinhuber (died 1907), Stentrup (died 1898), Kern (died 1907), and Hurter, the latter still lecturing since 1858; in moral theology, Noldin (retired 1909); in sacred eloquence, Jungmann (died 1885), the author of a well-known work on æsthetics; in moral theology and sociology, Biederlack; in canon law and ecclesiastical history, Nilles (died 1907); in Scripture, Fonck (called to Rome, 1908); in ecclesiastical history, Grisar (professor honorarius since 1898). Dr. Ludwig von Pastor, author of the well-known "History of the Popes", is professor of history in the faculty of philosophy, in which the eminent Austrian meteorologist Pernter (died 1909) was at one time professor. To this faculty belongs also the cartographer von Wieser. The theological faculty has frequently suffered the attacks of "liberal" professors, who form the large majority in the faculties of the profane sciences in the Austrian universities. These professors have several times endeavoured to have the theological faculty suppressed, but it has ever found a faithful protector in the Emperor Francis Joseph I. This faculty also took the leading part in the controversy following upon the blasphemous attack on the Church in 1908 by Dr. Ludwig Wahrmund, professor of canon law in the law faculty. Intimately connected with the theological faculty, though no official part of it, is the seminary (Theologisches Konvikt), where the majority of the students of theology reside. This institution, called the "Nikolaihaus", was first opened for poor students in 1569, closed in 1783, and reopened for the theologians in 1858. It is almost exclusively through the theological faculty and the "Nikolaihaus" that Innsbruck is known outside of Austria-Hungary, especially among Catholics. In the fifty years since the restoration of the faculty, 5898 students, from nearly every civilized country, have frequented the lectures in theology, of whom 2983 are alumni of the "Nikolaihaus". Of these students, 4209 belonged to the secular and 1689 to the regular clergy; they represeated 202 dioceses and Apostolic vicariates, and 73 provinces, cloisters, etc., of the regulars. North America has contributed 443 students, with few exceptions all from the United States; England is represented among the alumni by 10, and Ireland by 15 students. The "Nikolaihaus" is governed by a regens who is a member of the Society of Jesus. A Jesuit father also is always university preacher, and the university sodality is under the direction of another Jesuit. Innsbruck is the theologate of the Austrian and Hungarian provinces of the Society of Jesus. The influence of the university since its restoration, as in its earlier periods, has been important. Naturally this influence has been felt most of all in the Tyrol, which to a large extent owes to the university its culture, especially among the clergy and in the medical and legal professions. In particular, the presence of theological students from all parts of the world has made the influence of the faculty of theology of great weight in the education of the clergy, and in the development of theological science during the last fifty years, an influence which has been spread and augmented by the faculty organ, the "Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie", a quarterly now in its thirty-third year. Innsbruck is one of the eight Austrian state universities. The university buildings number about 40 (including institutes clinics etc.). There is also a university church in charge of the Jesuits. This church was erected during the years 1620-40 by Archduke Leopold V of Austria and his wife Claudia de' Medici. The buildings for the medical, chemical, and physical sciences are new and well equipped. The library contains over 225,000 volumes, including many valuable manuscripts. The number of students averages about 1000, that of the professors and privat dozenten over 90. In 1908-09 the number of students registered in the winter semester was 1154, thus distributed: theology, 355; law, 293; medicine, 213; philosophy, 293. In the summer semester (1909) the total was 1062. In this same year there were 105 professors and privat dozenten. PROBST, Geschichte der Universität in Innsbruck seit ihrer Entstehung bis zum Jahre 1860 (Innsbruck, 1869); PROBST, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Gymnasien in Tirol (Innsbruck, 1858); HOFMANN, Das Nikolaihaus zu Innsbruck einst und jetzt (Innsbruck, 1908); AHERN in The Messenger (December, 1908). M.J. AHERN In Partibus Infidelium In Partibus Infidelium (Often shortened to in partibus, or abbreviated as i.p.i.). A term meaning "in the lands of the unbelievers," words added to the name of the see conferred on non-residential or titular Latin bishops, for example: "John Doe, Bishop of Tyre in partibus infidelium. Formerly, when bishops were forced to flee before the invading infidel hordes, they were welcomed by other Churches, while preserving their titles and their rights to their own dioceses. They were even entrusted with the administration of vacant sees. Thus we find St. Gregory appointing John, Bishop of Alessio, who had been expelled by his enemies, to the See of Squilace (cap. "Pastoralis," xliii, caus. vii, q. 1). In later days it was deemed fitting to preserve the memory of ancient Christian Churches that had fallen into the hands of the unbelievers; this was done by giving their names to auxiliary bishops or bishops in missionary countries. Fagnani (in cap. "Episcopalia," i, "De privilegiis") says that the regular appointment of titular bishops dates back only to the time of the Twelfth Lateran Council under Leo X (Session IX); cardinals alone were authorized to ask for them for the dioceses. St. Pius V extended the privilege to the sees in which it was customary to have auxiliary bishops. Since then the practice became more widespread. The Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda, by its circular letter of 3 March, 1882, abolished the expression in partibus infidelium; the present custom is to join to the name of the see that of the district to which it formerly belonged, e.g. "John Doe, Archiepiscopus Corinthius in Achaiâ," or else merely to say "titular bishop". A. BOUDINHON In Petto In Petto An Italian translation of the Latin in pectore, "in the breast", i.e. in the secret of the heart. It happens, at times, that the pope, after creating some cardinals in consistory, adds that he has appointed one or more additional cardinals, whom he reserves in petto, and whom he will make known later: "alios autem [v.g. duos] in pectore reservamus, arbitrio nostro quandoque declarandos." Until they have been publicly announced these cardinals acquire no rights, and if the pope dies before having declared their names they do not become members of the Sacred College; but when he has proclaimed their elevation at a subsequent consistory, they take rank from the date of their first nomination and receive from that date all the emoluments accruing to their office. This is a method that the popes have sometimes adopted to ensure poor ecclesiastics a competency to meet all the expenses incident to their promotion. At the consistory of 15 March, 1875, Pius IX announced that he was creating and reserving in petto five cardinals, whose names would be found, in case of his death, in a letter annexed to his will. But the canonists having raised serious doubts as to the validity of such a posthumous publication, Pius IX published their names in the consistory of the following 17 September (See CARDINAL.). Santi-Leitner, Praellections juris canonici, I, tit xxxi, n. 23. A. BOUDINHON Inquisition Inquisition (Lat. inquirere, to look to). By this term is usually meant a special ecclesiastical institutional for combating or suppressing heresy. Its characteristic mark seems to be the bestowal on special judges of judicial powers in matters of faith, and this by supreme ecclesiastical authority, not temporal or for individual cases, but as a universal and permanent office. Moderns experience difficulty in understanding this institution, because they have, to no small extent, lost sight of two facts. On the one hand they have ceased to grasp religious belief as something objective, as the gift of God, and therefore outside the realm of free private judgment; on the other they no longer see in the Church a society perfect and sovereign, based substantially on a pure and authentic Revelation, whose first most important duty must naturally be to retain unsullied this original deposit of faith. Before the religious revolution of the sixteenth century these views were still common to all Christians; that orthodoxy should be maintained at any cost seemed self-evident. However, while the positive suppression of heresy by ecclesiastical and civil authority in Christian society is as old as the Church, the Inquisition as a distinct ecclesiastical tribunal is of much later origin. Historically it is a phase in the growth of ecclesiastical legislation, whose distinctive traits can be fully understood only by a careful study of the conditions amid which it grew up. Our subject may, therefore, be conveniently treated as follows: I. The Suppression of Heresy during the first twelve Christian centuries; II. The Suppression of Heresy by the Institution known as the Inquisition under its several forms: (A) The Inquisition of the Middle Ages; (B) The Inquisition in Spain; (C) The Holy Office at Rome. I. THE SUPPRESSION OF HERESY DURING THE FIRST TWELVE CENTURIES (1) Though the Apostles were deeply imbued with the conviction that they must transmit the deposit of the Faith to posterity undefiled, and that any teaching at variance with their own, even if proclaimed by an angel of Heaven, would be a culpable offense, yet St. Paul did not, in the case of the heretics Alexander and Hymeneus, go back to the Old Covenant penalties of death or scourging (Deut., xiii, 6 sqq.; xvii, 1 sqq.), but deemed exclusion from the communion of the Church sufficient (1 Tim., i, 20; Tit., iii, 10). In fact to the Christians of the first three centuries it could scarcely have occurred to assume any other attitude towards those who erred in matters of faith. Tertullian (Ad. Scapulam, c. ii) lays down the rule: Humani iuris et naturalis potestatis, unicuique quod putaverit colere, nec alii obest aut prodest alterius religio. Sed nec religionis est religionem colere, quae sponte suscipi debeat, non vi. In other words, he tells us that the natural law authorized man to follow only the voice of individual conscience in the practice of religion, since the acceptance of religion was a matter of free will, not of compulsion. Replying to the accusation of Celsus, based on the Old Testament, that the Christians persecuted dissidents with death, burning, and torture, Origen (C. Cels., VII, 26) is satisfied with explaining that one must distinguish between the law which the Jews received from Moses and that given to the Christians by Jesus; the former was binding on the Jews, the latter on the Christians. Jewish Christians, if sincere, could no longer conform to all of the Mosaic law; hence they were no longer at liberty to kill their enemies or to burn and stone violators of the Christian Law. St. Cyprian of Carthage, surrounded as he was by countless schismatics and undutiful Christians, also put aside the material sanction of the Old Testament, which punished with death rebellion against priesthood and the Judges. "Nunc autem, quia circumcisio spiritalis esse apud fideles servos Dei coepit, spiritali gladio superbi et contumaces necantur, dum de Ecclesia ejiciuntur" (Ep. lxxii, ad Pompon., n. 4) religion being now spiritual, its sanctions take on the same character, and excommunication replaces the death of the body. Lactantius was yet smarting under the scourge of bloody persecutions, when he wrote this Divine Institutes in A.D. 308. Naturally, therefore, he stood for the most absolute freedom of religion. He writes: Religion being a matter of the will, it cannot be forced on anyone; in this matter it is better to employ words than blows [verbis melius quam verberibus res agenda est]. Of what use is cruelty? What has the rack to do with piety? Surely there is no connection between truth and violence, between justice and cruelty . . . . It is true that nothing is so important as religion, and one must defend it at any cost [summâ vi] . . . It is true that it must be protected, but by dying for it, not by killing others; by long-suffering, not by violence; by faith, not by crime. If you attempt to defend religion with bloodshed and torture, what you do is not defense, but desecration and insult. For nothing is so intrinsically a matter of free will as religion. (Divine Institutes V:20) The Christian teachers of the first three centuries insisted, as was natural for them, on complete religious liberty; furthermore, they not only urged the principle that religion could not be forced on others -- a principle always adhered to by the Church in her dealings with the unbaptised -- but, when comparing the Mosaic Law and the Christian religion, they taught that the latter was content with a, spiritual punishment of heretics (i.e. with excommunication), while Judaism necessarily proceeded against its dissidents with torture and death. (2) However, the imperial successors of Constantine soon began to see in themselves Divinely appointed "bishops of the exterior", i.e. masters of the temporal and material conditions of the Church. At the same time they retained the traditional authority of "Pontifex Maximus", and in this way the civil authority inclined, frequently in league with prelates of Arian tendencies, to persecute the orthodox bishops by imprisonment and exile. But the latter, particularly St. Hilary of Poltiers (Liber contra Auxentium, c. iv), protested vigorously against any use of force in the province of religion, whether for the spread of Christianity or for preservation of the Faith. They repeatedly urged that in this respect the severe decrees of the Old Testament were abrogated by the mild and gentle laws of Christ. However, the successors of Constantine were ever persuaded that the first concern of imperial authority (Theodosius II, "Novellae", tit. III, A.D. 438) was the protection of religion and so, with terrible regularity, issued many penal edicts against heretics. In the space of fifty seven years sixty-eight enactments were thus promulgated. All manner of heretics were affected by this legislation, and in various ways, by exile, confiscation of property, or death. A law of 407, aimed at the traitorous Donatists, asserts for the first time that these heretics ought to be put on the same plane as transgressors against the sacred majesty of the emperor, a concept to which was reserved in later times a very momentous role. The death penalty however, was only imposed for certain kinds of heresy; in their persecution of heretics the Christian emperors fell far short of the severity of Diocletian, who in 287 sentenced to the stake the leaders of the Manichaeans, and inflicted on their followers partly the death penalty by beheading, and partly forced labor in the government mines. So far we have been dealing with the legislation of the Christianized State. In the attitude of the representatives of the Church towards this legislation some uncertainty is already noticeable. At the close of the forth century, and during the fifth, Manichaeism, Donatism, and Priscillianism were the heresies most in view. Expelled from Rome and Milan, the Manichaeism sought refuge in Africa. Though they were found guilty of abominable teachings and misdeeds (St. Augustine, De haeresibus", no. 46), the Church refused to invoke the civil power against them; indeed, the great Bishop of Hippo explicitly rejected the use force. He sought their return only through public and private acts of submission, and his efforts seem to have met with success. Indeed, we learn from him that the Donatists themselves were the first to appeal to the civil power for protection against the Church. However, they fared like Daniels accusers: the lions turned upon them. State intervention not answering to their wishes, and the violent excesses of the Circumcellions being condignly punished, the Donatists complained bitterly of administrative cruelty. St. Optatus of Mileve defended the civil authority (De Schismate Donntistarum, III, cc. 6-7) as follows: . . . as though it were not permitted to come forward as avengers of God, and to pronounce sentence of death! . . . But, say you, the State cannot punish in the name of God. Yet was it not in the name of God that Moses and Phineas consigned to death the worshippers of the Golden calf and those who despised the true religion? This was the first time that a Catholic bishop championed a decisive cooperation of the State in religious questions, and its right to inflict death on heretics. For the first time, also, the Old Testament was appealed to, though such appeals had been previously rejected by Christian teachers. St. Augustine, on the contrary, was still opposed to the use of force, and tried to lead back the erring by means of instruction; at most he admitted the imposition of a moderate fine for refractory persons. Finally, however, he changed his views, whether moved thereto by the incredible excesses of the Circumcellions or by the good results achieved by the use of force, or favoring force through the persuasions of other bishops. Apropos of his apparent inconsistency it is well to note carefully whom he is addressing. He appears to speak in one way to government officials, who wanted the existing laws carried out to their fullest extent, and in another to the Donntists, who denied to the State any right of punishing dissenters. In his correspondence with state officials he dwells on Christian charity and toleration, and represents the heretics as straying lambs, to be sought out and perhaps, if recalcitrant chastised with rods and frightened with threats of severer but not to be driven back to the fold by means of rack and sword . On the other hand, in his writings against the Donatists he upholds the rights of the State: sometimes, he says, a salutary severity would be to the interest of the erring ones themselves and likewise protective of true believers and the community at large (Vacandard, 1. c., pp. 17-26) As to Priscillianism, not a few points remain yet obscure, despite recent valuable researches. It seems certain, however, that Priscillian, Bishop of Avilia in Spain, was accused of heresy and sorcery, and found guilty by several councils. St. Ambrose at Milanand St. Damascus at Rome seem to have refused him a hearing. At length he appealed to Emperor Maximus at Trier, but to his detriment, for he was there condemned to death. Priscillian himself, no doubt in full consciousness of his own innocence, had formerly called for repression of the Manichaeans by the sword. But the foremost Christian teachers did not share these sentiments, and his own execution gave them occasion for a solemn protest against the cruel treatment meted out to him by the imperial government. St. Martin of Tours, then at Trier, exerted himself to obtain from the ecclesiastical authority the abandonment of the accusation, and induced the emperor to promise that on no account would he shed the blood of Priscillian, since ecclesiastical deposition by the bishops would be punishment enough, and bloodshed would be opposed to the Divine Law (Sulp. Serverus "Chron.", II, in P.L., XX, 155 sqq.; and ibid., "Dialogi", III, col.217). After the execution he strongly blamed both the accusers and the emperor, and for a long time refused to hold communion with such bishops as had been in any way responsible for Priscillians death. The great Bishop of Milan, St. Ambrose, described that execution as a crime. Priscillianism, however, did not disappear with the death of its originator; on the contrary, it spread with extraordinary rapidly, and, through its open adoption of Manichaeism, became more of a public menace than ever. In this way the severe judgments of St. Augustine and St. Jerome against Priscillianism become intelligible. In 447 Leo the Great had to reproach the Priscillianists with loosening the holy bonds of marriage, treading all decency under foot, and deriding all law, human and Divine. It seemed to him natural that temporal rulers should punish such sacrilegious madness, and should put to death the founder of the sect and some of his followers. He goes on to say that this redounded to the advantage of the Church: "quae etsi sacerdotali contenta iudicio, cruentas refugit ultiones, severis tamen christianorum principum constitutionibus adiuratur, dum ad spiritale recurrunt remedium, qui timent corporale supplicium" -though the Church was content with a spiritual sentence on the part of its bishops and was averse to the shedding of blood, nevertheless it was aided by the imperial severity, inasmuch as the fear of corporal punishment drove the guilty to seek a spiritual remedy (Ep. xv ad Turribium; P. L., LIV, 679 sq.). The ecclesiastical ideas of the first five centuries may be summarized as follows: + the Church should for no cause shed blood (St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Leo I, and others); + other teachers, however, like Optatus of Mileve and Priscillian, believed that the State could pronounce the death penalty on heretics in case the public welfare demanded it; + the majority held that the death penalty for heresy, when not civilly criminal, was irreconcilable with the spirit of Christianity. St. Augustine (Ep. c, n. 1), almost in the name of the western Church, says: "Corrigi eos volumus, non necari, nec disciplinam circa eos negligi volumus, nec suppliciis quibus digni sunt exerceri" -- we wish them corrected, not put to death; we desire the triumph of (ecclesiastical) discipline, not the death penalties that they deserve. St. John Chrysostom says substantially the same in the name of the Eastern Church (Hom., XLVI, c. i): "To consign a heretic to death is to commit an offence beyond atonement"; and in the next chapter he says that God forbids their execution, even as He forbids us to uproot cockle, but He does not forbid us to repel them, to deprive them of free speech, or to prohibit their assemblies. The help of the "secular arm" was therefore not entirely rejected; on the contrary, as often as the Christian welfare, general or domestic, required it, Christian rulers sought to stem the evil by appropriate measures. As late the seventh century St. Isidore of Seville expresses similar sentiments (Sententiarum, III, iv, nn. 4-6). How little we are to trust the vaunted impartiality of Henry Charles Lea, the American historian of the Inquisition, we may here illustrate by an example. In his "History of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages" (New York, 1888, I, 215), He closes this period with these words: It was only sixty-two years after the slaughter of Priscillian and his followers had excited so much horror, that Leo I, when the heresy seemed to be reviving in 447, not only justified the act, but declared that, if the followers of a heresy so damnable were allowed to live, there would be an end to human and Divine law. The final step had been taken and the church was definitely pledged to the suppression of heresy at any cost. It is impossible not to attribute to ecclesiastical influence the successive edicts by which, from the time of Theodosius the Great, persistence in heresy was punished with death. In these lines Lee has transferred to the pope words employed by the emperor. Moreover, it is simply the exact opposite of historical truth to assert that the imperial edicts punishing heresy with death were due to ecclesiastical influence, since we have shown that in this period the more influential ecclesiastical authorities declared that the death penalty was contrary to the spirit of the Gospel, and themselves opposed its execution. For centuries this was the ecclesiastical attitude both in theory and in practice. Thus, in keeping with the civil law, some Manichaeans were executed at Ravenna in 556. On the other hand. Elipandus of Toledo and Felix of Urgel, the chiefs of Adoptionism anti Predestinationism, were condemned by and councils, but were otherwise left unmolested. We may note, however, that the monk Gothescalch, after the condemnation of his false doctrine that Christ had not died for all mankind, was by the Synods of Mainz in 848 and Quiercy in 849 sentenced to flogging and imprisonment, punishments then common in monasteries for various infractions of the rule. (3) About the year 1000 Manichaeans from Bulgaria, under various names, spread over Western Europe. They were numerous in Italy, Spain, Gaul and Germany. Christian popular sentiment soon showed itself adverse to these dangerous sectaries, and resulted in occasional local persecutions, naturally in forms expressive of the spirit of the age. In 1122 King Robert the Pious (regis iussu et universae plebis consensu), "because he feared for the safety of the kingdom and the salvation of souls" had thirteen distinguished citizens, ecclesiastic and lay, burnt alive at Orléans. Elsewhere similar acts were due to popular outbursts. A few years later the Bishop of Chalons observed that the sect was spreading in his diocese, and asked of Wazo, Bishop of Liège, advice as to the use of force: "An terrenae potestatis gladio in eos sit animadvertendum necne" ("Vita Wasonis", cc. xxv, xxvi, in P. L., CXLII, 752; "Wazo ad Roger. II, episc. Catalaunens", and "Anselmi Gesta episc. Leod." in "Mon. Germ. SS.", VII, 227 sq.). Wazo replied that this was contrary to the spirit of the Church and the words of its Founder, Who ordained that the tares should be allowed to grow with the wheat until the day of the harvest, lest the wheat be uprooted with the tares; those who today were tares might to-morrow be converted, and turn into wheat; let them therefore live, and let mere excommunication suffice St. Chrysostom, as we have seen, had taught similar doctrine. This principle could not be always followed. Thus at Goslar, in the Christmas season of 1051, and in 1052, several heretics were hanged because Emperor Henry III wanted to prevent the further spread of "the heretical leprosy." A few years later, In 1076 or 1077, a Catharist was condemned to the stake by the Bishop of Cambrai and his chapter. Other Catharists, in spite of the archbishops intervention, were given their choice by the magistrates of Milan between doing homage to the Cross and mounting the pyre. By far the greater number chose the latter. In 1114 the Bishop of Soissons kept sundry heretics in durance in his episcopal city. But while he was gone to Beauvais, to ask advice of the bishops assembled there for a synod the "believing folk, fearing the habitual soft-heartedness of ecclesiatics (clericalem verens mollitiem), stormed the prison took the accused outside of town, and burned them. The people disliked what to them was the extreme dilatoriness of the clergy in pursuing heretics. In 1144 Adalerbo II of Liège hoped to bring some imprisoned Catharists to better knowledge through the grace of God, but the people, less indulgent, assailed the unhappy creatures and only with the greatest trouble did the bishop succeed in rescuing some of them from death by fire. A like drama was enacted about the same time at Cologne. while the archbishop and the priests earnestly sought to lead the misguided back into the Church, the latter. were violently taken by the mob (a populis nimio zelo abreptis) from the custody of the clergy and burned at the stake. The best-known heresiarchs of that time, Peter of Bruys and Arnold of Brescia, met a similar fate -- the first on the pyre as a victim of popular fury, and the latter under the henchmans axe as a victim of his political enemies. In short, no blame attaches to the Church for her behavior towards heresy in those rude days. Among all the bishops of the period, so far as can be ascertained, Theodwin of Liège, successor of the aforesaid Wazo and predecessor of Adalbero II, alone appealed to the civil power for the punishment of heretics, and even he did not call for the death penalty, which was rejected by all. who were more highly respected in the twelfth century than Peter Canter, the most learned man of his time, and St. Bernard of Clairvaux? The former says ("Verbum abbreviatum", c. lxxviii, in P.L., CCV, 231): Whether they be convicted of error, or freely confess their guilt, Catharists are not to be put to death, at least not when they refrain from armed assaults upon the Church. For although the Apostle said, A man that is a heretic after the third admonition, avoid, he certainly did not say, Kill him. Throw them into prison, if you will, but do not put them to death (cf. Geroch von Reichersberg, "De investigatione Antichristi III", 42). So far was St. Bernard from agreeing with the methods of the people of Cologne, that he laid down the axiom: Fides suadenda, non imponenda (By persuasion, not by violence, are men to be won to the Faith). And if he censures the carelessness of the princes, who were to blame because little foxes devastated the vineyard, yet he adds that the latter must not be captured by force but by arguments (capiantur non armis, sed argumentis); the obstinate were to be excommunicated, and if necessary kept in confinement for the safety of others (aut corrigendi sunt ne pereant, aut, ne perimant, coercendi). (See Vacandard, 1. c., 53 sqq.) The synods of the period employ substantially the same terms, e.g. the synod at Reims in 1049 under Leo IX, that at Toulouse in 1119, at which Callistus II presided, and finally the Lateran Council of 1139. Hence, the occasional executions of heretics during this period must be ascribed partly to the arbitrary action of individual rulers, partly to the fanatic outbreaks of the overzealous populace, and in no wise to ecclesiastical law or the ecclesiastical authorities. There were already, it is true, canonists who conceded to the Church the right to pronounce sentence of death on heretics; but the question was treated as a purely academic one, and the theory exercised virtually no influence on real life. Excommunication, proscription, imprisonment, etc., were indeed inflicted, being intended rather as forms of atonement than of real punishment, but never the capital sentence. The maxim of Peter Cantor was still adhered to: "Catharists, even though divinely convicted in an ordeal, must not be punished by death." In the second half of the twelfth century, however, heresy in the form of Catharism spread in truly alarming fashion, and not only menaced the Churchs existence, but undermined the very foundations of Christian society. In opposition to this propaganda there grew up a kind of prescriptive law -- at least throughout Germany, France, and Spain -- which visited heresy with death by the flames. England on the whole remained untainted by heresy. When, in 1166, about thirty sectaries made their way thither, Henry II ordered that they be burnt on their foreheads with red-hot iron, be beaten with rods in the public square, and then driven off. Moreover, he forbade anyone to give them shelter or otherwise assist them, so that they died partly from hunger and partly from the cold of winter. Duke Philip of Flanders, aided by William of the White Hand, Archbishop of Reims, was particularly severe towards heretics. They caused many citizens in their domains, nobles and commoners, clerics, knights, peasants, spinsters, widows, anti married women, to be burnt alive, confiscated their property, and divided it between them. This happened in 1183. Between 1183 and 1206 Bishop Hugo of Auxerre acted similarly towards the neo-Mainchaeans. Some he despoiled; the others he either exiled or sent to the stake. King Philip Augustus of France had eight Catharists burnt at Troyes in 1200 one at Nevers in 1201, several at Braisne-sur-Vesle in 1204, and many at Paris -- "priests, clerics, laymen, and women belonging to the sect". Raymund V of Toulouse (1148-94) promulgated a law which punished with death the followers of the sect and their favourers. Simon de Montfort's men-at-arms believed in 1211 that they were carrying out this law when they boasted how they had burned alive many, and would continue to do so (unde multos combussimus et adhuc cum invenimus idem facere non cessamus). In 1197 Peter II, King of Aragon and Count of Barcelona, issued an edict in obedience to which the Waldensians and all other schismatics were expelled from the land; whoever of this sect was still found in his kingdom or his county after Palm Sunday of the next year was to suffer death by fire, also confiscation of goods. Ecclesiastical legislation was far from this severity. Alexander III at the Lateran Council of 1179 renewed the decisions already made as to schismatics in Southern France, and requested secular sovereigns to silence those disturbers of public order if necessary by force, to achieve which object they were at liberty to imprison the guilty (servituti subicere, subdere) and to appropriate their possessions, According to the agreement made by Lucius III and Emperor Frederick Barbarossa at Verona (1148), the heretics of every community were to be sought out, brought before the episcopal court, excommunicated, and given up to the civil power to he suitably punished (debita animadversione puniendus). The suitable punishment (debita animadversio, ultio) did not, however, as yet mean capital punishment, hut the proscriptive ban, though even this, it is true, entailed exile, expropriation, destruction of the culprits dwelling, infamy, debarment from public office, and the like. The "Continuatio Zwellensis altera, ad ann. 1184" (Mon. Germ. Hist.: SS., IX, 542) accurately describes the condition of heretics at this time when it says that the pope excommunicated them, and the emperor put them under the civil ban, while he confiscated their goods (papa eos excomunicavit imperator vero tam res quam personas ipsorum imperiali banno subiecit). Under Innocent III nothing was done to intensify or add to the extant statutes against heresy, though this pope gave them a wider range by the action of his legates and through the Forth Lateran Council (1215). But this act was indeed a relative service to the heretics, for the regular canonical procedure thus introduced did much to abrogate the arbitrariness, passion, and injustice of the Civil courts in Spain, France and Germany. In so far as, and so long as, his prescriptions remained in force, no summary condemnations or executions en masse occurred, neither stake nor rack were set up; and, if, on one occasion during the first year of his pontificate, to justify confiscation, he appealed to the Roman Law and its penalties for crimes against the sovereign power, yet he did not draw the extreme conclusion that heretics deserved to be burnt. His reign affords many examples showing how much of the vigour he took away in practice from the existing penal code. II. THE SUPPRESSION OF HERESY BY THE INSTITUTION KNOWN AS THE INQUISITION A. The Inquisition of The Middle Ages (1) Origin During the first three decades of the thirteenth century the Inquisition, as the institution, did not exist. But eventually Christian Europe was so endangered by heresy, and penal legislation concerning Catharism had gone so far, that the Inquisition seemed to be a political necessity. That these sects were a menace to Christian society had been long recognized by the Byzantine rulers. As early as the tenth century Empress Theodora had put to death a multitude of Paulicians, and in 1118 Emperor Alexius Comnenus treated the Bogomili with equal severity, but this did not prevent them from pouring over all Western Europe. Moreover these sects were in the highest degree aggressive, hostile to Christianity itself, to the Mass, the sacraments, the ecclesiastical hierarchy and organization; hostile also to feudal government by their attitude towards oaths, which they declared under no circumstances allowable. Nor were their views less fatal to the continuance of human society, for on the one hand they forbade marriage and the propagation of the human race. and on the other hand they made a duty of suicide through the institution of the Endura (see CATHARI). It has been said that more perished through the Endura (the Catharist suicide code) than through the Inquisition. It was, therefore, natural enough for the custodians of the existing order in Europe, especially of the Christian religion, to adopt repressive measures against such revolutionary teachings. In France Louis VIII decreed in 1226 that persons excommunicated by the diocesan bishop, or his delegate, should receive "meet punishment" (debita animadversio). In 1249 Louis IX ordered barons to deal with heretics according to the dictates of duty (de ipsis faciant quod debebant). A decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229) makes it appear probable that in France death at the stake was already comprehended as in keeping with the aforesaid debita animadversio. To seek to trace in these measures the influence of imperial or papal ordinances is vain, since the burning of heretics had already come to be regarded as prescriptive. It is said in the "Etablissements de St. Louis et coutumes de Beauvaisis", ch. cxiii (Ordonnances des Roys de France, I, 211): "Quand le juge [ecclésiastique] laurait examiné [le suspect] se il trouvait, quil feust bougres, si le devrait faire envoier à la justice laie, et la justice laie le dolt fere ardoir. "The "Coutumes de Beauvaisis" correspond to the German "Sachsenspiegel", or "Mirror of Saxon Laws", compiled about 1235, which also embodies as a law sanctioned by custom the execution of unbelievers at the stake (sal man uf der hurt burnen). In Italy Emperor Frederick II, as early as 22 November, 1220 (Mon. Germ., II, 243), issued a rescript against heretics, conceived, however quite in the spirit of Innocent III, and Honorius III commissioned his legates to see to the enforcement in Italian cities of both the canonical decrees of 1215 and the imperial legislation of 1220. From the foregoing it cannot be doubted that up to 1224 there was no imperial law ordering, or presupposing as legal, the burning of heretics. The rescript for Lombardy of 1224 (Mon. Germ., II, 252; cf. ibid., 288) is accordingly the first law in which death by fire is contemplated (cf. Ficker, op. cit., 196). That Honorius III was in any way concerned in the drafting of this ordinance cannot be maintained; indeed the emperor was all the less in need of papal inspiration as the burning of heretics in Germany was then no longer rare; his legists, moreover, would certainly have directed the emperors attention to the ancient Roman Law that punished high treason with death, and Manichaeism in particular with the stake. The imperial rescripts of 1220 and 1224 were adopted into ecclesiastical criminal law in 1231, and were soon applied at Rome. It was then that the Inquisition of the Middle Ages came into being. What was the immediate provocation? Contemporary sources afford no positive answer. Bishop Douais, who perhaps commands the original contemporary material better than anyone, has attempted in his latest work (LInquisition. Ses Origines. Sa Procedure, Paris, 1906) to explain its appearance by a supposed anxiety of Gregory IX to forestall the encroachments of Frederick II in the strictly ecclesiastical province of doctrine. For this purpose it would seem necessary for the pope to establish a distinct and specifically ecclesiastical court. From this point of view, though the hypothesis cannot be fully proved, much is intelligible that otherwise remains obscure. There was doubtless reason to fear such imperial encroachments in an age yet filled with the angry contentions of the Imperium and the Sacerdotium. We need only recall the trickery of the emperor and his Pretended eagerness for the purity of the Faith, his Increasingly rigorous legislation against heretics, the numerous executions of his personal rivals on the pretext of heresy, the hereditary passion of the Hohenstaufen for supreme control over Church and State, their claim of God-given authority over both, of responsibility in both domains to God and God only etc. What was more natural than that the Church should strictly reserve to herself her own sphere, while at the same time endeavouring to avoid giving offence to the emperor? A purely spiritual or papal religious tribunal would secure ecclesiastical liberty and authority for this court could be confided to men of expert knowledge and blameless reputation, and above all to independent men in whose hands the Church could safely trust the decision as to the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of a given teaching. On the other hand, to meet the emperors wishes as far as allowable, the penal code of the empire could be taken over as it stood (cf. Audray, "Regist. de Grégoire IX", n. 535). (2) The New Tribunal (a) Its essential characteristic The pope did not establish the Inquisition as a distinct and separate tribunal; what he did was to appoint special but permanent judges, who executed their doctrinal functions In the name of the pope. Where they sat, there was the Inquisition. It must he carefully noted that the characteristic feature of the Inquisition was not its peculiar procedure, nor the secret examination of witnesses and consequent official indictment: this procedure was common to all courts from the time of Innocent III. Nor was it the pursuit of heretics in all places: this had been the rule since the Imperial Synod of Verona under Lucius III and Frederick Barbarossa. Nor again was it the torture, which was not prescribed or even allowed for decades after the beginning of the Inquisition, nor, finally, the various sanctions, imprisonment, confiscation, the stake, etc., all of which punishments were usual long before the Inquisition. The Inquisitor, strictly speaking, was a special but permanent judge, acting in the name of the pope and clothed by him with the right and the duty to deal legally with offences against the Faith; he had, however, to adhere to the established rules of canonical procedure and pronounce the customary penalties. Many regarded it, as providential that just at this time sprang up two new orders, the Dominicans and the Franciscans, whose members, by their superior theological training and other characteristics, seemed eminently fitted to perform the inquisitorial task with entire success. It was safe to assume that they were not merely endowed with the requisite knowledge, but that they would also, quite unselfishly and uninfluenced by worldly motives, do solely what seemed their duty for the Good of the Church. In addition, there was reason to hope that, because of their great popularity, they would not encounter too much opposition. It seems, therefore, not unnatural that the inquisitors should have been chosen by the popes prevailingly from these orders, especially from that of the Dominicans. It is to he noted, however, that the inquisitors were not chosen exclusively from the mendicant orders, though the Senator of Rome no doubt meant such when in his oath of office (1231) he spoke of inquisitores datos ab ecclesia. In his decree of 1232 Frederick II calls them inquisitores ab apostolica sede datos. The Dominican Alberic, in November of 1232, went through Lombardy as inquisitor haereticae pravitatis. The prior and sub-prior of the Dominicans at Friesbach were given a similar commission as early as 27 November, 1231; on 2 December, 1232, the convent of Strasburg, and a little later the convents of Würzburg, Ratisbon, and Bremen, also received the commission. In 1233 a rescript of Gregory IX, touching these matters, was sent simultaneously to the bishops of Southern France and to the priors of the Dominican Order. We know that Dominicans were sent as inquisitors in 1232 to Germany along the Rhine, to the Diocese of Tarragona in Spain and to Lombardy; in 1233 to France, to the territory of Auxerre, the ecclesiastical provinces of Bourges, Bordeaux, Narbonne, and Auch, and to Burgundy; in 1235 to the ecclesiastical province of Sens. In fine, about 1255 we find the Inquisition in full activity in all the countries of Central and Western Europe in the county of Toulouse, in Sicily, Aragon, Lombardy, France, Burgundy, Brabant, and Germany (cf. Douais, op. cit., p. 36, and Fredericq, "Corpus documentorum inquisitionis haereticae pravitatis Neerlandicae, 1025-1520", 2 vols., Ghent, 1884-96). That Gregory IX, through his appointment of Dominicans and Franciscans as inquisitors, withdrew the suppression of heresy from the proper courts (i.e. from the bishops), is a reproach that in so general a form cannot be sustained. So little did he think of displacing episcopal authority that, on the contrary he provided explicitly that no inquisitional tribunal was to work anywhere without the diocesan bishops co-operation. And if, on the strength of their papal jurisdiction, inquisitors occasionally manifested too great an inclination to act independently of episcopal authority it was precisely the popes who kept them within right bounds. As early as 1254 Innocent IV prohibited anew perpetual imprisonment or death at the stake without the episcopal consent. Similar orders were issued by Urban IV in 1262, Clement IV in 1265, and Gregory X in 1273, until at last Boniface VIII and Clement V solemnly declared null and void all judgments issued in trials concerning faith, unless delivered with the approval anti co-operation of the bishops. The popes always upheld with earnestness the episcopal authority, and sought to free the inquisitional tribunals from every kind of arbitrariness and caprice. It was a heavy burden of responsibility -- almost too heavy for a common mortal -- which fell upon the shoulders of an inquisitor, who was obliged, at least indirectly, to decide between life and death. The Church was bound to insist that he should possess, in a pre-eminant degree, the qualities of a good judge; that he should be animated with a glowing zeal for the Faith, the salvation of souls, and the extirpation of heresy; that amid all difficulties and dangers he should never yield to anger or passion; that he should meet hostility fearlessly, but should not court it; that he should yield to no inducement or threat, and yet not be heartless; that, when circumstances permitted, he should observe mercy in allotting penalties; that he should listen to the counsel of others, and not trust too much to his own opinion or to appearances, since often the probable is untrue, and the truth improbable. Somewhat thus did Bernard Gui (or Guldonis) and Eymeric, both of them inquisitors for years, describe the ideal inquisitor. Of such an inquisitor also was Gregory IX doubtlessly thinking when he urged Conrad of Marburg: "ut puniatur sic temeritas perversorum quod innocentiae puritas non laedatur" -- i.e., "not to punish the wicked so as to hurt the innocent". History shows us how far the inquisitors answered to this ideal. Far from being inhuman, they were, as a rule, men of spotless character and sometimes of truly admirable sanctity, and not a few of them have been canonized by the Church. There is absolutely no reason to look on the medieval ecclesiastical judge as intellectually and morally inferior to the modern judge. No one would deny that the judges of today, despite occasional harsh decisions and the errors of a, few, pursue a highly honourable profession. Similarly, the medieval inquisitors should be judged as a whole Moreover, history does not justify the hypothesis that the medieval heretics were prodigies of virtue, deserving our sympathy in advance. (b) Procedure This regularly began with a months "term of grace", proclaimed by the inquisitor whenever he came to a heresy-ridden district. The inhabitants mere summoned to appear before the inquisitor. On those who confessed of their own accord a suitable penance (e.g. a pilgrimage) was imposed, but never a severe punishment like incarceration or surrender to the civil power. However, these relations with the residents of a, place often furnished important indications, pointed out the proper quarter for investigation, and sometimes much evidence was thus obtained against individuals. These mere then cited before the judges -- usually by the parish priest, although occasionally by the secular authorities -- and the trial began. If the accused at once made full and free confession, the affair was soon concluded, and not to the disadvantage of the accused. But in most instances the accused entered denial even after swearing on the Four Gospels, and this denial was stubborn in the measure that the testimony was incriminating. David of Augsburg (cf. Preger, "Der Traktat des David von Augshurg uber die Waldenser", Munich, 1878 pp. 43 sqq.) pointed out to the inquisitor four methods of extracting open acknowledgment: + fear of death, i.e. by giving the accused to understand that the stake awaited him if he would not confess; + more or less close confinement, possibly emphasized by curtailment of food; + visits of tried men, who would attempt to induce free confession through friendly persuasion; + torture, which will be discussed below. (c) The Witnesses When no voluntary admission was made, evidence was adduced. Legally, there had to be at least two witnesses, although conscientious judges rarely contended themselves with that number. The principle had hitherto been held by the Church that the testimony of a heretic, an excommunicated person, a perjurer, in short, of an "infamous", was worthless before the courts. But in its destination of unbelief the Church took the further step of abolishing this long established practice, and of accepting a heretics evidence at nearly full value in trials concerning faith. This appears as early as the twelfth century in the "Decretum Gratiani". While Frederick II readily assented to this new departure, the inquisitors seemed at first uncertain as to the value of the evidence of an "infamous" person. It was only in 1261, after Alexander IV had silenced their scruples, that the new principle was generally adopted both in theory and in practice. This grave modification seems to have been defended on the ground that the heretical conventicles took place secretly, and were shrouded in great obscurity, so that reliable information could be obtained from none but themselves. Even prior to the establishment of the Inquisition the names of the witnesses were sometimes withheld from the accused person, and this usage was legalized by Gregory IX, Innocent IV, and Alexander IV. Boniface VIII, however, set it aside by his Bull "Ut commissi vobis officii" (Sext. Decret., 1. V, tit. ii); and commanded that at all trials, even inquisitorial, the witnesses must be named to the accused. There was no personal confrontation of witnesses, neither was there any cross-examination. Witnesses for the defence hardly ever appeared, as they would almost infallibly be suspected of being heretics or favourable to heresy. For the same reason those impeached rarely secured legal advisers, and mere therefore obliged to make personal response to the main points of a charge. This, however, was also no innovation, for in 1205 Innocent III, by the Bull "Si adversus vos" forbade any legal help for heretics: "We strictly prohibit you, lawyers and notaries, from assisting in any way, by council or support, all heretics and such as believe In them, adhere to them, render them any assistance or defend them in any way. But this severity soon relaxed, and even in Eymerics day it seems to have been the universal custom to grant heretics a legal adviser, who, however, had to be in every way beyond suspicion, "upright, of undoubted loyalty, skilled in civil and canon law, and zealous for the faith." Meanwhile, even in those hard times, such legal severities were felt to be excessive, and attempts were made to mitigate them in various ways, so as to protect the natural rights of the accused. First he could make known to the judge the names of his enemies: should the charge originate with them, they would be quashed without further ado. Furthermore, it was undoubtedly to the advantage of the accused that false witnesses were punished without mercy. The aforesaid inquisitor, Bernard Gui, relates an instance of a father falsely accusing his son of heresy. The sons innocence quickly coming to light, the false accuser was apprehended, and sentenced to prison for life (solam vitam ei ex misericordia relinquentes). In addition he was pilloried for five consecutive Sundays before the church during service, with bare head and bound hands. Perjury in those days was accounted an enormous offence, particularly when committed by a false witness. Moreover, the accused had a considerable advantage in the fact that the inquisitor had to conduct the trial in co-operation with the diocesan bishop or his representatives, to whom all documents relating to the trial had to he remitted. Both together, inquisitor and bishop, were also made to summon and consult a number of upright and experienced men (boni viri), and to decide in agreement with their decision (vota). Innocent IV (11 July. 1254), Alexander IV (15 April, 1255, and 27 April, 1260), and Urban IV (2 August, 1264) strictly prescribed this institution of the boni viri -- i.e. the consultation in difficult cases of experienced men, well versed in theology and canon law, and in every way irreproachable. The documents of the trial were either in their entirety handed to them, or a least an abstract drawn up by a public notary was furnished; they were also made acquainted with the witnesses names, and their first duty was to decide whether or not the witnesses were credible. The boni viri were very frequently called on. Thirty, fifty, eighty, or more persons -- laymen and priests; secular and regular -- would be summoned, all highly respected and independent men, and singly sworn to give verdict upon the cases before them accordingly to the best of their knowledge and belief. Substantially they were always called upon to decide two questions: whether and what guilt lay at hand, and what punishment was to be inflicted. That they might be influenced by no personal considerations, the case would be submitted to them somewhat in the abstract, i.e., the name of the person inculpated was not given. Although, strictly speaking, the boni viri were entitled only to an advisory vote, the final ruling was usually in accordance with their views, and, whether their decision was revised, it was always in the direction of clemency, the mitigation of the findings being indeed of frequent occurrence. The judges were also assisted by a consilium permanens, or standing council, composed of other sworn judges. In these dispositions surely lay the most valuable guarantees for all objective, impartial, and just operation of the inquisition courts. Apart from the conduct of his own defence the accused disposed of other legal means for safeguarding his rights: he could reject a judge who had shown prejudice, and at any stage of the trial could appeal to Rome. Eymeric leads one to infer that in Aragon appeals to the Holy See were not rare. He himself as inquisitor had on one occasion to go to Rome to defend in person his own position, but he advises other inquisitors against that step, as it simply meant the loss of much time and money; it were wiser, he says, to try a case in such a manner that no fault could be found. In the event of an appeal the documents of the case were to be sent to Rome under seal, and Rome not only scrutinized them, but itself gave the final verdict. Seemingly, appeals to Rome were in great favour; a milder sentence, it was hoped, would be forthcoming, or at least some time would be gained. (d) Punishments The present writer can find nothing to suggest that the accused were imprisoned during the period of inquiry. It was certainly customary to grant the accused person his freedom until the sermo generalis, were he ever so strongly inculpated through witnesses or confession; he was not yet supposed guilty, though he was compelled to promise under oath always to be ready to come before the inquisitor, and in the end to accept with good grace his sentence, whatever its tenor. The oath was assuredly a terrible weapon in the hands of the medieval judge. If the accused person kept it, the judge was favourably inclined; on the other hand, if the accused violated it, his credit grew worse. Many sects, it was known, repudiated oaths on principle; hence the violation of an oath caused the guilty party easily to incur suspicion of heresy. Besides the oath, the inquisitor might secure himself by demanding a sum of money as bail, or reliable bondsmen who would stand surety for the accused. It happened, too, that bondsmen undertook upon oath to deliver the accused "dead or alive" It was perhaps unpleasant to live under the burden of such an obligation, but, at any rate, it was more endurable than to await a final verdict in rigid confinement for months or longer. Curiously enough torture was not regarded as a mode of punishment, but purely as a means of eliciting the truth. It was not of ecclesiastical origin, and was long prohibited in the ecclesiastical courts. Nor was it originally an important factor in the inquisitional procedure, being unauthorized until twenty years after the Inquisition had begun. It was first authorized by Innocent IV in his Bull "Ad exstirpanda" of 15 May, 1252, which was confirmed by Alexander IV on 30 November, 1259, and by Clement IV on 3 November, 1265. The limit placed upon torture was citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum -- i.e, it was not to cause the loss of life or limb or imperil life. Torture was to applied only once, and not then unless the accused were uncertain in his statements, and seemed already virtually convicted by manifold and weighty proofs. In general, this violent testimony (quaestio) was to be deferred as long as possible, and recourse to it was permitted in only when all other expedients were exhausted. Conscientiousness and sensible judges quite properly attached no great importance to confessions extracted by torture. After long experience Eymeric declared: Quaestiones sunt fallaces et inefficaces -- i.e the torture is deceptive and ineffectual. Had this papal legislation been adhered to in practice, the historian of the Inquisition would have fewer difficulties to satisfy. In the beginning, torture was held to be so odious that clerics were forbidden to be present under pain of irregularity. Sometimes it had to be interrupted so as to enable the inquisitor to continue his examination, which, of course, was attended by numerous inconveniences. Therefore on 27 April, 1260, Alexander IV authorized inquisitors to absolve one another of this irregularity. Urban IV on 2 August, 1262, renewed the permission, and this was soon interpreted as formal licence to continue the examination in the torture chamber itself. The inquisitors manuals faithfully noted and approved this usage. The general rule ran that torture was to be resorted to only once. But this was sometimes circumvented -- first, by assuming that with every new piece of evidence the rack could be utilized afresh, and secondly, by imposing fresh torments on the poor victim (often on different days), not by way of repetition, but as a continuation (non ad modum iterationis sed continuationis), as defended by Eymeric; "quia, iterari non debent [tormenta], nisi novis supervenitibus indiciis, continuari non prohibentur." But what was to be done when the accused, released from the rack, denied what he had just confessed? Some held with Eymeric that the accused should be set at liberty; others, however, like the author of the "Sacro Arsenale" held that the torture should be continued. because the accused had too seriously incriminated himself by his previous confession. When Clement V formulated his regulations for the employment of torture, he never imagined that eventually even witnesses would be put on the rack, although not their guilt, but that of the accused, was in question. From the popes silence it was concluded that a witness might be put upon the rack at the discretion of the inquisitor. Moreover, if the accused was convicted through witnesses, or had pleaded guilty, the torture might still he used to compel him to testify against his friends and fellow-culprits. It would be opposed to all Divine and human equity -- so one reads in the "SacroArsenale, ovvero Pratica dell Officio della Santa Inquisizione" (Bologna, 1665) -- to inflict torture unless the judge were personally persuaded of the guilt of the accused. But one of the difficulties of the procedure is why torture was used as a means of learning the truth. On the one hand, the torture was continued until the accused confessed or intimated that he was willing to confess, On the other hand, it was not desired, as in fact it was not possible, to regard as freely made a confession wrung by torture. It is at once apparent how little reliance may be placed upon the assertion so often repeated in the minutes of trials, "confessionem esse veram, non factam vi tormentorum" (the confession was true and free), even though one had not occasionally read in the preceding pages that, after being taken down from the rack (postquam depositus fuit de tormento), he freely confessed this or that. However, it is not of greater importance to say that torture is seldom mentioned in the records of inquisition trials -- but once, for example in 636 condemnations between 1309 and 1323; this does not prove that torture was rarely applied. Since torture was originally inflicted outside the court room by lay officials, and since only the voluntary confession was valid before the judges, there was no occasion to mention in the records the fact of torture. On the other hand it, is historically true that the popes not only always held that torture must not imperil life or but also tried to abolish particularly grievous abuses, when such became known to them. Thus Clement V ordained that inquisitors should not apply the torture without the consent of the diocesan bishop. From the middle of the thirteenth century, they did not disavow the principle itself, and, as their restrictions to its use were not always heeded, its severity, though of tell exaggerated, was in many cases extreme. The consuls of Carcassonne in 1286 complained to the pope, the King of France, and the vicars of the local bishop against the inquisitor Jean Garland, whom they charged with inflicting torture in an absolutely inhuman manner, and this charge was no isolated one. The case of Savonarola has never been altogether cleared up in this respect. The official report says he had to suffer three and a half tratti da fune (a sort of strappado). When Alexander VI showed discontent with the delays of the trial, the Florentine government excused itself by urging that Savonarola was a man of extraordinary sturdiness and endurance, and that he had been vigorously tortured on many days (assidua quaestione multis diebus, the papal prothonotary, Burchard, says seven times) but with little effect. It is to be noted that torture was most cruelly used, where the inquisitors were most exposed to the pressure of civil authority. Frederick II, though always boasting of his zeal for the purity of the Faith, abused both rack and Inquisition to put out of the way his personal enemies. The tragical ruin of the Templars is ascribed to the abuse of torture by Philip the Fair and his henchmen. At Paris, for instance, thirty-six, and at Sens twenty-five, Templars died as the result of torture. Blessed Joan of Are could not have been sent to the stake as a heretic and a recalcitrant, if her judges had not been tools of English policy. And the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition are largely due to the fact that in its administration civil purposes overshadowed the ecclesiastical. Every reader of the "Cautio criminalis" of the Jesuit Father Friedrich Spee knows to whose account chiefly must be set down the horrors of the witchcraft trials. Most of the punishments that were properly speaking inquisitional were not inhuman, either by their nature or by the manner of their infliction. Most frequently certain good works were ordered, e.g. the building of a church, the visitation of a church, a pilgrimage more or less distant, the offering of a candle or a chalice, participation in a crusade, and the like. Other works partook more of the character of real and to some extent degrading punishments, e.g. fines, whose proceeds were devoted to such public purposes as church-building, road-making, and the like; whipping with rods during religious service; the pillory; the wearing of coloured crosses, and so on. The hardest penalties were imprisonment in its various degrees exclusion from the communion of the Church, and the usually consequent surrender to the civil power. "Cum ecclesia" ran the regular expression, "ultra non habeat quod faciat pro suis demeritis contra ipsum, idcirco, eundum reliquimus brachio et iudicio saeculari" -- i.e. since the Church can no farther punish his misdeeds, she leaves him to the civil authority. Naturally enough, punishment as a legal sanction is always a hard and painful thing, whether decreed by civil of ecclesiastical justice. There is, however, always an essential distinction between civil and ecclesiastical punishment. While chastisement inflicted by secular authority aims chiefly at punishment violation of the law, the Church seeks primarily the correction of the delinquent; indeed his spiritual welfare frequently so much in view that the element of punishment is almost entirely lost sight of. Commands to hear Holy Mass on Sundays and holidays, to frequent religious services, to abstain from manual labour, to receive Communion at the chief festivals of the year, to forbear from soothsaying and usury, etc., can efficacious as helps toward the fulfillment of Christian duties. It being furthermore incumbent on the inquisitor to consider not merely the external sanction, but also the inner change of heart, his sentence lost the quasi-mechanical stiffness so often characteristic of civil condemnation. Moreover, the penalties incurred were on numberless occasions remitted, mitigated, or commuted. In the records of the Inquisition we very frequently read that because of old age, sickness, or poverty in the family, the in the family, the due punishment was materially reduced owing to the inquisitor sheer pity, or the petition of a good Catholic. Imprisonment for life was altered to a fine, and this to an alms; participation in a crusade was commuted into a pilgrimage, while a distant and costly pilgrimage became a visit to a neighboring shrine or church, and so on. If the inquisitors leniency were abused, he was authorized to revive in full the original punishment. On the whole, the Inquisition was humanely conducted. Thus we read that a son obtained his fathers release by merely asking for it, without putting forward any special reasons. Licence to leave risen for three weeks, three months, or an unlimited period-say until the recovery or decease of sick parents was not infrequent. Rome itself censured inquisitioners or deposed them because they were too harsh, but never because they mere too merciful. Imprisonment was not always accounted punishment in the proper sense: it was rather looked on as an opportunity for repentance, a preventive against backsliding or the infection of others. It was known as immuration (from the Latin murus, a wall), or incarceration, and was inflicted for a definite time or for life. Immuration for life was the lot of those who had failed to profit by the aforesaid term of grace, or had perhaps recanted only from fear of death, or had once before abjured heresy. The murus strictus seu arctus, or carcer strictissimus, implied close and solitary confinement, occasionally aggravated by fasting or chains. In practice, however, these regulations were not always enforced literally. We read of immured persons receiving visits rather freely, playing games, or dining with their jailors. On the other hand, solitary confinement was at times deemed insufficient, and then the immured were put in irons or chained to the prison wall. Members of a religious order, when condemned for life, were immured in their own convent nor ever allowed to speak with any of their fraternity. The dungeon or cell was euphemistically called "In Pace" it was, indeed, the tomb of a man buried alive. It was looked upon as a remarkable favour when, in 1330, through the good offices of the Archbishop of Toulouse, the French king permitted a dignitary of a certain order to visit the "In Pace" twice a month and comfort his imprisoned brethren, against which favour the Dominicans lodged with Clement VI a fruitless protest. Though the prison cells were directed to be kept in such a way as to endanger neither the life nor the health of occupants, their true condition was sometimes deplorable, as we see from a document published by J. B. Vidal (Annales de St-Louis des Francais, 1905 P. 362): In some cells the unfortunates were bound in stocks or chains, unable to move about, and forced to sleep on the ground . . . . There was little regard for cleanliness. In some cases there was no light or ventilation, and the food was meagre and very poor. Occasionally the popes had to put an end through their legates to similarly atrocious conditions. After inspecting the Carcassonne and Albi prisons in 1306, the legates Pierre de la Chapelle and Béranger de Frédol dismissed the warden, removed the chains from the captives, and rescued some from their underground dungeons. The local bishop was expected to provide food from the confiscated property of the prisoner. For those doomed to close confinement, it was meagre enough, scarcely more than bread and water. It was, not long, however, before prisoners were allowed other victuals, wine and money also from outside, and this was soon generally tolerated. Officially it was not the Church that sentenced unrepenting heretics to death, more particularly to the stake. As legate of the Roman Church even Gregory IV never went further than the penal ordinances of Innocent III required, nor ever inflicted a punishment more severe than excommunication. Not until four years after the commencement of his pontificate did he admit the opinion, then prevalent among legists, that heresy should be punished with death, seeing that it was confessedly no less serious an offence than high treason. Nevertheless he continued to insist on the exclusive right of the Church to decide in authentic manner in matters of heresy; at the same time it was not her office to pronounce sentence of death. The Church, thenceforth, expelled from her bosom the impenitent heretic, whereupon the state took over the duty of his temporal punishment. Frederick II was of the same opinion; in his Constitution of 1224 he says that heretics convicted by an ecclesiastical court shall, on imperial authority, suffer death by fire (auctoritate nostra ignis iudicio concremandos), and similarly in 1233 "praesentis nostrae legis edicto damnatos mortem pati decernimus." In this way Gregory IX may be regarded as having had no share either directly or indirectly in the death of condemned heretics. Not so the succeeding popes. In the Bull "Ad exstirpanda" (1252) Innocent IV says: When those adjudged guilty of heresy have been given up to the civil power by the bishop or his representative, or the Inquisition, the podestà or chief magistrate of the city shall take them at once, and shall, within five days at the most, execute the laws made against them. Moreover, he directs that this Bull and the corresponding regulations of Frederick II be entered in every city among the municipal statutes under pain of excommunication, which was also visited on those who failed to execute both the papal and the imperial decrees. Nor could any doubt remain as to what civil regulations were meant, for the passages which ordered the burning of impenitent heretics were inserted in the papal decretals from the imperial constitutions "Commissis nobis" and "Inconsutibilem tunicam". The aforesaid Bull "Ad exstirpanda" remained thenceforth a fundamental document of the Inquisition, renewed or reinforced by several popes, Alexander IV (1254-61), Clement IV (1265-68), Nicholas IV (1288-02), Boniface VIII (1294-1303), and others. The civil authorities, therefore, were enjoined by the popes, under pain of excommunication to execute the legal sentences that condemned impenitent heretics to the stake. It is to he noted that excommunication itself was no trifle, for, if the person excommunicated did not free himself from excommunication within a year, he was held by the legislation of that period to be a heretic, and incurred all the penalties that affected heresy. The Number of Victims. How many victims were handed over to the civil power cannot be stated with even approximate accuracy. We have nevertheless some valuable information about a few of the Inquisition tribunals, and their statistics are not without interest. At Pamiers, from 1318 to 1324, out of twenty-four persons convicted but five were delivered to the civil power, and at Toulouse from 1308 to 1323, only forty-two out of nine hundred and thirty bear the ominous note "relictus culiae saeculari". Thus, at Pamiers one in thirteen, and at Toulouse one in forty-two seem to have been burnt for heresy although these places were hotbeds of heresy and therefore principal centres of the Inquisition. We may add, also, that this was the most active period of the institution. These data and others of the same nature bear out the assertion that the Inquisition marks a substantial advance in the contemporary administration of justice, and therefore in the general civilization of mankind. A more terrible fate awaited the heretic when judged by a secular court. In 1249 Count Raylmund VII of Toulouse caused eighty confessed heretics to be burned in his presence without permitting them to recant. It is impossible to imagine any such trials before the Inquisition courts. The large numbers of burnings detailed in various histories are completely unauthenticated, and are either the deliberate invention of pamphleteers, or are based on materials that pertain to the Spanish Inquisition of later times or the German witchcraft trials (Vacandard, op. cit., 237 sqq.). Once the Roman Law touching the crimen laesae majestatis had been made to cover the case of heresy, it was only natural that the royal or imperial treasury should imitate the Roman fiscus, and lay claim to the property of persons condemned. was fortunate, though inconsistent and certainly not strict justice, that this penalty did not affect every condemned person, but only those sentenced to perpetual confinement or the stake. Even so, this circumstance added not a little to the penalty, especially as in this respect innocent people, the culprits wife and children, were the chief sufferers. Confiscation was also decreed against persons deceased, and there is a relatively high number of such judgments. Of the six hundred and thirty-six cases that came before the inquisitor Bernard Gui, eighty-eight pertained to dead people. (e) The Final Verdict The ultimate decision was usually pronounced with solemn ceremonial at the sermo generalis -- or auto-da-fé (act of faith), as it was later called. One or two days prior to this sermo everyone concerned had the charges read to him again briefly, and in the vernacular; the evening before he was told where and when to appear to hear the verdict. The sermo, a short discourse or exhortation, began very early in the morning; then followed the swearing in of the secular officials, who were made to vow obedience to the inquisitor in all things pertaining to the suppression of heresy. Then regularly followed the so-called "decrees of mercy" (i.e. commutations, mitigations, and remission of previously imposed penalties), and finally due punishments were assigned to the guilty, after their offences had been again enumerated. This announcement began with the minor punishments, and went on to the most severe, i.e., perpetual imprisonment or death. Thereupon the guilty were turned over to the civil power, and with this act the sermo generalis closed, and the inquisitional proceedings were at an end. (3) The chief scene of the Inquisitions activity was Central and Southern Europe. The Scandinavian countries were spared altogether. It appears in England only on the occasion of the trial of the Templars, nor was it known in Castile and Portugal until the accession of Ferdinand and Isabella. It was introduced into the Netherlands with the Spanish domination, while in Northern France it was relatively little known. On the other hand, the Inquisition, whether because of the particularly perilous sectarianism there prevalent or of the greater severity of ecclesiastical and civil rulers, weighed heavily on Italy (especially Lombardy), on Southern France (in particular the country of Toulouse and on Languedoc) and finally on the Kingdom of Aragon and on Germany. Honorius IV (1285-87) introduced it into Sardinia, and in the fifteenth century it displayed excessive zeal in Flanders and Bohemia. The inquisitors were, as a rule, irreproachable, not merely in personal conduct, but in the administration of their office. Some, however, like Robert le Bougre, a Bulgarian (Catharist) convert to Christianity and subsequently a Dominican, seem to have yielded to a blind fanaticism and deliberately to have provoked executions en masse. On 29 May, 1239, at Montwimer in Champagne, Robert consigned to the flames at one time about a hundred and eighty persons, whose trial had begun and ended within one week. Later, when Rome found that the complaints against him were justified, he was first deposed and then incarcerated for life. (4) How are we to explain the Inquisition in the light of its own period? For the true office of the historian is not to defend facts and conditions, but to study and understand them in their natural course and connection. It is indisputable that in the past scarcely any community or nation vouchsafed perfect toleration to those who set up a creed different from that of the generality. A kind of iron law would seem to dispose mankind to religious intolerance. Even long before the Roman State tried to check with violence the rapid encroachments of Christianity, Plate had declared it one of the supreme duties of the governmental authority in his ideal state to show no toleration towards the "godless" -- that is, towards those who denied the state religion -- even though they were content to live quietly and without proselytizing; their very example, he said would be dangerous. They were to be kept in custody; "in a place where one grew wise" (sophronisterion), as the place of incarceration was euphemistically called; they should be relegated thither for five years, and during this time listen to religious instruction every day. The more active and proselytizing opponents of the state religion were to be imprisoned for life in dreadful dungeons, and after death to be deprived of burial. It is thus evident what little justification there is for regarding intolerance as a product of the Middle Ages. Everywhere and always in the past men believed that nothing disturbed the common weal and public peace so much as religious dissensions and conflicts, and that, on the other hand, a uniform public faith was the surest guarantee for the States stability and prosperity. The more thoroughly religion had become part of the national life, and the stronger the general conviction of its inviolability and Divine origin, the more disposed would men be to consider every attack on it as an intolerable crime against the Deity and a highly criminal menace to the public peace. The first Christian emperors believed that one of the chief duties of an imperial ruler was to place his sword at the service of the Church and orthodoxy, especially as their titles of "Pontifex Maximus" and "Bishop of the Exterior" seemed to argue in them Divinely appointed agents of Heaven. Nevertheless the principal teachers of the Church held back for centuries from accepting in these matters the practice of the civil rulers; they shrank particularly from such stern measures against heresy as punishment, both of which they deemed inconsistent with the spirit of Christianity. But, in the Middle Ages, the Catholic Faith became alone dominant, and the welfare of the Commonwealth came to be closely bound up with the cause of religious unity. King Peter of Aragon, therefore, but voiced the universal conviction when he said: "The enemies of the Cross of Christ and violators of the Christian law are likewise our enemies and the enemies of our kingdom, and ought therefore to be dealt with as such." Emperor Frederick II emphasized this view more vigorously than any other prince, and enforced it in his Draconian enactments against heretics. The representative of the Church were also children of their own time, and in their conflict with heresy accepted the help that their age freely offered them, and indeed often forced upon them. Theologians and canonists, the highest and the saintliest, stood by the code of their day, and sought to explain and to justify it. The learned and holy Raymund of Pennafort, highly esteemed by Gregory IX, was content with the penalties that dated from Innocent III, viz.. the ban of the empire, confiscation of property-, confinement in prison, etc. But before the end of the century, St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theol., II-II:11:3 and II-II:11:4>) already advocated capital punishment for heresy though it cannot be said that his arguments altogether compel conviction. The Angelic Doctor, however speaks only in a general way of punishment by death, and does not specify more nearly the manner of its infliction. This the jurists did in a positive way that was truly terrible. The celebrated Henry of Segusia (Susa), named Hostiensis after his episcopal See of Ostia (d. 1271), and the no less eminent Joannes Andreae (d. 1345), when interpreting the Decree "Ad abolendam" of Lucius III, take debita animadversio (due punishment) as synonymous with ignis crematio (death by fire), a meaning which certainly did not attach to the original expression of 1184. Theologians and jurists based their attitude to some extent on the similarity between heresy and high treason (crimen laesae maiestatis), a suggestion that they owed to the Law of Ancient Rome. They argued, moreover, that if the death penalty could be rightly inflicted on thieves and forgers, who rob us only of worldly goods, how much more righteously on those who cheat us out of supernatural goods -- out of faith, the sacraments, the life of the soul. In the severe legislation of the Old Testament (Deut., xiii, 6-9; xvii, 1-6) they found another argument. And lest some should urge that those ordinances were abrogated by Christianity, the words of Christ were recalled: "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill" (Matt., v. 17); also His other saying (John, xv 6): "If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth" (in ignem mittent, et ardet). It is well known that belief in the justice of punishing heresy with death was so common among the sixteenth century reformers -- Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and their adherents -- that we may say their toleration began where their power ended. The Reformed theologian, Hieronymus Zanchi, declared in a lecture delivered at the University of Heidlelberg: We do not now ask if the authorities may pronounce sentence of death upon heretics; of that there can be no doubt, and all learned and right-minded men acknowledge it. The only question is whether the authorities are bound to perform this duty. And Zanchi answers this second question in the affirmative, especially on the authority of "all pious and learned men who have written on the subject in our day" [Historisch-politische Blatter, CXL, (1907), p. 364]. It may be that in modern times men judge more leniency the views of others, but does this forthwith make their opinions objectively more correct than those of their predecessors? Is there no longer any inclination to persecution? As late as 1871 Professor Friedberg wrote in Holtzendorffs "Jahrbuch fur Gesetzebung": "If a new religious society were to be established today with such principles as those which, according to the Vatican Council, the Catholic Church declares a matter of faith, we would undoubtedly consider it a duty of the state to suppress, destroy, and uproot it by force" (Kölnische Volkszeitung, no. 782, 15 Sept., 1909). Do these sentiments indicate an ability to appraise justly the institutions and opinions of former centuries, not according to modern feelings, but to the standards of their age? In forming an estimate of the Inquisition, it is necessary to distinguish clearly between principles and historical fact on the one hand, and on the other those exaggerations or rhetorical descriptions which reveal bins and an obvious determination to injure Catholicism, rather than to encourage the spirit of tolerance and further its exercise. It is also essential to note that the Inquisition, in its establishment and procedure, pertained not to the sphere of belief, but to that of discipline. The dogmatic teaching of the Church is in no way affected by the question as to whether the Inquisition was justified in its scope, or wise in its methods, or extreme in its practice. The Church established by Christ, as a perfect society, is empowered to make laws and inflict penalties for their violation. Heresy not only violates her law but strikes at her very life, unity of belief; and from the beginning the heretic had incurred all the penalties of the ecclesiastical courts. When Christianity became the religion of the Empire, and still more when the peoples of Northern Europe became Christian nations, the close alliance of Church and State made unity of faith essential not only to the ecclesiastical organization, but also to civil society. Heresy, in consequence, was & crime which secular rulers were bound in duty to punish. It was regarded as worse than any other crime, even that of high treason; it was for society in those times what we call anarchy. Hence the severity with which heretics were treated by the secular power long before the Inquisition was established. As regards the character of these punishments, it should be considered that they were the natural expression not only of the legislative power, but also of the popular hatred for heresy in an age that dealt both vigorously and roughly with criminals of every type. The heretic, in a word, was simply an outlaw whose offence, in the popular mind, deserved and sometimes received a punishment as summary as that which is often dealt out in our own day by an infuriated populace to the authors of justly detested crimes. That such intolerance was not peculiar to Catholicism, but was the natural accompaniment of deep religious conviction in those, also, who abandoned the Church, is evident from the measures taken by some of the Reformers against those who differed from them in matters of belief. As the learned Dr. Schaff declares in his "History of the Christian Church" (vol. V, New York, 1907, p. 524), To the great humiliation of the Protestant churches, religious intolerance and even persecution unto death were continued long alter the Reformation. In Geneva the pernicious theory was put into practice by state and church, even to the use of torture and the admission of the testimony of children against their parents, and with the sanction of Calvin. Bullinger, in the second Helvetic Confession, announced the principle that heresy could be punished like murder or treason. Moreover, the whole history of the Penal Laws against Catholics in England and Ireland, and the spirit of intolerance prevalent in many of the American colonies during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries may be cited in proof thereof. It would obviously be absurd to make the Protestant religion as such responsible for these practices. But having set up the principle of private judgment, which, logically applied, made heresy impossible, the early Reformers proceeded to treat dissidents as the medieval heretics had been treated. To suggest that this was inconsistent is trivial in view of the deeper insight it affords into the meaning of a tolerance which is often only theoretical and the source of that intolerance which men rightly show towards error, and which they naturally though not rightly, transfer to the erring. B. The Inquisition in Spain (1) Historical Facts Religious conditions similar to those in Southern France occasioned the establishment of the Inquisition in the neighboring Kingdom of Aragon. As early as 1226 King James I had forbidden the Catharists his kingdom, and in 1228 had outlawed both them and their friends. A little later, on the advice of his confessor, Raymond of Pennafort, he asked Gregory IX to establish the Inquisition in Aragon. By the Bull "Declinante jam mundi" of 26 May, 1232, Archbishop Esparrago and his suffragans were instructed to search, either personally or by enlisting the services of the Dominicans or other suitable agents, and condignly punish the heretics in their dioceses. At the Council of Lérida in 1237 the Inquisition was formally confided to the Dominicans and the Franciscans. At the Synod of Tarragona in 1242, Raymund of Pennafort defined the terms haereticus, receptor, fautor, defensor, etc., and outlined the penalties to be inflicted. Although the ordinances of Innocent IV, Urban IV, and Clement VI were also adopted and executed with strictness by the Dominican Order, no striking success resulted. The Inquisitor Fray Pence de Planes was poisoned, and Bernardo Travasser earned the crown of martyrdom at the hands of the heretics. Aragons best-known inquisitor is the Dominican Nicolas Eymeric (Quétif-Echard, "Scriptores Ord. Pr.", I, 709 sqq.). His "Directorium Inquisitionis" (written in Aragon 1376; printed at Rome 1587, Venice 1595 and 1607), based on forty-four years experience, is an original source and a document of the highest historical value. The Spanish Inquisition, however, properly begins with the reign of Ferdinand the Catholic and Isabella. The Catholic faith was then endangered by pseudo converts from Judaism (Marranos) and Mohammedanism (Moriscos). On 1 November, 1478, Sixtus IV empowered the Catholic sovereigns to set up the Inquisition. The judges were to be at least forty years old, of unimpeachable reputation, distinguished for virtue and wisdom, masters of theology, or doctors or licentiates of canon law, and they must follow the usual ecclesiastical rules and regulations. On 17 September, 1480, Their Catholic Majesties appointed, at first for Seville, the two Dominicans Miguel de Morillo and Juan de San Martin as inquisitors, with two of the secular clergy assistants. Before long complaints of grievous abuses reached Rome, and were only too well founded. In a Brief of Sixtus IV of 29 January 1482, they were blamed for having, upon the alleged authority of papal Briefs, unjustly imprisoned many people, subjected them to cruel tortures, declared them false believers, and sequestrated the property of the executed. They were at first admonished to act only in conjunction with, the bishops, and finally were threatened with deposition, and would indeed have been deposed had not Their Majesties interceded for them. Fray Tomás Torquemada (b. at Valladolid In 1420, d. at Avila, 16 September, 1498) was the true organizer of the Spanish Inquisition. At the solicitation of their Spanish Majesties (Paramo, II, tit. ii, c, iii, n. 9) Sixtus IV bestowed on Torquemada the office of grand inquisitor, the institution of which indicates a decided advance in the development of the Spanish Inquisition. Innocent VIII approved the act of his predecessor, and under date of 11 February, 1486, and 6 February, 1487, Torquemada was given dignity of grand inquisitor for the kingdoms of Castile, Leon, Aragon, Valencia, etc. The institution speedily ramified from Seville to Cordova, Jaen, Villareal, and Toledo, About 1538 there were nineteen courts, to which three were afterwards added in Spanish America (Mexico, Lima, and Cartagena). Attempts at introducing it into Italy failed, and the efforts to establish it in the Netherlands entailed disastrous consequences for the mother country. In Spain, however, it remained operative into the nineteenth century. Originally called into being against secret Judaism and secret Islam, it served to repel Protestantism in the sixteenth century, but was unable to expel French Rationalism and immorality of the eighteenth. King Joseph Bonaparte abrogated it in 1808, but it was reintroduced by Ferdinand VII in 1814 and approved by Pius VII on certain conditions, among others the abolition of torture. It was definitely abolished by the Revolution of 1820. (2) Organization At the head of the Inquisition, known as the Holy Office, stood the grand inquisitor, nominated by the king and confirmed by the pope. By virtue of his papal credentials he enjoyed authority to delegate his powers to other suitable persons, and to receive appeals from all Spanish courts. He was aided by a High Council (Consejo Supremo) consisting of five members -- the so-called Apostolic inquisitors, two secretaries, two relatores, one advocatus fiscalis -- and several consulters and qualificators. The officials of the supreme tribunal were appointed by the grand inquisitor after consultation with the king. The former could also freely appoint, transfer, remove from office, visit, and inspect or call to account all inquisitors and officials of the lower courts. Philip III, on 16 December, 1618, gave the Dominicans the privilege of having one of their order permanently a member of the Consejo Supremo. All power was really concentrated in this supreme tribunal. It decided important or disputed questions, and heard appeals; without its approval no priest, knight, or noble could be imprisoned, and no auto-da-fé held; an annual report was made to it concerning the entire Inquisition, and once a month a financial report. Everyone was subject to it, not excepting priests, bishops, or even the sovereign. The Spanish Inquisition is distinguished from the medieval its monarchical constitution and and a greater consequent centralization, as also by the constant and legally provided-for influence of the crown on all official appointments and the progress of trials. (3) Procedure The procedure, on the other hand, was substantially the same as that already described. Here, too, a "term of grace" of thirty to forty days was invariably granted, and was often prolonged. Imprisonment resulted only when unanimity had been arrived at, or the offence had been proved. Examination of the accused could take place only in the presence of two disinterested priests, whose obligation it was to restrain any arbitrary act in their presence the protocol had to be read out twice to the accused. The defence lay always in the hands of a lawyer. The witnesses although unknown to the accused, were sworn, and very severe punishment, even death, awaited false witnesses, (cf. Brief of Leo X of 14 December, 1518). Torture was applied only too frequently and to cruelly, but certainly not more cruelly than under Charles V's system of judicial torture in Germany. (4) Historical Analysis The Spanish Inquisition deserves neither the exaggerated praise nor the equally exaggerated vilification often bestowed on it. The number of victims cannot be calculated with even approximate accuracy; the much maligned autos-da-fé were in reality but a religious ceremony (actus fidei); the San Benito has its counterpart in similar garbs elsewhere; the cruelty of St. Peter Arbues, to whom not a single sentence of death can be traced with certainty, belongs to the realms of fable. However, the predominant ecclesiastical nature of the institution can hardly be doubted. The Holy See sanctioned the institution, accorded to the grand inquisitor canonical installation and therewith judicial authority concerning matters of faith, while from the grand inquisitor jurisdiction passed down to the subsidiary tribunals under his control. Joseph de Maistre introduced the thesis that the Spanish Inquisition was mostly a civil tribunal; formerly, however, theologians never questioned its ecclesiastical nature. Only thus, indeed, can one explain how the Popes always admitted appeals from it to the Holy See, called to themselves entire trials and that at any stage of the proceedings, exempted whole classes of believers from its jurisdiction, intervened in the legislation, deposed grand inquisitors, and so on. (See TOMÁS DE TORQUEMADA.) C. The Holy Office at Rome The great apostasy of the sixteenth century, the filtration of heresy into Catholic lands, and the progress of heterodox teachings everywhere, prompted Paul III to establish the "Sacra Congregatio Romanae et universalis Inquisitionis seu sancti officii" by the Constitution "Licet ab initio" of 21 July, 1542. This inquisitional tribunal, composed of six cardinals, was to be at once the final court of appeal for trials concerning faith, and the court of first instance for cases reserved to the pope. The succeeding popes -- especially Pius IV (by the Constitutions "Pastoralis Oficii " of 14 October, 1562, "Romanus Pontifex" of 7 April, 1563, "Cum nos per" of 1564, "Cum inter crimina" of 27 August, 1562) and Pius V (by a Decree of 1566, the Constitution "Inter multiplices" of 21 December, 1566, and "Cum felicis record." of 1566) -- made further provision for the procedure and competency of this court. By his Constitution "Immensa aeterni" of 23 January, 1587, Sixtus V became the real organizer, or rather reorganizer of this congregation. The Holy Office is first among the Roman congregations. Its personnel includes judges, officials, consulters, and qualificators. The real judges are cardinals nominated by the pope, whose original number of six was raised by Pius IV to eight and by Sixtus V to thirteen. Their actual number depends on the reigning pope (Benedict XIV, Const. "Sollicita et Provida", 1733). This congregation differs from the others, inasmuch as it has no cardinal-prefect: the pope always presides in person when momentous decisions are to be announced (coram Sanctissimo). The solemn plenary session on Thursdays is always preceded by a session of the cardinals on Wednesdays, at the church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva, and a meeting of the consultors on Mondays at the palace of the Holy Office. The highest official is the commissarius sancti oficii, a Dominican of the Lombard province, to whom two coadjutors are given from the same order. He acts as the proper judge throughout the whole case until the plenary session exclusive, thus conducting it up to the verdict. The assessor sancti officii, always one of the secular clergy, presides at the plenary sessions. The promotor fiscalis is at once prosecutor and fiscal representative, while the advocatus reorum undertakes the defence of the accused. The duty of the consultors is to afford the cardinals expert advice. They may come from the secular clergy or the religious orders, but the General of the Dominicans, the magister sacri palatii, and a third member of the same order are always ex-officio consultors (consultores nati). The qualificators are appointed for life, but give their opinions only when called upon. The Holy Office has jurisdiction over all Christians and, according to Pius IV, even over cardinals. In practice, however, the latter are held exempt. For its authority, see the aforesaid Constitution of Sixtus V "Immensa aeterni" (see ROMAN CONGREGATIONS). JOSEPH BLÖTZER Canonical Inquisition Canonical Inquisition Canonical Inquisition is either extra-judicial or judicial: the former might be likened to a coroner's inquest in our civil law; while the latter is similar to an investigation by the grand jury. An extra-judicial inquiry, which is recommended in civil cases, is absolutely necessary in criminal matters, except the case be notorious. A bishop may not even admonish canonically a cleric supposedly delinquent without having first instituted a summary inquest -- "summaria facti cognitio"; "informatio pro informatione curiæ" -- into the truth of the rumours, denunciations, or accusations against said cleric. This examination is conducted by the bishop personally, or by another ecclesiastic, prudent, trustworthy, and impartial, deputed by the bishop, as secretly and discreetly as possible, without judicial form. This, however, does not preclude the examination of witnesses or experts, for example, to discover irregularities in the records or accounts of the Church. Great caution is to be observed in this preliminary inquiry, lest the reputation of the cleric in question suffer unnecessarily, in which case the bishop might be sued for damages. The acts with the result of the inquisition, if any evidence has been found, should be preserved in the archives; if evidence is wanting or is only slight, the acts should be destroyed. The outcome of the preliminary investigation will be to leave matters as they are; or to proceed to extra-judicial corrective measures; or to begin a public action, when the evil cannot be otherwise remedied. The bishop's judgment in this matter is paramount; for, even when a crime may he satisfactorily proven, it may be more beneficial to religion and the interests at stake not to prosecute. In matters of correction proper, in which medicinal penalties are employed, judicial action is barred by limitation in five years. The second inquisition is for the information of the auditor or judge, a judicial inquiry, being the beginning of the strictly judicial procedure -- "processus informativus"; "inquisitio pro informando judice". If sufficient warrant for a judicial trial exist, the bishop will order his public prosecutor (procurator fiscalis) to draw up and present the charge. Having received the charge, the bishop will appoint an auditor to conduct the informative procedure, in which all the evidence bearing on the case, for the defence as well as for the prosecution, is to be obtained. This inquest consequently comprises offensive and defensive proceedings, for the auditor is to arrive at the truth, and not conduct the inquiry on the supposition that the defendant is guilty. When the auditor, assisted by the diocesan prosecutor, has procured all the evidence available for the prosecution, he will open the defensive proceedings with the citation (q. v.) of the accused. The accused must appear in person (see CONTUMACY) for examination by the auditor: the fiscal prosecutor may be present. He is not put under oath, and is granted perfect freedom in defending himself, proving his innocence, justifying his conduct, alleging mitigating or extenuating circumstances. All declarations, allegations, exceptions, pleas etc., of the defendant are recorded by the clerk in the acts. They are read to the defendant and corrected, if necessary, or additions made. Finally, the accused, if willing, the auditor, and the secretary should sign the acts. A stay must be granted the accused if he demand it, to present a defence in writing. This inquiry may open up new features, to investigate which stays may be necessary. The accused must be heard in his own defence after this new inquiry. When satisfied that the investigation is complete, the auditor will declare the inquest closed, and make out an abstract of the results of same. This abstract together with all the acts in the case are given to the diocesan prosecutor. Thus ends the judicial inquisition. Instructio S. C. EE. RR., 1880; Instructio S. C. de Prop. Fide pro Statibus Foederatis Americoe Septentrionalis, 1884; MEEHAN, Compendium juris canonici (Rochester, 1899), p. 241 sqq.; DROSTE-MESSMER, Canonical Procedure in Disciplinary and Criminal Cases of Clerics (New York, 1886). ANDREW B. MEEHAN. Asylums and Care For the Insane Asylums and Care for the Insane During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries hospital care of the sick of all kinds and nursing fell to the lowest ebb in history (see HOSPITALS). Institutions and care for the insane, not only shared in this decadence, but were its worst feature. Because of this, many writers have declared that proper care for the insane and suitable institutions developed only in recent generations. As the Church had much to do with humanitarian efforts of all kinds in the past, it has been made a subject of reproach to her. As a matter of fact the Church, from the earliest times, arranged for the care of the insane, and some of the arrangements anticipated some of the most important advances in modern times. It was after the religious revolt in Germany, whose influence was felt in other countries, that the Church's charitable institutions suffered in many ways, and hospitals and asylums of all kinds deteriorated. Insanity has been known for as long as our record of human history runs. Pinel, the great French psychiatrist, in his "Nosographie philosophique", II (Paris, 1798), 28, gives the details of the treatment of the insane by the priests of Saturn, the god of medicine in Egypt, in special parts of the temples. According to this, those suffering from melancholia were treated by suggestion, by diversion of mind, and recreations of all kinds, by a careful regimen, by hydropathy, by pilgrimages to the holy places. In Greece we know of the existence of insanity from its occurrence in the various myths. Ulysses counterfeited insanity in order to escape going on the Trojan expedition, and ploughed up the seashore, sowing salt in the furrows. When Nestor, however, placed his infant son in front of the plough, Ulysses moved the boy aside, and Nestor said there was too much method in his madness. Evidently at this time (1200 B.C.) the Greeks were quite familiar with insanity, since they could even detect malingering. The stories of Ajax killing a flock of sheep which by illusion he thought a crowd of his enemies, of Orestes and the Furies, of the Bacchæ, all show familiarity with insanity. As in Egypt, the insane in Greece were cared for in certain portions of the temple of the god of medicine, Æsculapius. In the famous temple at Epidaurus, part shrine and part hospital, there was a well-known spring, and hydro-pathy was the main portion of the treatment, though every form of favourable suggestion was employed. Interesting diversions were planned for patients, and they had the distinct advantage of the journey necessary to reach Epidaurus. Insanity was looked upon as a disease and treated as such. The delirium of acute disease had not yet been differentiated from mania, and melancholy was considered an exaggeration of the depression so often associated with digestive disturbance. The first hospital for insane patients of which there is mention was the Piræus. Among the Romans we have abundant evidence, in their laws, of care for the insane, but we know little of their medical treatment until about the beginning of the Christian Era. In the Twelve Tables curators are assigned the insane even after their majority. They could transact no business legally, but during lucid intervals could make binding contracts. When parents were insane, children could marry without their consent, but this had to be explicitly stated. The insane could make no wills, nor be witnesses of wills except during lucid intervals, but the lucidity had to be proved. With all these careful legal provisions it seems incredible that medical care should not have been given, but all records of it are wanting. At Rome, a series of writers on insanity made excellent studies in the subject, which could only have been made under circumstances that allowed of such careful study of the insane as we have opportunities for in modern times (Celcus, first century: Cælius Aurelianus, about A.D. 200, mostly a translation of Soranus; Alexander Trallianus, 560). Among the Greek writers, Hippocrates (about 400 B.C.), Asclepiades, who wrote shortly before Christ, as well as Aretæus of Cappadocia, Soranus, and Galen, who wrote in the first century after Christ, show a considerable knowledge of insanity. The great Roman student of the subject, however, was Paulus Ægineta (630), whose writings show such a thorough familiarity with certain phases of insanity as could only have been obtained by actual observation, not of a few patients, but of many. With the beginning of Christianity more definite information as to asylums for the insane is available. Ducange, in his "Commentary on Byzantine History", states that among the thirty-five charitable institutions in Constantinople at the beginning of the fourth century there was a morotrophium, or home for lunatics. This seems to have been connected with the general hospital of the city. In the next century we have the records of a hospital for the insane at Jerusalem, and it is probable that they existed in other cities throughout the East. Nimesius, a Christian bishop of the fourth century, collected much of what had been written by older authors with regard to the insane, adding some observations of his own, and showing that Christianity was caring for these unfortunates. With the foundation of the monasteries the insane were cared for in connection with these. The Rule of St.Jerome enjoined the duty of making careful provision for the proper treatment of the sick, and Burdett, in his "Hospitals and Asylums of the World", considers that this applied also to those suffering from mental disease. He adds: "It is beyond question that in earlier times, commencing with provision for the sick, including those mentally ill, by the early bishops in their own houses, the Church gradually developed an organization which provided for the insane, first in morotrophia (i.e., places for lunatics) and then in the monasteries. Evidence of the existence of this system is to be met with in France, Italy, Russia, Spain, Germany, and in some of the northern countries of Europe" (op. cit., I). With the foundation of the monasteries of the Benedictines and the Irish monks, hospitals were opened in connection with them (see HOSPITALS). The insane were cared for with other patients in these institutions, and we have any prescriptions from the olden times that are supposed to be cures of lunacy. The cleric author of "Leechdom, Wortcunning and Star Craft of Early England", a collection of herbal prescriptions made about A.D. 900, gives remedies for melancholia, hallucinations, mental vacancy, dementia, and folly. There are records of many institutions for the insane. Desmaisons declared that "the origin of the first establishment devoted for the insane in Europe dates back only to A.D. 1409; it was founded in Valencia in Spain under Mohammedan influence" (Des Asiles d'Aliénés en Espagene, Paris, 1859). This statement has been often quoted, but is entirely erroneous. We know for instance that there was an asylum exclusively for sufferers from mental diseases at Mets in 1100 and another at Elbing near Danzig in 1320. According to Sir William Dugdale (Monasticon Anglicanum, London, 1655-73), there was an ancient English asylum known as Berking Church Hospital, situated near the Tower of London, for which Robert Denton, chaplain, obtained a licence from King Edward III in 1371. Denton paid forty shillings for this licence to found a hospital in a house of his own in the parish of Berking Church, London, "for the poor priests and for the men and women in the sad city who suddenly fall into a frenzy and lose their memory, who were to reside there until cured; with an oratory to the said hospital to the invocation of the Blessed Virgin Mary". About this same time there is a tradition of the existence of a pazzarella, or place for mad people, in Rome, the conditions of entrance being rather interesting. Lunatics were cared for, moreover, in special departments of general hospitals. At Bedlam, the London hospital founded in the thirteenth century, this was true. (see BEDLAM). Evidently the same thing was true at many other places. At first glance this might seem open to many objections. Psychopaths in modern times, however, have been trying to arrange to have wards for acute mental cases in connection with general hospitals, for patients thus come under observation sooner; they are more willing to go to such hospitals and their friends are more ready to send them. Serious developments are often thus prevented. In this system of psychopathic wards in general hospitals of the Middle Ages anticipated our modern views. In another phase of the care of the insane there is a similar anticipation. At Gheel in Belgium the harmless insane are cared for by the people of the village and the neighbouring country who provide them with board, and treat them as members of the family. This system has attracted much attention in recent years, and articles on Gheel have appeared in every language. It has its defects, but these are probably not so great as those that are likely to occur in the institutional care of such patients. This method of caring for the insane has been practised at Gheel for over a thousand years. Originally the patients were brought to the shrine of St. Dympna, where, according to tradition, they were often healed. The custom of leaving chronic sufferers near the shrine, under the care of the villagers, gradually arose and has continued ever since. Nearly ever country in Europe had such shrines where the insane were cured; we have records of them in Ireland, Scotland, England, and Germany, and it is evident that this must be considered an important portion of the provision for these patients. In France the shrines of Sts. Menou, or Menulphe, and Dizier were visited from very early times by the insane in search of relief. The shrine of St. Menou at Mailly-sur-Rose was especially well-known and a house was erected for the accommodation of the mentally diseased. At St. Dizier a state of affairs very like that at Gheel developed, and the patients were cared for by the families of the neighbourhood. All of this interesting and valuable provision for the care of the insane, as well as the monastic establishments in which they were received, disappeared with the Reformation. Spain, though not the first country to organize special institutions for the insane, did more for them than perhaps any other country. The asylum at Valencia already mentioned was founded in 1409 by a monk named Joffre, out of pity for the lunatics whom he founded hooted by the crowds. The movement thus begun spread throughout Spain, and asylums were founded at Saragossa in 1425, at Seville in 1435, at Valladolid in 1436, and at Toledo before the end of the century. This movement was not due, as has been claimed, to Mohammedanism, for Mohammedans in other parts of the world took no special care of the insane. Lecky, in his "History of European Morals", has rejected the assertion of Desmaisons in this matter, which is entirely without proof. Spain continued to be the country in which lunatics were best cared for in Europe down to the beginning of the nineteenth century. Pinel, the great French psychiatrist, who took the manacles from the insane of France, declared Spain to be the country in which lunatics were treated with most wisdom and most humanity. He has described an asylum at Saragossa "open to the diseased in mind of all nations, governments, and religions, with this simple inscription: Urbis et Orbis (Traité Méd.-philos. sur l'aliénation mentale, Paris, 1809). He gives some details of the treatment, which show a very modern recognition of the need to be gentle and careful with the insane rather than harsh and forceful. The pazzarella at Rome already mentioned was founded during the sixteenth century by Ferrantez Ruiz and the Bruni, father and son, all three Navarrese. This hospital for insane "received crazed persons of whatever nation they be, and care is taken to restore them to their right mind; but if the madness prove incurable, they are kept during life, have food and raiment necessary to the condition they are in. A Venetian lady was moved to such great pity of these poor creatures upon sight of them that on her death she left them heirs to her whole estate." This enabled the management, with the approbation of Pope Pius IV, to open a new house in 1561, in the Via Lata. In France and Italy the custom continued during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of placing lunatics, particularly those of the better class - though also of the other classes when they had patrons who asked the privilege - in male or female monasteries according to their sex. This practice also prevailed in Russia. In 1641 the Charenton Asylum was founded in one of the suburbs of Paris, near the Park of Vincennes, and was placed under monastic rule. After the foundation of the Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, the charge of this institution was given to them. During this century the French established a system of colonies by which the insane were transferred to country places for work during intermissions in their condition, and were returned to the central asylum whenever they were restless. During the eighteenth century there was an awakening of humanitarian purpose with regard to the insane in nearly every country in Europe. St. Peter's Hospital at Bristol, England, was opened in 1696; the Manchester Royal Lunatic Hospital in 1706; Bethel Hospital at Norwich in 1713; Dean Swift's Dublin Hospital in 1745; while the Pennsylvania Hospital of Philadelphia (1751) and the New York Hospital (1771) each contained wards for lunatics. In 1773 the first asylum exclusively for the care of the insane in the United States was opened at Williamsburg, VA. After this, asylums for the insane multiplied, though the system under which the inmates were cared for involved many abuses. Burdett's third chapter is entitled "The Period of Brutal Suppression in Treatment and Cruelty: 1750 to 1850". In 1792 what has been called the humane period in the treatment of the insane began, when Pinel, against the advice of all those in authority and with the disapprobation of his medical colleagues, removed the chains and manacles and other severer forms of restraint at the great asylum of Bicêtre, near Paris, and gave the inmates all the liberty compatible with reasonable safety for themselves and others. At the same time William Tuke was engaged in establishing the retreat near York, which came into full operation in 1795. In this institution very enlightened principles of treatment were carried into effect. Early in the nineteenth century, Dr. Charles Worth and Mr. Gardner Hill, in the Lincoln Asylum, did away with all forms of mechanical restraint. The non-restraint system was fully developed by Dr. John Conolly in the Middlesex County Asylum at Hanwell. In the mean time, at the second institution solely for the insane in the United States, the Friends' Asylum at Frankfort, Pennsylvania (1817), the principles of gentle, intelligent care for the insane were being thoroughly applied and developed. The treatment of the insane was first systematized by Dr. S.B. Woodward, at Worcester, Massachusetts. Dr. Kirkbride of Philadelphia did much to remove the evils of restraint. Miss Dix must bear an honoured name for the successful philanthropy in doing away with many abuses in England and her native America. In recent years the care of the insane has to a great extent come entirely under the control of the State. This was apparently rendered necessary by the abuses that crept into private institutions for the insane. Even in the State institutions, however, until the last twenty-five years, there was many customs to be deprecated. Mechanical restraints of all kinds were used very commonly in America; within a generation patients were fastened to chairs, or to their beds, or secured by means of chains. The "open door" is, however, now becoming the policy of most institutions. Modes of restraint are very limited and used only with proper safeguard. Most American institutions are overcrowded, because it seems impossible to increase accommodations in proportion to the increasing numbers of the insane. There are two reasons for this increase. One is an actual increase in the proportion of the insane to the total population because of the strenuous life. Another is that in our busy modern life there is less inclination to keep even the mildly insane at home. Apart from the State institutions, there is a reaction to the old monastic system of care for the insane, and there are many large and well-known insane asylums in America under the charge of religious. The tradition established by Madame Gras at the foundation of the Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul has borne fruit. In America they have large asylums for the insane in Baltimore, New Orleans, Madison, N.J., and New York. BURDETT, Hospitals and Asylums of the World (London, 1891); TUKE, History of the Insane in the British Isles (London, 1882); CLARK, Memoir of Dr. Conolly with Sketch of the Treatment of the Insane in Europe and America (London, 1869); KIRCHOFF, Grundriss einer Geschichte der deutschen Irrenpflege (Berlin, 1890); bigoted; ESQUIROL, Mémoire historique sur Charenton (Paris, 1835). JAMES J. WALSH Insanity Insanity All writers on this subject confess their inability to frame a strictly logical or a completely satisfactory definition. The dividing line between sanity and insanity, like the line that distinguishes a man of average height from a tall man, can be described only in terms of a moral estimate. There is a borderland between the two states which is not easily identified as belonging certainly to either. Hence a definition that aims at rigorous comprehensiveness is liable to include such non-insane conditions as hysteria, febrile delirium, or perverted passions. The definition given by the "Century Dictionary" is probably as satisfactory as any: "A seriously impaired condition of the mental functions, involving the intellect, emotions, and will, or one or more of these faculties, exclusive of temporary states produced by and accompanying intoxications or acute febrile diseases." Not less difficult is the problem of classification. No classification based on a single principle is entirely satisfactory. Anatomical changes are an inadequate basis because they are absent from many forms of insanity; the causes are so numerous and so frequently combined in a single case that it is impossible to say which is predominant; and the symptoms are so manifold that the accidental cannot always be distinguished from the essential. Indeed, the nervous system and the mental functions are so complex and so inadequately known that any attempt at an accurate classification of their abnormal states must of necessity be a failure. In this article only the most important forms will be enumerated, namely, those which are most prevalent and those which are clearly distinguished from one another. One of the oldest divisions of mental disorders is into melancholia and mania. In the former the dominant mood is depression; in the latter, exaltation. The former differs from sane melancholy only in degree, and its chief characteristics are mental anguish and impulses to suicide. It includes probably one-half of all the cases of insanity, and is more frequently cured than any other form. In mania the morbidly elated mood may vary from excessive cheerfulness to violent rage. Monomania, which may exhibit characteristics of both melancholia and mania, is a perversion of the intellective rather than the affective faculties. Its chief manifestation is delusions, very frequently delusions of persecution. Monomania corresponds roughly to the later and more precise term paranoia. In this form the delusions are systematized and persistent, while the general intellectual processes may remain substantially unimpaired. When the attacks of melancholia or mania occur at regular intervals they are frequently named periodical insanity. The term partial insanity comprises chiefly those varieties known as impulsive, emotional, and moral. These are characterized by a loss of self-control, on account of which the patient performs acts that are at variance with his prevailing disposition, ideas, and desires--for example, murder and suicide. Somewhat akin to these forms are those associated with such general diseases of the nervous system as epilepsy, hysteria, and neurasthenia. When insanity takes the form of a general enfeeblement of the mental faculties as a consequence of disease, it is called dementia. It is usually permanent. Its principal varieties are senile, paralytic, and syphilitic. Paresis is one kind of paralytic dementia. All the above-mentioned forms of insanity are acquired, in the sense that they occur in normally developed brains. Congenital insanity, or feeble-mindedness, is divided chiefly, according to its degrees, into imbecility, idiocy, and cretinism. That insanity is on the increase, seems to be the general verdict of authorities, although the absence of reliable and comprehensive statistics makes any satisfactory estimate impossible. Whatever be its extent, the increase is undoubtedly due in some measure to our more complex civilization, especially as seen in city life. In general, the causes of insanity may be reduced to two: predisposing causes and exciting causes. The most important of the former are insane, neurotic, epileptic, drunken, or consumptive ancestors; great stress and strain, and a neuropathic constitution. Among the exciting causes must be mentioned shock, intense emotion, worry, intellectual overwork, diseases of the nervous system, exhausting diseases, alcoholic and sexual excesses, paralysis, sunstroke, and accidental injuries. It has been estimated that the physical causes, whether predisposing or exciting, stand to the moral causes, such as affliction and losses, in the ratio of four to one. Of 2476 cases due to physical causes which were admitted to the asylums of New York during the twelve months preceding 30 September 1900, alcoholic and sexual excesses and diseases had brought on 684. The majority of cases of insanity, however, are traceable to more than one cause. Inasmuch as insanity almost always involves some perversion of the will, either direct or indirect, it raises interesting and important questions concerning moral responsibility. Every impairment of mental function must impede the freedom of the will, either by restricting its scope, or by diminishing or destroying it outright. Ignorance, error, blinding passion, and paralysing fear all render a person morally irresponsible for those actions which take place under their influence. This is true even of the sane; obviously it happens much more frequently among the insane, owing to delirium, delusions, loss of memory, and many other mental disorders. Is it, however, only in this general way, that is, through defective action of the intellect, that freedom and responsibility are lessened or destroyed in persons who are of unsound mind? May not the disease act directly upon the will, compelling the patient to do things that his intellect assures him are wrong? The English courts and almost all the courts of the United States answer this question in the negative. Their practice is to regard a defendant in a criminal case as responsible and punishable if at the time of the crime he knew the difference between right and wrong, or at least knew that his act was contrary to the civil or moral law. For example, a man who, labouring under the insane delusion that another has injured his reputation, kills the latter is presumed to be morally accountable if he realized that the killing was immoral or illegal. In a word, the rule of the courts is that knowledge of wrong implies freedom to avoid it. Medical authorities on insanity are practically unanimous in rejecting this judicial test. Experience, they maintain, shows that many insane persons who can think and reason correctly on every topic except that which forms the subject of their delusion are unable to determine their wills and direct their actions accordingly. In an unsound mind normal intellection is not always accompanied by normal volition. We should expect to find this true from the very nature of the case. For if a diseased brain can interfere with normal thinking it can undoubtedly interfere likewise with normal willing. And there is in the nature of the situation no reason why this deranged condition of the will may not manifest itself in connexion with normal, as well as with abnormal, intellectual action. To assume that the victim of an insane delusion has perfect control over those actions that are apparently not affected by the delusion--actions that he clearly perceives to be wrong, for example--is to assume that the operations of intellect and will are as perfectly harmonized in an unsound as in a sound mind. As a matter of fact, the presumption would seem to lead the other way, that is, to the conclusion that the action of the will as well as that of the intellect will be abnormal. Insanity experts do not, indeed, contend that all the consciously immoral acts of a partially insane person are unfree. They merely insist that these acts cannot be presumed to be free on the simple ground that the patient is aware of their immorality. In their view, the question of freedom and responsibility can be answered only through an examination of all the circumstances of the particular case. The laws of one American state, and of some foreign countries, are in substantial harmony with this doctrine. According to the laws of New York, "No act done by a person in a state of insanity can be punished as an offence." The French law is slightly more specific: "There can be no crime nor offence if the accused was in a state of madness at the time of the act." More specific still is the law of Germany, yet it does not introduce knowledge or advertence as a criterion of responsibility: "An act is not punishable when the person at the time of doing it was in a state of unconsciousness or disease of mind by which a free determination of the will was excluded".In passing it may be observed that the laws of all countries assume that freedom of the will and moral responsibility are realities, and declare that punishment is to be inflicted only when the will has acted freely. The discussion in the last two paragraphs refers especially to delusive insanity, or to what is sometimes called partial intellectual insanity. There is another variety which is even more important as regards the question of moral responsibility. Inasmuch as it involves the will and the emotions rather than the intellect, it is called affective insanity, and it is subdivided into impulsive and moral. According to medical authorities, impulsive insanity may occur without delusions or any other apparent derangement of the intelligence. Those suffering from it are sometimes driven irresistibly to commit actions which they know to be wrong, actions which are contrary to their character, dispositions, and desires. Many suicides and homicides have in consequence of such uncontrollable impulses been committed by persons who were apparently sane in all other respects. Obviously, they were not morally responsible for these crimes. Although this theory runs counter not only to English and American legal procedure, but also to the opinions of the average man, it seems to be established by the history of numerous carefully observed cases, and to provide an explanation for many suicides and murders that are otherwise inexplicable. Moreover, it is inherently probable. Since insanity is a disease of the brain which may affect any of the mental faculties, there seems to be no good reason to deny that it can affect the emotions and the will almost exclusively, leaving the intellectual processes apparently unimpaired. The theory does, indeed, seem to disagree with the doctrine of our textbooks of moral philosophy and theology, which maintains that freedom of the will can be diminished or destroyed only through defective or confused action of the intellect. There is, however, no real opposition except on the assumption that the will and intellect in a diseased mind co-operate and harmonize as perfectly as in a mind that is sane. In the latter the will has power to determine itself in accordance with the ideas and motives presented by the intellect; in the former this power may sometimes be lacking. The inference from intellectual advertence to volitional freedom may, as noted above, be valid in the one case, and quite invalid in the other. This consideration is manifestly of great importance in determining whether a suicide is worthy of Christian burial. If he is afflicted with ideational or impulsive insanity, the mere fact that his intelligence seemed to be normal, and all his acts deliberate, at the time of his self-destruction, is not always conclusive proof of volitional freedom and moral guilt. In what is called moral insanity there is sometimes the same lack of self-control as in impulsive insanity, together with a perversion of the feelings, passions, and moral notions. It constitutes, therefore, an additional obstacle to freedom in so far as it interferes with normal intellectual action through abnormally strong passions and false ideas of right and wrong. Obviously, however, the mere fact that the affections, passions, or moral notions are perverted, for example, with regard to sexual matters, is not always evidence of true insanity, still less of that variety of insanity that directly hampers freedom of the will. Adults who have always been insane can receive baptism, since, as in the case of infants, the Church's intention supplies what is lacking. If they have ever been sane, they can be baptized when in danger of death or or if incurable, provided they had when sane a desire for the sacrament. The insane cannot be sponsors at baptism. They may receive confirmation. Communion should not be given to those who have always been insane. Those who, before becoming insane, were pious and religious, should be given Communion when in danger of death. When there are lucid intervals, Communion may then be administered. The same applies to extreme unction. In Holy orders, insanity is an irregularity under the head of defect. A candidate temporarily insane through some transient and accidental cause may, after recovery, be ordained. One deranged after ordination may exercise his orders, if he regains his sanity. The perpetually insane cannot marry. But "if the patient has lucid intervals, the marriage contracted during such an interval is valid, though it is not safe for him to marry on account of his inability to rear children." (St. Thomas In IV Sent., dist. xxxiv, q. i, art. 4.) Conolly, Construction and Government of Lunatic Asylums (London, 1847); Bucknill and Tuke, Psychological Medicine (London, 1879); Hammond, Treatise on Insanity (New York, 1893); Maudsley, Responsibility in Mental Disease (New York, 1899); Church and Peterson, Nervous and Metal Diseases (Philadelphia, 1901); Walsh, The Popes and Science (New York, 1908); Esquirol, Des maladies mentales (Paris, 1838); Gaupp, Die Entwickelung der Psychiatrie im 19. Jahrhundert(Berlin, 1900); Brockhaus in Konversationslexikon, s. v. Irrenanstalten. JOHN A. RYAN Early Christian Inscriptions Early Christian Inscriptions Inscriptions of Christian origin form, as non-literary remains, a valuable source of information on the development of Christian thought and life in the early Church. They may be divided into three main classes: sepulchral inscriptions, epigraphic records, and inscriptions concerning private life. The material on which they were written was the same as that used for heathen inscriptions. For the first two and most important classes the substance commonly employed was stone of different kinds, native or preferably imported. The use of metal was not so common. When the inscription is properly cut into the stone, it is called a titulus or marble; if merely scratched on the stone, the Italian word graffito is used; a painted inscription is called dipinto, and a mosaic inscription -- such as are found largely in North Africa, Spain, and the East -- bears the name of opus musivum. It was a common practice in Greek and Latin lands to make use of slabs already inscribed, i. e. to take the reverse of a slab containing a heathen inscription for the inscribing of a Christian one; such a slab is called an opisthograph. The form of the Christian inscriptions does not differ from that of the contemporary pagan inscriptions, except when sepulchral in character, and then only in the case of the tituli of the catacombs. The most common form in the East was the upright "stele" (Gk. stele, a block or slab of stone), frequently ornamented with a fillet or a projecting curved moulding; in the West a slab for the closing of the grave was often used. Thus the greater number of the graves (loculi) in the catacombs were closed with thin, rectangular slabs of terra-cotta or marble; the graves called arcosolia were covered with heavy, fiat slabs, while on the sarcophagi a panel (tabula) or a disk (discus) was frequently reserved on the front wall for an inscription. The majority of the early Christian inscriptions, viewed from a technical and palæographical standpoint, give evidence of artistic decay: this remark applies especially to the tituli of the catacombs, which are, as a rule, less finely executed than the heathen work of the same time. A striking exception is formed by the Damasine letters introduced in the fourth century by Furius Dionysius Filocalus, the calligraphist of Pope Damasus I (q. v.). The other forms of letters did not vary essentially from those employed by the ancients. The most important was the classical capital writing, customary from the time of Augustus; from the fourth century on it was gradually replaced by the uncial writing, the cursive characters being more or less confined to the graffito inscriptions. As to the language, Latin inscriptions are the most numerous, in the East Greek was commonly employed, interesting dialects being occasionally found (e.g. in the recently deciphered Christian inscriptions from Nubia in Southern Egypt). Special mention should also be made of the Coptic inscriptions. The text is very often shortened by means of signs and abbreviations. Specifically Christian abbreviations were found side by side with the usual pagan contractions at an early date. One of the most common of the latter, "D. M." (i. e. Diis Manibus, to the protecting Deities of the Lower World), was stripped of its pagan meaning, and adopted in a rather mechanical way among the formulæ of the early Christians. In many cases the dates of Christian inscriptions must be judged from circumstances; when the date is given, it is the consular year. The method of chronological computation varied in different countries. Our present Dionysian chronology (see CHRONOLOGY; DIONYSIUS EXIGUUS) does not appear in the early Christian inscriptions. SEPULCHRAL INSCRIPTIONS The earliest of these epitaphs are characterized by their brevity, only the name of the dead being given. Later a short acclamation was added (e. g. "in God", "in Peace"); from the end of the second century the formulæ were enlarged by the addition of family names and the date of burial. In the third and fourth centuries the text of the epitaphs was made more complete by the statement of the age of the deceased, the date (reckoned according to the consuls in office), and laudatory epithets. For these particulars each of the lands comprising the Roman empire had its own distinct expressions, contractions, and acclamations. Large use was made of symbolism (q. v.). Thus the open cross is found in the epitaphs of the catacombs as early as the second century, and from the third to the sixth century the monogrammatic cross in its various forms appears as a regular part of the epitaphs. The cryptic emblems of primitive Christianity are also used in the epitaphs, e.g. the fish (Christ), the anchor (hope), the palm (victory) and the representation of the soul in the other world as a female figure (orante) with arms extended in prayer. Beginning with the fourth century, after the victory of the Church over paganism, the language of the epitaphs was more frank and open. Emphasis was laid upon a life according to the dictates of Christian faith, and prayers for the dead were added to the inscription. The prayers inscribed thus early on the sepulchral slabs reproduce in large measure the primitive liturgy of the funeral service. They implore for the dead eternal peace (see PAX) and a place of refreshment (refrigerium), invite to the heavenly love-feast (Agape), and wish the departed the speedy enjoyment of the light of Paradise, and the fellowship of God and the saints. A Perfect example of this kind of epitaph is that of the Egyptian monk Schenute; it is taken verbally from e ancient Greek liturgy. It begins with the doxology, "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen", and continues: "May the God of the spirit and of all flesh, Who has overcome death and trodden Hades under foot, and has graciously bestowed life on the world, permit this soul of Father Schenute to attain to rest in the bosom of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the place of light and of refreshment, where affliction, pain, and grief are no more. O gracious God, the lover of men, forgive him all the errors which he has committed by word, act, or thought. There is indeed no earthly pilgrim who has not sinned, for Thou alone, O God, art free from every sin." The epitaph repeats the doxology at the close, and adds the petition of the scribe: "O Saviour, give peace also to the scribe." When the secure position of the Church assured greater freedom of expression, the non-religious part of the sepulchral inscriptions was also enlarged. In Western Europe and in the East it was not unusual to note, both in the catacombs and in the cemeteries above ground, the purchase or gift of the grave and its dimensions. Commonly admitted also into the early Christian inscriptions are the pagan minatory formulæ against desecration of the grave or its illegal use as a place of further burial. HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL INSCRIPTIONS To many of the early Christian sepulchral inscriptions we are indebted for much information concerning the original development of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, besides which they are of great value as a confirmation of Catholic truths. Thus, for example, from the earliest times we meet in them all the hierarchical grades from the door-keeper (ostiarius) and lector up to the pope (see ORDERS, HOLY). A number of epitaphs of the early popes (Pontianus, Anterus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Eutychianus. Caius) were found in the so-called "Papal Crypt" in the Catacomb of St. Callistus on the Via Appia, rediscovered by De Rossi and well known to every pilgrim to Rome (see CEMETERY, sub-title Early Roman Christian Cemeteries). Numbers of early epitaphs of bishops have been found from Germany to Nubia. Priests are frequently mentioned, and reference is often made to deacons, subdeacons, exorcists, lectors, acolytes, fossores or grave-diggers, alumni or adopted children. The Greek inscriptions of Western Europe and the East yield especially interesting material; in them is found, in addition to other information, mention of archdeacons, archpriests, deaconesses, and monks. Besides catechumens and neophytes, reference is also made to virgins consecrated to God, nuns, abbesses, holy widows, one of the last-named being the mother of Pope St. Damasus I (q. v.), the celebrated restorer of the catacombs. Epitaphs of martyrs and tituli mentioning the martyrs are not found as frequently as one would expect, especially in the Roman catacombs. This, however, is easily explained by recalling the circumstances of burial in the periods of persecution, when Christians must have been contented to save and to give even secret burial to the remains of their martyrs. Many a nameless grave among the five million estimated to exist in the Roman catacombs held the remains of early Christians who witnessed to the Faith with their blood. Another valuable repertory of Catholic theology is found in the dogmatic inscriptions in which all important dogmas of the Church meet (incidentally) with monumental confirmation. The monotheism of the worshippers of the Word -- or Cultores Verbi, as the early Christians loved to style themselves -- and their belief in Christ are well expressed even in the early inscriptions. Very ancient inscriptions emphasize, and with detail the most profound of Catholic dogmas, the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. In this connexion we may mention the epitaph of Abercius (q. v.), Bishop of Hieropolis in Phrygia (second century), and the somewhat later epitaph of Pectorius (q. v.) at Autun in Gaul. The inscription of Abercius speaks of the fish (Christ) caught by a holy virgin, which serves as food under the species of bread and wine; it speaks, further, of Rome, where Abercius visited the chosen people, the Church par excellence. This important inscription aroused at first no little controversy among scholars, and some non-Catholic archæologists sought to find in it a tendency to pagan syncretism. Now, however, its purely Christian character is almost universally acknowledged. The original was presented by Sultan Abdul Hamid to Leo XIII, and is preserved in the Apostolic Museum at the Lateran. Early Christian inscriptions confirm the Catholic doctrine of the Resurrection, the sacraments, the veneration of the Blessed Virgin, and the primacy of the Apostolic See. It would be difficult to over-estimate the importance of these evidences, for they are always entirely incidental elements of the sepulchral inscriptions, all of which were pre-eminently eschatological in their purpose. POETICAL AND OFFICIAL INSCRIPTIONS While the copious material obtained from the early Christian epitaphs, especially the inscriptions of the Roman (Latin) and the Greek-Oriental groups, is equivalent to a book in stone on the faith and life of our Christian forefathers, the purely literary side of these monuments is not insignificant. Many inscriptions have the character of public documents; others are in verse, either taken from well-known poets, or at times the work of the person erecting the memorial. Fragments of classical poetry, especially quotations from Virgil, are occasionally found. The most famous composer of poetical epitaphs in Christian antiquity was Pope Damasus I (366-384), mentioned above. He repaired the neglected tombs of the martyrs and the graves of distinguished persons who had lived before the Constantinian epoch, and adorned these burial places with metrical epitaphs in a peculiarly beautiful lettering. Nearly all the larger cemeteries of Rome owe to this pope large stone tablets of this character, several of which have been preserved in their original form or in fragments. Besides verses on his mother Laurentia and his sister Irene, he wrote an autobiographical poem in which the Saviour is addressed: "Thou Who stillest the waves of the deep, Whose power giveth life to the seed slumbering in the earth, who didst awaken Lazarus from the dead and give back the brother on the third day to the sister Martha; Thou wilt, so I believe, awake Damasus from death."Eulogies in honour of the Roman martyrs form the most important division of the Damasine inscriptions. They are written in hexameters, a few in pentameters. The best known celebrate the temporary burial of the two chief Apostles in the Platonia under the basilica of St. Sebastian on the Via Appia, the martyrs Protus and Hyacinth in the Via Salaria Antiqua, Pope Marcellus in the Via Salaria Nova, St. Agnes in the Via Nomentana, also Saints Laurence, Hippolytus, Gorgonius, Peter and Marcellinus, Eusebius, Tarsicius, Cornelius, Eutychius, Nereus and Achilleus, Felix and Adauctus. Damasus also placed a metrical inscription in the baptistery of the Vatican, and set up others in connexion with various restorations, e. g. an inscription on a stairway of the cemetery of St. Hermes. Altogether there have been preserved as the work of Damasus more than one hundred epigrammata, some of them originals and others written copies. More than one half are probably correctly ascribed to him, even though it is necessary to remember that after his death Damasine inscriptions continued to be set up, i. e. inscriptions in the beautiful lettering invented by Damasus or rather by his calligrapher Furius Dionysius Filocalus. Some of the inscriptions, which imitate the lettering of Filocalus, make special and laudatory mention of the pope who had done so much for the catacombs. Among these are the inscriptions of Pope Vigilius (537-55), a restorer animated by the spirit of Damasus. Some of his inscriptions are preserved in the Lateran Museum. The inscriptions just mentioned possess as a rule a public and official character. Other inscriptions served as official records of the erection of Christian edifices (churches, baptisteries, etc.). Ancient Roman examples of this kind are the inscribed tablet dedicated by Boniface I at the beginning of the fifth century to St. Felicitas, to whom the pope ascribed the settlement of the schism of Eulalius, and the inscription (still visible) of Pope Pope Sixtus III in the Lateran baptistery, etc. The Roman custom was soon copied in all parts of the empire. At Thebessa in Northern Africa there were found fragments of a metrical inscription once set up over a door, and in almost exact verbal agreement with the text of an inscription in a Roman church. Both the basilica of Nola and the church at Primuliacum in Gaul bore the same distich: Pax tibi sit quicunque Dei penetralia Christi, pectore pacifico candidus ingrederis. (Peace be to thee whoever enterest with pure and gentle heart into the sanctuary of Christ God.) In such inscriptions the church building is generally referred to as domus Dei, domus orationis (the house of God, the house of prayer). The present writer found an inscription with the customary Greek term Kyriou (House of the Lord) in the basilica of the Holy Baths, one of the basilicas of the ancient Egyptian town of Menas. In Northern Africa, especially, passages from the psalms frequently occur in Christian inscriptions. The preference in the East was for inscriptions executed in mosaic; such inscriptions were also frequent in Rome, where, it is well known, the art of mosaic reached very high perfection in Christian edifices. An excellent and well-known example is the still extant original inscription of the fifth century on the wall of the interior of the Roman basilica of Santa Sabina on the Aventine over the entrance to the nave. This monumental record in mosaic contains seven lines in hexameters. On each side of the inscription is a mosaic figure: one is the Ecclesia ex gentibus (Church of the Gentiles), the other the Ecclesia ex circumcisione (Church of the Circumcision). The text refers to the pontificate of Celestine I, during which period an Illyrian priest named Peter founded the church. Other parts of the early Christian churches were also occasionally decorated with inscriptions, e. g. the titles of roofs and walls. It was also customary to decorate with inscriptions the lengthy cycles of frescoes depicted on the walls of churches. Fine examples of such inscriptions have reached us in the "Dittochæon" of Prudentius, in the Ambrosian tituli, and in the writings of Paulinus of Nola. It should be added that many dedicatory inscriptions belong to the eighth and ninth centuries, especially in Rome, where in the eighth century numerous bodies of saints were transferred from the catacombs to the churches of the city (see CATACOMBS). GRAFFITI Although apparently of little value and devoid of all monumental character, the graffiti (i. e. writings scratched on walls or other surfaces) are of great importance historically and otherwise. Many such are preserved in the catacombs and on various early Christian monuments. Of special importance in this respect are the ruins of the fine edifices of the town of Menas in the Egyptian Mareotis (cf. "Proceedings of Society for Bibl. Archæology", 1907, pp. 25, 51, 112). The graffiti help in turn to illustrate the literary sources of the life of the early Christians. (See also OSTRAKA.) DE ROSSI, Inscriptiones christian urbis Rom septimo s culo antiquiores (Rome, 1861); LE BLANT, Manuel d'épigraphie chrétienne (Paris, 1869); RITTER, De compositione titulorum christianorum sepulcralium (Berlin, 1877); M'CAUL, Christian Epitaphs of the First Six Centuries (London, 1869); NORTHCOTE AND BROWNLOW, Epitaphs of the Catacombs (London, 1879); KAUFMANN, Handbuch der christlichen Archäologie, pt. III, Epigraphische Denkmäler (Paderborn, 1905); SYSTUS, Notiones archæologiæ christian, vol. III, pt. I, Epigraphia (Rome, 1909). C. M. KAUFMANN Inspiration of the Bible Inspiration of the Bible The subject will be treated in this article under the four heads: I. Belief in Inspired books; II. Nature of Inspiration; III. Extent of Inspiration; IV. Protestant Views on the Inspiration of the Bible. I. BELIEF IN INSPIRED BOOKS A. Among the Jews The belief in the sacred character of certain books is as old as the Hebrew literature. Moses and the prophets had committed to writing a part of the message they were to deliver to Israel from God. Now the naby (prophet), whether he spoke or wrote, was considered by the Hebrews thw authorized interpreter of the thoughts and wishes of Yahweh. He was called, likewise, "the man of God," "the man of the Spirit" (Osee, ix, 7). It was around the Temple and the Book that the religious and national restoratiion of the Jewish people was effected after their exile (see II Mach., ii, 13, 14, and the prologue of Ecclesiasticus in the Septuagint). Philo (from 20 B.C. to A.D. 40) speaks of the "sacred books", "sacred word", and of "most holy scripture" (De vita Moysis, iii, no. 23). The testimony of Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37-95) is still more characteristic; it is in his writings that the word inspiration (epipnoia) is met for the first time. He speaks of twenty-two books which the Jews with good reason consider Divine, and for which, in case of need, they are ready to die (Contra Apion., I, 8). The belief of the Jews is the inspiration of the Scriptures did not diminsh from the time in which they were dispersed throughout the world, without temple, without altar, without priests; on the contrary this faith increased so much that it took the place of everything else. B. Among the Christians The gospel contains no express declaration about the origin and value of the Scriptures, but in it we see that Jesus Christ used them in conformity with the general belief, i.e. as the Word of God. The most decisive texts in this respect are found in the Fourth Gospel, v, 39; x, 35. The words scripture, Word of God, Spirit of God, God, in the sayings and writings of the Apostles are used indifferently (Rom., iv, 3; ix, 17). St. Paul alone appeals expressly more than eighty times to those Divine oracles of which Israel was made the guardian (cf. Rom., iii, 2). This persuasion of the early Christians was not merely the effect of a Jewish tradition blindly accepted and never understood. St. Peter and St. Paul give the reason why it was accepted: it is that all Scripture is inspired of God (theopneustos) (II Tim., ii, 16; cf. II Pet., i, 20 21). It would be superfluous to spend any time in proving that Tradition has faithfully kept the Apostolic belief in the inspiratiion of Scripture. Moreover, this demonstaration forms the subject-matter of a great number of works (see especially Chr. pesch, "De inspiratione Sacrae Scripturae", 1906, p. 40-379). It is enough for us to add that on several occasions the Church has defined the inspiration of the canonical books as an article of faith (see Denzinger, Enchiridion, 10th ed., n. 1787, 1809). Every Christian sect still deserving that name believes in the inspiration of the Scriptures, although several have more or less altered the idea of inspiration. C. Value of this Belief History alone allows us to establish the fact that Jews and Christians have always believed in the inspiration of the Bible. But what is this belief worth? Proofs of the rational as well as of the dogmatic order unite in justifying it. Those who first recognized in the Bible a superhuman work had as foundation of thier opinion the testimony of the Prophets, of Christ, and of the Apostles, whose Divine mission was sufficiently established by immediate experience or by history. To this purely rational argument can be added the authentic teaching of the Church. A Catholic may claim this additional certitude without falling into a vicious circle, because the infallibility of the Church in its teaching is proved independently of the inspiration of Scripture; the historical value, belonging to Scripture in common with every other authentic and truthful writing, is enough to prove this. II. NATURE OF INSPIRATION A. Method to be followed (1) To determine the nature of Biblical inspiration the theologian has at his disposal a three fold source of information: the data of tradition, the concept of inspiration, and the concrete state of the inspired text. If he wishes to obtain acceptable results he will take into account all of these elements of solution. Pure speculation might easily end in a theory incompatible with the texts. On the other hand, the literary or historical analysis of these same texts, if left to its own resources, ignores their Divine origin. Finally, if the data of tradition attest the fact of inspiration, they do not furnish us with a complete analysis of its nature. Hence, theology, philosophy, and exegesis have each a word to say on this subject. Positive theology furnishes a starting point in its traditional formulae: viz., God is the author of Scripture, the inspired writer is the organ of the Holy Ghost, Scripture is the Word of God. Speculative theology takes these formula, analyses their contents and from them draws its conclusions. In this way St. Thomas, starting from the traditional concept which makes the sacred writer an organ of the Holy Ghost, explains the subordination of his faculties to the action of the Inspirer by the philosophical theory of the instrumental cause (Quodl., VII, Q. vi, a. 14, ad 5um). However, to avoid all risk of going astray, speculation must pay constant attention to the indications furnished by exegesis. (2) The Catholic who wishes to make a correct analysis of Biblical inspiration maust have before his eyes the following ecclesiastical documents: (a) "These books are held by the Church as sacred and canonical, not as having been composed by merely human labour and afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and have been transmitted to the Church as such." (Concil. Vatic., Sess. III, const. dogm, de Fide, cap. ii, in Denz., 1787). (b) "The Holy Ghost Himself, by His supernatural power, stirred up and impelled the Biblical writers to write, and assisted them while writing in such a manner that they conceived in their minds exactly, and determined to commit to writing faithfully, and render in exact language, with infallible truth, all that God commanded and nothing else; without that, God would not be the author of Scripture in its entirety" (Encycl. Provid. Deus, in Dena., 1952). B. Catholic View Inspiration can be considered in God, who produces it; in man, who is its object; and in the text, which is its term. (1) In God inspiration is one of those actions which are ad extra as theologians say; and thus it is common to the three Divine Persons. However, it is attributed by appropriation to the Holy Ghost. it is not one of those graces which have for their immediate and essential object the sanctification of the man who received them, but one of those called antonomastically charismata, or gratis datae, because they are given primarily for the good of thers. Besides, inspiration has this in common with every actual grace, that it si a transitory participation of the Divine power; the inspired wirter finding himself invested with it only at the very moment of writing or when thinking about writing. (2) Considered in the man on whom is bestowed this favour, inspiration affects the will, the intelligence and all the executive faculties of the writer. (a) Without an impulsion given to the will of the writer, it cannot be conceived how God could still remain the principal cause of Scripture, for, in that case, the man would have taken the initiative. Besides that the text of St. Peter is peremptory: "For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost" (II Pet., i, 21). The context shows that there is question of all Scripture, which is a prophecy in the broad sense of the the word (pasa propheteia graphes). According to the Encyclical Prov. Deus, "God stirred up and impelled the sacred writers to determine to write all that God meant them to write" (Denz., 1952). Theologians discuss the question whether, in order to impart this motion, God moves the will of the writer directly or decides it by proposing maotvies of an intellectual order. At any rate, everybody admits that the Holy Ghost can arouse or simply utilize external influences capable of acting on the will of the sacred writer. According to an ancient tradition, St. Mark and St. John wrote their Gospels at the instance of the faithful. What becomes of human liberty under the influence of Divine inspiration? In principle, it is agreed that the Inspirer can take away from man the power of refusal. In point of fact, it is commonly admitted that the Inspirer, Who does not lack means of obtaining our consent, has respected the freedom of His instruments. An inspiration which is not accompanied by a revelation, which is adapted to the normal play of the faculties of the human soul, which can determine the will of the inspired writer by motives of a human order, does not necessarily suppose that he who is its object is himself conscious of it. If the prophet and the author of the Apcoalypse know and say that their pen is guided by the Spirit of God, other Biblical authors seem rather to have been led by "some mysterious influence whose origin was either unknown or not clearly discerned by them." (St. Aug., De Gen. ad litt., II, xvii, 37; St. Thomas II-II, Q. clxxi, a. 5; Q. cixxiii, a.4). However, most theologians admit that ordinarily the writer was conscious of his ow inspiration. From waht we have just said it follows that inspiration does not necessarily imply exstasy, as Philo and, later, the Montanists thought. It is true that some of the orthodox apologists of the second century (Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, St. Justin) have, in the description which they give of Biblical inspiration, been somehat influenced by the ideas of divination then current amongst the pagans. They are too prone to represent the Biblical writer as a purely passive intermediary, something after the style of the Pythia. Nevertheless, they did not make him out to be an energumen for all that. The Divine intervention, if one is conscious of it, can certainly fill the human soul with a certain awe; but it does not throw it into a state of delirum. (b) To induce a person to write is not to take on oneself the responsibility of that writing, more especially it is not to become the author of that writing. If God can claim the Scripture as His own work, it is because He has brought even the intellect of the inspired writer under His command. However, we must not represent the Inspirer as putting a ready amde book in the mind of the inspired person. Nor has He necessarily to reveal the contens of the work to be produced. No matter where the knowledge of the writer on this point comes from, whether it be acquired naturally or due to Divine revelation, inspiration has not essentially for its object to teach somethin new to the sacred writer, but to render him capable of writing with Divine authority. Thus the author of the Acts of the Apostles narrates events in which he himself took part, or which were related to him. It is highly probable that most of the sayings of the Book of Proverbs were familiar to the sages of the East, before being set down in an inspired writing. God, inasmuch as he is the principal cause, when he inspires a writer, subordinates all that writer's cognitive faculties so as to make him accomplish the different actions which would be naturally gone through by a man who, first of all, has the design of composing a book, then gets together his materials, subjects them to a critical examination, arranges them, makes them enter into his plan, and finally brands them with the mark of his personality -- i.e. his own pecualiar style. The grace of inspiration does not exempt the writer from personal effort, nor does it insure the perfection of his work from an artistic point of view. The author of the the Second Book of Machabeees and St. Luke tell the reader of the pains they took to document their work (II mach., ii, 24-33; Luke, i, 1-4). The imperfections of the work are to be attributed to the instrument. God can, of course, prepare this instrument beforehand, but, a the time of using it, He does not ordinarily make any change in its conditions. When the Creator applies His power to the faculties of a creature outside of the ordinary way, he does so in a manner in keeping with the natural activity of these faculties. Now, in all languages recourse is had to the comparison of light to explain the nature of the human intelligence. That is why St. Thomas (II-II, Q. clxxi, a. 2; Q. clxxiv, a. 2, ad 3um) gives the name of light or illumination to the intellectual motion communicated by God to the sacred wirter. After him, then, we may say that this motion is a pecualir supernatural participation of the Divine light, in virtue of which the writer conceives exactly the work that the Holy Ghost wants him to write. Thanks to this help given to his intellect, the inspired writer judges, with a certitude of Divene order, not only of the opportuneness of the book to be written, but also of the truth of the details and of the whole. However, all theologians do not analyse exactly in the same manner the influence of this light of inspiration. (c) The influence of the Holy Ghost had to extend also to all the executive faculties of the sacred writer -- to his memory, his imagination, and even to the hand with which he formed the letters. Whether this influence proceed immediatley from the action of the Inspirer or be a simple assistance, and, again, whether this assistance be positive or merely negative, in any case everyone admits that its object is to remove all error from the inspired text. Those who hold that even the words are inspired believe that it also forms an integral part of the grace of inspiration itself. However that may be, there is no denying that the inspiration extends, in one way or aother, and as far as needful, to all those who have really cooperated in the composition of the sacred test, especially to the secretaries, if the inspired person had any. Seen in this light, the hagiographer no longer appears a passive and inert instrument, abased as it were, by an exterior impulsion; on the contrary, his faculties are elevated to the service of a superior power, whihc, although distinct, is none the less intimately present and interior. Without losing anything of his personal life, or of his liberty, or even of his spontaneity (since it may happen that he is not conscious of the power which leads him on), man becomes thus the interpreter of God. Such, then is the most comprehensive notion of Divine inspiration. St. Thomas (II-II, Q., cixxi) reduces it to the grace of prophecy, in the broad sense of the word. (3) Considered in its term, inspiration is nothing else but the biblical text itself. This text was destined by God, Who inspired it, for the universal Church, in order that it might be authentically recognized as His written word. This destination is essential. Without it a book, even if it had been inspired by God, could not become canonical; it would have no more value than a private revelation. That is why any writing dated from a later period than the Apostolical age is condemned ipso facto to be excluded from the canon. The reason of this is that the deposit of the public revelation was complete in the time of the Apostles. they alone had the mission to give to the teaching of Christ the development which was to be opportunely suggested to them by the Paraclete, John xiv, 26 (see Franzelin, De divina Traditione et Scriptura (Rome, 1870), thesis xxii). Since the Bible is the Word of God, it can be said that every canonical text is for us a Divine lesson, a revelation, even though it may have been written with the aid of inspiration only, and without a revelation properly so called. For this cause, also, it is clear that an inspired text cannot err. That the Bible is free from error is beyond all doubt, the the teaching of Tradition. The whole of Scriptural apologetics consists precisley in accounting for this exceptional prerogative. Exegetes and apologists have recourse here to considerations which may be reduced to the following heads: + the original unchanged text, as it left the pen of the sacred writers, is alone in question. + As truth and error are properties of judgment, only the assertiions of the sacred writer have to be dealt with. If he makes any affirmation, it is the exegete s duty to discover its meaning and extent; whether he expresses his own views or those of others; whether in quoting another he approves, disapproves, or keeps a silent reserve, etc. + The intention of the writer is to be found out according to the laws of the language in which he writes, and consequently we must take into account the style of literatur he wished to use. All styles are compatible with inspiration, because they are all legitimate expressions of human thought, and also, as St. Augustine says (De Trinitate, I, 12), "God, getting books written by men, did not wish them to be composed in a form differing from that used by them." Therefore, a distinciton is to be made between the assertion and the expression; it is by means of the latter that we arrive at the former. + These general principles are to be applied to the different books of the Bible, mutatis mutandis, according to the nature of the matter contained in them, the special purpose for which their author wrote them, the traditional explanation which is given of them, the traditional explanation which is given of them, and also according to the decisions of the Church. C. Erroneous Views Proposed by Catholic Authors (1) Those which are wrong because insufficient. (a) The approbation given by the Church to a merely human writing cannot, by itself, make it inspired Scripture. The contrary opinion hazarded by Sixtus of Siena (1566), renewed by Movers and Haneberg, in the nineteenth centruy, was condemned by the Vatican Council. (See Denz., 1787). (b) Biblical inspiration even where it seems to be at its minimum -- e.g., in the historical books -- is not a simple assistance given to the inspired writers to prevent him from erring, as was thought by Jahn (1793), who followed Holden and perhaps Richard Simon. In order that a text may be Scripture, it is not enough "that it contain revelation without error" (Conc. Vatic., Denz., 1787). (c) A book composed from merely human resources would not become an inspired text, even if approved of, afterwards, by the Holy Ghost. This subsequent approbation might make the truth contained in the book as credible as if it were an article of the Divine Faith, but it would not give a Divine origin to the book itself. Every inspiration properly so called is antecedent, so much so that it is a contradiciton in terms to speak of a subsequent inspiration. This truth seems to have been lost sight of by those moderns who thought they could revive-at the same time making it still less acceptable -- a vague hypothesis of Lessius (1585) and of his disciple Bonfrère. (1) Those which err by excess A view which errs by excess confounds inspiration with revelation. We have just said that these two Divine operations are not only distinct but may take place separately, although they may also be found together. As a matter of fact, this is what happens whenever God moves the sacred writer to express thoughts or sentiments of which he cannot have acquired knowledge in the ordinary way. There has been some exaggeration in the accusation brought against early writers of having confounded inspiration with revelation; however, it must be admitted that the explicit distinction between these two graces has become more and more emphasized since the time of St. Thomas. This is a very real progress and allows us to make a more exact psychological analysis of inspiration. III. EXTENT OF INSPIRATION The question now is not whether all the Biblical books are inspired in every part, even in the fragments called deuterocanonical: this point, which concerns the integrity of the Canon, has been solved by the Council of Tent (Denz., 784). but are we bound to admit that, in the books or parts of books which are canonical, there is absolutely nothing, either as regards the matter or the form, which does not fall under the Divine inspiration? A. Inspiration of the Whole Subject Matter For the last three centuries there have been author-theologians, exegetes, and especially aplogists -- such as Holden, Rohling, Lenormant, di Bartolo, and others -- who maintained, with more or less confidence, that inspiration was limited to moral and dogmatic teaching, excluding everything in the Bible relating to history and the natural sciences. They think that, in this way, a whole mass of difficulties against the inerrancy of the bible would be removed. but the Church has never ceased to protest against this attempt to restrict the inspiration of the sacred books. This is what took place when Mgr d Hulst, Rector of the Institut Catholique of paris, gave a sympathetic account of this opinion in "Le Correspondant" of 25 Jan., 1893. The reply was quickly forthcoming in the Encyclical Providentissimus Deus of the same year. In that Encyclical Leo XIII said: It will never be lawful to restrict inspiration merely to certain parts of the Holy Scriptures, or to grant that the sacred writer could have made a mistake. Nor may the opinion of those be tolerated, who, in order to get out of these difficulties, do not hesitate to suppose that Divine inspiration extends only to what touches faith and morals, on the false plea that the true meaning is sought for less in what God has said than in the motive for which He has said it. (Denz., 1950) In fact, a limited inspiration contradicts Christian tradition and theological teaching. B. Verbal Inspiration Theologians discuss the question, whether inspiration controlled the choice of the words used or operated only in what concerned the sense of the assertions made in the Bible. In the sixteenth century verbal inspiratiion was the current teaching. The Jesuits of Louvain were the first to react against this opinion. They held "that it is not necessary in order that a text be Holy Scripture, for the Holy Ghost to have inspired the very material words used." The protests against this new opinion were so violent that Bellarmine and Suarez thought it their duty to tone down the formula by declaring "that all the words of the text have been dictated by the Holy Ghost in what concerns the substance, but differently according to the diverse conditiions of the instruments." This opinion went on gaining in precision, and little by little it disentangled itself from the terminology which it had borrowed from the the adverse opinion, notably from the word "dictation." Its progress was so rapid that at the beginning of the nineteenth century it was more commonly taught than the theory of verbal inspiration. Cardinal Franzelin seems to have given it its definite form. During the last quarter of a century verbal inspiration has again found partisans, and they become more numerous every day. However, the theologians of today, whilst retaining the terminology of the older school, have profoundly modified the theory itself. They no longer speak of a material dictation of words to the ear of the writer, nor of an interior revelation of the term to be employed, but of a Divine motion extending to every faculty and even to the powers of execution to the writer, and in consequence influencing the whole work, even its editing. Thus the sacred text is wholly the work of God and wholly the work of man, of the latter, by way of instrument, of the former by way of principal cause. Under this rejuvenated form the theory of verbal inspiration shows a marked advance towards reconcilation with the rival opinion. From an exegetical and apologetical point of view it is indifferent which of these two opinions we adopt. All agree that the characteristics of style as well as the imperfections affecting the subject matter itself, belong to the inspired writer. As for the inerrancy of the inspired text it is to the Inspirer that it must be finally attributed, and it matters little if God has insured the truth of His Scripture by the grace of inspiration itself, as the adherents of verbal inspiration teach, rather than by a providential assistance. IV. PROTESTANT VIEWS ON THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE A. At the Beginning of the Reformation (1) As a necessary consequence of their attitude towards the Bible, which they had taken as their only rule of Faith, the Protestants were led at the very outset to go beyond the ideas of a merely passive inspiration, which was commonly received in the first half of the sixteenth century. Not only did they make no distinction between inspiration and revelation, but Scripture, both in its matter and style, was considered as revelation itself. In it God spoke to the reader just as He did to the Israelites of old from the mercy-seat. Hence that kind of cult which some protestants of today call "Bibliolatry." In the midst of the incertitude, vagueness, and antinomies of those early times, when the Reformation like Luther himself, was trying to find a way and a symbol, one can discern a constant preoccupation, that of indissolubly joining religious belief to the very truth of God by means of His written Word. The Lutherans who devoted themselves to composing the Protestant theory of inspiration were Melanchthon, Chemzitz, Quenstedt, Calov. Soon, to the inspiration of the words was added that of the vowel points of the present Hebrew text. This was not a mere opinion held by the two Buxtorfs, but a doctrine defined, and imposed under pain of imprisonment, and exile, by the Confession of the Swiss Churches, promulgated in 1675. These dispositions were abrogated in 1724. The Purists held that in the Bible there are neither barbarisms nor solecisms; that the Greek of the New Testament is as pure as that of the classical authors. It was said, with a certain amount of truth, that the Bible had become a sacrament for the Reformers. (2) In the seventeenth century began the controversies which, in course of time, were to end in the theory of inspiration now generally accepted by Protestants. The two principles which brought about the Reformation were precisely the instruments of this revolution; on the one side, the claim for every human soul of a teaching of the the Holy Ghost, which was immediate and independent of of every exterior rule; on the other, the right of private judgment, or autonomy of individual reasoning, in reading and studying the Bible. In the name of the first principle, on which Zwingli had insisted more than Luther and Calvin, the Pietists thought to free themselves from the letter of the Bible which fettered the action of the Spirit. A French Huguenot, Seb. Castellion (d. 1563), had already been bold enough to distinguish between the letter and the spirit; according to him the spirit only came from God, the letter was no more than a "case, husk, or shell of the spirit." The Quakers, the followers of Swedenborg, and the Irvingites were to force this theory to its utmost limits; real revealation -- the only one which instructs and sanctifies -- was that produced under the immediate influence of the Holy Ghost. While the Pietists read their Bible with the help of interior illumination alone, others, in even greater numbers, tried to get some light from philological and historical researches which had received their decisive impulse from the Renaissance. Every facility was assured to their investigations by the principle of freedom of private judgment; and of this they took advantage. The conclusions obtained by this method could not be fatal to the theory of inspiration by revelation. In vain did its partisans say that God's will had been to reveal to the Evangelists in four different ways the words which, in reality, Christ had uattered only once; that the Holy Ghost varied His style accoring as he was dictation to Isaias or to Amos -- such an explanation was nothing short of an avowal of the ability to meet the facts alleged against them. As a matter of fact, Faustus Socinus (d. 1562) had already held that the words and, in general, the style of Scripture were not inspired. Soon afterwards, George Calixtus, Episcopius, and Grotinus made a clear distinction between inspiration and revelation. According to the last-named, nothing was revealed but the prophecies and the words of Jesus Christ, everything else was only inspired. Still further, he reduces inspiration to a pious motion of the sould {see "Votum pro pace Ecclesiae" in his complete works, III (1679), 672}. The Dutch Arminian school then represented by J. LeClerc, and, in France, by L. Capelle, Daillé, Blondel, and other, followed the same course. Although they kept current terminology, they made it apparent, nevertheless, that the formula, "The Bible is the Word of God," was already about to be replaced by "The Bible contains the Word of God." Morever, the term word was to be taken in an equivocal sense. B. Biblical Rationalism In spite of all, the Bible was still held as the criterion of religious belief. To rob it of this prerogative was the work which the eighteenth century set itself to accomplish. In the attack then made on the Divine inspiration of the Scriptures three classes of assailants are to be distinguished. (1) The Naturalist philosophers, who were the forerunners of modern unbelief (Hobbes, Spinoza, Wolf); the English Deists (Toland, Collins, Woolston, Tindal, Morgan); the German Rationalists (Reimarus, Lessing); the French Encyclopedists (Voltaire, Bayle) strove by every means, not forgetting abuse and sarcasm, to prove how absurd it was to claim a Divine origin for a book in which all the blemishes and errors of human writings are to be found. (2) The critics applied to the Bible, the methods adopted for the study of profane authors. They, from the literary and historic point of view, reached the same conclusion as the infidel philosophers; but they thought they could remain believers by distinguishing in the Bible between the religious and the profane element. The latter they gave up to the free judgment of historical criticism; the former they pretended to uphold, but not without restrictions, which profoundly changed its import. According to Semler, the father of Biblical Rationalism, Christ and the Apostles accommodated themselves to the false opinions of their contemporaries; according to Kant and Eichborn, everything which does not agree with sane reason must be regarded as Jewish invention. Religion restricted within the limits of reason -- that was the point which the critical movement initiated by Grotius and LeClerc had in common with the philosophy of Kant and the theology of Wegscheider. The dogma of plenary inspiration dragged down with it, in its final ruin, the very notion of revelation (A. Sabatier, Les religions d'autorité et la religion de l'espirit, 2nd ed., 1904, p. 331). (3) These philosophical historical controversiers about Scriptural authority caused great anxiety in religious minds. There were many who then sought their salvation in one of the principles put forward by the earlly Reformers, notably by Calvin: to wit, that truly Christian certitude came from the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Man had but to sound his own soul in order to find the essence of religion, which was not a science, but a life, a sentiment. Such was the verdict of the Kantian philosophy then in vogue. It was useless, from the religious point of view, to discuss the extrinsic claims of the Bible; far better was the moral experience of its intrinisc worth. The Bible itself was nothing but a hostory of the religious experiences of the Prophets, of Christ and His Apostles, of the Synagogue and of the Church. Truth and Faith came not from without, but sprang from the Christian conscience as their source. Now this conscience was awakened and sustained by the narration of the religious experiences of those who had gone before. What mattered, then, the judgment passed by criticism on the historical truth of this narration, if it only evoked a salutary emotion in the soul? Here the useful alone was true. Not the text, but the reader was inspired. Such, in its broad outlines, was the final stage of a movement which Spener, Wesley, the Moravian Brethren, and, generally, the Pietists initiated, but of which Schleiermacher (1768-1834) was to be the theologian and the propagator in the nineteenth century. C. Present Conditions (1) The traditional views, however, were not abandoned without resistance. A movement back to the old idea of the theopneustia, including verbal inspiration, set in nearly everywhere in the first half of the nineteenth century. This reaction was called the Réveil. Among its principal promoters must be mentioned the Swiss L. Gaussen, W. Lee, in England, A. Dlorner in Germany, and, more recently, W. Rohnert. their labours at first evoked interest and sympathy, but were destined to fail before the efforts of a counter-reaction which sought to complete the work of Schleiermacher. it was led by Alex, Vinet, Edm. Scherer, and E. Rabaud in France; Rich. Rothe and especially Ritschl in Germany; S.T. Coleridge, F.D. Maurice, and Matthew Arnold in England. According to them, the ancient dogma of the theopneustia is not to be reformed, but given up altogether. In the heat of the struggle, however, university professors like E. Reuss, freely used the historical method; without denying inspiration they ignored it. (2) Abstracting from accidental differences, the present opinion of the so-called progressive Protestants (who profess, nevertheless, to remain sufficiently orthodox), as represented in Germany by B. Weiss, R.F. Grau, and H Cremer, in England by W. Sanday, C. Gore, and most Anglican scholars, may be reduced to the following heads: (a) the purely passive, mechanical theopneustia, extending to the very words, is no longer tenable. (b) Inspiration had degrees: suggestion, direction, elevation, and superintendency. All the sacred writers have not been equally inspired. (c) Inspiration is personal that is, given directly to the sacred writer to enlighten, stimulate, and purify his faculties. This religious enthusiasm, like every great passion, exalts the powers of the soul; it belongs, therefore, to the spiritual order, and is not merely a help given immediately to the intellect. Biblical inspiration, being a seizure of the ntire man by the Divine virtue, does not differ essentially from the gift of the Holy Spirit imparted to all the faithful. (d) It is, to say the least, an improper use of language to call the sacred text itself inspired. At any rate, this text can, and actually does, err not only in profane matters, but also in those appertaining more or less to religion, since the Prophets and Christ Himself, notwithstanding His Divinity, did not possess absolute infallibility. (Cf. Denney, A Dict. of Christ and the Gospels, I, 148-49.) The Bible is a historical document which taken in its entirety contains the authentic narrative of revelation, the tidings of salvation. (c) Revealed truth, and, consequently, the Faith we derive from it are not founded on the Bible, but on Christ himself; it is from Him and through Him that the written text acquires definitely all its worth. But how are we to reach the historical reality of Jesus -- His teaching, His institutions -- if Scripture, as well as Tradition, offers us no faithful picture? The question is a painful one. To establish the inspiration and Divine authority of the Bible the early Reformers had substituted for the teaching of the Church internal criteria, notably the interior testimony of the Holy Spirit and the spiritual efficacy of the text. Most Protestant theologians of the present day agree in declaring these criteria neither scientific nor traditional; and at any rate they consider them insufficient. (On the true criterion of inspiration see CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.) They profess, consequently, to supplement them, if not to replace them altogether, by a rational demonstration of the autheticity and substantial trustworthiness of the Biblical text. The new method may well provide a starting-point for the fundamental theology of Revelation, but it cannot supply a complete justification of the Canon, as it has been so far maintained in the Churches of the Reformation. Anglican theologians, too, like Gore and Sanday, gladly appeal tot he dogmatic testimony of the collective conscience of the universal Church; but, in so doing, they break with one of the first principles of the Reformation, the autonomy of the individual conscience. (3) The position of liberal Protestants (i.e. those who are independent of all dogma) may be easily defined. The Bible is just like other texts, neither inspired nor the rule of Faith. Religious belief is quite subjective. So far is it from depending on the dogmatic or even historical authority of a book that it gives to it, itself, its real worth. When religious texts, the Bible included, are in question, history -- or, at least, what people generally believe to historical -- is largely a product of faith, whcih has transfigured the facts. The authors of the Bible may be called inspired, that is endowed with a superior perception of religious matters; but this religious enthusiasm does not differ essentially from that which animated Homer and Plato. This is the denial of everything supernatural, in the ordinary sense of the word, as well in the Bible as in religion in general. Nevertheless, those who hold this theory defend themselves from the charge of infidelity, especially repudiating the cold Rationalism of the last century, which was made up exclusively of negations. They think that they remain sufficiently Christian by adhering to the religious sentiment to which Christ ahs given the most perfect expression yet known. Following Kant, Schleiermacher, and Ritschl, they profess a religion freed from all philosophical intellectualism and from every historical proof. Facts and formulae of the past have, in their eyes, only a symbolic and a transient value. Such is the new theology spread by the best-known professors and writers especially in Germany -- historians, exegetes, philologists, or even pastors of souls. We need only mention Harnack, H.J. Holtzmann, Fried. Delitzsch, Cheyne, Campbell, A. Sabatier, Albert and John Réville. it is to this transformation of Christianity that "Modernism", condemned by the Encyclical Pascendi Gregis, owes its origin. In modern Protestantism the Bible has decidely fallen from the primacy which the Reformation had so loudly conferred upon it. The fall is a fatal one, becoming deeper from day to day; and without remedy, since it is the logical consequence of the fundamental principle put forward by Luther and Calvin. Freedom of examination was destined sooner or later to produce freedom of thought. (Cf. A. Sabatier, Les religions d'autorite et la religion de l'espirité, 2nd ed., 1904, pp. 399-403.) CATHOLIC WORKS.-FRANZELIN, Tractatus de divina traditione et scriptura (2nd ed., Rome, 1875), 321-405; SCHMID, De inspirationis bibliorum vi et ratione (Louvain, 1886); ZANECCHIA, Divina inspiratio Sacrae Scripturae (Rome, 1898); Scriptor Sacer (Rome, 1903); BILLOT, De inspiratione Sacrae Scripturae (Rome, 1903); CH. PESCH, De inspiratione Sacrae Scripturae (Freiburg im Br., 1906); LAGRANGE in Revue Biblique (Paris, 1895), p. (London,6 Nov., 1897, to 5 Feb., 1898); HUMMELAUER, Exegetisches zur Inspirationsfrage (Freiburg im Br., 1904); FONCK, Der Kampf um die Warheit der heil. Schrift seit 25 Jahren (Innsburck, 1905); DAUSCH, Die Schrifitnspiration (Freiburg im Br., 1891); HOLZHEY, Die Inspiration de heil. Schrift in der Anschauung des Mittelaters (Munich, 1895); CH. PESCH, Zur neuesten Geschichte der Katholischen Inspirationslehre (Freiburg im Br., 1902) PROTESTANT WORKS.-GUSSEN, Theopneustic (2nd ed., Paris, 1842), tr. Pleanry Inspiration of Holy Scripture; LEE, Inspiration of Holy Scripture (Dublin, 1854); ROHNERT, Die Inspiration, der heil, Schrift und ihre Bestreiter (Leipzig, 1889); SANDAY, The oracles of God (London, 1891); FARRAR, The Bible, Its meaning and Supremacy (London, 1897); History of Interpretation (London 1886); A Clerical Symposium on Inspiration (London, 1884); RABAUD, Histoire de la doctrine de l inspriaation dans les pays de langue francaise depuis la Reforme jusqu a nos jours (Paris, 1883). ALFRED DURAND Installation Installation (Lat. installare, to put into a stall). This word, strictly speaking, applies to the solemn induction of a canon into the stall or seat which he is to occupy in the choir of a cathedral or collegiate church. It is the symbolical act (institutio corporalis) by which a canon is put in possession of the functions which he exercises in the chapter, and by which the chapter admits him. The ceremonies of this installation are regulated by local usage; very often they consist in the assignment of a staff in the choir and a place in the hall in which the meetings of the chapter are held. At the same time the dean invests the new canon with the capitular insignia, puts the biretta on his head, and receives his profession of faith and his oath to observe the statutes of the chapter. The term installation is also applied to the institutio corporalis, or putting in possession of any ecclesiastical benefice whatsoever (see INSTITUTION, CANONICAL); or, again, to the solemn entry of a parish priest into his new parish, even when this solemn act takes place after the parish priest has really been put in possession of his benefice. The corresponding ceremony for a bishop is known as enthronization (q.v.). AYERR, De symbolica canonicorum et canonicarum investitura (Göttingen, 1768); MAYER, Thesaurus novus juris ecclesiastici (Ratisbon, 1791-1794); FERRARIS, Prompta bibliotheca, s.v. Canonicatus, II (Paris, 1861), 134-138; HINSCHIUS, System des katholischen Kirchenrechts, II (Berlin, 1878), 700. A. VAN HOVE Instinct Instinct DEFINITIONS In both popular and scientific literature the term instinct has been given such a variety of meanings that it is not possible to frame for it an adequate definition which would meet with general acceptance. The term usually includes the idea of a purposive adaptation of an action or series of actions in an organized being, not governed by consciousness of the end to be attained. The difficulty is encountered when we attempt to add to this generic concept specific notes which shall differentiate it from reflex activities on the one hand and from intelligent activities on the other. Owing to the limitation of our knowledge of the processes involved, it may not always be possible to determine whether a given action should be regarded as reflex or instinctive, but this should not prevent us from drawing, on theoretical grounds, a clear line of demarcation between these two modes of activity. The reflex is essentially a physiological process. The reflex arc is an established neural mechanism which secures a definite and immediate response to a given physical stimulus. The individual may be conscious of the stimulus or of the response or of both, but consciousness does not in any case enter into the reflex as an essential factor. Instincts, in contradistinction to reflexes, are comparatively complex. Some writers are so impressed with this characteristic of instinct that they are disposed to agree with Herbert Spencer in defining it as an organized series of reflexes, but this definition fails to take into account the fact that consciousness forms an essential link in all instinctive activities. It has been suggested as a distinctive characteristic of instinct that it arises from perception, whereas the Source of a reflex is never higher than a sensation. Baldwin includes under instinct only reactions of a sensory-motor type. From a neurological point of view, in mammals at least, instinct always involves the cerebral cortex, the seat of consciousness, while the reflex is confined to the lower nerve centres. An obvious difference between reflexes and instincts is to be found in the fact that in the reflex the response to the stimulus is immediate, whereas the culmination of the instinctive activity, in which its purposive character appears, may be delayed for a considerable time. The chief difficulties in defining instinct are encountered in differentiating instinctive from intelligent activities. If the mode of origin of instinct and habit be left out of account, the two processes will be seen to resemble each other so closely that it is well-nigh impossible to draw any clear line of distinction between them. This circumstance has led to the popular conception of instinct as race habit, a view of the subject which finds support in so eminent an authority as Wilhelm Wundt; but this definition implies a theory of origin for instinct which is not universally accepted. Again, the Schoolmen and many competent observers, among whom E. Wasmann, S.J., is prominent, find the characteristic difference between instinctive and intelligent activities in the fact that one is governed exclusively by sensation, or by sensory associative processes, while the other is governed by intellect and free will. They accordingly attribute all the conscious activities of the animal to instinct, since, as they claim, none of these activities can be traced to intellect in the strict sense of the word. St. Thomas nowhere treats in detail of animal instinct, but his position on the subject is rendered none the less clear from a great many passages in the "Summa Theologica". He is in full agreement with the best modern authorities in laying chief emphasis on the absence of consciousness of the end as the essential characteristic of instinct. He says (op. cit., I-II, Q. xi, a. 2, C.): "Although beings devoid of consciousness (coqnitio) attain their end, nevertheless they do not attain a fruition of their end, as beings do who are endowed with consciousness. Consciousness of one's end, however, is of two kinds, perfect and imperfect. Perfect consciousness is that by which one is conscious not only of the end, and that it is good, but also of the general nature of purpose and goodness. This kind of consciousness is peculiar to rational natures. Imperfect consciousness is that by which a being knows the purpose and goodness in particular, and this kind of consciousness is found in brute animals, which are not governed by free will but are moved by natural instinct towards those things which they apprehend. Thus the rational creature attains complete enjoyment (fruitio); the brute attains imperfect enjoyment, and other creatures do not attain enjoyment at all." Wasmann's concept of instinct is in strict agreement with that of St. Thomas, while it is more explicit. He divides the instinctive activities of animals into two groups: "Instinctive actions in the strict, and instinctive actions in the wider acceptation of the term. As instances of the former class we have to regard those which immediately spring from the inherited dispositions of the powers of sensile cognition and appetite; and as instances of the latter those which indeed proceed from the same inherited dispositions but through the medium of sense experience." (Instinct and Intelligence in the Animal Kingdom, p. 35.) There is a growing tendency in biology and comparative psychology to restrict the term instinct to inherited purposive adaptations. Many writers add to this two other characteristics: they insist that an instinct must be definitely fixed or rigid in character, and that it must be common to a large group of individuals. Baldwin regards instinct as "a definitely biological, not a psychological conception" (Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology). He adds that "no adequate psychological definition of instinct is possible, since the psychological state involved is exhausted by the terms sensation (and also perception), instinct-feeling, and impulse." (Ibid.) The divergent views entertained by writers on the subject concerning the nature and origin of instinct naturally find expression in the currently accepted definitions of the term, a few of which are here appended : -- + "Instinct, natural inward impulse; unconscious, involuntary or unreasoning prompting to any mode of action, whether bodily or mental. instinct, in its more technical use, denotes any inherited tendency to perform a specific action in a specific way when the appropriate situation occurs; furthermore, an instinct is characteristic of a group or race of related animals." (New International Dictionary.) + "Instinct, a special innate propensity, in any organized being, but more especially in the lower animals, producing effects which appear to be those of reason and knowledge, but which transcend the general intelligence or experience of the creature; the sagacity of the brute." (Century Dictionary.) + "Instinct, an inherited reaction of the sensory-motor type, relatively complex and markedly adaptive in character, and common to a group of individuals." (Baldwin, "Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology ".) + "Instinct is the hereditary, suitable (adaptive) disposition of the powers of sensitive cognition and appetite in the animal." (Wasmann, op. cit., 36.) + "Habit differs from instinct, not in its nature, but in its origin; the last being natural, the first acquired." (Reid.) + "Instinct is a purposive action without consciousness of the purpose." (E. von Hartmann, "Philosophy of the Unconscious", tr. Coupland.) + "Instinct is reflex action into which there is imported the element of consciousness. The term is therefore a generic one, comprising all those faculties of mind which are concerned in conscious and adaptive action, antecedent to individual experience, without necessary knowledge of the relation to individual experience, without necessary knowledge of the relation between means employed and ends attained, but similarly performed under similar and frequently recurring circumstances by all the individuals of the same species." (Romanes, "Animal Intelligence", New York, 1892, p. 17.) + "Movements which originally followed upon simple or compound voluntary acts, but which have become wholly or partially mechanized in the course of individual life and of generic evolution, we term instinctive actions." (Wundt, "Human and Animal Psychology", London, 1894, p. 388.) ORIGIN A great many theories have been advanced to account for the origin of instinct. These theories may be grouped under three heads: (a) reflex theories, (b) theories of lapsed intelligence, and (c) the theory of organic selection. The name of Charles Darwin has been prominently associated with the reflex theory, sometimes called the theory of natural selection. This assumes that instincts, like anatomical structures, tend to vary from the specific type, and these variations, when advantageous to the species, are gradually accumulated though natural selection. In his chapter on instinct in the "Origin of Species", Darwin says: "It will be universally admitted that instincts are as important as corporal structures for the welfare of each species under its present conditions of life. Under changed conditions of life, it is at least possible that slight modifications of instinct might be profitable to a species; and if it can be shown that instincts do vary ever so little, then I can see no difficulty in natural selection preserving and continually accumulating variations of instinct to any extent that was profitable. It is thus, as I believe, that all the most complex and wonderful instincts have originated." (Op. cit., New York, 1892, vol. I, p. 321.) The difficulty with this theory is that it fails to account for the survival of the early beginnings of an instinct before it is of utility. It has also been urged against it that it does not account for the co-ordination of the muscular groups which are frequently involved in instinct. Similar objections, of course, have been urged against natural selection as the origin of many complex anatomical structures. The adaptive character, in the one case as in the other, points to the operation of an intelligence that altogether transcends the scope of the mental powers of the creatures in question. The second theory, that of lapsed intelligence, has assumed many forms, and has found many defenders among comparative psychologists and biologists during the last half century. Among the best-known authors espousing this theory may be mentioned Wundt, Eimer, and Cope. The two main difficulties in the way of the acceptance of this theory are, first, the high grade of intelligence demanded at very low levels of animal life, and second, it assumes the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Wundt rejects intelligence in the strict acceptation of the term as the source of animal instinct. His position is best stated in his own words: "We may reject at once as wholly untenable the hypothesis which derives animal instinct from an intelligence which, though not identical with that of man, is still, so to speak, of equal rank with it. At the same time we must admit that the adherents of an intellectual theory in a more general sense are right in ascribing a large number of the manifestations of mental life in animals not, indeed, to intelligence, as the intellectualists sensu stricto do, but to individual experiences, the mechanism of which can only be explained in terms of association." (Op. cit., p. 389.) After dealing with another phase of this subject, he continues: "Only two hypotheses remain, therefore, as really arguable. One of them makes instinctive action a mechanized intelligent action, which can be in whole or in part reduced to the level of the reflex; the other makes instinct a matter of inherited habit, gradually acquired and modified under the influence of the external environment in the course of numberless generations. There is obviously no necessary antagonism between these two views. Instincts may be actions originally conscious, but now become mechanical, and they may be inherited habits." (Ibid., p. 393.) After discussing human instincts and their relation to animal instincts, Wundt concludes: "External conditions of life and voluntary reactions upon them, then, are the two factors operative in the evolution of instinct. But they operate in different degrees. The general development of mentality is always tending to modify instinct in some way or another. And so it comes about that of the two associated principles the first, -- adaptation to environment, -- predominates at the lower stages of life; the second, -- voluntary activity, -- at the higher. This is the great difference between the instincts of man and those of the animals. Human instincts are habits, acquired or inherited from previous generations; animal instincts are purposive adaptations of voluntary action to the conditions of life. And a second difference follows from the first: that the vast majority of human instincts are acquired: while animals . . . are restricted to connate instincts, with a very limited range of variation." (Ibid., 409.) Romanes seeks to solve the problem of the origin of instinct by combining these two theories, accounting for the more rigid instincts of animals on the basis of natural selection and for the more plastic instincts by the inheritance of mechanized habits. He calls the former class of instincts primary and the latter secondary. More recently, the theory of organic selection has been advanced. According to this theory purposive adaptations of all kinds, whether intelligent or organic, are called upon to supplement incomplete endowment, and thus to keep the species alive until variations arc secured sufficient to make the instinct relatively independent. It is evident from the definitions and theories given above that several distinct things are included under the term instinct. This finds expression in the division of instincts into primary and secondary suggested by Romanes, and into connate and acquired instincts (Wundt). Darwin emphasized the same fact when he claimed that many instincts may have arisen from habit, and then adds: "but it would be a serious error to suppose that the greater number of instincts have been acquired by habit in one generation and then transmitted by inheritance to succeeding generations. It can be clearly shown that the most wonderful instincts with which we are acquainted, namely, those of the hive-bee and of many ants, could not possibly have been acquired by habit." (Op. cit., vol. I, 321.) Formerly, instincts interested naturalists chiefly because they were regarded as so many illustrations of the intelligence of the Creator, and, indeed, where it is a question of "primary", or "inherited", instincts -- or instincts in "the strict sense of the term", as Wasmann designates them -- the problem of origin is similar to that of the origin of anatomical characteristics. Evidently we shall have to account for such elaborate instincts as that which determines the conduct of the caterpillar or the emperor moth in building its cocoon along the same lines which we adopt in accounting for the origin of complicated anatomical structures. The intelligence displayed far transcends that which could possibly have been possessed by such lowly creatures. The "secondary", or "acquired", instincts have a theoretical interest of an entirely different character, arising out of the problems of the nature of animal intelligence and the origin of man. Monists, and in general all those who accept the brute origin of man, seek to obliterate the essential difference between man and the animal; hence they ascribe to the animal an intelligence which differs only in degree from that possessed by man. While at first sight this would seem to lift the animal up to the plane of human life, what it does in reality is to lower man to the plane of brute life. It may easily be demonstrated that many of the instincts in animals are capable of modification in the course of individual experience. Acts that are determined by a new element in the environment may be frequently repeated by a large number of the species; this repetition soon begets a habit which, to all intents and purposes, is identical with instinct. Such mechanized habits are, as we have seen, classified by some observers as instincts, and if such a habit be inherited, as some claim it may be, then no one would refuse to it the name of instinct. The real importance attaching to this problem arises from the form of consciousness that is operative in building up such habits, or secondary instincts. Aristotle and the Schoolmen attributed these purposive adjustments to the appetitus sensitivus. They found no need of calling into play any higher faculty than sensory perceptions of particular objects and the recognition of their desirability or the reverse. This view is developed by Wasmann. It should be observed, however, that the term instincts as used by the Scholastics and by Wasmann refers not only to the neural mechanism or habit in the animal, but to the sensory powers which enable the animal to adjust its spontaneous activities to its surroundings. The term "was not taken merely as a constituent part of the sensitive power of cognition and appetite but as the adaptive, natural disposition of animal sensation, which constitutes the vital principle that governs the spontaneous actions of the animal. . . . For apart from and beyond inherited, instinctive knowledge, scholastic philosophy ascribed to the animal a sensile memory and a power of perfecting inborn instincts though sense experience; it acknowledges in the animal not only complete hereditary talents for certain activities, but to a certain degree talent and ability acquired by sense experience and by practice." (Wasmann, op. cit., 138-39.) Wundt, as we have seen, denies to the animal intelligence of the same order as that possessed by man. A great deal of confusion has been imported into this subject by a loose and unjustifiable use of the terms reason and intelligence. To the superficial observer, of course, the power of sensory perception and association possessed by the animal resembles intelligence, but the terms have widely different signification. Intelligence in its lowest degree always implies as an essential characteristic the power of abstraction and generalization on which freedom of election rests, and, until it is shown that animals possess such a power, it is unjustifiable to attribute such intelligence to them as the school of naturalists do who approach the subject with the foregone conclusion that human intelligence originated from that of the brute, and differs only from it in degree. HUMAN INSTINCTS The question of the nature of human instincts and the treatment which they should receive is involved in many practical issues of the utmost consequence in the field of education. As we have seen above, some writers speak of acquired instincts, meaning thereby highly developed or mechanized habits; but it will be more convenient here to confine the use of the term to instincts in the proper sense of the word, that is, to innate or inherited tendencies, and to speak of modes of activity established in individual life through repetition as habits. The most striking characteristic of human instincts as contrasted with instincts in the brute is plasticity. It is, in fact, this characteristic of human instinct that renders education both possible and necessary. Among the higher animals many instincts are relatively plastic, that is, they are modified by the individual experience of the animal. This renders it possible to train animals to act in ways that are not provided for by definitely organized tendencies. The plasticity of the animal's instincts is in some direct proportion to the development of the brain and of the power of sense perception and sensory association, but when we turn to man we find that his intelligence, which asserts itself at a very early date in infancy, begins to modify all instinctive activities as soon as they appear, a fact which renders it difficult to observe unmodified instincts in adult life. There are, therefore, two things to be taken into account: the plasticity of the instinct and the power of intellect and free will that is brought to bear in modifying it. In both of these respects there is a striking contrast observable between man and the animal. It should be noted here as of special importance to the discussion that human instincts do not all make their appearance at birth. It is true that instinct causes the newly born babe to seek its mother's breast and to perform sundry other necessary functions, but many of the instincts make their appearance for the first time in the appropriate phase of neural and mental development. Again, while the appearance of the instinct is relatively late in the developmental series, it frequently, as in the case of coquetry and maternity, antedates by some years the adult function to which it refers. This renders the instincts much more plastic, or, in other words, much more amenable to the control of educative agencies than they would be if they appeared for the first time amid the stress of the fully developed emotions and passions to which they refer. This antedating of the function may be regarded as an indication of the vestigial character of the instincts in question. The work in the field of genetic psychology and of child study during the past few decades has revealed the presence and the important functions of many hitherto neglected instincts in the life of the child. These instincts cannot be neglected or they will run wild and produce their crop of undesirable results; they cannot be suppressed indiscriminately, because they are the native roots on which all habits that are of enduring strength in human life are grafted. On the other hand, many instincts are highly undesirable; their full development would, in fact, mean the production of criminals. For explanation of these instincts we are referred by many to the savage state from which civilized man has gradually emerged. "In the case of mankind, the self-assertion, the unscrupulous seizing upon all that can be grasped, the tenacious holding of all that can be kept, which constitute the essence of the struggle for existence, have answered. For his successful progress through the savage state, man has been largely indebted to those qualities which he shares with the ape and tiger. . . . But, in proportion as men have passed from anarchy to social organization, and in proportion as civilization has grown in worth, these deeply ingrained serviceable qualities have become defects. . . . In fact, civilized man brands all these ape and tiger promptings with the name of sins; he punishes many of the acts which flow from them as crimes; and, in extreme cases, he does his best to put an end to the survival of the fittest of former days by axe and rope." (Huxley, "Evolution and Ethics", New York, 1894, pp. 51-52.) Clearly, then, some instincts must be suppressed and others must be reinforced. It is the business of education to guide the native impulses of the child into proper channels and to build upon them the habits of civilized life. So far there is practical agreement in the field, but what standard shall be employed in determining which instincts shall be inhibited and which reinforced, and what methods shall be employed in directing the tide of instinctive activity? In these questions there is anything but agreement. Many of those educators who believe in the brute origin of man assume that the standard of selection here must be the same as that in the animal kingdom, namely, the conscious activities of each individual. They would have the child with his meagre endowment of intellect determine for himself, "experimentally", which instincts to suppress and which to cultivate. This thought is embodied in the "culture epoch" theory, which finds so much favour with many modern educators. This theory is founded on the assumption that the child recapitulates in the unfolding of his conscious life the history of the race; and it further assumes that the proper mode of treatment is to lead each phase of this recapitulation to function when it appears in the child's development. The child is to determine by his own experience the unsatisfactory character of the earlier phase, and thus be led to recognize the desirability of moving on to the later and higher phase. In these respects the Christian Church has always maintained a policy exactly the opposite of the one here outlined. She maintains that, whatever may be the nature of the child's instincts, he must be led from the beginning to function only on the highest plane attained by the adult whether through reason or Revelation. She further maintains that the standard of selection is not the choice of the individual child, but the standard of truth and goodness which has been revealed to man and has been accepted by the wisdom of the race. She has always maintained the principle of authority both in matters of doctrine and of conduct, as opposed to private judgment and individual choice, which, in her eyes, lead to anarchy. Moreover, the Church's position in this matter is in entire agreement with the secure findings of biology and psychology. The doctrine of recapitulation on which the culture epoch theory rests is a doctrine of embryology where it is held that ontogeny is a recapitulation of phylogeny, i.e., that the individual embryo recapitulates in its development the successive stages in the development of the race; but it should be observed that this doctrine is purely anatomical. Many biologists believe that the eye in race history was made by seeing and the lung by breathing; but no biologist would maintain for a moment that the eye in embryonic development was made by seeing and the lung by breathing. In fact, high levels of animal life are never reached except in those cases where the offspring is carried forward without functioning to the adult plane by the parent. And it may be rightly argued from analogy that, even if it be granted that the child's mental life is a recapitulation of the race life, the only way of bringing him up to the adult plane is through society's functioning for him, though its educative agencies, until he reaches adult stature. The culture epoch theory, which leads the child to function in each successive "culture epoch", would, therefore, not only retard his proper development, but it would inevitably initiate a violent retrogression. General works on evolution, psychology, and comparative psychology; cf. in particular MORGAN, Some Definitions of Instinct in Natural Science (London, May, 1895); IDEM, Habit and Instinct (London, 1896); IDEM, Animal Behaviour (London, 1900); IDEM, Introduction to Comparative Psychology (London, 1894); ROMANES, Animal Intelligence (New York, 1892); IDEM, Mental Evolution in Animals (New York, 1891); IDEM, Darwin and After Darwin, I (Chicago, 1896); MIVART, Lessons from Nature (London, 1879); IDEM, Origin of Human Reason (London, 1899); WASMANN, Instinct and Intelligence in the Animal Kingdom (St. Louis, 1903); LUBBOCK, Ants, Bees and Wasps (New York, 1893); GROOS, Play of Animals (New York, 1898); IDEM, Play of Man (New York, 1901); BALDWIN in Science of 20 March and 10 April (1896); IDEM, Story of the Mind (New York, 1898); IDEM in Dict. of Philos. and Psychol. (New York, 1901), s. v. lnstinct and Organic Selection; LICATA, Fisiologia dell' istinto (Naples, 1879); MASCI, Le teorie sulla formazione naturale dell' istinto (Naples, 1893). THOMAS EDWARD SHIELDS Institute of Mary Institute of Mary The official title of the second congregation founded by Mary Ward. Under this title Barbara Babthorpe, the fourth successor Mary Ward as "chief superior", petitioned for and obtained the approbation of its rule in 1703. It is the title appended to the signatures of the first chief superiors, and mentioned in the "formula of vows" of the first members. "Englische Fräulein", "Dame Inglesse", "Loretto Nuns", are popular names for the members of the institute in the various countries where they have established themselves. On the suppression, in 1630, of Mary Ward's first congregation, styled by its opponents the "Jesuitesses", the greater number of the members returned to the world or entered other religious orders. A certain number, however, who desired still to live in religion under the guidance of Mary Ward, were sheltered with the permission of Pope Urban VIII in the Paradeiser Haus, Munich, by the Elector of Bavaria, Maximilian I. Thence some of the younger members were transferred at the pope's desire to Rome, there to live with Mary Ward and be trained by her in the religious life. Her work, therefore, was not destroyed, but reconstituted with certain modifications of detail, such as subjection to the jurisdiction of the ordinary instead of to the Holy See immediately, as in the original scheme. It was fostered by Urban and his successors, who as late as the end of the seventeenth century granted a monthly subsidy to the Roman house. Mary Ward died in England at Heworth near York in 1645, and was succeeded as chief superior by Barbara Babthorpe, who resided at Rome as head of the "English Ladies", and on her death was buried there in the church of the English College. She was succeeded as head of the institute by Mary Pointz, the first companion of Mary Ward. The community at Heworth removed to Paris in 1650. In 1669 Frances Bedingfield, one of the constant companions of Mary Ward, was sent by Mary Pointz to found a house in England. Favoured by Catherine of Braganza, she established her community first in St. Martin's Lane, London, and afterwards at Hammersmith. Thence a colony moved to Heworth, and finally in 1686 to the site of the present convent, Micklegate Bar, York. In addition to that at Munich, two foundations had meantime been made in Bavaria--at Augsburg in 1662, at Burghausen in 1683. At the opening of the eighteenth century the six houses of Munich, Augsburg, Rome, Burghausen, Hammersmith, and York were governed by local superiors appointed by the chief superior, who resided for the most part at Rome, and had a vicaress in Munich. Thus, for seventy years the institute carried on its work, not tolerated only, but protected by the various ordinaries, yet without official recognition till the year 1703, when at the petition of the Elector Maximilian Emanuel of Bavaria, Mary of Modena, the exiled Queen of England, and others, its rule was approved by Pope Clement XI. It was not in accordance with the discipline of the Church at that time to approve any institute of simple vows. The pope was willing, however, to approve the institute as such, if the members would accept enclosure. But fidelity to their traditions, and experience of the benefit arising from non-enclosure in their special vocation, induced them to forego this further confirmation. The houses in Paris and in Rome were given up about the date of the confirmation of the rule in 1703. St. Pölten (1706) was the first foundation from Munich after the Bull of Clement XI. In 1742 the houses in Austria and its dependencies were by a Bull of Benedict XIV made a separate province of the institute, and placed under a separate superior-general. The Austrian branch at present (1909) consists of fourteen houses. In Italy, Lodi and Vicenza have each two dependent filials. When the armies of the first Napoleon overran Bavaria in 1809, the mother-house in Munich and the other houses of the institute in Germany--Augsburg, Burghausen, and Altötting excepted--were broken up and the communities scattered. On the restoration of peace to Europe, King Louis I of Bavaria obtained nuns from Augsburg, and established them at Nymphenburg, where a portion of the royal palace was made over to them. In 1840 Madame Catherine de Graccho, the superior of this house, was appointed by Gregory XVI general superior of the whole Bavarian institute. At the present day there are 85 houses under Bavaria, with 1153 members, 90 Postulants, 1225 boarders, 11,447 day pupils and 1472 orphans. Four houses in India, one at Rome, and two in England are subject to Nymphenburg. The house in Mainz escaped secularization, being spared by Napoleon on the condition that all connection with Bavaria should cease. It is now the mother-house of a branch which has eight filial houses. When vigour was reviving in the institute abroad, the Irish branch was founded (1821) at Rathfarnham, near Dublin, by Frances Ball, an Irish lady, who had made her novitiate at York. There are now 19 houses of the institute in Ireland, 13 subject to Rathfarnham and 6 under their respective bishops. The dependencies of Rathfarnham are in all parts of the world--3 houses in Spain, 2 in Mauritius, 2 at Gibraltar, 10 in India, 2 in Africa, 10 in Australia, with a Central Training College for teachers at Melbourne (1906). There are 8 houses of the institute in Canada, 3 in the United States, 7 in England, about 180 houses in all. Owing to the variety of names and the independence of branches and houses, the essential unity of the institute is not readily recognized. The "English Virgins", or "English Ladies", is the title under which the members are known in Germany and Italy, whilst in Ireland, and where foundations from Ireland have been made, the name best known is "Loretto Nuns", from the name of the famous Italian shrine given to the mother-house at Rathfarnham. Each branch has its own novitiate, and several have their special constitutions approved by the Holy See. The "Institute of Mary" is the official title of all; all follow the rule approved for them by Clement XI, and share in the approbation of their institute given by Pius IX, in 1877. The sisters devote themselves principally to the education of girls in boarding-schools and academies, but they are also active in primary and secondary schools, in the training of teachers, instruction in the trades and domestic economy, and the care of orphans. Several members of the institute have also become known as writers. M. LOYOLA Institute of Mission Helpers of the Sacred Heart Institute of Mission Helpers of the Sacred Heart In the autumn of 1888, there came to Baltimore, Maryland, a convert, Mrs. Hartwell, who previous to her reception into the Church had been interested in works of charity. Under the spiritual direction of Father Slattery, provincial of St. Joseph's Society for the coloured missions she began to catechize the negro children, and was soon joined by some companions. In the autumn of 1890, these ladies wishing to become religious laid the foundations of a community under the name of "Mission Helpers, Daughters of the Holy Ghost". The work was missionary and catechetical, but was exclusively for the coloured race, the sisters binding themselves thereto by a special vow. Very soon an industrial school for girls was opened. In 1895, the name of the institute was changed to "Mission Helpers of the Sacred Heart" and the members were dispensed from the "negro" vow. Thus there was no longer any distinction made as to race in the work of the sisters, which from that time was to embrace all the neglected poor. Hence, the field of missionary and catechetical labour was greatly broadened. A direct result of this change was the opening in 1897 of a school for deaf-mutes, at the request of Cardinal Gibbons. This school, St. Francis Xavier's, was the first Catholic institution for deaf-mutes in the ecclesiastical province of Baltimore. In Porto Rico, also, there was no provision whatsoever for deaf-mutes who were poor, until the Mission Helpers opened a school there, shortly after making their foundation in San Juan in 1902. This was a heavy undertaking, as the demands on the sisters for missionary and catechetical work in Porto Rico were very great, and the need urgent. At the first general chapter of the institute, which was held on 5 November, 1906, by command of Cardinal Gibbons, a constitution was adopted, and a superior general and her assistants elected according to its prescriptions. At this first election Mother M. Demetrias was chosen as mother general. The community was then officially declared canonically organized. Two important matters were settled about that time by ecclesiastical authority. The sisters were released from the observance of the vow which they had made to offer their prayers and good works for the welfare of the clergy, it having been declared uncanonical. Perpetual adoration was also discontinued because of the bodily hardship it entailed. On account of their missionary labours the sisters were unable to keep up the work of adoration, without grave detriment to their health, consequently it was decided to restrict it to the First Fridays. The active work of the institute as outlined by the constitution embraces the keeping of industrial schools for coloured girls; schools for deaf-mutes; day-nurseries; teaching catechism and giving instruction wherever needed; visiting the poor in their own homes, and in institutions, such as hospitals and alms-houses, and preparing the dying for the last sacraments. There are houses of the institute in New York, Trenton, Porto Rico, and Baltimore. SISTER M. de SALES Irish Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary Irish Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary Founded by Frances Mary Teresa Ball, under the direction and episcopal jurisdiction of the Most Rev. D. Murray, Archbishop of Dublin. By the archbishop's desire, Frances Ball had prepared herself for this undertaking by a two years' novitiate in St. Mary's Convent, Micklegate Bar, York. Two other Irish ladies, Miss Ellen Arthur and Miss Anne Therry, offered to join the new foundation and were accepted. On 4 November, 1822, the three pioneers took possession of Rathfarnham Abbey, which had been purchased by the Archbishop of Dublin to serve as a mother-house and novitiate. The wide-spreading fame of the superior education afforded in the Dublin Archdiocese by the Loretto nuns -- as they are commonly called -- brought demands for their services throughout Ireland. The first offshoot was planted in Navan, County Meath, in the year 1833. This convent has now a filiation in Mullingar. The convents in North Great George's Street and Stephen's Green, Dublin, come next in the order of foundations. The year 1836 was signalized by the rescript of Pope Gregory XVI addressed to the Most Rev. D. Murray, Archbishop of Dublin, which ordained that: "Those who have associated themselves and shall hereafter associate themselves to this institute cannot depart to another, even though observing rules of a more rigid discipline without the express permission of the Apostolic See." The year 1840 was marked by the erection of the first church in Ireland dedicated to the Sacred Heart, in Loretto Abbey, Rathfarnham. The same year saw the building of a smaller, but very beautiful, abbey in Dalkey, and also the opening of negotiations for another abbey in Gorey, which prepared the way for a future Loretto in the town of Wexford. In spite of her prudent reluctance to favour the repeated applications for an extension of the Irish sisters' work into foreign countries, Reverend Mother Ball at last yielded to the solicitations of Dr. Carew, Archbishop of Calcutta, and sanctioned the departure of volunteers for the Indian mission on 23 August, 1841. To Loretto House, Calcutta, have been added convents in Darjeeling, Lucknow, Assansol, Intally, Simla, etc. In addition to the boarding and day schools the sisters conduct orphanages and attend diligently to the religious instruction of adults. The success in India led to an appeal for nuns from Dr. Collier, Vicar Apostolic of Madras, which appeal was granted in 1846. Immediately afterwards the Vicar Apostolic of Gibraltar urged a like petition. Two Loretto convents are established on the Rock. The Most Rev. Dr. Power, Archbishop of Toronto, begged for a Loretto community in 1847. The under-named filiations own Loretto Abbey, Toronto, as their headhouse: the convents in the city and suburbs, likewise in Belleville, Lyndsay, Hamilton, Niagara Falls, Guelph, Stratford, Chicago, Joliet, and Sault Sainte Marie. The foundations in Fermoy and Omagh (Ireland) were supplied with members from Rathfarnham in the years 1853-5. The former has two filiations -- at Youghal and Clonmel. The Letterkenny Loretto was the first convent founded in the Diocese of Raphoe, County Donegal, since the Reformation. The convents at Bray, Baymount, Kilkenny, and Killarney were also founded by Reverend Mother Ball. After a lingering illness, borne with saintly fortitude, the foundress died on Whit-Sunday, 19 May, 1861. The most noteworthy events in the institute since her death have been: First, the approval and confirmation of the constitutions peculiar to Loretto Abbey, Rathfarnham, and its filiations by Pope Pius IX, the said constitutions having been sanctioned and transmitted to Rome by Cardinal Cullen in 1861, for the usual examination by the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda. Second, the transfer of the community at Baymount to Balbriggan. The foundation of a convent in Ballarat, Australia, from which proceeded the convents at Sydney, Portland, Perth, Adelaide, and Melbourne. To the latter is attached the Central Training College for Teachers, instituted by the Australian bishops and intrusted by their lordships to the management of the Loretto nuns. Third: large day schools were established in Enniscorthy, County Wexford, and in Rathmines, County Dublin. Fourth: foundations have been made in Seville, Madrid, and Yalla, in Spain. In Ireland the educational work of the Loretto nuns ranges through the three systems of primary, secondary, and university education -- the girls' various successes culminating in the winning of studentships and examinerships in the gift of the Royal University of Ireland. in other countries the Loretto nuns invariably work up to the requisite standard fixed by the extern educational authorities. (See INSTITUTE OF MARY.) SISTER MARY GERTRUDE Christian Brothers Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools NATURE AND OBJECT The Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools is a society of male religious approved by the Church, but not taking Holy orders, and having for its object the personal sanctification of its members and the Christian education of youth, especially of the children of artisans and the poor. It accepts the direction of any kind of male educational institution, provided the teaching of Latin be excluded; but its principal object is the direction of elementary gratuitous schools. This congregation was founded in 1680, at Reims, France, by St. John Baptist de La Salle, then a canon of the metropolitan church of that city. Being struck by the lamentable disorders produced among the multitude by their ignorance of the elements of knowledge, and, what was still worse, of the principles of religion, the saint, moved with great pity for the ignorant, was led, almost without a premeditated design, to take up the work of charitable schools. In order to carry out the last will of his spiritual director, Canon Roland, he first busied himself with consolidating a religious congregation devoted to the education of poor girls. He then seconded the efforts of a zealous layman, M. Nyel, to multiply schools for poor children. Thus guided by Providence, he was led to create an institute that would have no other mission than that of Christian education. However, it would be a serious error to insinuate that until the end of the seventeenth century the Catholic Church had interested herself but little in the education of the children of the people. From the fifth to the sixteenth century, many councils which were held, especially those of Vaison in 529 and Aachen in 817, recommended the secular clergy and monks to instruct children. In 1179 the Third Council of Lateran ordained that the poor be taught gratuitously, and in 1547 the Council of Trent decreed that in connexion with every church, there should be a master to teach the elements of human knowledge to poor children and young students preparing for orders. There were, therefore, numerous schools -- petites écoles -- for the common people in France in the seventeenth century, but teachers were few, because the more clever among them abandoned the children of the poor to teach those of the wealthier class and receive compensation for their work. It was evident that only a religious congregation would be able to furnish a permanent supply of educators for those who are destitute of the goods of this world. The institutes of the Venerable César de Bus in 1592 and of St. Joseph Calasanctius (1556-1648) had added Latin to the course of studies for the poor. The tentatives made in favour of boys by St. Peter Fourier (1565-1640) and Père Barré, in 1678, failed; the work of M. Demia at Lyons in 1672 was not to spread. Then God raised up St. John Baptist de La Salle, not to create gratuitous schools, but to furnish them with teachers and give them fixed methods. The undertaking was much more difficult than the founder himself imagined. At the beginning he was encouraged by Père Barré, a Minim, who had founded a society of teaching nuns, Les Dames de Saint-Maur. The clergy and faithful applauded the scheme, but it had many bitter adversaries. During forty years, from 1680 to 1719, obstacles and difficulties constantly checked the progress of the new institute, but by the prudence, humility, and invincible courage of its superior, it was consolidated and developed to unexpected proportions. DEVELOPMENT In 1680 the new teachers began their apostolate at Reims; in 1682 they took the name of "Brothers of the Christian Schools"; in 1684 they opened their first regular novitiate. In 1688 Providence transplanted the young tree to the parish of St-Sulpice, Paris, in charge of the spiritual sons of M. Olier. The mother-house remained in the capital until 1705. During this period the founder met with trials of every kind. The most painful came from holy priests whom he esteemed, but who entertained views of his work different from his own. Without being in any way discouraged, and in the midst of the storms, the saint kept nearly all of his first schools, and even opened new ones. He reorganized his novitiate several times, and created the first normal schools under the name of "seminaries for country teachers". His zeal was as broad and ardent as his love of souls. The course of events caused the founder to transfer his novitiate to Rouen in 1705, to the house of Saint-Yon, in the suburb of Saint-Sever, which became the centre whence the institute sent its religious into the South of France, in 1707. It was at Rouen that St. John Baptist de La Salle composed his rules, convoked two general chapters, resigned his office of superior, and ended his earthly existence by a holy death, in 1719. Declared venerable in 1840, he was beatified in 1888, and canonized in 1900. SPIRIT OF THE INSTITUTE The spirit of the institute, infused by the example and teachings of its founder and fostered by the exercises of the religious life, is a spirit of faith and of zeal. The spirit of faith induces a Brother to see God in all things, to suffer everything for God, and above all to sanctify himself. The spirit of zeal attracts him towards children to instruct them in the truths of religion and penetrate their hearts with the maxims of the Gospel, so that they may make it the rule of their conduct. St. John Baptist de La Salle had himself given his Brothers admirable proofs of the purity of his faith and the vivacity of his zeal. It was his faith that made him adore the will of God in all the adversities he met with; that prompted him to send two Brothers to Rome in 1700 in testimony of his attachment to the Holy See, and that led him to condemn openly the errors of the Jansenists, who tried in vain at Marseilles. and Calais to draw him over to their party. His whole life was a prolonged act of zeal: he taught school at Reims, Paris, and Grenoble, and showed how to do it well. He composed works for teachers and pupils, and especially the "Conduite des écoles" the "Devoirs du chrétien", and the "Règles de la bienséance et de la civilité chrétienne". The saint pointed out that the zeal of a religious educator should be exercised by three principal means: vigilance, good example, and instruction. Vigilance removes from children a great many occasions of offending God; good example places before them models for imitation; instruction makes them familiar with what they should know, especially with the truths of religion. Hence, the Brothers have always considered catechism as the most important subject taught in their schools. They are catechists by vocation and the will of the Church. They are, therefore, in accordance with the spirit of their institute, religious educators: as religious, they take the three usual vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience; as educators, they add the vow of teaching the poor gratuitously according to the prescriptions of their rule, and the vow of remaining in their institute, which they may not leave of themselves even for the purpose of joining a more perfect order. Besides, the work appeared so very important to St. John Baptist de La Salle that, in order to attach the Brothers permanently to the education of the poor, he forbade them to teach Latin. GOVERNMENT The institute is governed by a superior general elected for life by the general chapter. The superior general is aided by assistants, who at the present time number twelve. He delegates authority to the visitors, to whom he confides the government of districts, and to directors, whom he places in charge of individual houses. With the exception of that of superior general, all the offices are temporary and renewable. The general chapters are convoked at least every ten years. Thirty-two have been held since the foundation of the congregation. The vitality of an institute depends on the training of its members. God alone is the author of vocations. He alone can attract a soul to a life of self-denial such as that of the Brothers. The mortification this life enjoins is not rigorous, but renouncement of self-will and of the frivolities of the world should gradually become complete. The usual age for admission to the novitiate of the society is from sixteen to eighteen years. Doubtless there are later vocations that are excellent, and there are earlier ones that develop the most beautiful virtues. If the aspirant presents himself at the age of thirteen or fourteen, he is placed in the preparatory or junior novitiate. During two or three years he devotes himself to study, is carefully trained to the habits of piety, and instructed how to overcome himself, so as one day to become a fervent religious. The novitiate proper is for young men who have passed through the junior novitiate, and for postulants who have come directly from the world. During a whole year they have no other occupation than that of studying the rules of the institute and applying themselves to observe them faithfully. At the end of their first year of probation, the young Brothers enter the scholasticate, where they spend more or less time according to the nature of the duties to be assigned to them. As a rule, each of the districts of the institute has its three departments of training: the junior novitiate, the senior novitiate, and the scholasticate. In community, subjects complete their professional training and apply themselves to acquire the virtues of their state. At eighteen years of age, they take annual vows; at twenty-three, triennial vows; and when fully twenty-eight years of age, they may be admitted to perpetual profession. Finally, some years later, they may be called for some months to the exercises of a second novitiate. METHODS OF TEACHING In enjoining on his disciples to endeavour above all to develop the spirit of religion in the souls of their pupils, the founder only followed the traditions of other teaching bodies -- the Benedictines, Jesuits, Oratorians, etc., and what was practised even by the teachers of the petites écoles. His originality lay elsewhere. Two pedagogic innovations of St. John Baptist de La Salle met with approval from the beginning: + (1) the employment of the "simultaneous method"; + (2) the employment of the vernacular language in teaching reading. They are set forth in the "Conduite des écoles", in which the founder condensed the experience he had acquired during an apostolate of forty years. This work remained in manuscript during the life of its author, and was printed for the first time at Avignon in 1720. (1) By the use of the simultaneous method a large number of children of the same intellectual development could thenceforward be taught together. It is true that for ages this method had been employed in the universities, but in the common schools the individual method was adhered to. Practicable enough when the number of pupils was very limited, the individual method gave rise, in classes that were numerous, to loss of time and disorder. Monitors became necessary, and these had often neither learning nor authority. With limitations that restricted its efficacy, St. Peter Fourier had indeed recommended the simultaneous method in the schools of the Congrégation de Notre-Dame, but it never extended further. To St. John Baptist de La Salle belongs the honour of having transformed the pedagogy of the elementary school. Here required all his teachers to give the same lesson to all the pupils of a class, to question them constantly, to maintain discipline, and have silence observed. A consequence of this new method of teaching was the dividing up of the children into distinct classes according to their attainments, and later on, the formation of sections in classes in which the children were too numerous or too unequal in mental development. Thanks to these means, the progress of the children and their moral transformation commanded the admiration even of his most prejudiced adversaries. (2) A second innovation of the holy founder was to teach the pupils to read the vernacular language, which they understood, before putting into their hands a Latin book, which they did not understand. It may be observed that this was a very simple matter, but simple as it was, hardly any educator, except the masters of the schools of Port-Royal in 1643, had bethought himself of it; besides, the experiments of the Port-Royal masters, like their schools, were short lived, and exercised no influence on general pedagogy. In addition to these two great principles, the Brothers of the Christian Schools have introduced other improvements in teaching. They likewise availed themselves of what is rational in the progress of modern methods of teaching, which their courses of pedagogy, published in France, Belgium, and Austria, abundantly prove. THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY At the death of its founder, the Brothers of the Christian Schools numbered 27 houses and 274 Brothers, educating 9000 pupils. Seventy-three years later, at the time of the French Revolution, the statistics showed 123 houses, 920 Brothers, and 36,000 pupils (statistics of 1790). During this period, it had been governed by five superiors general: Brother Barthélemy (1717-20); Brother Timothée (1720-51); Brother Claude (1751-67); Brother Florence (1767-77); and Brother Agathon (1777-98, when he died). Under the administration of Brother Timothée successful negotiations resulted in the legal recognition of the institute by Louis XV, who granted it letters patent, 24 September, 1724; and in virtue of the Bull of approbation of Benedict XIII, 26 January, 1725, it was admitted among the congregations canonically recognized by the Church. The most prominent of its superiors general in the eighteenth century was Brother Agathon. A religious of strong character, he maintained the faithful observance of the rules by the Brothers; a distinguished educator, he published the "Douze vertus d'un bon Maître", in 1785; an eminent administrator, he created the first scholasticates, in 1781, and limited new foundations to what was indispensable, aiming rather, when the storm was gathering on the horizon, to fortify an institute that had already become relatively widespread. The congregation, however, was hardly known outside of France, except in Rome, 1700; Avignon, 1703; Ferrara, 1741; Maréville, 1743; Lunéville, 1749; and Morhange in Lorraine, 1761; Estavayer in Switzerland, 1750; Fort Royal, Martinique, 1777. Whilst adhering to their methods of teaching during the eighteenth century, the Brothers knew how to vary their application. The superiors general insisted on having the elementary schools gratuitous and by far the more numerous. In accordance with the course of studies set down in the "Conduite des écoles", the Brothers applied themselves to teach very thoroughly reading, writing, the vernacular, and especially the catechism. The boarding school of St-Yon at Rouen, established in 1705 by St. John Baptist de La Salle himself, served as a model for like institutions: Marseilles in 1730, Angers in 1741, Reims in 1765, etc. It was proper that in these houses the course of studies should differ in some respects from that in the free schools. With the exception of Latin, which remained excluded, everything in the course of studies of the best schools of the time was taught: mathematics, history, geography, drawing, architecture, etc. In the maritime cities, such as Brest, Vannes, and Marseilles, the Brothers taught more advanced courses in mathematics and hydrography. Finally, the institute accepted the direction of reformatory institutions at Rouen, Angers, and Maréville. It was this efflorescence of magnificent works that the French Revolution all but destroyed forever. THE BROTHERS DURING THE REVOLUTION The revolutionary laws that doomed the monastic orders on 13 February, 1790, threatened the institute from 27 December, in the same year, by imposing on all teachers the civic oath voted on 27 November. The storm was imminent. Brother Agathon, the superior general endeavoured to establish communities in Belgium, but could organize only one, at St-Hubert in 1791, only to be destroyed in 1792. The Brothers refused to take the oath, and were everywhere expelled. The institute was suppressed in 1792, after it had been decreed that it "had deserved well of the country". The storm had broken upon the Brothers. They were arrested, and more than twenty were cast into prison. Brother Salomon, secretary general, was massacred in the Carmes (the Carmelite monastery of Paris); Brother Agathon spent eighteen months in prison; Brother Moniteur was guillotined at Rennes in 1794; Brother Raphael was put to death at Uzès; Brother Florence, formerly superior general, was imprisoned at Avignon; eight Brothers were transported to the hulks of Rochefort, where four died of neglect and starvation in 1794 and 1795. All the schools were closed and the young Brothers enrolled in the army of the Convention. At the peril of their lives some of the older Brothers continued to teach at Elbeuf, Condrieux, Castres, Laon, Valence, and elsewhere, to save the faith of the children. The Brothers of Italy had received some of their French confrères at Rome, Ferrara, Orvieto, and Bolsena. During this time, Brother Agathon, having left his prison, remained hidden at Tours, whence he strove to keep up the courage, confidence in God, and zeal of his dispersed religious. On 7 August, 1797, Pope Pius VI appointed Brother Frumence vicar-general of the congregation. In 1798 the Italian Brothers were in their turn driven from their houses by the armed forces of the Directory. The institute seemed ruined; it reckoned only twenty members wearing the religious habit and exercising the functions of educators. RESTORATION OF THE INSTITUTE. 1802-1810 In July, 1801, the First Consul signed the concordat with Pius VII. For the Church of France this was the spring of a new era; for the Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools it was a resurrection. If at the height of the storm some Brothers continued to exercise their holy functions, they were only exceptional cases. The first regular community reorganized at Lyons in 1802; others in 1803, at Paris, Valence, Reims, and Soissons. Everywhere the municipalities recalled the Brothers and besought the survivors of the woeful period to take up the schools again as soon as possible. The Brothers addressed themselves to Rome and petitioned the Brother Vicar to establish his abode in France. Negotiations were begun, and thanks to the intervention of his uncle, Cardinal Fesch, Bonaparte authorized the re-establishment of the institute, on 3 December, 1803, provided their superior general would reside in France. In November, 1804, the Brother Vicar arrived at Lyons, and took up his residence in the former petit collège of the Jesuits. The institute began to live again. Nothing was more urgent than to reunite the former members of the congregation. An appeal was made to their faith and good will, and they responded. Shortly after the arrival of Brother Frumence at Lyons, the foundation of communities began. There were eight new ones in 1805, and as many in 1806, four in 1807, and five in 1808. Brother Frumence dying in January, 1810, a general chapter, the tenth since the foundation, was assembled at Lyons on 8 September following, and elected Brother Gerbaud to the highest office in the institute. Brother Gerbaud governed until 1822. His successors were Brother Guillaume de Jésus (1822-30); Brother Anaclet (1830-38); Brother Philippe (1838-74); Brother Jean-Olympe (1874-75); Brother Irlide (1875-84); Brother Joseph (1884-97); and Brother Gabriel-Marie elected in March, 1897. He is the thirteenth successor of St. John Baptist de La Salle. THE INSTITUTE FROM 1810 TO 1874 After 1810 communities of the Brothers multiplied like the flowers of the fields in spring-time after the frosts have disappeared. Fifteen new schools were opened in 1817, twenty-one in 1818, twenty-six in 1819, and twenty-seven in 1821. It was in this year that the Brother Superior General, at the request of the municipality, took up his residence in Paris, with his assistants. The institute then numbered 950 Brothers and novices, 310 schools, 664 classes, and 50,000 pupils. Fifteen years had sufficed to reach the same prosperous condition in which the Revolution found it in 1789. It must not, however, be admitted that, in consequence of the services rendered by the Brothers to popular education, they always enjoyed the favour of the Government. From 1816 to 1819, Brother Gerbaud, the superior general, had to struggle vigorously for the preservation of the traditional methods of the congregation. The mutual or Lancasterian method had just been introduced into France, and immediately the powerful Société pour l'Instruction Elémentaire assumed the mission of propagating it. At a time when teachers and funds were scarce, the Government deemed it wise to pronounce in favour of the mutual school, and recommended it by an ordinance in 1818. The Brothers would not consent to abandon the "simultaneous method" which they had received from their founder, and on this account they were subjected to many vexations. During forty years the supporters of the two methods were to contend, but finally the "simultaneous" teachers achieved the victory. By holding fast to their traditions and rules the Brothers had saved elementary teaching in France. The expansion of the Christian schools was not arrested by these struggles. In 1829 there were 233 houses, including 5 in Italy, 5 in Corsica, 5 in Belgium, 2 in the Island of Bourbon, and 1 at Cayenne; in all, 955 classes and 67,000 pupils. But the Government of Louis-Philippe obstructed this benevolent work by suppressing the grants made to certain schools: eleven were permanently closed, and twenty-nine were kept up as free schools by the charity of Catholics. The hour had now come for a greater expansion. Fortified and rejuvenated by trial, fixed for a long time on the soil of France, augmented by yearly increasing numbers, the institute could, without weakening itself, send educational colonies abroad. Belgium received Brothers at Dinant in 1816; the Island of Bourbon, 1817; Montreal, 1837; Smyrna, 1841; Baltimore, 1846: Alexandria, 1847; New York, 1848; St. Louis, 1849; Kemperhof, near Coblenz, 1851; Singapore, 1852; Algiers, 1854; London, 1855; Vienna, 1856; the Island of Mauritius, 1859; Bucharest, 1861; Karikal, India, 1862; Quito, 1863. In all of these places, the number of houses soon increased, and everywhere the same intellectual and religious results proved a recommendation of the schools of the Brothers. The period of this expansion is that of the generalship of Brother Philippe, the most popular of the superiors of teaching congregations in the nineteenth century at the time of the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71. Under his administration, the institute received its most active impetus. When Brother Philippe was elected superior general, in 1838, the number of schools and of Brothers was already double what it was in 1789; when he died, in 1874, it had increased in entirely unexpected proportions. The venerable superior saw the number of houses rise from 313 to 1149; that of the Brothers from 2317 to 10,235; that of their pupils from 144,000 to 350,000. And as in France, and through the benevolence of the hierarchy, Belgium, North America, the Indies, and the Levant multiplied Christian schools. Assuredly, Brother Philippe was aware that, for a religious institute, the blessing of numbers is less desirable than the progress of the religious in the spirit of their vocation. In order to strengthen them therein, the superior general composed seven volumes of "Meditations", and a large number of instructive "Circular Letters", in which are explained the duties of the Brothers as religious and as educators. Every year at the time of the retreats, until he was eighty years of age, he travelled all over France, and spoke to his Brothers in most ardent language, made still more impressive by the saintly example of this venerable old man. THE INSTITUTE FROM 1874 TO 1908 The generalship of Brother Irlide was marked by two principal orders of facts: a powerful effort to increase the spiritual vigour of the institute by introducing the Great Exercises or retreats of thirty days; and the reorganization as free schools of the French schools which the laicization laws from 1879 to 1886 deprived of the character of communal schools. This period witnessed, especially in two regions, the establishment and multiplication of Brothers' schools. The districts of Ireland and Spain, where such fine work is going on, were organized under the administration of Brother Irlide. Indefatigable in the fight, he asserted the rights of his institute against the powerful influence which strove to set them aside. He had broad and original views which he carried out with a strong, tenacious will. What his predecessor had accomplished by indomitable energy, Brother Joseph, superior general from 1884 to 1897, maintained by the ascendency of his captivating goodness. He was an educator of rare distinction and exquisite charm. He had received from Pope Leo XIII the important mission of developing in the institute the works of Christian perseverance, so that the faith and morals of young men might be safeguarded after leaving school. One of his great delights was to transmit this direction to his Brothers and to see them work zealously for its attainment. Patronages, clubs, alumni associations, boarding-houses, spiritual retreats, etc., were doubtless already in existence; now they became more prosperous. For many years the alumni associations of France had made their action consist in friendly but rare reunions. The legal attempts against liberty of conscience forced the members into the Catholic and social struggle. They have formed themselves into sectional unions; they have an annual meeting, and have created an active movement in favour of persecuted Catholic education. The alumni associations of the Brothers in the United States and Belgium have their national federation and annual meeting. It is especially in France that the work of the spiritual retreats, of which the chief centre has been the Association of St. Benoit-Joseph Labre, has been developed. Founded in Paris in 1883, it had, twenty-five years later, brought together 41,600 young Parisians at the house of retreat, at Athis-Mons. About the same time, "retreats previous to graduation" were gradually introduced in the schools of all countries with the view of the perseverance in their religious practices of the graduates entering upon active life. During the administration of Brother Gabriel-Marie, and until 1904, the normal progress of the congregation was not obstructed. The expansion of its divers works attained its maximum. Here are the words of one of the official reports of the Universal Exposition of Paris in 1900: "The establishments of the Institute of Brothers of the Christian Schools, spread all over the world, number 2015. They comprise 1500 elementary or high schools; 47 important boarding-schools; 45 normal schools or scholasticates for the training of subjects of the institute, and 6 normal schools for lay teachers; 13 special agricultural schools, and a large number of agricultural classes in elementary schools; 48 technical and trade schools; 82 commercial schools or special commercial courses." Such was the activity of the Institute of St. John Baptist de La Salle when it was doomed in France by the legislation that abolished teaching by religious. Not the services rendered, nor the striking lustre of its success, nor the greatness of the social work it had accomplished, could save it. Its glory, which was to render all its schools Christian, was imputed to it as a crime. In consequence of the application of the law of 7 July, 1904, to legally authorized teaching congregations, 805 establishments of the Brothers were closed in 1904, 196 in 1905, 155 in 1906, 93 in 1907, and 33 in 1908. Nothing was spared. The popular and free schools to the number of more than a thousand; the boarding and half-boarding schools such as Passy in Paris, those at Reims, Lyons, Bordeaux, Marseilles, etc.; the cheap boarding schools for children of the working class, such as the admirable houses of St. Nicholas, the technical and trade schools of Lyons, Saint-Etienne, Saint-Chamond, Commentry, etc.; the agricultural institutions of Beauvais, Limoux, etc. -- all were swept away. The blows were severe, but the beautiful tree of the institute had taken root too firmly in the soil of the whole Catholic world to have its vitality endangered by the lopping off of a principal branch. The remaining branches received a new afflux of sap, and on its vigorous trunk there soon appeared new branches. From 1904 to 1908, 222 houses have been founded in England, Belgium, the islands of the Mediterranean, the Levant, North and South America, the West Indies, Cape Colony, and Australia. SCHOOLS OF EUROPE AND THE EAST When their schools were suppressed by law in France, the Brothers endeavoured with all their might to assure to at least a portion of the children of the poor the religious education of which they were about to be deprived. At the same time the institute established near the frontiers of Belgium and Holland, of Spain and Italy, ten boarding-schools for French boys. The undertaking was venturesome, but God has blessed it, and these boarding-schools are all flourishing. Belgium has 75 establishments conducted by the Brothers, comprising about 60 popular free schools, boarding-schools, official normal schools, and trade schools known as St. Luke schools. There are 32 houses in Lorraine, Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, Galicia, Albania, Bulgaria, and Rumania. Spain, including the Canaries and the Balearic Isles, has 100 houses of the institute, of which about 80 are popular gratuitous schools. In Italy there are 34 houses, 9 of which are in Rome. The Brothers have been established over fifty years in the Levant, Turkey, Syria, and Egypt. The 50 houses which they conduct are centres of Christian education and influence, and are liberally patronized by the people of these countries. The district of England and Ireland comprises 25 houses, the Brothers for the most part being engaged in the "National" schools. In London they direct a college and an academy; in Manchester, an industrial school; and in Waterford, a normal school or training college, the 200 students of which are King's scholars, who are paid for by a grant from the British Government. In India, the Brothers have large schools, most of which have upwards of 800 pupils. Those of Colombo, Rangoon, Penang, Moulmein, Mandalay, Singapore, Malacca, and Hong Kong in China, stand high in public estimation. They are all assisted by government grants. SCHOOLS IN AMERICA The institute has already established 72 houses in Mexico, Cuba, Ecuador, Colombia, Panama, Argentina, and Chile. When Brother Facile was appointed visitor of North America in 1848, he found in Canada 5 houses, 56 Brothers and 3200 pupils in their schools. In 1908, the statistics show 48 houses, and nearly 20,000 pupils. The parochial schools are gratuitous, according to the constant tradition of the institute. The most important boarding-school is Mount St. Louis, Montreal. At the request of the Most Reverend Samuel Eccleston, Brother Philippe, superior general, sent three brothers to Baltimore in 1846. The district of which Baltimore has become the centre now contains 24 houses, the Brothers of which for the most part are engaged in gratuitous parochial schools; they also conduct five colleges; a protectory; and the foundations of the family of the late Francis Anthony Drexel of Philadelphia, namely, St. Francis Industrial School, at Eddington, Pa.; the Drexmor, a home for working boys at Philadelphia; and the St. Emma Industrial and Agricultural College of Belmead, Rock Castle, Va., for coloured boys. The district of New York is the most important in America. It comprises 38 houses, most of the Brothers of which are engaged in teaching parochial gratuitous schools. In addition to these they conduct Manhattan College, the De La Salle Institute, La Salle Academy, and Clason Point Military Academy, in New York City, and academies and high schools in other important cities. The New York Catholic Protectory, St. Philip's Home, and four orphan asylums and industrial schools under their care contain a population of 2500 children. The district of St. Louis contains 19 houses, the majority of the Brothers of which are doing parochial school work. They conduct large colleges at St. Louis and Memphis, and important academies and high schools at Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis, Duluth, St. Joseph and Santa Fé. They also have charge of the Osage Nation School for Indian boys at Gray Horse, Oklahoma. The district of San Francisco comprises 13 houses, and as in the other districts, the Brothers are largely engaged in parochial schools; but they also conduct St. Mary's College at Oakland, the Sacred Heart College at San Francisco, and the Christian Brothers' College at Sacramento, together with academies at Berkeley, Portland, Vancouver, and Walla Walla, and the St. Vincent Orphan Asylum, Marin Co., California, which contains 500 boys. The total number of pupils of the Brothers in the United States is thirty thousand. Their 94 houses are spread over 33 archdioceses and dioceses. It would not be possible in such an article as this to recall the memory of all the religious who, during the last sixty years, figured prominently in this development of their institute. Among those who have been called to their reward, we may however mention the revered names of Brothers Facile and Patrick, assistants to the superior general. INTELLECTUAL ACTIVITY The Brothers of the Christian Schools are too much absorbed by the work of teaching to devote themselves to the writing of books not of immediate utility in their schools. But, for the use of their pupils, they have written a large number of works on all the specialities in their courses of studies. Such works have been written in French, English, German, Italian, Spanish Flemish, Turkish, Annamite, etc. The Brothers' schoolbooks treat of the following subjects: Christian doctrine, reading, writing, arithmetic, geometry, algebra, trigonometry, mechanics, history, geography, agriculture, physics, chemistry, physiology, zoology, botany, geology, the modern languages, grammar, literature, philosophy, pedagogy, methodology, drawing, shorthand, etc. Annales de l'institut des frères des écoles chrétiennes (Paris, 1883); Essai historique sur la maison mère de l'institut des frères des écoles chrétiennes (Paris, 1905); DUBOIS-BERGERSON, Les nouvelles écoles à la Lancaster comparées avec l'enseignement des frères des écoles chrétiennes (Paris, 1817); La vérité sur l'enseignement mutuel (Paris, 1821); RENDU, L'association en général, et particulièrement l'association charitable des frères des écoles chrétiennes (Paris, 1845); D'ARSAC, Les frères des écoles chrétiennes pendant la guerre franco-allemande de 1870-1871 (Paris, 1872); Rapport de l'académie française sur le prix de Boston, décerné à l'institut des frères des écoles chrétiennes (Paris, 1872); American Catholic Quarterly Review (October, 1879); Reports of the universal exhibitions of Paris, Vienna, Chicago, etc.; CAISSE, L'institut des frères des écoles chrétiennes, son origine, son but et ses oeuvres (Montreal, 1883); CHEVALIER, Les frères des écoles chrétiennes et l'enseignement primaire (Paris, 1887); RENDU, Sept ans de guerre à l'enseignement libre (Paris, 1887); Catholic World (August, 1900; September, 1901); DES CILLEULS, Histoire de l'enseignement primaire (Paris, 1908); AZARIAS, Educational Essays (Chicago, 1896); GOSOOT, Essai critique sur l'enseignement primaire en France (Paris, 1905); JUSTINUS, Déposition dans l'enguête sur l'enseignement secondaire (Paris, 1899); CAlL, Rapport sur l'enseignement technique dans les écoles catholiques en France (Paris, 1900); Autour de l'enseignement congréganiste (Paris, 1905); VESPEYREN, La lutte scolaire en Belgique (Brussels, 1906); Bulletin de l'oeuvre de Saint Jean Baptiste de La Salle; Bulletin des écoles chrétiennes; Bulletin de l'oeuvre de la jeunesse; L'éducation chrétienne; Bulletins of the Various alumni associations formed by graduates of the Brothers' Schools; Bulletins and reports published by colleges, normal schools, etc.; Biographies of Brothers Irénée, Salomon, Philippe, Joseph, Scubilion, Exupérien, Auguste-Hubert, Alpert, Léon de Jésus etc.; Directoire pédagogique a l'usage des écoles chrétiennes (Paris, 1903); Conduite à l'usage des écoles chrétiennes (Paris, 1903); Eléments de Pédagogie pratique (Paris, 1901); Traité théorique et pratique de Pédagogie (Namur, 1901); Manuel de Pédagogie à l'usage des écoles primaires catholiques (Paris, 1909). BROTHER PAUL JOSEPH. Roman Historical Institutes Roman Historical Institutes Collegiate bodies established at Rome by ecclesiastical or civil authority for the purpose of historical research, notably in the Vatican archives. I. THE EARLIEST SCIENTIFIC USES OF THE VATICAN ARCHIVES In purely business matters or those of a political or diplomatic nature, the Roman ecclesiastical authorities have always relied on the material abundantly stored up in their archives. A glance at the papal "Regesta" of the thirteenth century shows occasional reference to documents formerly kept in the archives, but which had been lost. In time these references multiply and point to a constant official intercourse between the Curia and the keepers of the Apostolic archives. It is rare that such references disclose a purely scientific interest, and then only when foreign authorities inquire after documents that would facilitate domestic researches on given topics. Then, as now, it was the official duty of the personnel of the archives to attend to all such matters. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the awakening critical investigation of the past led some scholars to resort to the rich treasures of the papal archives, and they were always treated with the utmost courtesy. The most far-reaching and efficient use of the archives for historical purposes began with Cæsar Baronius, later cardinal, and author of the well-known monumental work on ecclesiastical history, undertaken at the instance of St. Philip Ned, "Annales ecclesiastici a Christo nato ad annum 1198", in twelve folio volumes (Rome, 1588-1593). Through this work, and in the several continuations of it by others, the world first learned of the great wealth of historical documents contained in the Roman archives, and especially in the archives of the Vatican. The extensive "Bullaria", or compilations of papal decrees, general and particular (see BULLS AND BRIEFS), are drawn in part from the archives of the recipients, but could never have reached their imposing array of volumes had not the Vatican furnished abundant material. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, ecclesiastical historians and the writers of the almost countless monographs (some of them very valuable) concerning local churches, monasteries, ecclesiastical institutions, etc. were greatly aided by the officials of the archives, themselves often scholarly investigators. In this respect the papal archivist, Augustin Theiner (1804-74) accomplished very far-reaching work, of great service to certain medieval countries or groups of countries, when he published, in many folio volumes, a multitude of documents relative to the ecclesiastical and civil history of Northern, Eastern, and Southern Europe, also a documentary treatise in three folio volumes on the temporal dominion of the pope and its administration. In the same period, i.e. from about 1850 to 1875, several other investigators, chiefly German and Austrian, in one way or another secured admittance to the papal archives. These events and other influences increased the desire of all scholars for the opening of this valuable repository of important historical documents. Although under Pius IX it became somewhat easier to obtain a permit for private research, the turbulent political conditions of his reign forbade anything like a general opening of the Vatican Archives. II. OPENING OF THE VATICAN ARCHIVES "We have nothing to fear from the publication of documents", exclaimed Leo XIII, when on 20 June, 1879, he appointed the ecclesiastical historian, Joseph Hergenröther, "Cardinal Archivist of the Holy Roman Church" (Palmieri, "Introite ed Esiti di Papa Niccolò III", Rome, pp. xiv, xv; Friedensburg, "Das kgl. Preussische Historische Institut in Rom", Berlin, 1903, passim). By this act he opened to students the archives of the Vatican, more especially what are known as the secret archives, despite strong opposition from several quarters. It took until the beginning of 1881 to arrange all preliminaries, including the preparation of suitable quarters for the work, after which date the barriers were removed which, until then, with a few exceptions, had shut out all investigators. The use of these treasures was at length regularized by a papal Decree (regolamento) of 1 May, 1884, whereby this important matter was finally removed from the province of discussion. In the meantime the pope had addressed to the three cardinals, Pitra, De Luca, and Hergenröther, his now famous letter on historical studies (18 Aug., 1883). III. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN THE SECRET ARCHIVES Hitherto very little was known of the contents of this vast treasury; now its great wealth came to be widely appreciated -- Briefs, Bulls, petitions, department records, reports of nuncios and other reports, diaries, documentary collections, privileges, legal titles of the most miscellaneous kind, etc. Progress was at first rather slow, for no systematic use of the archives could be planned until the workers had familiarized themselves with the material at hand. The over-hasty treatment that, in the beginning, the thirteenth century material received, revealed quite clearly how much there was to learn before the archives could be used to the best advantage. Gradually, however, good order was introduced in all kinds of research work, in which task notable services were rendered by the historical institutes which from time to time were established in close relation to the Vatican Archives. Research work in these archives may be divided into individual and collective, or general and special. Individual researches are made by individual scholars, while collective work is conducted by several who have either united for that purpose, or belong permanently to some association. General research devotes itself to the larger outlines of ecclesiastical history, while special research seeks the solution of particular problems, more or less far-reaching in importance. Both methods may be combined, objectively and subjectively; an individual investigator may work at a general theme, while an association may take up the study of a restricted or specific problem, and vice versa. The results of Vatican historical study are to be found in periodicals, essays, and books, also disseminated in large historical collections devoted to other classes of historical material, and containing the results of other investigations, e.g. the "Monumenta Germaniæ Historica". A study of the published material exhibits long series of original documents, narratives based on copious documentary material, and occasionally narratives based on information obtained in the archives, but unaccompanied by the documents or by reference to them. IV. FIELD OF INVESTIGATION While it is but natural that the study of documents should be chiefly done in the Vatican archives, most investigators also carry on work in the important collection of printed books known as the Vatican Library. In October, 1892, there was opened in connexion with the archives and the Library a consultation library, the "Bibliotheca Leoniana", in order to facilitate research, historical and Biblical. Governments, academies, libraries, archives, and corporations contributed to it, and it has already reached very large proportions. The archives themselves are so organized that nearly every student of history may discover there something of special importance in his own province. The numerous other archives and manuscript-collections of Rome are also open, as a rule, to the student; indeed, few workers limit themselves exclusively to Vatican materials. Moreover, studies begun in the Vatican are often supplemented by scientific excursions to other Italian cities, either on the student's homeward journey or during some vacation period; such excursions have at times resulted in surprising discoveries. An exhaustive examination of Italian archives and libraries leads occasionally to a larger view of the subject than was originally intended by the investigator, for whom in this way new questions of importance spring up, the definite solution of which becomes highly desirable. Experience, therefore, and the detailed study of the numerous repertories, indexes, and inventories of manuscripts, have made it necessary to organize permanently the scientific historical researches carried on in the interest of any given country. This means a saving of money and of labour; in this way also more substantial achievements can be hoped for than from purely individual research. Consequently, institutes for historical research were soon founded in Rome, somewhat on the plan of the earlier archæological societies. While the opening of such institutes is a nobile offlcium of any government, private associations have made serious sacrifices in the same direction and sustained with success the institutes they have called into life. The state institutes investigate all that pertains to national relations or intercourse (religion, politics, economics, science, or art) with the Curia, with Rome, or, for that matter, with Italy. Many of these institutes do not attempt to go further, and their field is certainly comprehensive and in itself admirable. Others devote themselves to similar researches, but do not neglect general questions of interest to universal history, profane or ecclesiastical, or to the history of medieval culture. Of course, only the larger institutes, with many workers at their disposal, can satisfactorily undertake problems of this nature. V. HISTORICAL INSTITUTES AT THE VATICAN ARCHIVES England At the end of 1876 the Rev. Joseph Stevenson, who was employed by the English Public Record Office to obtain transcripts of documents of historical importance in the Vatican archives, resigned his appointment, and Sir Thomas Hardy, on Cardinal Manning's recommendation, appointed the late Mr. W. H. Bliss as his successor. Though for years Stevenson and Bliss conducted their researches alone, in the last decade other English investigators, chiefly younger men, had been detailed to Rome by the home Government to co-operate with Bliss and hasten the progress of his work. Bliss died very suddenly of pneumonia, at an advanced age, 8 March, 1909, and though his place has not yet been filled by the English Government, English investigators continue the work, under direction of the Record Office; they strictly confine themselves, however, to the search for English documents. Scientific use of this material was not called for, and was therefore not undertaken. Short résumés were provided in English of the contents of the documents in question, so as to facilitate the widest possible use to those who had not sufficient mastery of Latin and Italian. So far there have appeared: "Calendars of Entries in the Papal Registers relating to Great Britain and Ireland:" + I. "Papal Letters" (London, since 1892 seven volumes to date, the eighth in course of preparation); + II. "Petitions to the Pope" (1 vol.). The reports of these investigations are to be found in the "Annual Reports of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records", the first one, covering 1877, 1878, and 1879, is found under the year 1880. In addition to the medieval material, numerous extracts and transcripts of a political nature were made from sixteenth- and seventeenth-century documents, transmitted to the Record Office and partly used in the "Calendars of State Papers". France The Ecole Française de Rome, originally one with that of Athens, employs almost constantly historical investigators at the Grande Archivio of Naples; they devote themselves to the documents of the Angevin dynasty. This institute has an organ of its own, the "Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire", in whose pages are found not only historical studies properly so called, but also papers on the history of archæology and of art. The institute has s home in the Palazzo Farnese, where its director lives, and where a rich library is housed. It was founded in 1873, and during the reign of Pius IX, long before the opening of the secret archives, inaugurated its great achievement, the editing of the papal "Regesta" of the thirteenth century, a gigantic and yet unfinished task. Scholars of international reputation have figured among its directors; its present head is Monsignor Louis Duchesne, whose monumental work, the "Liber Pontificalis", and numerous other productions, place him in the forefront of Church historians. The "Bibliothèque des Ecoles Françaises d'Athènes et de Rome", is made up of lengthy monographs by pupils of the Ecole, treating of divers subjects connected with their studies in the Vatican archives and library. The papal "Regesta" of the thirteenth century, the "Liber Pontificalis", and the "Liber Censuum" (Fabre-Duchesne) form a second series of historical publications to the credit of the French school. A third series is made up of documents selected from the fourteenth-century papal "Regesta", and is entitled "Lettres des papes d'Avignon se rapportant à la France". The slow progress of so many learned enterprises is a matter of general regret, nor can one always approve the methods employed, though no one can deny the very great utility of these scholarly studies and researches for the history of the papacy and its international relations. The chaplains of the French National Institute of St-Louis des Français have recently undertaken a work closely related to that of the Ecole Française, the publication in concise regesta-like form of all letters of the Avignon popes. Gratifying progress is being made with the "Regesta" of John XXII. The review known as the "Annales de St-Louis des Français", whose contributions to ecclesiastical history were noteworthy, has been discontinued. Other works of a learned historical nature have been published by the chaplains of this institute, the results of their diligent researches in the Vatican archives. German Catholic Institutes The chaplains of the German national institute of Santa Maria di Campo Santo Teutonico were among the first to profit by the opening of the secret archives for the conduct of scientific research in the field of German ecclesiastical history. Monsignor de Waal, director of the institute, founded the "Römische Quartalschrift für Archäologie und Kirchengeschichte" as a centre for historical research more modest and limited in scope, and it fulfils this purpose in a creditable manner. To the students of history at the Campo Santo is owing the founding, at Rome, of the Görres Society Historical Institute. This institute, established after long hesitation, sufficiently explained by the slender resources of the society, is now a credit to its founders (besides regular reports, begun in 1890, on the work of this institute, and filed in the records of the society, see Cardauns, "Die Görres Gesellschaft, 1876-1901", Cologne, 1901, pp. 65-73). In 1900 a new department was added and placed under the guidance of Monsignor Wilpert, for the study of Christian archæology and the history of Christian art. The Roman labours of the Görres Society Institute deal chiefly with nunciature reports, the administration records of the Curia since 1300, and the Acts of the Council of Trent. Other publications, more or less broad in scope, are published regularly in the "Historisches Jahrbuch", among its "Quellen und Forschungen", or in other organs of the Görres Society. The twelve stout volumes in which this institute proposes to edit exhaustively the Acts and records of the Council of Trent, represent one of the most difficult and important tasks which could be set before a body of workers in the Vatican archives. The aforesaid investigation of medieval papal administration and financial records, which the institute investigates in cooperation with the Austrian Leo Society, open up a chief source of information for the history of the Curia in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The results accomplished by this purely private association surpass greatly those of many governmental institutes. The Görres Society Institute maintains at Rome no library of its own, but aids efficiently in the growth of the fine library at the Campo Santo Teutonico, near the Vatican. The Leo Society supports at Rome a trained investigator, who devotes his time to publications from the papal treasury (Camera), records of the later Middle Ages. The present director of the Görres Society Institute is Dr. Stephan Ehses. Austria The Austrian institute (Instituto Austriaco di studi storici), established by Theodor von Sickel, and now directed by Professor von Pastor, has existed since 1883. It affords young historical workers the means of familiarizing themselves during a brief sojourn at Rome with the rich manuscript materials accumulated there, and in this way enables them to produce monographs of value. It cooperates in the publication of the nunciature reports, and contemplates the publication of the correspondence of the legates and the ambassadors at the Council of Trent. Among the publications of this institute are Sickel's study on the "Privilegium Ottonianum"; his edition of the "Liber Diurnus"; and his noteworthy "Römische Berichte" (Roman reports). Several valuable studies by this institute have appeared in the "Mittheilungen des österreichischen Institutes für Geschichtsforschung," dealing with the work of the medieval papal chancery, while Ottenthal's "Chancery Rules" and Tangl's "Chancery Regulations" are constantly referred to in every recent work on the Middle Ages. The numerous historical commissions which were sent from Bohemia to Rome (concerning which, see below) may be considered as auxiliaries of the Austrian Institute. Prussia A short history of the founding of the Prussian historical institute was published by Friedensburg (Berlin, Academy of Sciences). The project dates back to 1883, but it was not until May of 1888 that Konrad Schottmüller succeeded in opening a Prussian Historical Bureau that began modestly enough, but soon developed into the actual Prussian Institute, reorganized (12 November, 1902) on a materially enlarged scale, and now the most important of all historical institutes at Rome, owing largely to the efforts of its present director, Professor Kehr. In addition to the general work of historical investigations, special departments are conducted for the history of art and for patristic and Biblical research. Besides its own publication," Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven" the institute issues a series of German nunciature reports (eleven volumes since 1897). The Library of the Institute, besides extensive monographs on various subjects, has published the useful "Repertorium Germanicum", and, in co-operation with the Instituto Storico Italiano, the "Registrum chartarum Italiæ", a series of independent volumes. These researches take in Italian, German, French, English, and Spanish archives; Austria and Switzerland are likewise visited occasionally. The library of the institute ranks, with that of the Palazzo Farnese, among the best historical libraries in Rome. Hungary The "Hungaricorum Historicorum Collegium Romanum", though no longer in existence, owed its inception in 1892 to the efforts of Monsignor Fraknói, and published under his direction (since 1897) the "Monumenta Vaticana historiam regni Hungariæ illustrantia", whose two series in ten folio volumes are a lasting tribute to the munificence of Fraknói. Other noteworthy monographs based on Roman documents and illustrating the history of Hungary must be credited to this institute. Belgium The "Institut historique Belge à Rome" was founded in December, 1904. The minister of state defined its purpose to be the searching of Italian archives, and especially those of the Vatican, for historical material bearing on Belgium, and the publication of the results obtained. The project included a centre for individual Belgian investigators as well as for students assisted by the State, where all might find an adequate library and facilities for securing historical data of every kind. The institute, it is hoped, will eventually become an "Ecole des hautes études" for the study of ecclesiastical and profane history, classical philology, archæology, and the history of art. Its first director was Dom Ursmer Berlière, of the Abbey of Maredsous (1904-1907); his successor is Dr. Gottfried Kurth, professor emeritus at the University of Liège. The institute has published thus far two volumes of "Analecta Vaticano-Belgica": + I, "Suppliques de Clément VI" (1342-1352), by Berlière; + II, "Lettres de Jean XXII" (1316-1334), vol. I (1316-1324), by Fayen. The following are in preparation: + "Lettres de Jean XXII", vol. II, by Fayen; + "Suppliques d'Innocent VI" (1352-1362), by Berlière; + "Lettres de Benoit XII" (1334-1342), by Fierens. Two other volumes are under way. By his pamphlet "De la création d'une école Belge à Rome" (Tournai, 1896), Professor Cauchie of Louvain contributed greatly to the founding of the institute. Holland The Netherland institute grew out of various historical commissions, the last of which was established 20 May, 1904. Its two representatives, Dr. Brom and Dr. Orbaan, were appointed on 31 March, 1906, director and secretary respectively of the state institute founded on this date, and of which they thus became the first members (Brom, "Nederlandsche gesehiedvorsching en Rome", 1903). This institute aims at a systematic investigation of Holland's ecclesiastical and political relations, and of her artistic, scientific, and economic relations, with Rome and Italy during the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries, a period of very great importance for Holland. A yearly report of the institute and its library appears at The Hague in "Verslagen omtrent's Rikjs onde archieven". Besides a number of essays and minor works, there appeared at The Hague, during 1908, a work by Brom, "Archivalia in Italie"; part I, Rome, "Vaticaansch Archief". All historical material in Italian archives bearing on the Netherlands will be concisely described in this series of volumes; the first part contains 2650 numbers, and is specially valuable because of the excellent conspectus it offers of the contents of the Vatican archives. A work by Orbaan, on Dutch scholars and artists in Rome, is ready for the press (1910). VI. MISCELLANEOUS RESEARCHES IN THE VATICAN ARCHIVES The institutes above-mentioned offer a very incomplete idea of the historical work done in the Vatican archives. Many Frenchmen, Germans, Austrians, Belgians, and others flock to Rome and spend much of their time in private investigations of their own. Most of these workers attach themselves to some institute and profit by its experience. Among Americans we may mention Professor Charles Homer Haskins, who familiarized himself with the treasures contained in the archives and library, and made a report on the same for the "American Historical Review", reprinted in the "Catholic University Bulletin", Washington, 1897, pp. 177-196; Rev. P. de Roo, who laboured for several years on the "Regesta" of Alexander VI; Heywood, who compiled the "Documenta selecta e tabulario Sanctæ Sedis, insulas et terras anno 1492 repertas a Christophoro Columbo respicientia", which he published in phototype in 1892. Other American scholars have profited largely by the immemorial academic hospitality of the popes. Special mention should be made here of the studies of Luka Jelic and Conrad Eubel concerning early missionary enterprises, and of an essay by Shipley on "The Colonization of America" (Lucerne, 1899). For other valuable information see the tenth volume of the "Records of the American Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia". The time would seem to be at hand for the foundation of an American Catholic historical institute, which would take over the task of collecting and publishing in a systematic way the numerous important documents concerning the American Church preserved in many places at Rome, particularly in the Propaganda archives. Russia has sent historical commissions to Rome repeatedly, and for several years at a time. The names of Schmurlow, Brückner, Pierling, Forster, Wiersbowski, and others are sufficient reminders of the excellent work accomplished. From Japan came Dr. Murakami, to explore the Propaganda and Vatican archives for a history of the Catholic missions to Japan (1549-1690). Denmark is represented among the investigators by such names as Moltesen, Krarup, and Lindback; Norway by Storm, and Sweden by Tegnér, Elof, Karlson, and others. Moritz Stern, Felix Vernet, and others obtained at the Vatican material for a history of the Hebrews. The Spanish Government was long officially represented by the famous Spanish historian, Ricardo de Hinojosa, while researches in Portuguese history are conducted by MacSwiney. Switzerland entered into this peaceful competition by the labours of Kirsch and Baumgarten in 1899, and since the close of the last century many Swiss have visited Rome for Vatican researches, both as individuals and on official missions. We need only mention the names of Büchi, Wirz, Bernoulli, Steffens, Reinhard, and Stückelberg. In addition to these and many more names, we must mention the numerous religious who seek in the archives fresh material for general ecclesiastical history, or the history of their order, e. g. the Benedictines and the Bollandists. The writer has observed at work in the archives during the last twenty-one years Dominicans, Jesuits, Franciscans, Minor Conventuals, Capuchins, Trinitarians, Cistercians, Benedictines, Basilians, Christian Brothers, Lateran Canons Regular, Vallombrosans, Camaldolese, Olivetans, Silvestrines, Carthusians, Augustinians, Mercedarians, Barnabites, and others. Women have at times secured temporary admittance, though for intelligible reasons this privilege is now restricted. Since 1879 the archives have welcomed Catholics, Protestants, Hebrews, believers and infidels, Christians and heathens, priests and laymen, men and women, rich and poor, persons of high social standing and plain citizens, of every nation and language. The writer is acquainted with nearly all the great archives of Europe, and knows that none of them afford similar facilities to the historical student or extend him more courtesy. The number of visitors is at all times higher than to other archives, while the freedom allowed in the use of the material is the most far-reaching known; practically nothing is kept hidden. VII. RESULTS OF VATICAN RESEARCH It is not easy to determine which branch of historical science derives most benefit from Vatican research, nor is the question a simple one. Chronologically, there is no doubt that so far the most favoured period is that of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The sixteenth century comes next, much light being shed on it by the nunciature reports and the Acts of the Council of Trent. The seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries have hitherto been represented by few works, and these not very comprehensive. From the standpoint of subjects treated, Vatican research falls into three parts: + (1) The study of the ecclesiastical relations of Rome with individual nations or peoples; + (2) Roman ecclesiastical administration in all its details; + (3) the influence exerted by the papacy on the civilized world, whether purely political or of a mixed political and religious nature. If we consider the medieval period under the first of these subdivisions the results obtained are substantially as follows: + (a) compilation of correct lists of bishops and titular bishops; + (b) investigation of the so-called Servitia (communia et secreta), i. e. of certain dues paid at Rome, among them pallium dues; + (c) completer lists of bishoprics, abbeys, prelateships and churches directly subject to the Holy See; + (d) lists, as complete as possible, of all kinds of papal ordinances, processes decisions, constitutions, and decrees; + (e) study of the entire system of minor benefices in so far as affected by curial reservations; + (f) selection from the petition files of all requests growing out of the said system; + (g) reports of bishops on the state of their dioceses, and consistorial processes; + (h) investigation into the influence of the Inquisition, to determine how far the respective local authorities were influenced by the Curia; + (i) inquiry into the taxes imposed on clergy and Churches for purely ecclesiastical purposes, and into the ways and means of collecting these taxes. For certain dioceses, ecclesiastical provinces, regions, or entire countries, all these data, together with other items of information, have in the course of time been gathered, and published, by individuals and by associations. They have also, in a general way, been made generally accessible by the publication, as a whole, of the respective papal registers (see REGISTERS, PAPAL), e. g. the "Regesta" publications of the French institute, and the cameral (papal fiscal) reports of the Görres and Leo societies. "Chartularia", or collections of papal Bulls have been published not only for Westphalia, Eastern and Western Prussia, Utrecht, Bohemia, Salzburg, Aquileia, but also for Denmark, Poland, Switzerland, Great Britain, Ireland, and Germany (Repertorium Germanicum), not to speak of other countries. Many a student of the Vatican archives has devoted all his time to a single subject, e. g. Armellini, "Le Chiese di Roma"; Storm, "Die Obligationen der norwegischen Prälaten von 1311-1523"; Samaran-Mollat, "La fiscalité pontificale en France au l4 ^me siècle"; Berlière, "Les 'Libri Obligationum et Solutionum' des archives vaticanes", for the Dioceses of Cambrai, Liège, Thérouanne, and Tournai; Rieder, "Römische Quellen zur Konstanzer Bisthumsgeschichte (1305-1378)". The work done in the second subdivision is of the greatest importance for questions of history, canon law, and general and medieval culture. The all-pervading activity of the medieval popes has been richly illustrated by various investigators, e. g. Göller on the records of the "Poenitentiaria"; Kirsch and Baumgarten on the finances (officials, administration) of the College of Cardinals; Baumgarten on the respective offices of the vice-chancellor and the "Bullatores", the residence-quarters of the Curia, its Cursores or messengers; Watzl, Göller, and Schäfer on the finance bureau of the Curia; von Ottenthal on the secretaries and the "Chancery rules"; Tangl and Erler respectively on the "Chancery regulations" and the "Liber Cancellariæ"; Kehr, Berlière, and Rieder on the petition files (libelli supplices), etc. The student will find quite helpful illustration of these delicate labours in the remarkable editions of the "Liber Pontificalis" by Duchesne; the "Liber Censuum" by Duchesne-Fabre; the "Italia Pontificia" by Kehr; the "Hierarchia Catholica Medii Ævi" by Eubel; the "Catalogue of Cardinals" by Cristofori; the "Acts of the Council of Trent", by Ehses, Merkle, and Buschbell, not to speak of numerous other valuable works. As to the third subdivision, i. e. the purely political, or politico-ecclesiastical activities of the popes, no clearly defined distinction can be made, either in the Middle Ages or in more modern times, between these activities and the exercise of purely ecclesiastical authority; their numerous manifestations may be studied in the publications briefly described above. Abundant information is to be found in the publications of the papal "Regesta" and the "Camera" or treasury, records. We learn from them many curious items of profane history, e. g. the population of various kingdoms, grants of tithes to kings and rulers for political purposes, etc. The nunciature reports are rich in this information. In a general way the Vatican archives and these new historical Roman institutes have been particularly helpful towards a better knowledge of the ecclesiastico-religious relations of individual dioceses, countries, and peoples with the head of the Church and its central administration. So numerous have been the results of investigation published along these lines, that it has hitherto been impracticable to prepare an exhaustive bibliography of the works based on studies in the Vatican archives. Melampo and Ranuzzi, following in the footsteps of Meister, have recently published a very useful, but not at all exhaustive, list of all the books and essays of this kind which had appeared up to 1900: "Saggio bibliografico dei lavori eseguiti nell' Archivio Vaticano" (Rome, 1909). (See VATICAN, sub-title Archives, Library; and BULLARIUM.) Most of the information on the Roman historical institutes is as yet scattered in essays and book prefaces. Besides the works of FRIEDENSBURG and BROM above referred to, see HASKINS, The Vatican Archives in American Hist. Rev. (October, 1896), reprinted in Catholic Univ. Bulletin (April, 1897); CAUCHIE, De la création d'une école belge à Rome; SCHLECHT in BUCHBERGER, Kirchliches Handlexikon, s. v. Institute, historische; and the financial reports of the various institutes in their respective official publications. Among the accounts published by the various historical commissions the best have always been those of the Poles and the Russians, and are to be found in MELAMPO-RANUZZI. PAUL M. BAUMGARTEN. Canonical Institution Canonical Institution (Lat. institutio, from instituere, to establish) In its widest signification, Canonical Institution denotes any manner, in accordance with canon law, of acquiring an ecclesiastical benefice (Regula prima juris, in VIto). In its strictest sense the word denotes the collation of an ecclesiastical benefice by a legitimate authority, on the presentation of a candidate by a third person (institutio tituli collativa). The term is used also for the actual putting in possession of a benefice (institutio corporalis), and for the approbation requisite for the exercising of the ecclesiastical ministry when an authority inferior to the bishop has power to confer an ecclesiastical benefice (institutio auctorisabilis). (Cf. gloss on "Regula prima juris", in VIto, s. v. "Beneficium".) I. The institutio tituli collativa (that which gives the title), sometimes also called verbalis (which may be by word of mouth or by writing, as distinguished from the institutio corporalis, or realis), is the act by which an ecclesiastical authority confers a benefice on a candidate presented by a third person enjoying the right of presentation. This occurs in the case of benefices subject to the right of patronage (jus patronatus), one of the principal prerogatives of which is the right of presenting to the bishop a titular for a vacant benefice. It also occurs when, in virtue of a privilege or of a concordat, a chapter, a sovereign, or a government has the right to present to the pope the titular of a bishopric or of an important ecclesiastical office. If the pope accepts the person presented, he bestows the institutio canonica on the titular, The effect of this act is to give the candidate who has been presented (and who till then had only a jus ad rem, i. e. the right to be provided with the benefice) a jus in re or in beneficio, i, e. the right of exercising the functions connected with the benefice and of receiving revenues accruing from it. The right of institution to major benefices rests in the pope, but in the case of minor benefices it may belong to a bishop and his vicar-general, to a vicar capitular, or even to other ecclesiastics, in virtue of a foundation title dating from before the Council of Trent (Sess, XIV, "de Ref.", c. xii), or of a privilege, or of prescription. In all these cases the bishop has the right to examine the candidate, excepting candidates presented by universities recognized canonically (Council of Trent, Sess. VII, "de Ref.", c. xiii; Sess. XXV, "de Ref.", c. ix); even this exception does not apply to parishes (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIV, "de Ref.", c. xviii). Institution ought to be bestowed within the two months following the presentation, in the case of parish churches (Constitution of Pius V, "In conferendis", 16 March, 1567), but canon law has not specified any fixed time with regard to other benefices. However, if the bishop refuses to grant institution within the time appointed by a superior authority, the latter can make the grant itself (see JUS PATRONATUS). II. The institutio corporalis, also called investitura, or installatio, is the putting of a titular in effective possession of his benefice. Whereas canon law permits a bishop to put himself in possession of his benefice (see ENTHRONIZATION), in the case of minor benefices it requires an actual installation by a competent authority. The bishop may punish any one who takes possession of a benefice on his own authority, and the violent occupation of a benefice in possession of another ecclesiastic entails on the guilty party the loss of all right to that benefice. The right of installation formerly belonged to archdeacons, but is now reserved to the bishop, his vicar-general, or his delegate, ordinarily the dean (decanus christianitatis or foraneus). It is performed with certain symbolical ceremonies, determined by local usage or by diocesan statutes, such, for instance, as a solemn entry into the parish and into the church, the handing over of the church keys, a putting in possession of the high altar of the church, the pulpit, confessional, etc. In some countries there is a double installation: the first by the bishop or vicar-general, either by mere word of mouth, or by some symbolical ceremony, as, for instance, presenting a biretta; the second, which is then a mere ceremony, taking place in the parish and consisting in the solemn entry and other formalities dependent on local custom. In some places custom has even done away with the institutio corporalis properly so called; the rights inherent to the putting in possession are acquired by the new titular to the benefice by a simple visit to his benefice, for instance, to his parish, with the intention of taking possession thereof, provided such visit is made with the authority of the bishop, thus precluding the possibility of self-investiture. When the pope names the titular to a benefice, he always mentions those who are to put the beneficiary in possession. The following are the effects of the institutio corporalis: + From the moment he is put in possession the beneficiary receives the revenues of his benefice. + He enjoys all the rights resulting from the ownership and the possession of the benefice, and, in particular, it is from this moment that the time necessary for a prescriptive right to the benefice counts. + The possessor can invoke in his favour the provisions of rules 35 and 36 of the Roman Chancery de annali, and de triennali possessione. This privilege has lost much of its importance since the conferring of benefices is now a matter of less dispute than in former times. Formerly, on account of various privileges, and the constant intervention of the Holy See in the collation of benefices, several ecclesiastics were not infrequently named to the same benefice. Should one of them happen to have been in possession of the benefice for a year, it would devolve on the rival claimant to prove that the possessor had no right to the benefice; moreover, the latter was obliged to begin his suit within six months after his nomination to the benefice by the pope, and the trial was to be concluded within a year counting from the day when the actual possessor was cited to the courts (rule 35 of the Chancery). These principles are still in force. The triennial possession guaranteed the benefice to the actual incumbent in all actions in petitorio or in possessorio to obtain a benefice brought by any claimant whatsoever (rule 36 of the Chancery). + The peaceful possession of a benefice entails ipso facto the vacating of any benefices to which the holder is a titular, but which would be incompatible with the one he holds. + It is only from the day when bishops and parish priests enter into possession of their benefices that they can validly assist at marriages celebrated in the diocese or in the parish (Decree "Ne temere", 2 August, 1907). Furthermore, in some dioceses the statutes declare invalid any exercise of the powers of jurisdiction attached to a benefice, before the actual installation in the benefice. III. The institutio auctorisabilis is nothing but an approbation required for the validity of acts of jurisdiction, granted by the bishop to a beneficiary in view of his undertaking the care of souls (cura animarum). It is an act of the same nature as the approbation which a bishop gives members of a religious order for hearing confessions of persons not subject to their authority, and without which the absolution would be invalid; but there is this difference that in the case of the institutio auctorisabilis the approbation relates to the exercise of the ministerial functions taken as a whole. It is the missio canonica indispensable for the validity of acts requiring an actual power of jurisdiction. This institution, which is reserved to the bishop or his vicar-general and to those possessing a quasi-episcopal jurisdiction, is required when the institutio tituli collativa belongs to an inferior prelate, a chapter, or a monastery. The institutio tituli collativa given by the bishop himself implies the institutio auctorisabilis, which, therefore, needs not to be given by a special act. Decretals of Gregory IX, bk. III, tit. 7, De institutionibus; Liber Sextus, bk. III, tit. 6, De Institutionibus; FERRARIS, Prompta bibliotheca, s. v. Institutio, IV (Paris, 1861), 701-12; HINSCHIUS, System des katholischen Kirchenrechts, II (Berlin, 1878-1883), 649-57, and III, 3-4; SANTI, Proelectiones iuris canonici, III (Ratisbon, 1898), 116-25; WERNZ, Jus decretalium, II (Rome, 1899), 532-45; GROSS, Das Recht an der Pfründe (Graz, 1887); Archiv für katholisches Kirchenrecht, LXXXVIII (1908), 768-9, and LXXXIX (1909), 75-8, 327-9. A. VAN HOVE Intellect Intellect (Latin intelligere -- inter and legere -- to choose between, to discern; Greek nous; German Vernunft, Verstand; French intellect; Italian intelletto). The faculty of thought. As understood in Catholic philosophical literature it signifies the higher, spiritual, cognitive power of the soul. It is in this view awakened to action by sense, but transcends the latter in range. Amongst its functions are attention, conception, judgment, reasoning, reflection, and self-consciousness. All these modes of activity exhibit a distinctly suprasensuous element, and reveal a cognitive faculty of a higher order than is required for mere sense-cognitions. In harmony, therefore, with Catholic usage, we reserve the terms intellect, intelligence, and intellectual to this higher power and its operations, although many modern psychologists are wont, with much resulting confusion, to extend the application of these terms so as to include sensuous forms of the cognitive process. By thus restricting the use of these terms, the inaccuracy of such phrases as "animal intelligence" is avoided. Before such language may be legitimately employed, it should be shown that the lower animals are endowed with genuinely rational faculties, fundamentally one in kind with those of man. Catholic philosophers, however they differ on minor points, as a general body have held that intellect is a spiritual faculty depending extrinsically, but not intrinsically, on the bodily organism. The importance of a right theory of intellect is twofold: on account of its bearing on epistemology, or the doctrine of knowledge; and because of its connexion with the question of the spirituality of the soul. HISTORY The view that the cognitive powers of the mind, or faculties of knowledge, are of a double order -- the one lower, grosser, more intimately depending on bodily organs, the other higher and of a more refined and spiritual nature -- appeared very early, though at first confusedly, in Greek thought. It was in connexion with cosmological, rather than psychological, theories that the difference between sensuous and rational knowledge was first emphasized. On the one hand there seems to be constant change, and, on the other hand, permanence in the world that is revealed to us. The question: How is the apparent conflict to be reconciled? or, Which is the true representation? forced itself on the speculative mind. Heraclitus insists on the reality of the changeable. All things are in a perpetual flux. Parmenides, Zeno, and the Eleatics argued that only the unchangeable being truly is. Aisthesis, "sense", is the faculty by which changing phenomena are apprehended; nous, "thought", "reason", "intellect", presents to us permanent, abiding being. The Sophists, with a skill unsurpassed by modern Agnosticism, urged the sceptical consequences of the apparent contradiction between the one and the many, the permanent and the changing, and emphasized the part contributed by the mind in knowledge. For Protagoras, "Man is the measure of all things", whilst with Gorgias the conclusion is: "Nothing is; nothing can be known; nothing can be expressed in speech". Socrates held that truth was innate in the mind antecedent to sensuous experience, but his chief contribution to the theory of knowledge was his insistence on the importance of the general concept or definition. It was Plato, however, who first realized the full significance of the problem and the necessity for coordinating the data of sense with the data of the intellect, he also first explained the origin of the problem. The universe of being, as reported by reason, is one, eternal, immutable; as revealed by sense, it is a series of multiple changing phenomena. Which is the truly real? For Plato there are in a sense two worlds, that of the intellect (noeton) and that of sense (horaton). Sense can give only an imperfect knowledge of its object, which he calls belief (pistis) or conjecture (eikasia). The faculties by which we apprehend the noeton, "the intelligible world" are two: nous, "intuitive reason", which reaches the ideas (see IDEA); and logos, "discursive reason", which by its proper process, viz. episteme "demonstration", attains only to dianoia "conception". Plato thus sets up two distinct intellectual faculties attaining to different sets of objects. But the world of ideas is for Plato the real world, that of sense is only a poor shadowy imitation. Aristotle's doctrine on the intellect in its main outline is clear. The soul is possessed of two orders of cognitive faculty, to aisthetikon, "sensuous cognition", and to dianoetikon "rational cognition" . The sensuous faculty includes aisthesis, sensuous perception", phantasia, "imagination", and mneme, memory". The faculty of rational cognition includes nous and dianoia. These, however, are not so much two faculties as two functions of the same power. They roughly correspond to intellect and ratiocinative reason. For intellect to operate, previous sense perception is required. The function of the intellect is to divest the object presented by sense of its material and individualizing conditions, and apprehend the universal and intelligible form embodied in the concrete physical reality. The outcome of the process is the generalization in the intellect of an intellectual form or representation of the intelligible being of the object (eidos, noeton). This act constitutes the intellect cognizant of the object in its universal nature. In this process intellect appears in a double character. On the one hand it exhibits itself as an active agent, in that it operates on the object presented by the sensuous faculty rendering it intelligible. On the other hand, as subject of the intellectual representation evolved, it manifests passivity, modifiability, and susceptibility to the reception of different forms. There is thus revealed in Aristotle's theory of intellectual cognition an active intellect (nous poietikos) and a passive intellect (nous pathetikos). But how these are to be conceived, and what precisely is the nature of the distinction and relation between them, is one of the most irritatingly obscure points in the whole of Aristotle's works. The locus classicus is his "De Anima", III, v, where the subject is briefly dealt with. As the active intellect actuates the passive, it bears to it a relation similar to that of form to matter in physical bodies. The active intellect "illuminates" the object of sense, rendering it intelligible somewhat as light renders colours visible. It is pure energy without any potentiality, and its activity is continuous. It is separate, immortal, and eternal. The passive intellect, on the other hand, receives the forms abstracted by the active intellect and ideally becomes the object. The whole passage is so obscure that commentators from the beginning are hopelessly divided as to Aristotle's own view on the nature of the nous poietikos. Theophrastus, who succeeded Aristotle as scholiarch of the Lyceum, accepted the twofold intellect, but was unable to explain it. The great commentator, Alexander of Aphrodisias, interprets the nous poietikos as the activity of the Divine intelligence. This view was adopted by many of the Arabian philosophers of the Middle Ages, who conceived it in a pantheistic sense. For many of them the active intellect is one universal reason illuminating all men. With Avicenna the passive intellect alone is individual. Averrhoës conceives both intellectus agens and intellectus possibilis as separate from the individual soul and as one in all men. The Schoolmen generally controverted the Arabian theories. Albertus Magnus and St. Thomas interpret intellectus agens and possibilis as merely distinct faculties or powers of the individual soul. St. Thomas understands "separate" (choristos) and "pure" or "unmixed" (amiges) to signify that the intellect is distinct from matter and incorporeal. Interpreting Aristotle thus benevolently, and developing his doctrine Aquinas teaches that the function of the active intellect is an abstractive operation on the data supplied by the sensuous faculties to form the species intelligibiles in the intellectus possibilis. The intellectus possibilis thus actuated cognizes what is intelligible in the object. The act of cognition is the concept, or verbum mentale, by which is apprehended the universal nature or essence of the object prescinded from its individualizing conditions. The main features of the Aristotelean doctrine of intellect, and of its essential distinction from the faculty of sensuous cognition, were adhered to by the general body of the Schoolmen. By the time we reach modern philosophy, especially in England, the radical distinction between the two orders of faculties begins to be lost sight of. Descartes, defending the spirituality of the soul; naturally supposes the intellect to be a spiritual faculty. Leibniz insists on both the spirituality and innate efficiency of the intellect. Whilst admitting the axiom, "Nil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu", he adds with much force, "nisi intellectus ipse", and urges spontaneity and innate activity as characteristics of the monad. From the break with Scholasticism, however, English philosophy drifted towards Sensationism and Materialism, subsequently influencing France and other countries in the same direction, as a consequence, the old conception of intellect as a spiritual faculty of the soul, and as a cognitive activity by which the universal, necessary, and immutable elements in knowledge are apprehended, was almost entirely lost. For Hobbes the mind is material, and all knowledge is ultimately sensuous. Locke's attack on innate ideas and intuitive knowledge, his reduction of various forms of intellectual cognition to complex amalgams of so called simple ideas originating in sense perception, and his representation of the mind as a passive tabula rasa, in spite of his allotting certain work to reflection and the discursive reason, paved the way for all modern Sensationism and Phenomenalism. Condillac, omitting Locke's "reflection", resolved all intellectual knowledge into Sensationism pure and simple. Hume, analysing all mental Products into sensuous impressions, vivid or faint, plus association due to custom, developed the sceptical consequences involved in Locke's defective treatment of the intellectual faculty, and carried philosophy back to the old conclusions of the Greek Sensationists and Sophists, but reinforced by a more subtile and acute psychology. All the main features of Hume's psychology have been adopted by the whole Associationist school in England, by Positivists abroad, and by materialistic scientists in so far as they have any philosophy or psychology at all. The essential distinction between intellect, or rational activity, and sense has in fact been completely lost sight of, and Scepticism and Agnosticism have logically followed. Kant recognized a distinction between sensation and the higher mental element, but, conceiving the latter in a different way from the old Aristotelean view, and looking on it as purely subjective, his system was developed into an idealism and scepticism differing in kind from that of Hume, but not very much more satisfactory. Still, the neo-Kantian and Hegelian movement, which developed in Great Britain during the last quarter of the nineteenth century has contributed much towards the reawakening of the recognition of the intellectual, or rational, element in all knowledge. THE COMMON DOCTRINE The teaching of Aristotle on intellect, as developed by Albertus Magnus and St. Thomas, has become, as we have said, in its main features the common doctrine of Catholic philosophers. We shall state it in brief outline. (1) Intellect is a cognitive faculty essentially different from sense and of a supra-organic order; that is, it is not exerted by, or intrinsically dependent on, a bodily organ, as sensation is. This proposition is proved by psychological analysis and study of the chief functions of intellect. These are conception, judgment, reasoning, reflection, and self-consciousness. All these activities involve elements essentially different from sensuous consciousness. In conception the mind forms universal ideas. These are different in kind from sensations and sensuous images. These latter are concrete and individual, truly representative of only one object, whilst the universal idea will apply with equal truth to any object of the class. The universal idea possesses a fixity and invariableness of nature, whilst the sensuous image changes from moment to moment. Thus the concept or universal idea of "gold", or "triangle", will with equal justice stand for any specimen, but the image represents truly only one individual. The sensuous faculty can be awakened to activity only by a stimulus which whatever it be, exists in a concrete, individualized form. In judgment the mind perceives the identity or discordance of two concepts. In reasoning it apprehends the logical nexus between conclusion and premises. In reflection and self-consciousness it turns back on itself in such a manner that there is perfect identity between the knowing subject and the object known. But all these forms of consciousness are incompatible with the notion of a sensuous faculty, or one exerted by means of a bodily organ. The Sensationist psychologists, from Berkeley onwards, were unanimous in maintaining that the mind cannot form universal or abstract ideas. This would be true were the intellect not a spiritual faculty essentially distinct from sense. The simple fact is that they invariably confounded the image of the imagination, which is individualized, with the concept, or idea, of the intellect. When we employ universal terms in any intelligible proposition the terms have a meaning. The thought by which that meaning is apprehended in the mind is a universal idea. (2) In cognition we start from sensuous experience. The intellect presupposes sensation and operates on the materials supplied by the sensuous faculties. The beginning of consciousness with the infant is in sensation. This is at first felt, most probably, in a vague and indefinite form. But repetition of particular sensations and experience of other sensations contrasted with them render their apprehension more and more definite as time goes on. Groups of sensations of different senses are aroused by particular objects and become united by the force of contiguous association. The awakening of any one of the group calls up the images of the others. Sense perception is thus being perfected. At a certain stage in the process of development the higher power of intellect begins to be evoked into activity, at first feebly and dimly. In the beginning the intellectual apprehension, like the sensations which preceded, is extremely vague. Its first acts are probably the cognition of objects revealed through sensation under wide and indefinite ideas, such as "extended-thing", "moving-thing", "pressing-thing", and the like. It takes in objects as wholes, before discriminating their parts. Repetition and variation of sense-impressions stimulates and sharpens attention. Pleasure or pain evokes interest and the intellect concentrates on part of the sensuous experience, and the process of abstraction begins. Certain attributes are laid hold of, to the omission of others. Comparison and discrimination are also called into action, and the more accurate and perfect elaboration of concepts now proceeds rapidly. The notions of substance and accidents, of whole and parts, of permanent and changing, are evolved with increasing distinctness. Generalization follows quickly upon abstraction. When an attribute or an object has been singled out and recognized as a thing distinct from its surroundings, an act of reflection renders the mind aware of the object as capable of indefinite realization and multiplication in other circumstances, and we have now the formally reflex universal idea. The further activity of the intellect is fundamentally the same in kind, comparing, identifying, or discriminating. The activity of ratiocination is merely reiteration of the judicial activity. The final stage in the elaboration of a concept is reached when it is embodied for further use in a general name. Words presuppose intellectual ideas, but register them and render them permanent. The intellect is also distinguished according to its functions, as speculative or practical. When pronouncing simply on the rational relations of ideas, it is called speculative; when considering harmony with action, it is termed practical. The faculty, however, is the same in both cases. The faculty of conscience is in fact merely the practical intellect, or the intellect passing judgment on the moral quality of actions. The intellect is essentially the faculty of truth and falsity, and in its judicial acts it at the same time affirms the union of subject and predicate and the agreement between its own representation and the objective reality. Intellect also exhibits itself in the higher form of memory when there is conscious recognition of identity between the present and the past. To the intellect is due also the conception of self and personal identity. The fundamental difficulty with the whole Sensationist school, from Hume to Mill, in regard to the recognition of personality, is due to their ignoring the true nature of the faculty of intellect. Were there no such higher rational faculty in the mind, then the mind could never be known as anything more than a series of mental states. It is the intellect which enables the mind to apprehend itself as a unity, or unitary being. The ideas of the infinite, of space, time, and causality are all similarly the product of intellectual activity, starting from the data presented by sense, and exercising a power of intuition, abstraction, identification, and discrimination. It is, accordingly, the absence of an adequate conception of intellect which has rendered the treatment of all these mental functions so defective. in the English psychology of the last century. (See also FACULTIES OF THE SOUL; DIALECTIC; EPISTEMOLOGY; EMPIRICISM; IDEALISM; POSITIVISM.) MICHAEL MAHER Intendencia Oriental y Llanos de San Martin Intendencia Oriental y Llanos de San Martín Vicariate Apostolic in the province of Saint Martin, Colombia, South America, created 24 March, 1908, and entrusted to the Society of Mary. In place of this vicariate there were formerly two prefectures Apostolic, one created on 23 June, 1903, and the other on 8 January, 1904, after negotiations (dating from 1902) between the Holy See and the Colombian Government for the evangelization of these vast provinces. Surrounded by the Cordilleras, and watered by the Batatas, Garagoa, Guavio, Humades, Meta, and Orinoco Rivers, the territory is still inhabited largely by the uncivilized natives, in number about 50,000, of whom scarcely 10,000 have been baptized. U. BENIGNI Intention Intention (Lat. intendere, to stretch toward, to aim at) is an act of the will by which that faculty efficaciously desires to reach an end by employing the means. It is apparent from this notion that there is a sharply defined difference between intention and volition or even velleity. In the first instance there is a concentration of the will to the point of resolve which is wholly lacking in the others. With the purpose of determining the value of an action, it is customary to distinguish various sorts of intentions which could have prompted it. First, there is the actual intention, operating, namely, with the advertence of the intellect. Secondly, there is the virtual intention. Its force is borrowed entirely from a prior volition which is accounted as continuing in some result produced by it. In other words, the virtual intention is not a present act of the will. but rather a power (virtus) come about as an effect of a former act, and now at work for the attainment of the end. The thing therefore that is wanting in a virtual, as contrasted with an actual, intention is not of course the element of will, but rather the attention of the intellect, and that particularly of the reflex kind. So, for example, a person having made up his mind to undertake a journey may during its progress be entirely preoccupied with other thoughts. He will nevertheless be said to have all the while the virtual intention of reaching his destination. Thirdly, an habitual intention is one that once actually existed, but of the present continuance of which there is no positive trace; the most that can be said of it is that it has never been retracted. And fourthly an interpretative intention is one that as a matter of fact has never been really elicited; there has been and is no actual movement of the will; it is simply the purpose which it is assumed a man would have had in a given contingency, had he given thought to the matter. It is a commonplace among moralists that the intention is the chief among the determinants of the concrete morality of a human act. Hence when one's motive is grievously bad, or even only slightly so, if it be the exclusive reason for doing something, then an act which is otherwise good is vitiated and reputed to be evil. An end which is only venially bad, and which at the same time does not contain the complete cause for acting, leaves the operation which in other respects was unassailable to be qualified as partly good and partly bad. A good intention can never hallow an action the content of which is wrong. Thus it never can be lawful to steal, even though one's intention be to aid the poor with the proceeds of the theft. The end does not justify the means. It may be noted here in passing, as somewhat cognate to the matter under discussion, that the explicit and frequently renewed reference of one's actions to Almighty God is not now commonly thought to be necessary in order that they may be said to be morally good. The old-time controversy on this point has practically died out. Besides affecting the goodness or badness of acts, intention may have much to do with their validity. Is it required, for instance, for the fulfilment of the law? The received doctrine is that, provided the subject is seriously minded to do what is prescribed, he need not have the intention of satisfying his obligation; and much less is it required that he should be inspired by the same motives as urged the legislator to enact the law. Theologians quote in this connection the saying, "Finis præcepti non cadit sub præcepto" (the end of the law does not fall under its binding force). What has been said applies with even more truth to the class of obligations called real, enjoining for instance the payment of debts. For the discharge of these no intention at all is demanded, not even a conscious act. It is enough that the creditor gets his own. The Church teaches very unequivocally that for the valid conferring of the sacraments, the minister must have the intention of doing at least what the Church does. This is laid down with great emphasis by the Council of Trent (sess. VII). The opinion once defended by such theologians as Catharinus and Salmeron that there need only be the intention to perform deliberately the external rite proper to each sacrament, and that, as long as this was true, the interior dissent of the minister from the mind of the Church would not invalidate the sacrament, no longer finds adherents. The common doctrine now is that a real internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect, in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required. This intention need not necessarily be of the sort called actual. That would often be practically impossible. It is enough that it be virtual. Neither habitual nor interpretative intention in the minister will suffice for the validity of the sacrament. The truth is that here and now, when the sacrament is being conferred, neither of these intentions exists, and they can therefore exercise no determining influence upon what is done. To administer the sacraments with a conditional intention, which makes their effect contingent upon a future event, is to confer them invalidly. This holds good for all the sacraments except matrimony, which, being a contract, is susceptible of such a limitation. As to the recipients of the sacraments, it is certain that no intention is required in children who have not yet reached the age of reason, or in imbeciles, for the validity of those sacraments which they are capable of receiving. In the case of adults, on the other hand, some intention is indispensable if the sacrament is not to be invalid. The reason is that our justification is not brought about without our co-operation, and that includes the rational will to profit by the means of sanctification. How much of an intention is enough is not always quite clear. In general, more in the way of intention will be demanded in proportion as the acts of the receiver seem to enter into the making of the sacrament. So for penance and matrimony under ordinary conditions a virtual intention would appear to be required; for the other sacraments an habitual intention is sufficient. For an unconscious person in danger of death the habitual intention may be implicit and still suffice for the validity of the sacraments that are then necessary or highly useful; that is, it may be contained in the more general purpose which a man has at some time during his life, and which he has never retracted, of availing himself of these means of salvation at so supreme a moment. For the gaining of indulgences the most that can probably be exacted is an habitual intention. JOSEPH F. DELANY Intercession Intercession (Mediation) To intercede is to go or come between two parties, to plead before one of them on behalf of the other. In the New Testament it is used as the equivalent of entygchanein (Vulg. interpellare, in Heb., vii, 25). "Mediation" means a standing in the midst between two (contending) parties, for the purpose of bringing them together (cf. mediator, mesites, I Tim., ii, 5). In ecclesiastical usage both words are taken in the sense of the intervention primarily of Christ, and secondarily of the Blessed Virgin and the angels and saints, on behalf of men. It would be better, however, to restrict the word mediation to the action of Christ, and intercession to the action of the Blessed Virgin, the angels, and the saints. In this article we shall briefly deal with: I. the Mediation of Christ; and at more length with, II. the intercession of the saints. I. THE MEDIATION OF CHRIST In considering the Mediation of Christ we must distinguish between His position and His office. As God-man He stands in the midst between God and man partaking of the natures of both, and therefore, by that very fact, fitted to act as Mediator between them. He is, indeed, the Mediator in the absolute sense of the word, in a way that no one else can possibly be. "For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (I Tim., ii, 5). He is united to both: "The head of every man is Christ... the head of Christ is God" (I Cor., xi, 3). His office of Mediator belongs to Him as man, His human nature is the principium quo, but the value of His action is derived from the fact that it is a Divine Person Who acts. The main object of His mediation is to restore the friendship between God and man. This is attained first by the meriting of grace and remission of sin, by means of the worship and satisfaction offered to God by and through Christ. But, besides bringing man nigh unto God, Christ brings God nigh unto man, by revealing to man Divine truths and commands -- He is the Apostle sent by God to us and the High-Priest leading us on to God (Heb., iii, 1). Even in the physical order the mere fact of Christ's existence is in itself a mediation between God and man. By uniting our humanity to His Divinity He united us to God and God to us. As St. Athanasius says, "Christ became man that men might become gods" ("De Incarn.", n. 54; cf. St. Augustine, "Serm. De Nativitate Dom."; St. Thomas, III, Q. i, a. 2). And for this Christ prayed: "That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee. . . . I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one" (John, xvii, 21-23). The subject of Christ's mediation belongs properly to the articles ATONEMENT; JESUS CHRIST; REDEMPTION. See also St. Thomas, III, Q. xxvi; and the treatises on the Incarnation. II. INTERCESSION AND INVOCATION We shall here speak not only of intercession, but also of the invocation of the saints. The one indeed implies the other; we should not call upon the saints for aid unless they could help us. The foundation of both lies in the doctrine of the communion of saints. In the article on this subject it has been shown that the faithful in heaven, on earth, and in purgatory are one mystical body, with Christ for their head. All that is of interest to one part is of interest to the rest, and each helps the rest: we on earth by honouring and invoking the saints and praying for the souls in purgatory, and the saints in heaven by interceding for us. The Catholic doctrine of intercession and invocation is set forth by the Council of Trent, which teaches that the saints who reign together with Christ offer up their own prayers to God for men. It is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to have recourse to their prayers, aid, and help for obtaining benefits from God, through His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, Who alone is our Redeemer and Saviour. Those persons think impiously who deny that the Saints, who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven, are to be invoked; or who assert either that they do not pray for men, or that the invocation of them to pray for each of us is idolatry, or that it is repugnant to the word of God, and is opposed to the honour of the one Mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ (Sess. XXV). This had already been explained by St. Thomas: Prayer is offered to a person in two ways: one as though to be granted by himself, another as to be obtained through him. In the first way we pray to God alone, because all our prayers ought to be directed to obtaining grace and glory which God alone gives, according to those words of the psalm (lxxxiii, 12): 'The Lord will give grace and glory.' But in the second way we pray to the holy angels and to men not that God may learn our petition through them, but that by their prayers and merits our prayers may be efficacious. Wherefore it is said in the Apocalypse (viii, 4): 'And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel' (Summ. Theol., II-II, Q. lxxxiii, a. 4). The reasonableness of the Catholic teaching and practice cannot be better stated than in St. Jerome's words: If the Apostles and Martyrs, while still in the body, can pray for others, at a time when they must still be anxious for themselves, how much more after their crowns, victories, and triumphs are won! One man, Moses, obtains from God pardon for six hundred thousand men in arms; and Stephen, the imitator of the Lord, and the first martyr in Christ, begs forgiveness for his persecutors; and shall their power be less after having begun to be with Christ? The Apostle Paul declares that two hundred three score and sixteen souls, sailing with him, were freely given him; and, after he is dissolved and has begun to be with Christ, shall he close his lips, and not be able to utter a word in behalf of those who throughout the whole world believed at his preaching of the Gospel? And shall the living dog Vigilantius be better than that dead lion? ("Contra Vigilant.", n. 6, in P. L., XXIII, 344). The chief objections raised against the intercession and invocation of the saints are that these doctrines are opposed to the faith and trust which we should have in God alone; that they are a denial of the all-sufficient merits of Christ; and that they cannot be proved from Scripture and the Fathers. Thus Article 22 of the Anglican Church says: "The Romish doctrine concerning the Invocation of Saints is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God." (1) In the article ADORATION it has been clearly shown that the honour paid to angels and saints is entirely different from the supreme honour due to God alone, and is indeed paid to them only as His servants and friends. "By honouring the Saints who have slept in the Lord, by invoking their intercession and venerating their relics and ashes, so far is the glory of God from being diminished that it is very much increased, in proportion as the hope of men is thus more excited and confirmed, and they are encouraged to the imitation of the Saints" (Cat. of the Council of Trent, pt. III, c. ii, q. 11). We can, of course, address our prayers directly to God, and He can hear us without the intervention of any creature. But this does not prevent us from asking the help of our fellow-creatures who may be more pleasing to Him than we are. It is not because our faith and trust in Him are weak, nor because His goodness and mercy to us are less; rather is it because we are encouraged by His precepts to approach Him at times through His servants, as we shall presently see. As pointed out by St. Thomas, we invoke the angels and saints in quite different language from that addressed to God. We ask Him to have mercy upon us and Himself to grant us whatever we require; whereas we ask the saints to pray for us, i.e. to join their petitions with ours. However, we should here bear in mind Bellarmine's remarks: "When we say that nothing should be asked of the saints but their prayer for us, the question is not about the words, but the sense of the words. For as far as the words go, it is lawful to say: 'St. Peter, pity me, save me, open for me the gate of heaven'; also, 'Give me health of body, patience, fortitude', etc., provided that we mean 'save and pity me by praying for me'; 'grant me this or that by thy prayers and merits.' For so speaks Gregory of Nazianzus (Orat. xviii -- according to others, xxiv -- " De S. Cypriano" in P. G., XXXV, 1193; "Orat. de S. Athan.: In Laud. S. Athanas.", Orat. xxi, in P. G., XXXV, 1128); in "De Sanct. Beatif.", I, 17. The supreme act of impetration, sacrifice, is never offered to any creature. "Although the Church has been accustomed at times to celebrate certain Masses in honour and memory of the Saints, it does not follow that she teaches that sacrifice is offered unto them, but unto God alone, who crowned them; whence neither is the priest wont to say 'I offer sacrifice to thee, Peter, or Paul', but, giving thanks to God for their victories, he implores their patronage, that they may vouchsafe to intercede for us in heaven, whose memory we celebrate upon earth" (Council of Trent, Sess. XXII, c. iii). The Collyridians, or Philomarianites, offered little cakes in sacrifice to the Mother of God; but the practice was condemned by St. Epiphanius (Hær., lxxix, in P. G., XLI, 740); Leontius Byzant., "Contra Nest. et Eutych.", III, 6, in P. G., LXXXVI, 1364; and St. John of Damascus (Hær., lxxix, in P. G., XCIV, 728). (2) The doctrine of one Mediator, Christ, in no way excludes the invocation and intercession of saints. All merit indeed comes through Him; but this does not make it unlawful to ask our fellow-creatures, whether here on earth or already in heaven, to help us by their prayers. The same Apostle who insists so strongly on the sole mediatorship of Christ, earnestly begs the prayers of his brethren: "I beseech you, therefore, brethren, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the charity of the Holy Ghost, that you help me in your prayers for me to God" (Rom., xv, 30); and he himself prays for them: "I give thanks to my God in every remembrance of you, always in all my prayers making supplication for you all" (Phil., i, 3, 4). If the prayers of the brethren on earth do not derogate from the glory and dignity of the Mediator, Christ, neither do the prayers of the saints in heaven. (3) As regards the proof from Holy Scripture and the Fathers, we can show that the principle and the practice of invoking the aid of our fellow-creatures are clearly laid down in both. That the angels have an interest in the welfare of men is clear from Christ's words: "There shall be joy before the angels of God upon one sinner doing penance" (Luke, xv, 10). In verse 7 He says simply: "There shall be joy in heaven". Cf. Matt., xviii, 10; Heb., i, 14. That the angels pray for men is plain from the vision of the Prophet Zacharias: "And the angel of the Lord answered, and said: O Lord of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem . . . and the Lord answered the angel . . . good words, comfortable words" (Zach., i, 12, 13). And the angel Raphael says: " When thou didst pray with tears . . . I offered thy prayer to the Lord" (Tob., xii, 12) The combination of the prayers both of angels and saints is seen in the vision of St. John: "And another angel came, and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of God. And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel" (Apoc., viii, 3, 4). God Himself commanded Abimelech to have recourse to Abraham's intercession: "He shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live. . . . And when Abraham prayed, God healed Abimelech" (Gen., xx, 7, 17). So, too, in the case of Job's friends He said: "Go to my servant Job, and offer for yourselves a holocaust; and my servant Job shall pray for you: his face I will accept" (Job, xlii, 8). Intercession is indeed prominent in several passages in this same Book of Job: "Call now if there be any that will answer thee, and turn to some of the saints' (v, 1);" If there shall be an angel speaking for him . . . He shall have mercy on him, and shall say: Deliver him, that he may not go down to corruption" (xxxiii, 23). "They [the angels] appear as intercessors for men with God, bringing men's needs before Him, mediating in their behalf. This work is easily connected with their general office of labouring for the good of men" (Dillman on Job, p. 44). Moses is constantly spoken of as "mediator': "I was the mediator and stood between the Lord and you" (Deut., v, 5; cf. Gal., iii, 19, 20). It is true that in none of the passages of the Old Testament mention is made of prayer to the saints, i. e; holy men already departed from this life; but this is in keeping with the imperfect knowledge of the state of the dead, who were still in Limbo. The general principle of intercession and invocation of fellow-creatures is, however, stated in terms which admit of no denial; and this principle would in due course be applied to the saints as soon as their position was defined. In the New Testament the number of the saints already departed would be comparatively small in the early days. The greatest of the Fathers in the succeeding centuries speak plainly both of the doctrine and practice of intercession and invocation. "But not the High-Priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels . . . as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep (ai te ton prokekoimemenon hagion psychai, Origen, "De Oratione", n. xi, in P. G., XI, 448). In many other places Origen uses similar expressions; indeed it may be said that there is hardly any treatise or homily in which he does not refer to the intercession of the angels and saints. St. Cyprian, writing to Pope Cornelius, says: "Let us be mutually mindful of each other, let us ever pray for each other, and if one of us shall, by the speediness of the Divine vouchsafement, depart hence first, let our love continue in the presence of the Lord, let not prayer for our brethren and sisters cease in the presence of the mercy of the Father" (Ep. lvii, in P. L., IV, 358). "To those who would fain stand, neither the guardianship of saints nor the defences of angels are wanting" (St. Hilary, "In Ps. cxxiv", n. 5, 6, in P. L., X, 682). "We then commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us, first, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, that God, by their prayers and intercessions, may receive our petitions" (St. Cyril of Jerus., "Cat. Myst.", v, n. 9) in P. G., XXXIII, 1166). "Remember me, ye heirs of God, ye brethren of Christ, supplicate the Saviour earnestly for me, that I may be freed though Christ from him that fights against me day by day" (St. Ephraem Syrus, "De Timore Anim.", in fin.). "Ye victorious martyrs who endured torments gladly for the sake of the God and Saviour; ye who have boldness of speech towards the Lord Himself; ye saints, intercede for us who are timid and sinful men, full of sloth, that the grace of Christ may come upon us, and enlighten the hearts of all of us that so we may love him" (St. Ephraem, "Encom. in Mart."). "Do thou, [Ephraem] that art standing at the Divine altar, and art ministering with angels to the life-giving and most Holy Trinity, bear us all in remembrance, petitioning for us the remission of sins, and the fruition of an everlasting kingdom" (St. Gregory of Nyssa, "De vita Ephraemi", in fin., P. G., XLVI, 850). "Mayest thou [Cyprian] look down from above propitiously upon us, and guide our word and life; and shepherd [or shepherd with me] this sacred flock . . . gladdening us with a more perfect and clear illumination of the Holy Trinity, before Which thou standest" (St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. xvii -- according to others, xxiv -- "De S. Cypr.", P. G., XXXV, 1193). In like manner does Gregory pray to St. Athanasius (Orat. xxi, "In laud. S. Athan.", P. G., XXXV, 1128). "O holy choir! O sacred band! O unbroken host of warriors! O common guardians of the human race! Ye gracious sharers of our cares! Ye co-operators in our prayer! Most powerful intercessors!" (St.Basil, "Hom. in XL Mart.", P. G., XXXI, 524). "May Peter, who wept so efficaciously for himself, weep for us and turn towards us Christ's benignant countenance" (St. Ambrose, "Hexaem.", V, xxv, n. 90, in P. L., XIV, 242). St. Jerome has been quoted above. St. John Chrysostom frequently speaks of invocation and intercession in his homilies on the saints, e. g. "When thou perceivest that God is chastening thee, fly not to His enemies . . . but to His friends, the martyrs, the saints, and those who were pleasing to Him, and who have great power" (parresian, "boldness of speech" -- Orat. VIII, "Adv. Jud.", n. 6, in P. G., XLVIII, 937). "He that wears the purple, laying aside his pomp, stands begging of the saints to be his patrons with God; and he that wears the diadem begs the Tent-maker and the Fisherman as patrons, even though they be dead" ("Hom. xxvi, in II Ep. ad Cor.", n. 5, in P. G., LXI, 581). "At the Lord's table we do not commemorate martyrs in the same way that we do others who rest in peace so as to pray for them, but rather that they may pray for us that we may follow in their footsteps" (St. Augustine, "In Joann.", tr. lxxxiv, in P. L., XXXIV, 1847). Prayers to the saints occur in almost all the ancient liturgies. Thus in the Liturgy of St. Basil: "By the command of Thine only-begotten Son we communicate with the memory of Thy saints . . . by whose prayers and supplications have mercy upon us all, and deliver us for the sake of Thy holy name which is invoked upon us". Cf. the Liturgy of Jerusalem, the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, the Liturgy of Nestorius, the Coptic Liturgy of St. Cyril, etc. That these commemorations are not later additions is manifest from the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem: "We then commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us, first, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, that God by their prayers and intercessions may receive our petitions" ("Cat. Myst.", v, in P. G., XXXIII, 1113). (See Renaudot, "Liturgiarum Orientalium Collectio", Paris, 1716.) We readily admit that the doctrine of the intercession of the saints is a development from the teaching of Scripture and that the practice is open to abuse. But if the carefully-worded and wholesome decrees of the Council of Trent be adhered to, there is nothing in the doctrine or practice which deserves the condemnation expressed in Article xxii of the Anglican religion. Indeed the High Church Anglicans contend that it is not the invocation of saints that is here rejected, but only the "Romish doctrine ", i. e. the excesses prevailing at the time and afterwards condemned by the Council of Trent. "In principle there is no question herein between us and any other portion of the Catholic Church. . . . Let not that most ancient custom, common to the Universal Church, as well Greek as Latin, of addressing Angels and Saints in the way we have said, be condemned as impious, or as vain and foolish" [Forbes, Bishop of Brechin (Anglican), "Of the Thirty-nine Articles", p. 422]. The reformed Churches, as a body, reject the invocation of the saints. Article xxi of the Augsburg Confession says: "Scripture does not teach us to invoke the Saints, or to ask for help from the Saints; for it puts before us Christ as the one mediator, propitiatory, high-priest and intercessor." In the "Apology of the Augsburg Confession" (ad art. xxi, sects. 3, 4), it is admitted that the angels pray for us, and the saints, too, "for the Church in general"; but this does not imply that they are to be invoked. The Calvinists, however, reject both intercession and invocation as an imposture and delusion of Satan, since thereby the right manner of praying is prevented, and the saints know nothing of us, and have no concern as to what passes on earth ("Gall. Confess.", art. xxiv; "Remonst. Conf." c. xvi, sect. 3). DENZINGER, Enchiridion (10th ed., Freiburg im Br., 1908), n.984; Catechism of the Council of Trent, tr. DONOVAN (Dublin, 1867); ST. THOMAS, II-II, Q. lxxxiii, a. 4; and Suppl., Q. lxxii, a. 2; SUAREZ, De Incarnatione (Venice, 1740-51), disp. lii; PETAVIUS, De Incarnatione (Bar-le-Duc, 1864-70), XV, c. v, vi; BELLARMINE, De Controversiis Christian Fidei, II (Paris, 1608), Controv. quarta, I, xv sqq.; WATERWORTH, Faith of Catholics, III (New York, 1885); MILNER, End of Religious Controversy, ed. RIVINGTON (London, 1896); GIBBONS, Faith of our Fathers (Baltimore, 1890), xiii, xiv; MÖHLER, Symbolism tr. ROBERTSON, II (London, 1847), 140 sqq. T.B. SCANNELL Episcopal Intercession Episcopal Intercession The right to intercede for criminals, which was granted by the secular power to the bishops of the Early Church. This right originated rather in the great respect in which the episcopal dignity was held in the early centuries of Christianity, than in any definite enactment. Reference to its existence is made in the seventh canon of the Council of Sardica about 344 (Mansi, "Collectio Amplissima Conciliorum", III. It is also mentioned by St. Augustine (Epp. cxxxiii and cxxxix, in Migne, P.L., XXXIII, 509, 535), St. Jerome (Ep. lii, in Migne, P.L., XXII, 527-40), and by Socrates in his "Church History" (V, xiv; VII, xvii). St. Augustine repeatedly interceded for criminals with Macedonius, who was then governor of Africa (Epp. clii-cliii, in Migne, P.L., XXXIII, 652). Martin of Tours interceded with Emperor Maximus for the imprisoned Priscillianists in 384-5: and Bishop Flavian of Antioch interceded with Emperor Theodosius I in 387 on behalf of the inhabitants of Antioch, who had wantonly destroyed the imperial statues in that city. St. Ambrose induced Emperor Theodosius I to enact a law which forbade the execution of the death penalty and the confiscation of property until thirty days after sentence had been passed. It was the purpose of this law to leave room for clemency and to prevent the punishing of the innocent [see Bossuet, "Gallia Orthodoxa" pars I, lib. II, cap. v, in "OEuvres Complètes", XII (Bar-le-Duc, 1870), 98]. To enable them to exercise their right of intercession, the bishops had free access to the prisons (Codex Theodosii, app., cap. xiii). They were even exhorted to visit the prisoners every Wednesday and Saturday in order to investigate the cause of their imprisonment, and to admonish the supervisors of the prisons to treat those committed to their charge with Christian charity. In case the prison-keepers were found to be inhuman or remiss in their duty towards their prisoners, the bishops were to report these abuses to the emperor. The rights of the bishops, which were almost unlimited in this respect, were somewhat regulated for the bishops of the Eastern Empire in "Codex Justiniani", lib. I, tit. 4: "De episcopali audientia"; for the bishops of the Western Empire in the "Edicta Theoderici", cap. xiv (Mon. Germ. Leg., V). Closely allied with the right of episcopal intercession was the right of asylum or sanctuary (see RIGHT OF ASYLUM), and the right and duty of the bishops to protect orphans, widows, and other unfortunates. Thus Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, interceded with Empress Pulcheria in behalf of the poor of his diocese, who were overladen with taxes; the Third Council of Carthage, held in 399, requested the emperor to accede to the wishes of the bishops by appointing advocates to plead the causes of the poor before the courts, while the Council of Mâcon, held in 585, forbade all civil authorities to begin judicial proceedings against widows and orphans without previously notifying the bishop of the diocese to which the accused belonged. KRAUS, Realencyklopädie der christlichen Altertümer, I (Freiburg im Br., 1882), 166-7; RATZINGER, Gesch. der kirchlichen Armenpflege (Freiburg im Br., 1884), 133-9; EALES in Dictionary of Christian Antiquities (London, 1876-80), s. v.; LALEMAND, Histoire de la Charité, I (Paris, 1907-). MICHAEL OTT Interdict Interdict (Latin interdictum, from inter and dicere). Originally in Roman law, an interlocutory edict of the praetor, especially in matter affecting the right of possession; it still preserves this meaning in both Roman and canon law. In present ecelesiastical use the word denotes, in general, a prohibition. In addition to the definite meaning it has when referring to the object of this article, the term is often loosely employed in a wider and rather untechnical sense. We speak of a priest, a church, or a practice of devotion being interdicted, to denote a suspended priest, one who either by canon law or by the stricture of his ordinary is forbidden to exercise his sacerdotal functions, a church building that has been secularized, or one in which Divine service is temporarily suspended, because the edifice has incurred "pollution" or lost its consecration, finally, extraordinary practices of devotion are said to be interdicted. But, strictly speaking, interdict is applied only to persons and churches affected by the penal measure or censure called "interdict", and it is exclusively in this sense of the word that the subject is treated here. After explaining its nature and effects we shall mention the interdicts in force by common canonical law. An interdict is a censure, or prohibition, excluding the faithful from participation in certain holy things. These holy things are all those pertaining to Christian worship, and are divided into three classes: + the Divine offices, in other words the Liturgy, and in general all acts performed by clerics as such, and having reference to worship + the sacraments, excepting private administrations of those that are of necessity; + ecclesiastical burial, including all funeral services. This prohibition varies in degree, according to the different kinds of interdicts to be enumerated: First, interdicts are either local or personal; the former affect territories or sacred buildings directly, and persons indirectly; the latter directly affect persons. Canonical authors add a third kind, the mixed interdict, which affects directly and immediately both persons and places; if, for instance, the interdict is issued against a town and its inhabitants, the latter are subject to it, even when they are outside of the town (arg. cap. xvi, "De sent. excomm." in VI). Local interdicts, like personal interdicts, may be general or particular. A general local interdict is one affecting a whole territory, district, town, etc., and this was the ordinary interdict of the Middle Ages; a particular local interdict is one affecting, for example, a particular church. A general personal interdict is one falling on a given body or group of people as a class, e.g. on a chapter, the clergy or people of a town, of a community; a particular personal interdict is one affecting certain individuals as such, for instance, a given bishop, a given cleric. Finally, the interdict is total if the prohibition extends to all the sacred things mentioned above; otherwise it is called partial. A special kind of partial interdict is that which forbids one to enter a church, interdictum ab ingressu ecclesiae mentioned by certain texts. Omitting the mixed interdict, which does not form a distinct class, we have therefore: + the general local interdicts; + particular local interdicts; + general personal interdicts; + particular personal interdicts; + prohibitions against entering a church. We may add + the prohibition obliging the clergy to abstain from celebrating the Divine offices, cessatio a divinis, a measure somewhat akin to a particular local interdict, only that it is not imposed on account of any crime on the part of those whom it affects. This short account shows us that under the same name are grouped penal measures rather different in nature, but having in common a prohibition of certain sacred things. Interdict differs from excommunication, in that it does not cut one off from the communion of the faithful or from Christian society, though the acts of religion forbidden in both cases are almost identical. It differs from suspension also in this respect: the latter affects the powers of clerics, inasmuch as they are clerics, while the interdict affects the rights of the faithful as such, and does not directly affect clerics as such but only as members of the Church. Of course, it follows that the clergy cannot exercise their functions towards those under interdict, or in interdicted places or buildings, but their powers are not directly affected, as happens in case of suspension; their jurisdiction remains unimpaired, which allows of a guilty individual being punished, without imperilling the validity of his acts of jurisdiction. This shows that an interdict is more akin to excommunication than to suspension. Whereas excommunication is exclusively a censure, intended to lead a guilty person back to repentance, an interdict, like suspension, may be imposed either as a censure or as a vindictive punishment. In both cases there must have been a grave crime; if the penalty has been inflicted for an indefinite period and with a view to making the guilty one amend his evil ways it is imposed as a censure; if, however, it is imposed for a definite time, and no reparation is demanded of the individuals at fault, it IS inflicted as a punishment. Consequently the interdicts still in vogue in virtue of the Constitution "Apostolicae Sedis" and the Council of Trent are censures; whilst the interdict recently (1909) placed by Pius X on the town of Adria for fifteen days was a punishment. Strictly speaking, only the particular personal interdict is in all cases a perfect censure, because it alone affects definite persons, while the other interdicts do not affect the individuals except indirectly and inasmuch as they form part of a body or belong to the interdicted territory or place. That is also the reason why only particular personal interdicts, including the prohibition to enter a church suppose a personal fault. In all other cases, on the contrary, although a fault has been committed, and it is intended to punish the guilty persons or make them amend, the interdict may affect and does affect some who are innocent, because it is not aimed directly at the individual but at a moral body, e. g. a chapter, a monastery, or all the inhabitants of a district or a town. If a chapter incur an interdict (Const. "Apost. Sedis", interd., n. 1) for appealing to a future general council, the canons who did not vote for the forbidden resolution are, notwithstanding, obliged to observe the interdict. And the general local interdict suppressing all the Divine offices in a town will evidently fall on the innocent as well as the guilty. Such interdicts are therefore inflicted for the faults of moral bodies, of public authorities as such, of a whole population, and not for the faults of private individuals. Who have the power of imposing an interdict, and how does it cease? In general, the reader may be referred to CENSURES, ECCLESIASTICAL, and Excommunication. We shall add a few brief remarks. Any prelate having jurisdiction in foro externo can impose an interdict on his subjects or his territory. It may be provided for in the law and then, like other censures (q.v.), can be ferendae or latae sententiae. A particular personal interdict is removed by absolution, other interdicts are said to be "raised", but this does not imply any act relative to the individuals under interdict; when imposed as a punishment these interdicts may cease on the expiration of a definite time. (1)General local interdict A general local interdict is -- for a whole population, town, province, or region -- the almost complete suspension of the liturgical and sacramental Christian life. Examples of it exist as early as the ninth century, under the name of excommunication (see in particular the Council of Limoges of 1031). Innocent III gave this measure the name of interdict and made vigorous use of it. It will suffice to recall the interdict imposed in 1200 on the Kingdom of France, when Philip II Augustus repudiated Ingeburga to marry Agnes of Meran; and that on the Kingdom of England in 1208, to support the election of Stephen Langton to the See of Canterbury against John Lackland, which lasted till the submission of that king in 1213. It was a dangerous weapon, but its severity was mitigated little by little, and at the same time it was less frequently employed. The last example of a general interdict launched by the pope against a whole region seems to have been that imposed by Paul V in 1606 on the territory of Venice, it was raised in the following year. A quite recent example of a general, local, and personal interdict, but of a purely penal nature, is the interdict placed by Pius X on the town and suburbs of Adria in Northern Italy, by decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Consistory, on 30 September, 1909, to punish the population of Adria for a sacrilegious attack made on the bishop, Mgr. Boggiani, in order to prevent him from transferring his residence to Rovigo. The interdict was to last for fifteen days, and contained the following provisions: "Prohibited are: (a) the celebration of the Mass and all other liturgical ceremonies; (b) the ringing of bells; (c) the public administration of the sacraments; (d) solemn burial. The following alone are permitted: (a) the baptism of children, the administration of the other sacraments and of the Viaticum to the sick, (b) the private celebration of marriages; (c) one Mass each week for the renewal of the Holy Eucharist." It was recalled that the violation of this interdict constitutes a mortal sin for all and imposed an irregularity on clerics (Acta Ap. Sedis, 15 Oct., 1909, p. 765). To return to the subject of a general local interdict, but non-personal in kind, the law authorizes the private celebration of Mass and the choir office, the doors of the church being closed (c. lvii, "De sent. exc.", and c. xxiv, eod. in VI), and also the administration of confirmation; on the other hand canonical authors did not allow extreme unction for the sick, but Pius X permits it. To these relaxations must be added the exceptions made in time of interdict for the celebration of the great feasts of Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, the Assumption, Corpus Christi, and its octave. (2)The particular local interdict The particular local interdict has the same effects, but they are limited to the interdicted place or church. The above-mentioned mitigations, however, are not allowed. Whoever knowingly celebrates or causes to be celebrated the Divine offices in an interdicted place incurs ipso facto the prohibition against entering the church until he has made amends (Const. Ap. Sedis, interd., n. 2); and any cleric who knowingly celebrates any Divine office in a place interdicted by name becomes irregular (C. xviii, "De sent. excomm." in VI), but not if he administers a sacrament to an interdicted individual, as the law has not legislated for such a case. (3) The general personal interdict The general personal interdict, which, we have seen, may be combined with the local interdict, has the same effects for all the persons who form or will form part of the group, community, or moral person under interdict: all the canons of a chapter, all the religious of a convent, all the inhabitants of a town, all those domiciled in the place, etc. They, however, escape from the interdict who are not members or who cease to be members of the body affected, e. g. a canon appointed to another benefice, a stranger who leaves the town, etc. But the mere change of locality has no liberating effect, and the interdict follows the individual members of the body wherever they may go. (4) The particular personal interdict The particular personal interdict, which is a real censure, affects individuals much in the same way as excommunication. They may not assist at the Divine offices or at Mass, and if they are interdicted by name they should be put out, however, if they refuse to withdraw it is not necessary to suspend the service since, after all, the interdict does not deprive them of the communion of the faithful. They may not demand to receive the sacraments, except Penance and the Viaticum, and it is not lawful to administer them. They are to be deprived of ecclesiastical burial, but Mass and the ordinary prayers may be said for them. A cleric violating the interdict becomes irregular. (5) The interdict against entering the church The interdict against entering the church is a real censure, intended to bring about the amendment of the erring one; it prohibits him from taking part in Divine service in the church and from being accorded a burial service in it. But outside the church he is as if he had not incurred any censure, he can attend Divine service and receive the sacraments in a private oratory and pray in the church when service is not being held in it. The individual is absolved after due satisfaction for his fault. (6) The cessation from Divine service The cessation from Divine service, cessatio a divinis, follows the rules of the local interdict, from which it differs, not in its effects, but only because the fault for which it is imposed is not the fault of the clerics who are prohibited from celebrating the Divine service. It forbids the holding of Divine service and the administration of the sacraments in a given sacred place. It is a manifestation of sorrow and a kind of reparation for a grievous wrong done to a holy place. This cessatio a divinis is not imposed ipso facto by the law; it is imposed by the ordinary when and under the conditions that he judges suitable. There are five interdicts latae sententiae, two of which are mentioned in the Constitution "Apostolicae Sedis", two decreed by the Council of Trent, and one added by the Constitution "Romanus Pontifex" of 23 August, 1873: 1. "Universities, colleges, and chapters, whatsoever be their name, that appeal from the ordinances or mandates of the reigning Roman pontiff to a future general council, incur an interdict specially reserved to the Roman pontiff." This interdict is imposed for the same crime as the specially reserved excommunication no. 4 [see EXCOMMUNICATION, VII, A, (a)], but the excommunication falls on the individuals, and the interdict on the group, or moral persons, by whatever name they be called, and who cannot be excommunicated as such. 2. "Those who knowingly celebrate or cause to be celebrated the Divine offices in places interdicted by the ordinary or his delegate, or by the law; those who admit persons excommunicated by name to the Divine offices, the sacraments of the Church, or to ecclesiastical burial, incur pleno jure the interdict against entering the church, until they have made amends sufficient in the opinion of him whose order they have contemned." This interdict, which is borrowed, except for a few minor modifications, from c. viii, "De privilegiis", in VI of Boniface VIII, is therefore reserved to the competent prelate. Its object is to ensure the observance, on the one hand, of the local interdict, and, on the other, of excommunication by name (see EXCOMMUNICATION, vol. V, p. 680, subtitle Vitandi and Tolerati). 3. The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, cap. i, "De Ref.") imposes on bishops the duty of residence; it prescribes that those who absent themselves without a sufficient reason for six continuous months are to be deprived of a quarter of their annual revenue; then of another quarter for a second six months' absence; after which, the council continues, "as their contumacy increases . . . the metropolitan will be bound to denounce to the Roman pontiff, by letter or by messenger, within three months, his absent suffragan bishops, and the senior resident suffragan bishop will be obliged to denounce his absent metropolitan, under penalty of interdict against entering the church, incurred eo ipso. The obligation of denouncing begins, therefore, only after an entire year's absence, and the interdict is incurred only if the denunciation has not been made within the next three months. 4. The Council of Trent (Sess. VII, cap. x, "De Ref.") forbids chapters, during the vacancy of a see, to grant dimissory letters within a year dating from the vacancy, unless to clerics who are arctati, i.e. obliged to obtain ordination on account of a benefice; this prohibition carries with it the penalty of interdict. The Council of Trent having later (Sess. XXIV, cap. xvi, "De Ref.") obliged the chapter to name a vicar capitular within eight days, the interdict can be incurred by the chapter only for dimissory letters granted during these eight days. It is disputed whether or not the vicar capitular would incur the interdict for this fault (Pennacchi in Const. "Ap. Sedis", IT. 469). 5. The Constitution "Romanus Pontifex" aims at preventing those who are elected by the chapters or named by the civil authorities from undertaking the administration of their church under the name or title of vicar capitular. Besides the excommunication incurred by the chapters and the person elected (see EXCOMMUNICATION, sub-title Excommunications Pronounced or Renewed Since the Constitution "Apostolica Sedis"), Pius IX imposes on "those among them who have received the episcopal order a suspension from the exercise of their pontifical powers and the interdict against entering the church, pleno jure and without any declaration." A. BOUDINHON Psychology of Interest Psychology of Interest (Lat. interest; Fr. intérêt; Germ. interesse). The mental state called interest has received much attention in recent psychological literature. This is largely due to the German philosopher Herbart. The important position he has won for it in the theory of education makes it deserving of some treatment in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Psychologists have disputed as to the exact meaning to be assigned to the term and the precise nature of the mental state. PSYCHOLOGY OF INTEREST Interest has been variously defined as a kind of consciousness accompanying and stimulating attention, a feeling pleasant or painful directing attention--the pleasurable or painful aspect of a process of attention--and as identical with attention itself. Thus it may be said, I attend to what interests me; and, again, that to be interested and to attend are identical. The term interest is used also to indicate a permanent mental disposition. Thus I may have an interest in certain subjects, though they are not an object of my present attention. However interest be defined, and whether it be described as a cause of attention, an aspect of attention, or as identical with attention, its special significance lies in its intimate connection with the mental activity of attention. Attention may be defined as cognitive or intellectual energy directed towards any object. It is essentially selective, it concentrates consciousness on part of the field of mental vision, whilst it ignores other parts. Attention is also purposive in character. It focuses our mental gaze in order to attain a clearer and more distinct view. It results in a deeper and more lasting impression, and therefore plays a vital part both in each cognitive act and in the growth of knowledge as a whole. The English Associationist school of psychology and most Empiricists, in treating of the genesis of knowledge, seem to look on the intensity or frequency of the stimulus as the most influential factor in the process of cognition. As a matter of fact, what the mind takes in depends almost entirely on this selective action of attention. Out of the total mass of impressions, streaming in at any moment through the various channels of sense, it is only those to which attention is directed that rise to the level of intellectual life, or take real hold of the mind. What these are will be determined by interest. We are interested in what is connected with our past experience, especially in what is partly new, yet partly familiar. Pleasant feelings and painful feelings are original excitants of attention; there are other experiences also--neutral perhaps in themselves, but associated with these latter--which generate fear or hope, and so become interesting. Though our attention may be temporarily attracted by any sudden shock or unexpected impression of unusual intensity, we do not speak of this as interesting, and our attention soon wanes. Isolated experiences, except in so far as they may stimulate the intellect to seek to correlate them with some previous cognitions, do not easily hold the mind. Repeated efforts are required to keep our attention fixed on an unfamiliar branch of study (as e.g. a new language or science). But in proportion as each successive act of observation or understanding leaves a deposit in the form of an idea in the memory, ready to be awakened by partially similar experiences in the future, there as gradually built up in the mind a group or system of ideas constituting our abiding knowledge of the subject. Such series of experiences, with the group of ideas thus deposited in the memory, render similar acts of cognition easy and agreeable in the future. In fact they develop a kind of appetite for future related experiences, which are henceforth assimilated, or, in Herbartian language, apperceived, with facility and satisfaction. The latent group of ideas bearing in any topic constitute an interest in the sense of a permanent disposition of the mind, whilst the feeling of the process of apperception, or assimilation, is interest viewed as a form of actual consciousness. But an event of a bizarre or novel character, which we may find difficulty in comprehending or assimilating with past experience, may also fascinate our mind. The strange, the horrible, may thus awaken at least temporarily a keen, if morbid, interest. Still, in so far as such experiences may excite fear or anxiety, they come under the general principle that interest is associated with personal pleasure or pain. Broadly speaking, then, all those things which arouse or sustain non-voluntary or spontaneous attention are interesting whilst phenomena to which we can attend only with voluntary effort are uninteresting. The child is interested in its food and its play, also in any operations associated with pleasure or pain in the past. The boy is interested in his games, in those exercises which he has come to connect with his own well-being, and in branches of study which have already effected such a lodgment in the mind that new ideas and items of information are readily assimilated and associated with what has gone before. Men are interested in those subjects which have become interwoven and connected with the main occupations of their lives. PEDAGOGICS The psychology of interest being thus understood, its capital importance in the work of education becomes obvious. It is in his insistence on the value of this mental and moral force, and his systematic treatment of it in application to the business of teaching that Herbart's chief importance as an educationist lies. In proportion as the teacher can awaken and sustain the interest of the pupil, so much greater will be the facility, the rapidity and the tenacity of the mental acquisition of the latter. It must be admitted that, in beginning most branches of knowledge, a number of "dry" facts, which possess little interest of themselves for the child, have usually to be learned by sheer labour. The spontaneous attention of the pupil will not fix on and adhere with satisfaction to the ideas presented in the opening pages of a text-book. Here the teacher is compelled to demand the effort of voluntary attention, even though it be not pleasant, on the part of the pupil. Still, he will wisely do his utmost to make some of the future utility of the immediate labour intelligible to the student, and in this way attach mediate interest to that which is dull and unattractive in itself. Moreover, as the protracted effort of attention to what is in itself uninteresting is fatiguing, he will keep the lessons in these subjects short at first, and vary the monotony by enlivening and useful bite of information, illustrations, comments, and the like, which will afford relief and rest between the attacks on the substance of the lesson. At this stage the master aims at being an interesting teacher; he cannot as yet make his subject interesting, which, however, should be his ultimate goal. But, as the student advances, there is being formed in his mind an increasing group of cognitions, a growing mass of ideas about this branch of study, which makes the entrance of each new idea connected with it easier and more welcome. There is a feeling of satisfaction as each new item fits into the old, and is assimilated or "apperceived" by the latter. The pupil begins to feel that the ideas he already possesses give him a certain power to understand and manipulate the subject of his study. He has become conscious of an extension of this power with each enlargement of his knowledge, and the desire for more knowledge begins to manifest itself. Here we have apperceptive attention or immediate interest. To generate this immediate interest in the subject itself being a main object of the teacher, this purpose should determine his exposition of the subject as a whole, and also guide him in dealing with the student from day to day. His exposition should be orderly, proceeding logically with proper divisions: the more important principles or ideas should be firmly fixed by repetition, the subdivisions located in their proper places, and their connection with the heads under which they fall made clear. By this means the ideas about the subject introduced into the mind of the pupil are built up into a rational or organized system. This secures greater command of what is already known, as well as greater facility in the reception of further knowledge, and so expedites the growth of interest. But besides this orderliness of exposition in the treatment of the matter, which might be formal and lifeless, the teacher must be continually adapting his instruction to the present condition of the pupil's mind. He must constantly keep in view what ideas the student has already acquired. He has to stir up the related set of ideas by judicious questions or repetitions, and excite the appetite of curiosity, when about to communicate further information; he has to show the connection and bind the new item with the previous knowledge by comparison, illustration, and explanation. Finally, he is to be alive to every opportunity to generalize, and to show how the new information may be applied by setting suitable exercises or problems to be worked out by the pupil himself. He thus leads the pupil to realize his increase of power, which is one of the most effective means of fostering active interest both in the subject itself and in the relation of its various parts with the whole. Modern pedagogy, however, especially since Herbart, insists on the value of interest not only as a means, but as an educational end in itself. For the Herbartian school the aim of education should be the formation of a man of "many-sided interest". This is to be attained by the judicious cultivation of the various faculties intellectual, emotional, and moral--that is by the realization of man's entire being with all its aptitudes. It may be conceded that, with certain qualifications and reservations, there is a substantial amount of truth in this view. Worthy interests ennoble and enrich human life both in point of dignity and happiness. The faculties, mental and physical, clamour for exercise; man's activities will find an outlet; the capacities of his soul are given to be realized. Ceteris paribus, one good test of the educational value of any branch of study, and of the efficiency of the method by which it has been taught, is to be found in the degree in which it becomes a permanent interest to the mind. The exercise of our mental powers on a subject, which has already created for itself a real interest, is accompanied by pleasure. A man's business or profession, when he is working independently for himself, should, and normally does, become a topic of keen interest. But, unless his life is to be very narrow and stinted, he should also have other interests. His leisure hours require them. Wholesome intellectual, social, and æsthetic interests are amongst the most effective agencies for overcoming the temptations to drink, gambling, and other degrading forms of amusement. The pressure of ennui and idleness will develop a most harmful discontent, unless the faculties find suitable employment. The man who, after a number of years devoted exclusively to the work of making money, retires from business in order to enjoy himself, is liable to find life almost insupportable through want of interesting occupation. A subject, respecting which the mind is in possession of an organized system of ideas, is necessary to man for the agreeable exercise of his faculties, and such an interest requires time for its growth. Although then it is erroneous to maintain that many-sided interest or culture, however rich and varied, constitutes morality or supplies for religion, still it may be readily acknowledged that a judicious equipment of worthy interests, intellectual, æsthetic, and social is a powerful ally in the battle with evil passions, and also one of the most precious elements of human well-being with which a wisely planned scheme of education can equip the human soul. MICHAEL MAHER Interest Interest Notion of interest Interest is a value exacted or promised over and above the restitution of a borrowed capital. + Moratory interest, that is interest due as an indemnity or a penalty for delay in payment, is distinguished from + compensatory interest, which indemnifies the lender for the danger he really runs of losing his capital, the loss that he suffers or the gain of which he deprives himself in disembarrassing himself of his capital during the period of the loan, and from + lucrative interest, which is an emolument that the lender would not gain without lending. Interest originates in the loan of goods for consumption, which permits the borrower to expend or to destroy the things lent, on condition of giving back an equal number of the same kind or quality. The sum to be paid for the usage of an article, which must itself be given back, is called hire. Everything which is consumed by usage: corn, wine, oil, fruit, etc., can be the matter of a loan (former sense), but ordinarily it is a sum of money which is lent. Legitimacy of lending at interest Is it permitted to lend at interest? Formerly (see Usury) the Church rigorously condemned the exacting of anything over and above capital, except when, by reason of some special circumstance, the lender was in danger of losing his capital or could not advance his loan of money without exposing himself to a loss or to deprivation of a gain. These special reasons, which authorise the charging of interest, are called extrinsic titles. Besides these compensatory interests, the Church has likewise admitted moratory interest. In our day, she permits the general practice of lending at interest, that is to say, she authorizes the impost, without one's having to enquire if, on lending his money, he has suffered a loss or deprived himself of a gain, provided he demand a moderate interest for the money he lends. This demand is never unjust. Charity alone, not justice, can oblige anyone to make a gratuitous loan (see the replies of the Penitentiary and of the Holy Office since 1830). What is the reason for this change in the attitude of the Church towards the exaction of interest? As may be more fully seen in the article Usury, this differece is due to economical circumstances. The price of goods is regulated by common valuation, and the latter by the utility that their possession ordinarily brings in a given centre. Now, today, otherwise than formerly, one can commonly employ one's money fruitfully, at least by putting it into a syndicate. Hence, today, the mere possession of money means a certain value. Whoever hands over this possession can claim in return this value. Thus it is that one acts in demanding an interest. Just rate of interest Even today one can still sin against justice by demanding too high an interest, or usury, as it is called. What interest then is just and moderate? Theoretically, and in an abstract way, the fair rate of interest nearly corresponds to the average gain that those engaged in business may generally expect in a determined centre. It nearly corresponds, for the interest being guaranteed, whilst the profit is uncertain, we must discount the value of an insurance premium from the average profit. Accordingly, in a determined centre, if those who sink their money in buildings, land, or industrial undertakings generally look for a profit of 6 percent, the just rate of interest will be about 4 or 5 percent. This rate covers the risks and ordinary inconveniences of lending. But if one had to run special risks or had to give up an extraordinary premium, one might in all justice exact a higher rate of interest. Such, therefore, is the theoretical rule. In practice, however, as even the answer of the Sacred Penitentiary shows (18 April, 1889), the best course is to conform to the usages established amongst men, precisely as one does with regard to other prices, and, as happens in the case of such prices, particular circumstances influece the rate of interest, either by increasing or lowering it. In this way, the security offered by advances to the governments of wealthy countries and those that cover mortgages diminish the rate for public loans and loans on mortgage. On the contrary, the interest on shipping, and mercantile business is higher than that in civil business, on account of the greater uncertainty in sea voyages and in commercial enterprise. A. VERMEERSCH Interims Interims (Lat. interim, meanwhile.) Interims are temporary settlements in matters of religion, entered into by Emperor Charles V (1519-56) with the Protestants. I. THE INTERIM OF RATISBON The Interim of Ratisbon, published at the conclusion of the imperial diet, 29 July, 1541. It was based on the result of the previous conference between Catholics and Protestants, in which an agreement had been reached on the idea of justification and other points of doctrine. Consequently the imperial "recess" enacted that the adjustment of the religious question should be postponed until the next general council or imperial diet; that meanwhile the Protestants should not go beyond or against the articles agreed upon; that an ecclesiastical reform be inaugurated by the prelates; that the Peace of Nuremberg (1532) should be maintained; that monasteries and chapter-houses should remain intact; that the ecclesiastics should retain their possessions; that the Protestants should not draw anyone to their side; that all judicial proceedings in matters of religion should be suspended; that the imperial court of justice (Reichskammergericht) should remain as before; and that the recess of Augsburg (1530) should remain in force. Owing to the opposition of the Protestants, Charles V in a secret declaration made concessions to them, which practically nullified the recess. The articles agreed upon were to be accepted in the sense of their theologians; the monasteries and chapter-houses might be called on to inaugurate a reform; the ecclesiastics, monasteries, and chapter-houses, that had embraced the Confession of Augsburg, were to remain in the full possession of their property; the Protestants were not to compel the subjects of Catholic princes to embrace their Faith, but if anyone came to them spontaneously, he was not to be hindered; the members of the imperial court of justice were not to be molested, if they turned Protestants; and the recess of Augsburg was to have force only in matters not appertaining to religion. II. THE INTERIM OF AUGSBURG The Interim of Augsburg, published at the conclusion of the imperial diet, 30 June, 1548. In twenty-six chapters, it comprised statements on matters of doctrine and ecclesiastical discipline. The points of doctrine were all explained in the sense of Catholic dogma, but couched in the mildest and vaguest terms; and wherever it was feasible, the form and the concept approached the Protestant view of those subjects. In matters of ecclesiastical discipline two important concessions were made to the Protestants, viz, the marriage of the clergy, and Communion under both kinds. In addition, an imperial ordinance enjoined on the Catholic clergy the execution of reforms in the choice and ordination of ecclesiastics, the administration of the sacraments, and other similar matters. III. THE INTERIM OF ZELLA The Interim of Augsburg was meant principally for the Protestants, whose return to the Catholic Faith was looked for; but nearly everywhere they very strongly opposed it. In order to make it less objectionable, a modification was introduced by Melanchthon and other Protestant divines, commissioned thereto by Elector Maurice of Saxony (1521-53). In a meeting held at Alt-Zella in November, 1548, they explained in a Protestant sense what they considered essential points of doctrine, e.g. justification and others; they accepted the non-essentials or adiaphora, such as confirmation, Mass, the use of candles, vestments, holy days, etc. The document then drawn up became known as the Interim of Zella, or the Small Interim. In the diet held at Leipzig in December, 1548, it was adopted by the estates of the Electorate of Saxony, and was then called the Interim of Leipzig, or the Great Interim. PASTOR, Die kirchlichen Reunionsbestrebungen während der Regierung Karls V. (Freiburg im Br., 1879); IDEM, Gesch. der Päpste, V (Freiburg im Br., 1909); JANSSEN-PASTOR, Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, III (Freiburg im Br., 1899); KAULEN in Kirchenlex, (Freiburg im Br., 1889), s. v. Interim; ISSLEIB in Realencyk. für prot. Theol. (Leipzig, 1901), s. v. Interim. FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER Internuncio Internuncio (Lat. inter, between; nuntius, messenger.) The name given in the Roman Curia to a diplomatic agent who, though not belonging to the five highest classes of the papal diplomatic service (legatus a latere, nuncio with full powers of a legatus a latere, legate, nuncio of the first class, and nuncio of the second class), is, nevertheless, chief of a legation (chef de mission). He may have several subordinates, and, on the other hand, his household may consist only of a private secretary. The nomination of internuncios follows no fixed rule; they have been, and still are, accredited indiscriminately to countries differing widely in ecclesiastical importance, e. g. Luxemburg, Chile, Holland, Brazil. Formerly the powers of an internuncio were necessarily extensive, owing to the lack of telegraph service and the slow postal deliveries; they are now almost entirely confined to routine work. In exceptional cases extraordinary powers are given to the internuncio, when important affairs are in question. As conditions in the various countries to which internuncios are ordinarily sent differ considerably, their general powers are regulated accordingly; in consequence, no general statement of the duties of an internuncio is possible. Nor can the ecclesiastical dignity or position at court of the internuncio be determined with more exactitude. It is safe to say that they are always domestic prelates or titular archbishops. The simple prelature has always been the rule for the internuncios of Holland and Luxemburg, the last of whom was Mgr. Tarnassi. The internuncios accredited to South America in the last century were mostly titular archbishops. At present (summer of 1909), the only internuncios are those in Argentina and Chile, and both are titular archbishops. The earlier arrangement, that internuncios should bear the title of Apostolic delegate and envoy extraordinary, no longer obtains. The last case of the kind occurred in Portugal about the middle of the nineteenth century. Internuncios, when promoted, are appointed nuncios; in rare instances they become Apostolic delegates. Too much confidence must not be placed in earlier works on papal diplomacy, apropos of this office; according to the requirements of the moment, the Curia increases or diminishes both its scope and its powers. PAUL MARIA BAUMGARTEN Biblical Introduction Biblical Introduction A technical name which is usually applied to two distinct, but intimately connected, things. First, it designates the part of Scriptural science which is concerned with topics preliminary to the detailed study and correct exposition of Holy Writ. Next, it is given to a work in which these various topics are actually treated. I. SCOPE AND DIVISIONS As is commonly admitted at the present day, the general object of Biblical introduction is to supply the student of the sacred books of the Old and New Testaments with the knowledge which is necessary, or at least very desirable, for the right interpretation of their contents. Thus understood, the scope of an introduction to the inspired writings which make up the Bible is substantially that of an introduction to other writings of antiquity. An introduction helps materially the student of the text of these writings to know beforehand and in a precise manner the personal history and actual surroundings of the author to whom each writing is ascribed, to become acquainted with the date of composition and the general form and purpose of the works before him, to acquire familiarity with the leading features of the ancient languages in which the various books were originally written, to realize distinctly the peculiar literary methods employed in their composition, to know something of the various fortunes (alterations, translations, etc.) which have befallen the text in the course of ages, etc. An introduction, too, whether the work for which it is designed be profane or sacred, has usually a limited scope. It is not supposed to treat of each and every topic the knowledge of which might be useful for the right understanding of the books in question. It is justly regarded as sufficient for all practical purposes, when, by the information which it actually imparts, it enables the reader of the works of antiquity to start intelligently on the detailed study of their text. Owing, however, to the fact that the books of the Bible are not simply ancient, but also inspired, writings, the scope of Biblical introduction embraces the various questions which are connected with their inspired character, and which, of course, have no place in an introduction to merely human productions. For this same reason, too, certain topics -- such as the questions of integrity and veracity -- which naturally belong to treatises preliminary to the study of any ancient writing, assume a very special importance in Biblical introduction. Biblical introduction is frequently, and indeed aptly, divided into two parts, general and special, the former embracing the preliminary questions which concern the Bible as a whole, the latter being restricted to those which refer to the separate books of Holy Writ. The field of general introduction has long been, and is still, surveyed from different standpoints by Biblical scholars. It no longer embraces a detailed description of the Oriental languages and of the Hellenistic Greek, but is universally limited, in regard to those languages, to a brief exposition of their leading characteristics. With regard to the questions which pertain to the antiquities, geography and chronology of the Bible, some scholars are still of the opinion that they should be dealt with in a general introduction to the study of the Holy Scriptures; most, however -- and rightly, as it seems -- think that they do not belong to the field of general introduction; the proper place for such topics is either in special treatises or in the body of works on Biblical history. Again, a certain number of scholars regard as forming a part of general introduction the history of God's chosen people, of Divine Revelation, of Biblical theology, of the religious institutions of Israel. They rightly urge that a previous acquaintance with that history is invaluable in the pursuit of Biblical exegesis. It remains true, however, that the study of the historical, doctrinal, etc., contents of Holy Writ is usually considered outside the sphere of general introduction, and may be more profitably followed in distinct treatises bearing the respective names of sacred history, history of Biblical Revelation, Biblical theology, history of the religion of Israel. It thus appears that, at the present day, the tendency is to restrict the object of general introduction to a few questions, particularly to those which help directly to determine the value and meaning of the Sacred Writings considered as a whole. In point of fact, that object, as conceived especially by Catholics, is limited to the great questions of the inspired and canonical character of the Scriptures, their original text and principal translations, the principles and history of their interpretation. As already stated, special introduction deals with the preliminary topics which concern the separate books of the Bible. It is very naturally divided into special introduction to the Old Testament and special introduction to the New Testament. As the Divine authority of the books of either Testament is established by the study of the general introduction to the Bible, so the topics treated in the special introduction are chiefly those which bear on the human authority of the separate writings of the Bible. Hence the questions usually studied in connexion with each book or with a small group of books, such for instance as the Pentateuch, are those of authorship, unity, integrity, veracity, purpose, source of information, date and place of composition, etc. Instead of the divisions of Biblical introduction which have been set forth, numerous writers, particularly in Germany, adopt a very different grouping of the topics preliminary to the exegetical study of the Sacred Scriptures. They do away with the division of Biblical introduction into general and special, and treat of all the questions which they connect with the books of the Old Testament in an "Introduction to the Old Testament" and of all those which they examine with reference to the books of the New Testament in an "Introduction to the New Testament". In either "Introduction" they ordinarily devote a first section to the topics which refer to the contents, date, authorship, etc. of the separate books, and a second section to a more or less brief statement of the canon, text and versions, etc. of the same books considered collectively. Their distribution of the topics of Biblical introduction leaves no room for hermeneutics, or scientific exposition of the principles of exegesis, and in this respect, at least, is inferior to the division of Biblical introduction into general and special, with its comprehensive subdivisions. II. NATURE AND METHOD OF TREATMENT Catholic scholars justly regard Biblical introduction as a theological science. They are indeed fully aware of the possibility of viewing it in a different light, of identifying it with a literary history of the various books which make up the Bible. They distinctly know that this is actually done by many writers outside of the Church, who are satisfied with applying to the Holy Scriptures the general principles of historical criticism. But they rightly think that in so doing these writers lose sight of essential differences which exist between the Bible and merely human literature, and which should be taken into account in defining the nature of Biblical introduction. Considered in their actual origin, the sacred books which make up the Bible have alone a Divine authorship which must needs differentiate Biblical introduction from all mere literary history, and impart to it a distinctly theological character. In view of this, Biblical introduction must be conceived as an historical elucidation, not simply of the human and outward origin and characteristics of the sacred records, but also of that which makes them sacred books, viz., the operation of the Holy Ghost Who inspired them. Again, of all existing literatures, the Bible alone has been entrusted to the guardianship of a Divinely constituted society, whose plain duty it is to ensure the right understanding and correct exposition of the written word of God, by seeing that the topics preliminary to its exegesis be fittingly treated by Biblical introduction. Whence it readily follows that Biblical introduction is, by its very nature, a theological discipline, promoting, under the authoritative guidance of the Church, the accurate knowledge of Divine Revelation embodied in Holy Writ. For these and for other no less conclusive reasons, Catholic scholars positively refuse to reduce Biblical introduction to a mere literary history of the various books which make up the Bible, and strenuously maintain its essential character as a theological science. While doing so, however, they do not intend in the least to deny that the topics which fall within its scope should be handled by means of the historico-critical method. In fact, they distinctly affirm that Biblical introduction should be both historical and critical. According to them, constant appeal must be made to history as to a valuable source of scientific information concerning the questions preliminary to the study of the Bible, and also a witness whose positive testimony, especially with regard to the origin and the transmission of the Sacred Books, no one can lightly set aside without laying himself open to the charge of prejudice. According to them, too, the art of criticism must be judiciously employed in the study of Biblical introduction. It is plain, on the one hand, that the science of Biblical introduction can be said to rest on a solid historical basis only in so far as the data supplied by the study of the past are correctly appreciated, that is, are accepted and set forth as valid to the precise extent in which they can stand the test of sound criticism. It is no less plain, on the other hand, "that nothing is to be feared for the Sacred Books, from the true advance of the art of criticism; nay more, that a beneficial light may be derived from it, provided its use be coupled with a real prudence and discernment" (Pius X, 11 Jan., 1906). III. HISTORY As a distinct theological discipline, Biblical introduction is indeed of a comparatively recent origin. Centuries, however, before its exact object and proper method of study had been fixed, attempts had been made at supplying the readers and expositors of Holy Writ with a certain amount of information whereby they would be more fully prepared for the better understanding of the Sacred Writings. In view of this, the history of Biblical introduction may be extended back to the early years of the Church, and made to include three principal periods: patristic times; Middle Ages; recent period. (1) Patristic Times The early ecclesiastical writers were directly concerned with the exposition of Christian doctrines, so that their works relative to Holy Writ are distinctly hermeneutical, and present only occasionally some material which may be utilized for the treatment of the questions which pertain to Biblical introduction. Of the same general nature are the writings of St. Jerome, although his prefaces to the various books of Scripture, some of his treatises and of his letters deal explicitly with certain introductory topics. St. Augustine's important work, "De Doctrinâ Christianâ", is chiefly a hermeneutical treatise, and deals with only a few questions of introduction in book II, chapters viii-xv. One of the writers most frequently mentioned in connexion with the first period in the history of Biblical introduction is a certain Greek, Adrian (died about a.d. 450), who is probably the same as the Adrian addressed by St. Nilus as a monk and a priest. He certainly belonged to the Antiochene school of exegesis, and was apparently a pupil of St. John Chrysostom. He is the author of a work entitled Eisagoge eis tas Theias Graphas, "Introduction to the Divine Scriptures", which has indeed supplied the specific name of introduction for the theological science treating of topics preliminary to the study of Holy Writ, but which, in fact, is simply a hermeneutical treatise dealing with the style of the sacred writers and the figurative expressions of the Bible (P. G., XCVIII). The other principal writers of that period are: St. Eucherius of Lyons (died about 450), whose two books, "Instructiones ad Salonium filium", are rather a hermeneutical than an introductory work; the Benedictine Cassiodorus (died about 562), whose treatise "De institutione Divinarum Scripturarum" sums up the views of earlier writers and gives an important list of Biblical interpreters, chiefly Latin; the African bishop Junilius (died about 552), who belongs to the school of Nisibis, and whose "Instituta regularia divinæ legis" resembles most a Biblical introduction in the modern sense of the expression; lastly, St. Isidore of Seville (died 636), whose "Etymologiæ" and "Prooemia in libros V. et N. Testamenti" supply useful material for the study of Biblical introduction. (2) Middle Ages During this period, as during the one just described, the preoccupations of the ecclesiastical writers were chiefly doctrinal and exegetical, and their methods of study had usually little to do with the historico-critical method of investigation by means of which, as we have seen, questions introductory to the interpretation of the Bible should be treated. Most of them were satisfied with a mere repetition of what had been said by St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and Cassiodorus. This they did in the prefaces which they prefixed to their commentaries on the Sacred Books, and the purpose of which is directly hermeneutical. The only remarkable work on introduction produced in the Middle Ages is the one which the Jewish convert Nicholas of Lyra (died 1340) placed at the beginning of his "Postilla Perpetua", and in which he treats of the canonical and uncanonical books, the versions of the Bible, the various senses of Holy Writ, and the rules of interpretation. (3) Recent Period This is by far the most important and most fruitful period in the history of Biblical introduction. Since the sixteenth century this branch of theological learning has been more and more cultivated as a distinct science, and has gradually assumed its present form. The first work of this period was published at Venice, in 1566, by the Dominican Sixtus of Siena (died 1599). It is entitled "Bibliotheca sancta ex præcipuis Catholicæ Ecclesiæ auctoribus collecta", and treats in eight books of the sacred writers and their works, of the best manner of translating and explaining Holy Writ, and gives a copious list of Biblical interpreters. Among the Catholic authors on introduction who soon followed Sixtus the following deserve a special mention: Arias Montanus (died 1598), whose "Prolegomena" in his Polyglot (Antwerp, 1572) forms a valuable introduction; Salmeron (died 1585), whose "Prolegomena Biblica" appears in the first volume of his works (Madrid, 1598); Serarius (died 1642) whose "Præloquia" (Antwerp, 1625) was selected by Migne as the most suitable general introduction with which to begin his "Sacræ Scripturæ Cursus Completus"; the Oratorian Lami (died 1715), the learned writer of the "Apparatus ad Biblia sacra" (Paris, 1687); the Benedictine Martianay (died 1717); and the able theologian Ellies Dupin (died 1719). Meantime the Protestants, somewhat belated by doctrinal bias, brought forth a certain number of general introductions, among which may be mentioned those of Rivet (Dordrecht, 1616); Walther (Leipzig, 1636); Calov (Wittenberg, 1643); Brian Walton (London, 1637); and Heidegger (Zurich, 1681) The first scholar to depart from the unsatisfactory method of treating topics preliminary to the study of Holy Writ which had hitherto prevailed, and which had made some of the writings of his immediate predecessors dogmatic treatises rather than works on Biblical introduction, was the French Oratorian Richard Simon (1638-1712). According to him the Sacred Books, no less than the various Biblical translations and commentaries, are literary products which must bear the impress of the ideas and the methods of composition prevalent at the time when they were written, so that, to view and appreciate these works aright, one should study them carefully in themselves and in the light of the historical events under which they came into existence. A study at once historical and critical appeared also to him the best means for disposing of unsound theories, and for vindicating the inspired character of the Bible, which had been recently impugned by Hobbes and Spinoza. Hence the name of "Histoire Critique", which he gave to his epoch-making introductions to the Old Testament (Paris, 1678), to the text (Rotterdam, 1689), versions (Rotterdam, 1690), and commentaries (Rotterdam, 1693) of the New Testament. Simon's methods and conclusions were at first strenuously opposed, and afterwards set aside by Catholics and by Protestants alike. The most noteworthy works of the eighteenth century on introduction, on the basis of the ancient method, are, among Catholics, those of Calmet (Paris, 1707-20); Goldhagen (Mainz, 1765-68); Fabricy (Rome, 1772); Marchini (Turin, 1777); and Mayer (Vienna, 1789); and, among Protestants, those of Hody (Oxford, 1705); Carpzov (Leipzig, 1721-28); J. D. Michaelis (Göttingen, 1750; Hamburg, 1787). The true method of Biblical introduction set forth and applied by Simon was not destined, however, to be discarded forever. The rationalists were the first to use it, or rather to abuse it, for their anti-dogmatic purposes. Ever since the latter part of the eighteenth century, they, and those more or less affected by rationalistic tendencies, have very often openly, and at times with rare ability, treated Biblical introduction as a mere literary history of the Sacred Writings. As belonging to the critical school, the following writers on introductory topics may be mentioned: Semler (died 1791); Eichhorn (died 1827); de Wette (died 1849); Bleek (died 1859); Vatke (died 1882); Riehm (died 1888); Kuenen (died 1891); Reuss (died 1891); Scholten; Hilgenfeld; Wellhausen; W. R. Smith (died 1894); S. Davidson (died 1898); Strack; Wildeboer; E. Kautzsch; F. E. Koenig; Jülicher; Cornill; Baudissin; H. Holtzmann; Bacon; Budde; Cheyne; Kent; Moffatt; Von Soden; Pfleiderer; to whom may be added, as occupying in the main similar positions, B. Weiss; Salmon; Driver; A. B. Davidson (died 1902); Curtiss (died 1904); Ottley; Kirkpatrick; Ryle; Briggs; Bennett; Adeney; C. H. H. Wright; McFayden; and Geden. The following are the principal Protestant writers who meantime have striven to stay the progress of the critical school by treating the questions of Biblical introduction on conservative lines: Hengstenberg (died 1869); Hofmann (died 1877); Hävernick (died 1845); Keil (died 1888); Bissell; Gloag; Godet (died 1900); Westcott (died 1902); Harman; Sayce; Sanday; Green (died 1900); Dods; Kerr; Burkitt; Zahn; Mackay; Urquhart; and Orr. During the same period Catholics have produced numerous works on Biblical introduction, and used in them, in various degrees, the historico-critical method of investigation. These works may be briefly given under four general heads, as follows: + General Introduction to Holy Writ: Dixon, "Intr. to the Sacred Scriptures" (Dublin, 1852); Trochon, "Introd. générale" (Paris, 1886-87); Chauvin, "Leçons d'Int. générale" (Paris, 1897); Breen, "General and Critical Introd. to the Holy Scripture" (Rochester, 1897); Gigot, "General Introd. to the H. Script." (New York, 1899); Telch, "Intr. Generalis in Scripturam Sacram" (Ratisbon, 1908). + General and Special Introd. to both Testaments: Alber, "Institutiones Scrip. Sac. Antiq. et Novi Test." (Budapest, 1801-08); Scholz, "Allgem. Einleit. in die heilige Schrift des A. und N. T." (Cologne, 1845-48); Glaire, "Introd. historiq. et critiq. aux Livres de l'A. et du N. T." (Paris, 1838-); Haneberg, "Geschichte der bibl. Offenbarung als Einleitung ins alte und neue Testam." (Ratisbon, 1849); Gilly, "Préeis d'Introd. générale et particulière à l'Ecrit. Ste" (Nimes, 1867); Lamy, "Introd. in Sac. Scripturam" (Mechlin, 1867); Danko, "Hist. Revelationis divinæ V. T." (Vienna, 1852); Idem, "Hist. Rev. divinæ N. T." (Vienna, 1867); Kaulen, "Einleitung in die heilige Schrift des A. und N. T." (Freiburg im Br., 1876); Vigouroux and Bacuez, "Manuel Biblique" (Paris, 1879); Ubaldi, "Introd. in Sacr. Script." (Rome, 1877-81); Cornely, "Introd. historica et critica in U. T. libros" (Paris, 1885-87); Trochon and Lesêtre, "Introd. à l'Etude de l'Ecrit. Sainte" (Paris, 1889-90); Barry, "The Tradition of Scripture" (New York, 1906). + Special Introd. to the Old Testament: Jahn, "Einleit. in die göttliche Bücher des A. Bundes" (Vienna, 1793); Ackermann, "Introd. in lib. sacros V. Test." (Vienna, 1825-9); Herbst, "Hist. Krit. Einleitung in die heilige Schriften des A. T." (Karlsruhe, 1840-44); Reusch, "Lehrbuch der Einl. in das A. T." (Freiburg im Br., 1864); Zschokke, "Hist. sacra V. T." (Vienna, 1872); Neteler, "Abriss der alttest. Literaturgeschichte" (Münster, 1870); Martin, "Intr. à la Critique générale do l'A. T." (Paris, 1886-89); Schöpfer, 'Gesch. des A. T." (Brixen, 1894); Gigot, "Special Intr. to O. T." (New York, 1901, 1906). + Special Introduct. to the New Testament: Feilmoser, "Einl. in die Bücher des N. Bundes" (Innsbruck, 1810); Unterkircher, "Einl. in die B. des N. T." (Innsbruck, 1810); Hug, "Einl. in die heil. Schriften des N. T." (Tübingen, 1808); Reithmayer "Einl. in die kanonisch. B. des N. T." (Ratisbon, 1852); Maier, "Einl. in die Schrif. des N. T." (Freiburg im Br., 1852); Markf, "Introd. in sacros libros N. T." (Budapest, 1856); Güntner, "Introd. in sacros N. T. libros" (Prague, 1863); Langen, "Grundriss der Einleitung das N. T." (Freiburg im Br., 1868); Aberle, "Einl. in das N. T." (Freiburg im Br., 1877); Trenkle, "Einl. in das N. T." (Freiburg im Br., 1897); Schaefer, "Einl. in das N. T." (Paderborn, 1898); Belser, "Einl. in das N. T." (Freiburg im Br., 1901); Jacquier, "Histoire des Livres du N. T." (Paris, 1904-08); Brassac, "Nouveau Testament" (Paris, 1908, 1909), twelfth recast edition of vols. III and IV of Vigouroux's "Manuel Biblique". From among the introductory works recently published by Jewish scholars the following may be mentioned: J. Fürst, "Geschichte der biblischen Literatur und des judisch-hellenistischen Schriftens" (Leipzig, 1867-70); Cassel, "Geschichte der judischen Literatur" (Berlin, 1872-73); J. S. Bloch, "Studien zur Geschichte der Sammlung der A. Literatur" (Leipzig, 1875); A. Geiger, "Einleitung in die biblischen Schriften" (Berlin, 1877); Wogue, "Histoire de la Bible et de l'Exégèse biblique jusqu'à nos jours" (Paris, 1881). Besides the separate works on Biblical introduction which have been mentioned, valuable contributions to that branch of Scriptural science are found in the shape of articles in the Dictionaries of the Bible and the general encyclopedias already published or yet issuing. FRANCIS E. GIGOT Introit Introit The Introit (Introitus) of the Mass is the fragment of a psalm with its antiphon sung while the celebrant and ministers enter the church and approach the altar. In all Western rites the Mass began with such a processional psalm since the earliest times of which we have any record. As it was sung by the choir it is not, of course, to be found in sacramentaries; but introits are contained in the first antiphonaries known (the Gregorian Antiphonary at Montpellier, the St. Gall manuscript, that represent a seventh-century tradition, etc.; see Leclercq in "Dict. d'archéologie chrétienne", s. v. "Antiphonaire"). The First Roman Ordo (sixth to seventh century) says that as soon as the candles are lit and everything is ready, the singers come and stand before the altar on either side, "and presently the leader of the choir begins the antiphon for the entrance (antiphona ad introitum)". As soon as the deacons hear his voice they go to the pope, who rises and comes from the sacristy to the altar in procession ("Ordo Rom. I", ed. Atchley, London, 1905, p. 128). There is every reason to suppose that as soon as the Western liturgies were arranged in definite forms, the entrance was always accompanied by the chant of a psalm, which from that circumstance was called at Rome Introitus or Psalmus or Antiphona ad Introitum. The old Gallican Rite called it Antiphona ad Pr legendum; at Milan it is the Ingressa; in the Mozarabic, Carthusian, Dominican, and Carmelite books, Officium. The Introit was a whole psalm sung with the Gloria Patri and Sicut erat verses, preceded and followed by an antiphon in the usual way. No doubt originally it was sung as a solo while the choir repeated a response after each verse (the psalmus responsorius of which we still have an example in the Invitatorium at Matins), then the later way of singing psalms (psalmus antiphonarius) was adopted for the Introit too. The "Liber Pontificalis" ascribes this antiphonal chant at the Introit to Pope Celestine I (422-32): "He ordered that the psalms of David be sung antiphonally [ antiphonatim, by two choirs alternately] by all before the Sacrifice, which was not done before; but only the epistle of St. Paul was read and the holy Gospel" (ed. Duchesne, I, Paris, 1886, 230). The text seems even to attribute the use of the Introit-psalm in any form to this pope. Medieval writers take this idea from the "Liber Pontificalis", e. g. Honorius of Autun, "Gemma animæ" (in P. L., CLXXII): "Pope Celestine ordered psalms to be sung at the entrance (ad introitum) of the Mass. Pope Gregory [I] afterwards composed antiphons in modulation for the entrance of the Mass" (I, lxxxvii). Probst thought that Gelasius I (492-96) invented the Introit (Die abendländische Messe vom 5 bis zum 8 Jahrhundert, Münster, 1896, 36). It is perhaps safest to account for our Introit merely as a development of the processional psalm sung during the entrance of the celebrant and his ministers, as psalms were sung in processions from very early times. But it soon began to be curtailed. Its object was only to accompany the entrance, so there was no reason for going on with it after the celebrant had arrived at the altar. Already in the First Roman Ordo as soon as the pope is ready to begin Mass he signs to the choir-master to leave out the rest of the psalm and go on at once to the Gloria Patri (ed. Atchley, p. 128). Since the early Middle Ages the psalm has been further shortened to one verse (Durandus, "Rationale", IV, 5). So it received the form it still has, namely: an antiphon, one verse of a psalm, Gloria Patri, Sicut erat, the antiphon repeated. In the Milanese Rite the antiphon of the Ingressa is not repeated except in Requiem Masses; on the other hand, in some medieval uses it was repeated several times (Durandus, loc. cit.). On great feasts the Carmelites still repeat it twice at the end. The antiphon is taken as a rule from the Psalter (Durandus calls such introits regulares); sometimes (e.g. second and third Christmas Mass, Ascension-Day, Whit-Sunday, etc.) from another part of the Bible; more rarely (Assumption, All Saints, many Masses of Our Lady -- "Salve sancta parens", Requiems, etc.) it is a composition by some later writer. The verse of the psalm in the earlier introits is the first (obviously still a fragment of the whole), except that when the antiphon itself is the first verse the "psalm" is the next (twelfth and fifteenth Sundays after Pentecost, etc.). In later times it has become common to choose a suitable verse regardless of this rule (e. g. the Crown of Thorns Mass for Friday after Ash Wednesday, St. Ignatius Loyola on 31 July, etc.). The text of the psalms used in the introits (as throughout the Missal) is not the Vulgate but the Itala. In Paschal time two Alleluias are added to the antiphon, sometimes (Easter Day, Low Sunday, the Third and Fourth Sundays after Easter, etc.) there are three. In Requiems and Masses de tempore in Passiontide, when the Psalm Judica is not said, there is no Gloria Patri at the Introit. On Holy Saturday and at the chief Mass on Whitsun Eve (when the prophecies are read) there is no Introit at all. The reason of this is obvious. The Introit accompanies the entrance; but on these occasions the celebrant has been at the altar for some time before Mass begins. We name Masses (that is the complex of changeable prayers that make up the Puerperium) from the first words of the Introit by which they begin. Thus the Mass for the first Sunday of Advent is called Ad te leva; the two Masses of the Sacred Heart are distinguished as Miserability and Exordium; a Mass for the dead is spoken of as a Requiem, and so on. There is nothing corresponding to our Introit in the Eastern rites. In all of them the liturgy begins quite differently. The preparation (vesting, preparation of the offerings) takes place in the sanctuary, so there is no procession to the altar. RITUAL OF THE INTROIT At high (or sung) Mass till quite lately the rule had obtained that the choir did not begin the Introit till the celebrant began the first prayers at the foot of the altar. Now the new Vatican "Gradual" (1908) has restored the old principle, that it is to be sung while the procession moves from the sacristy to the altar. ("De redivivus servanda in cant miss" in the introduction.) It should therefore be begun as soon as the head of the procession appears in the church. One or more cantors sing to the sign*, all continue; the cantors alone sing the first half of the psalm and the V. Gloria Patri (ibid.). The celebrant, having finished the preparatory prayers at the altar-steps, goes up to the altar and kisses it (saying meanwhile the two short prayers, A ufer a nobis and Oranges te); then, going to the left (Epistle) side, he reads from the Missal the Introit, just as it is sung. This is one of the continual reactions of low Mass on high Mass. When the custom of low Mass began (in the early Middle Ages) the celebrant had to supply all the parts of deacon, subdeacon, and choir himself. Then, as he became used to saying these parts, he said them even at high Mass, too; they were, besides, chanted by others. So the rule has obtained that everything is said by the celebrant. The recital of the Introit should be considered as the real beginning of Mass, since what has gone before is rather of the nature of the celebrant's preparation. For this reason he makes the sign of the cross at its first words, according to the general rule of beginning all solemn functions (in this case the Mass) with that sign. At Requiem Masses he makes the cross not on himself but over the Missal, quasi aliquem benedicens says the rubric (Ritus cel., xiii, 1). This is understood as directing the blessing to the souls in purgatory. At low Mass there is no change here, save the omission of the chant by the choir. Of the medieval commentators see especially DURANDUS, Rationale Divinorum Officiorum, IV, 5; BENEDICT XIV, De S. Miss Sacrificio, II 4; DuCHESNE, Origines du culte chrétien (Paris, 1898), 154-155; GIHR, Das heilige Messopfer (Freiburg im Br., 1897), 346-57. ADRIAN FORTESCUE Intrusion Intrusion (Latin intrudere.) Intrusion is the act by which unlawful possession of an ecclesiastical benefice is taken. It implies, therefore, the ignoring of canonical institution, which is the reception of the benefice at the bands of him who has the right to bestow it by canon law. The necessity of proper canonical institution rests primarily on certain passages of the New Testament (John, x, 1; Hebr., v, 4), in which a legitimate mission from properly constituted authority in the Church is postulated. This is reaffirmed by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, can. vii), and in the "Corpus Juris Canonici" it is decreed: "An ecclesiastical benefice may not be taken possession of without canonical institution" (cap. i, De reg. jur., in vi). Intrusion does not necessarily signify the employment of force in entering upon a benefice. To constitute him an intruder or usurper in the ecclesiastical sense, it is sufficient that the person has no true canonical title to the benefice when he takes possession. Historical examples of intrusion on a large scale are not wanting. To pass over the many violations of the Church's right during the investiture struggles of medieval times, we find wholesale intrusion practised in France in the reigns of Louis XIV and Napoleon I, when ecclesiastics, nominated to episcopal sees but whose elections were never confirmed by the pope, ruled the dioceses into which they were thus intruded. Pius IX, in his Constitution "Romanus Pontifex", decreed excommunication and privation of dignities against members of a cathedral chapel who hand over the administration of a diocese to one who, although nominated, has not yet presented his letters of canonical institution. When laymen have the right of presentation to a benefice, the confirmation of ecclesiastical authority is necessary before actual possession can be obtained. The nominee who does not wait for this canonical induction is an intruder. The definition is also extended to persons who, having been repelled even unjustly by their ecclesiastical superiors, seek the aid of the civil power to obtain possession under pretext of abuse. As an intruder has no true title to receive the revenues of the benefice which he uncanonically holds, he is bound in conscience to make restitution of what are ill-gotten gains to the lawful titular. Even if the latter die, it does not legalize the position of the intruder, for in that case the restitution must be made to the true titular's lawful successor in the benefice. To remove the irregularity incurred by intrusion,, the papal power must be invoked, as the censure is reserved to the Holy See. A dispensation from such an irregularity is the more difficult to obtain in proportion to the falsity of the title invoked or the employment of violence in entering on the benefice. Canonists also extend the term intrusion to the keeping possession of a benefice by a hitherto lawful possessor, after it has been vacated by violation of certain decrees of the Church. Thus, titulars of one benefice who fraudulently present themselves for examination in a concursus to obtain a benefice for another by impersonating him, who obtain a benefice for others on the understanding that they are to be rewarded for it, or who seek a benefice with the intention of resigning it to another with a secret provision that they are to receive a pension from its revenues, lose the right to their own benefices, which thus canonically become vacant. By retaining possession of them in such cases, they become intruders. CRAISSON. Manuale Totius Juris Canonici, I (Paris, 1899); FERRARIS, Bibliotheca Canonica, I (Rome, 1885), s.v. Beneficium; WERNZ, Jus Decretalium, II (Rome. 1899). WILLIAM H. W. FANNING Intuition Intuition Intuition (Latin intueri, to look into) is a psychological and philosophical term which designates the process of immediate apprehension or perception of an actual fact, being, or relation between two terms and its results. Hence the words Intuitionism or Intuitionalism mean those systems in philosophy which consider intuition as the fundamental process of our knowledge or at least give to intuition a large place (the Scottish school), and the words Intuitive Morality and Intuitional Ethics denote those ethical theories which base morality on an intuitive apprehension of the moral principles and laws, or consider intuition as capable of distinguishing the moral qualities of our actions (Shaftesbury, Hutcheson Reid, Dugald Stewart). As an element of educational method intuition means the grasp of knowledge by concrete, experimental or intellectual, ways of apprehension. The immediate perception of sensuous or material objects by our senses is called sensuous or empirical intuition, the immediate apprehension of intellectual or immaterial objects by our intelligence is called intellectual intuition. It may be remarked that Kant calls empirical intuitions our knowledge of objects through sensation, and pure intuition our perception of space and time as the forms a priori of sensibility. Again, our intuitions may be called external or internal, according as the objects perceived are external objects or internal objects or acts. The importance of intuition as a process and element of knowledge is easily seen if we observe that it is intuition which furnishes us with the first experimental data as well as with the primary concepts and the fundamental judgments or principles which are the primitive elements and the foundation of every scientific and philosophical speculation. This importance, however, has been falsely exaggerated by some modern philosophers to an extent which tends to destroy both supernatural religion and the validity of human reason. There has been an attempt, on their part, to make of intuition, under different names, the central and fundamental element of our power of acquiring knowledge, and the only process or operation that can put us into contact with reality. So we have the creation or intuition of the ego and non ego in the philosophy of Fichte; the intuition or intellectual vision of God claimed by the Ontologists in natural theology (see ONTOLOGISM), W. James's unconscious intuition or religious experience (The Varieties of Religious Experience), Bergson's philosophy of pure intuition the experience or experiential consciousness of the Divine of the Modernists (Encyclical "Pascendi gregis"). According to the Ontologists, our knowledge of notions endowed with the character of necessity and universality, as well as our idea of the Infinite, are possible only through an antecedent intuition of God present in us. Other philosophers start from the principle that human reasoning is unable to give us the knowledge of things in themselves. The data of common sense, our intellectual concepts, and the conclusions reached through the process of discursive reasoning do not, they say primarily represent reality, but acting under diverse influences such as those of our usual and practical needs, common sense and discursive reason result in a deformation of reality; the value of their data and conclusions is one of practical usefulness rather than one of true representation (see PRAGMATISM). Intuition alone, they maintain, is able to put us in communication with reality and give us a true knowledge of things. Especially in regard to religious truths, some insist, it is only through intuition and internal experience that we can acquire them. "God", says the Protestant A. Sabatier in his Esquisse d'une philosophie de la religion, "is not a phenomenon which can be observed outside of the ego, a truth to be demonstrated by logical reasoning. He who does not feel Him in his heart, will never find Him outside . . . . We never become aware of our piety without at the same time feeling a religious emotion and perceiving in this very emotion, more or less obscurely, the object and the cause of religion, namely, God." The arguments used by the Schoolmen to prove the existence of God, say the Modernists, have now lost all their value; it is by the religious feeling, by an intuition of the heart that we apprehend God (Encycl. "Pascendi gregis" and "II programma dei modernisti"). Such theories have their source in the principle of absolute subjectivism and relativism -- the most fundamental error in philosophy. Starting with Kant's proposition that we cannot know things as they are in themselves but only as they appear to us, that is, under the subjective conditions that our human nature necessarily imposes on them, they arrive at the conclusion that our rational knowledge is subjectively relative, and that its concepts, principles, and process of reasoning are therefore essentially unable to reach external and transcendental realities. Hence their recourse to intuition and immanence. But it is easy to show that if intuition is necessary in every act of knowledge, it remains essentially insufficient in our present life, for scientific and philosophical reflection. In our knowledge of nature we start from observation; but observation remains fruitless if it is not verified by a series of inductions and deductions. In our knowledge of God, we may indeed start from our nature and from our insufficiency and aspirations, but if we want to know Him we have to demonstrate, by discursive reasoning, His existence as an external and transcendent Cause and Supreme End. We may indeed, in Ethics have an intuition of the notion of duty, of the need of a sanction; but these intuitive notions have no moral value if they are not connected with the existence of a Supreme Ruler and Judge, and this connection can be known only through reasoning. The true nature, place, and value of intuition in human knowledge are admirably put forth in the Scholastic theory of knowledge. For the Schoolmen the intuitive act of intellectual knowledge is, by its nature, the most perfect act of knowledge, since it is an immediate apprehension of and contact with reality in its concrete existence, and our supreme reward m the supernatural order will consist in the intuitive apprehension of God by our intelligence: the beatific vision. But in our present conditions of earthly life, our knowledge must of necessity make use of concepts and reasoning. All our knowledge has its starting-point in the intuitive data of sense experience, but in order to penetrate the nature of these data, their laws and causes, we must have recourse to abstraction and discursive reasoning. It is also through those processes and through them alone that we can arrive at the notion of immaterial beings and of God himself (St. Thomas "Contra Gentes", I, 12; "Summa Theologica" I:84-88, etc.) . Our mind has the intuition of primary principles (intellectus) but their application, in order to give us a scientific and philosophical knowledge of things, is subject to the laws of abstraction and successive reasoning (ratio, discursus, cf. I:58:3, II-II:49:5, ad 2um). Such a necessity is, as it were, a normal defect of human intelligence; it is the natural limit which determines the place of the human mind in the scale of intellectual beings. Concepts and reasoning therefore are in themselves inferior to intuition; but they are the normal processes of human knowledge. They are not, however a deformation of reality, though they give only an imperfect and inadequate representation of reality -- and the more so according to the excellency of the objects represented -- they are a true representation of it. GEORGE M. SAUVAGE Inventory of Church Property Inventory of Church Property By inventory (Lat. inventarium) is meant a descriptive list in which are enumerated systematically, item by item, the personal and real property, rights, titles, and papers or documents of a person, an estate, or any institution. Inventories are prescribed by law to control effectively the management of any trust, inheritance, guardianship, etc., by an executor or administrator. Thus, an inventory is to be made at the beginning of a given administration; when the period of management has expired, the out-going official must produce all the things which appear in this inventory or were added later, excepting those which have been consumed or rendered useless. Then the inventory is to be verified. This formality is discharged, as the case may demand, by an authorized official, a notary, or merely in the presence of witnesses. A measure so useful for the proper administration of property of all kinds could not fail to find a place among the regulations for the management of church property, seeing that this was not administered by its owners, and that those in charge of it were all bound to render an annual account to the bishop (Council of Trent, Sess., XXII, c. vii). It must be admitted, however, that the old writers on canon law prior to the Council of Trent, though they implicitly suppose an inventory of church property, make no formal mention of it. The only texts that refer to it clearly are those ordering bishops to separate carefully their own property from that of the Church, so that their heirs may not seize the goods of the Church, or the Church lay claim to their proper belongings (Can. Apost., xl; Council of Antioch, 341, can. xxiv and xxv; Cod. Eccl. Afric., can. lxxxi, etc.). The most important document relating to the inventories of church property is the Motu Proprio, "Provida", of Sixtus V, 29 April, 1587. The pope had decreed the establishment of a general ecclesiastical record office at Rome, where inventories of all the church property in Italy should be kept; he abandoned this project on being informed that such inventories existed in the archives of many bishoprics and that the bishops verified them when making their pastoral visitations. However, he commanded all ordinaries who did not follow this practice to have an inventory of the property of all the churches and ecclesiastical establishments within their territories made within the space of one year; all administrators were obliged to draw up, within twelve months after entering into office, an inventory of the property confided to them and to send it to the ordinary. The Roman Council of 1725 under Benedict XIII (tit. xii, c. i) renewed the order of Sixtus V, and gave as an appendix a model of a suitable inventory in twenty-eight paragraphs (the text of Sixtus V and the specimen inventory are contained in the "Acta Conc. Recent. Collect. Lacensis", I, col. 416). As a model of an inventory we might also refer to the instructions given for the general visitation of Rome ordered by Pius X in his Bull of 11 February, 1904 (see Analecta Eccles., 1904). Since the Council of Rome almost every assembly of bishops has prescribed the making of inventories of church property; suffice it to mention, among the more important recent councils, the Second Council of Westminster in 1855, the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1884 (art. cclxviii sq.), and the Plenary Council of Latin America, held at Rome in 1899 (art. cclxv, dcccxli, dcccli). To these must be added the ecclesiastico civil laws of various countries. Every administrator of church property and every beneficiary must therefore, on assuming office, draw up an exact inventory of the personal and real property confided to his care. Of this inventory two copies are usually to be made -- one to be kept in the archives, the other to be sent to the bishop (in some countries a third copy has to be sent to the civil authorities). When his term of office expires, the administrator or beneficiary must hand over to his successor all the articles entered in the inventory; this verification is done in a document which discharges the retiring official, and places the responsibility on his successor; as in the case of the inventory, two or three copies of this document are to be made. During the period of management the administrator must keep his inventory up to date, that is to say, he must make a record, with due legal formalities, of any property acquired, alienated, changed, or reinvested. Finally, during his episcopal visitations, the bishop, who has the right of approving the inventories, must have them produced and see that they are accurate. For bibliography, see PROPERTY, ECCLESIASTICAL. A. BOUDINHON Canonical Investiture Canonical Investiture (Lat. investitura, from investire, to clothe.) Canonical Investiture is the act by which a suzerain granted a fief to his vassal, and the ceremonies which accompanied that grant. From the middle of the eleventh century, and perhaps during the first half of that century, the term was used to designate the act and the ceremonies by which princes granted to bishops and abbots, besides their titles, the possessions which constituted their benefices, and the political rights which they were to exercise (see INVESTITURES, CONFLICT OF). The putting in possession was done after the investiture by enthronization (q. v.). The decretals use the word investitura to signify the concession of an ecclesiastical benefice; only since the thirteenth century has it signified the act of putting one in possession of such a benefice. This is the sense in which it is now used; it is synonymous with Institutio corporalis. (See INSTITUTION, CANONICAL; INSTALLATION.) HINSCHIUS, System des katholischen Kirchenrechts (Berlin, 1878), II, 654; KAULEN in Kirchenlex., s.v. Investitur, VI (Freiburg im Br., 1889), 843-44. A. VAN HOVE Conflict of Investitures Conflict of Investitures (Ger. Investiturstreit.) The terminus technicus for the great struggle between the popes and the German kings Henry IV and Henry V, during the period 1075-1122. The prohibition of investiture was in truth only the occasion of this conflict; the real issue, at least at the height of the contest, was whether the imperial or the papal power was to be supreme in Christendom. The powerful and ardent pope, Gregory VII, sought in all earnestness to realize the Kingdom of God on earth under the guidance of the papacy. As successor of the Apostles of Christ, he claimed supreme authority in both spiritual and secular affairs. It seemed to this noble idealism that the successor of Peter could never act otherwise than according to the dictates of justice, goodness, and truth. In this spirit he claimed for the papacy supremacy over emperor, kings, and princes. But during the Middle Ages a rivalry had always existed between the popes and the emperors, twin representatives, so to speak, of authority. Henry III, the father of the young king, had even reduced the papacy to complete submission, a situation which Gregory now strove to reverse by crushing the imperial power and setting in its place the papacy. A long and bitter struggle was therefore unavoidable. It first arose through the prohibition of investitures, à propos of the ecclesiastical reforms set afoot by Gregory. In 1074 he had renewed under heavier penalties the prohibition of simony and marriage of the clergy, but encountered at once great opposition from the German bishops and priests. To secure the necessary influence in the appointment of bishops, to set aside lay pretensions to the administration of the property of the Church, and thus to break down the opposition of the clergy, Gregory at the Lenten (Roman) Synod of 1075 withdrew "from the king the right of disposing of bishoprics in future, and relieved all lay persons of the investiture of churches". As early as the Synod of Reims (1049) anti-investiture legislation had been enacted, but had never been enforced. Investiture at this period meant that on the death of a bishop or abbot, the king was accustomed to select a successor and to bestow on him the ring and staff with the words: Accipe ecclesiam (accept this church). Henry III was wont to consider the ecclesiastical fitness of the candidate; Henry IV, on the other hand, declared in 1073: "We have sold the churches". Since Otto the Great (936-72) the bishops had been princes of the empire, had secured many privileges, and had become to a great extent feudal lords over great districts of the imperial territory. The control of these great units of economic and military power was for the king a question of primary importance, affecting as it did the foundations and even the existence of the imperial authority; in those days men had not yet learned to distinguish between the grant of the episcopal office and the grant of its temporalities (regalia). Thus minded, Henry IV held that it was impossible for him to acknowledge the papal prohibition of investiture. We must bear carefully in mind that in the given circumstances there was a certain justification for both parties: the pope's object was to save the Church from the dangers that arose from the undue influence of the laity, and especially of the king, in strictly ecclesiastical affairs; the king, on the other hand, considered that he was contending for the indispensable means of civil government, apart from which his supreme authority was at that period inconceivable. Ignoring the prohibition of Gregory, as also the latter's effort at a mitigation of the same, Henry continued to appoint bishops in Germany and in Italy. Towards the end of December, 1075, Gregory delivered his ultimatum: the king was called upon to observe the papal decree, as based on the laws and teachings of the Fathers; otherwise, at the following Lenten Synod, he would be not only "excommunicated until he had given proper satisfaction, but also deprived of his kingdom without hope of recovering it". Sharp reproval of his libertinism was added. If the pope had given way somewhat too freely to his feelings, the king gave still freer vent to his anger. At the Diet of Worms (January, 1076), Gregory, amid atrocious calumnies, was deposed by twenty-six bishops on the ground that his elevation was irregular, and that consequently he had never been pope. Henry therefore addressed a letter to "Hildebrand, no longer pope but a false monk" : -- "I, Henry, king by the grace of God, with all my bishops say to thee: 'Descend! Descend, thou ever accursed!'" If the king believed that such a deposition, which he was unable to enforce, was of any effect, he must have been very blind. At the next Lenten Synod in Rome (1076) Gregory sat in judgment upon the king, and in a prayer to Peter, Prince of the Apostles, declared: "I depose him from the government of the whole Kingdom of Germany and Italy, release all Christians from their oath of allegiance, forbid him to be obeyed as king . . . and as thy successor bind him with the fetters of anathema". It availed little that the king answered ban with ban. His domestic enemies, the Saxons and the lay princes of the empire, espoused the cause of the pope, while his bishops were divided in their allegiance, and the mass of his people deserted him. The age was yet too deeply conscious that there could be no Christian Church without communion with Rome. The royal supporters grew ever fewer; in October a diet of the princes at Tribur obliged Henry to apologize humbly to the pope, to promise for the future obedience and reparation, and to refrain from all actual government, seeing that he was excommunicate. They decreed also that if within a year and a day the excommunication was not removed, Henry should forfeit his crown. Finally, they resolved that the pope should be invited to visit Germany in the following spring to settle the conflict between the king and the princes. Elated at this victory Gregory set out immediately for the north. To the general astonishment, Henry now proposed to present himself as a penitent before the pope, and thereby obtain pardon. He crossed Mont Cenis in the depth of winter and was soon at the Castle of Canossa, whither Gregory had withdrawn on learning of the king's approach. Henry spent three days at the entrance to the fortress, barefoot and in the garb of a penitent. That he actually stood the whole time on ice and snow is of course a romantic exaggeration. He was finally admitted to the papal presence, and pledged himself to recognize the mediation and decision of the pope in the quarrel with the princes, and was then freed from excommunication (January, 1077). This famous event has been countless times described, and from very divergent points of view. Through Bismarck, Canossa became a proverbial term to indicate the humiliation of the civil power before the ambitious and masterful Church. Recently, on the other hand, not a few have seen in it a glorious triumph for Henry. When the facts are carefully weighed, it will appear that in his priestly capacity the pope yielded reluctantly and unwillingly, while, on the other hand, the political success of his concession was null. Henry had now the advantage, since, released from excommunication, he was again free to act. Comparing, however, the power which thirty years earlier Henry III had exercised over the papacy, we may yet agree with those historians who see in Canossa the acme of the career of Gregory VII. The German supporters of the pope ignored the reconciliation, and proceeded in March, 1077, to elect a new king, Rudolf of Rheinfelden. This was the signal for the civil war during which Gregory sought to act as arbiter between the rival kings and as their overlord to award the crown. By artful diplomacy Henry held off, until 1080, any decisive action. Considering his position sufficiently secure, he then demanded that the pope should excommunicate his rival, otherwise he would set up an antipope. Gregory answered by excommunicating and deposing Henry for the second time at the Lenten Synod of 1080. It was declared at the same time that clergy and people should ignore all civil interference and all civil claims on ecclesiastical property, and should canonically elect all the candidates for ecclesiastical office. The effect of this second excommunication was inconsiderable. During the preceding years the king had collected a strong party; the bishops preferred to depend on the king rather than on the pope; moreover, it was believed that the second excommunication was not justified. Gregory's party was thus greatly weakened, At the Synod of Brixen (June, 1080) the king's bishops listened to ridiculous charges and exaggerations, and deposed the pope, excommunicated him, and elected as antipope Guibert, Archbishop of Ravenna, otherwise a learned and blameless man. Gregory had relied on the support of the Normans in Southern Italy and of the German enemies of the king, but the former sent him assistance. Thus when in October, 1080, his rival for the throne was slain in battle, Henry turned his thoughts on the papal capital. Four times, from 1081 to 1084, he assaulted Rome, in 1083 captured the Leonine City, and in 1084, after an unsuccessful attempt at a compromise, gained possession of the entire city. The deposition of Gregory and the election of Guibert, who now called himself Clement III, was confirmed by a synod, and in March, 1084, Henry was crowned emperor by his antipope. The Normans arrived too late to prevent these events, and moreover proceeded to plunder the town so mercilessly that Gregory lost the allegiance of the Romans and was compelled to withdraw southward with his Norman allies. He had suffered a complete defeat, and died at Salerno (25 May, 1085), after another ineffectual renewal of excommunication against his opponents. Though he died amid disappointment and failure, he had done indispensable pioneer work and set in motion forces and principles that were to dominate succeeding centuries. There was now much confusion on all sides. In 1081 a new rival for the crown, the insignificant Count Herman of Salm, had been chosen, but he died in 1088. Most of the bishops held with the king, and were thus excommunicate; in Saxony only was the Gregorian party dominant. Many dioceses had two occupants. Both parties called their rivals perjurers and traitors, nor did either side discriminate nicely in the choice and use of weapons. Negotiations met with no success, while the synod of the Gregorians at Quedlinburg (April, 1085) showed no inclination to modify the principles which they represented. The king, therefore, resolved to crush his rivals by force. At the Council of Mainz (April, 1085) fifteen Gregorian bishops were deposed, and their sees entrusted to adherents of the royal party. A fresh rebellion of the Saxons and Bavarians forced the king's bishops to fly, but the death of the most eminent and a general inclination towards peace led to a truce, so that about 1090 the empire entered on an interval of peace, far different, however, from what Henry had contemplated. The Gregorian bishops recognized the king, who consequently withdrew his support from his own nominees. But the truce was a purely political one; in ecclesiastical matters the opposition continued unabated, and recognition of the antipope was not to be thought of. Indeed, the political tranquillity served only to bring out more definitely the hopeless antithesis between the clergy who held with Gregory and those who sided with the king. There are yet extant numerous contemporary polemical treatises that enable us to follow the warfare of opinions after 1080 (of the preceding period few such documents remain). These writings, usually short and acrimonious, were widely scattered, were read privately or publicly, and were distributed on court and market-days. They are now collected as the "Libelli de lite imperatorum et pontificum", and are to be found in the Monumenta Germaniæ historica". It is but natural that the principles advocated in these writings should be diametrically opposed to one another. The writers of Gregory's party maintain that unconditional obedience to the pope is necessary, and that, even when unjust, his excommunication is valid. The king's writers, on the other hand, declare that their master is above responsibility for his actions, being the representative of God on earth, and as such overlord of the pope. Prominent on the papal side were the unbending Saxon Bernhard, who would hear of no compromise and preferred death to violation of the canons, the Swabian Bernold of St. Blasien, author of numerous but unimportant letters and memorials, and the rude, fanatical Manegold of Lautenbach, for whom obedience to the pope was the supreme duty of all mankind, and who maintained that the people could depose a bad ruler as rightfully as one would dismiss a swineherd who had failed to protect the drove entrusted to his care. On the side of the king stood Wenrich of Trier, calm in diction, but resolute, Wido of Osnabrück, a solid writer, afterwards bishop, whose heart was set on peace between the emperor and the pope, but who opposed Gregory for having unlawfully excommunicated the king and for inducing the latter's feudatories to break their oath of allegiance. On the royal side, also, was a monk of Hersfeld, otherwise unknown, who reveals a clear grasp of the real issue in his pamphlet "De unitate ecclesiæ", wherein he indicates the matter of supremacy as the real source of the conflict. Monarchy, he said, comes directly from God; consequently, to Him alone is the king responsible. The Church, on the other hand, is the totality of the faithful, united in one society by the spirit of peace and love. The Church, he goes on, is not called to exercise temporal authority; she bears only the spiritual sword, that is, the Word of God. Here, however, the monk went far beyond the age in which he lived. In Italy the adherents of Gregory outmatched their rivals intellectually. Among their number was Bonizo of Sutri, the historian of the papal side, a valuable writer for the preceding decades of the conflict, naturally from the standpoint of the pontiff and his adherents. Anselm, Bishop of Lucca, and Cardinal Deusdedit, at Gregory's request, compiled collections of canons, whence in later times the ideas of Gregory drew substantial support. To the royal party belonged the vacillating Cardinal Beno, the personal enemy of Gregory and author of scandalous pamphlets against the pope, also the mendacious Benzo, Bishop of Alba, for whom, as for most courtiers, the king was answerable only to God, while the pope was the king's vassal. Guido of Ferrara held more temperate opinions, and endeavoured to persuade the moderate Gregorians to adopt a policy of compromise. Petrus Crassus, the only layman engaged in the controversy, represented the youthful science of jurisprudence and strongly advocated the autonomy of the State, maintaining that, as the sovereign authority was from God, it was a crime to war upon the king. He claimed for the king all the rights of the Roman emperors, consequently the right to sit in judgment on the pope. In 1086 Gregory was succeeded by a milder character, Victor III, who had no desire to compete for the supreme authority, and drew back to the position that the whole strife was purely a question of ecclesiastical administration. He died in 1087, and the contest entered on a new period with Urban II (1088-99). He shared fully all the ideas of Gregory, but endeavoured to conciliate the king and his party and to facilitate their return to the views of the ecclesiastical party. Henry might perhaps have come to some arrangement with Victor, had he been willing to set aside the antipope, but he clung closely to the man from whom he had received the imperial crown. In this way war soon broke out again, during which the cause of the king suffered a decline. The antipope's bishops gradually deserted him in answer to Urban's advantageous offers of reconciliation; the royal authority in Italy disappeared, while in the defection of his son Conrad and of his second wife Henry suffered an additional humiliation. The new crusading movement, on the other hand, rallied many to the assistance of the papacy. In 1094 and 1095 Urban renewed the excommunication of Henry, Guibert, and their supporters. When the pope died (1099), followed by the antipope (1100), the papacy, so far as ecclesiastical matters were concerned, had won a complete victory. The subsequent antipopes of the Guibertian party in Italy were of no importance. Urban was succeeded by a less able ruler, Paschal II (1099-1118), whom Henry at first inclined to recognize. The political horizon meanwhile began to look more favourable for the king, who was now universally acknowledged in Germany. He was anxious to secure in addition ecclesiastical peace, sought to procure the removal of his excommunication, and publicly declared his intention of making a pilgrimage to the Holy Sepulchre. This, however, did not satisfy the pope, who demanded the renunciation of the right of investiture, still obstinately claimed by Henry. In 1102 Paschal renewed the anathema against the emperor. The revolt of his son (Henry V), and the latter's alliance with the princes who were dissatisfied with the imperial policy, brought matters to a crisis and occasioned the greatest suffering to the sorely tried emperor, who was now ignominiously outwitted and overcome by his son. A decisive struggle was rendered unnecessary by the death of Henry IV in 1106. He had untiringly defended the inherited rights of the royal office, and had never sacrificed any of them. From the beginning Henry V had enjoyed the support of the pope, who had relieved him of excommunication and had set aside his oath of allegiance to his father. At and after the Pentecost Synod of Nordhausen, in 1105, the king dispelled the last remnants of the schism by deposing the imperial occupants of the episcopal sees. The questions, however, which lay at the root of the whole conflict were not yet decided, and time soon showed that, in the matter of investitures, Henry was the true heir of his father's policy. Cold, calculating, and ambitious, the new monarch had no idea of withdrawing the royal claims in this respect. Notwithstanding repeated prohibitions (at Guastalla in 1106, and at Troyes in 1107), he continued to invest with ostentation the bishops of his choice. The German clergy raised no protest, and made it evident in this way that their earlier refusal of obedience to the emperor arose from the fact of his excommunication, not from any resentment occasioned by his interference in the affairs of the Church. In 1108 excommunication was pronounced upon the giver and receiver (dans et accipiens) of investiture, and thus affected the king himself. As Henry had now set his heart on being crowned emperor, this decision precipitated the final struggle. In 1111 the king marched with a strong army on Rome. Eager to avoid another conflict, Paschal attempted a radical solution of the question at issue; the German clergy, he decided, were to restore to the king all their estates and privileges and to maintain themselves on tithes and donations; under these circumstances the monarchy, which was interested only in the overlordship of these domains, might easily dispense with the investiture of the clergy. On this understanding peace was established at Sutri between pope and king. Paschal, who had been a monk before his elevation, undoubtedly executed in good faith this renunciation of the secular power of the Church. It was but a short step to the idea that the Church was a spiritual institution, and as such had no concern with earthly affairs. The king, however, cannot have doubted for a moment that the papal renunciation would fall before the opposition of both ecclesiastical and secular princes. Henry V was mean and deceitful, and sought to entrap the pope. The king having renounced his claim to investiture, the pope promulgated in St. Peter's on 12 February, 1112, the return of all temporalities to the Crown, but thereby raised (as Henry had foreseen) such a storm of opposition from the German princes that he was forced to recognize the futility of this attempt at settlement. The king then demanded that the right of investiture be restored, and that he should be crowned emperor; on the pope's refusal, he treacherously seized him and thirteen cardinals, and hurried them away from the now infuriated city. To regain his freedom, Paschal was forced, after two months imprisonment, to accede to Henry's demands. He granted the king unconditional investiture as an imperial privilege, crowned him emperor, and promised on oath not to excommunicate him for what had occurred. Henry had thus secured by force a notable success, but it could have no long duration. The more ardent members of the Gregorian party rebuked the "heretical" pope, and compelled him to retire step by step from the position into which he had been forced. The Lateran Synod of 1112 renewed the decrees of Gregory and Urban against investiture. Paschal did not wish to withdraw his promise directly, but the Council of Vienna, having declared the imperial privilegium (privilege, derivatively, a private law) a pravilegium (a vicious law), and as such null and void, it also excommunicated the emperor. The pope did not, however, break off all intercourse with Henry, for whom the struggle began to assume a threatening aspect, since now, as previously under his father, the difficulties raised by ecclesiastical opposition were aggravated by rebellion of the princes. The inconsiderate selfishness of the emperor, his mean and odious personality, made enemies on every side. Even his bishops now opposed him, seeing themselves threatened by him and believing him set on sole mastery. In 1114 at Beauvais, and in 1116 at Reims, Cologne, Goslar, and a second time at Cologne, excommunication of the emperor was repeated by papal legates. Imperial and irresolute bishops, who refused to join the papal party, were removed from their sees. The emperor's forces were defeated simultaneously on the Rhine and in Saxony. In 1116 Henry attempted to enter into negotiations with the pope in Italy, but no agreement was arrived at, as on this occasion Paschal refused to enter into a conference with the emperor. After Paschal's death (1118) even his tolerant successor, Gelasius II (1118-19), could not prevent the situation from becoming daily more entangled. Having demanded recognition of the privilege of 1111 and been referred by Gelasius to a general council, Henry made a hopeless attempt to revive the universally detested schism by appointing as antipope, under the name of Gregory VIII, Burdinus, Archbishop of Braga (Portugal), and was accordingly excommunicated by the pope. In 1119 Gelasius was succeeded by Guido of Vienna as Callistus II (1119-24); he had already excommunicated the emperor in 1112. Reconciliation seemed, therefore, more remote than ever. Callistus, however, regarded the peace of the Church as of prime importance, and as the emperor, already on better terms with the German princes, was likewise eager for peace, negotiations were opened. A basis for compromise lay in the distinction between the ecclesiastical and the secular elements in the appointment of bishops. This mode of settlement had already been discussed in various forms in Italy and in France, e. g. by Ivo of Chartres, as early as 1099. The bestowal of the ecclesiastical office was sharply distinguished from the investiture with imperial domains. As symbols of ecclesiastical installation, the ring and staff were suggested; the sceptre served as the symbol of investiture with the temporalities of the see. The chronological order of the formalities raised a new difficulty; on the imperial side it was demanded that investiture with the temporalities should precede consecration, while the papal representatives naturally claimed that consecration should precede investiture. If the investiture were to precede, the emperor by refusing the temporalities could prevent consecration; in the other case, investiture was merely a confirmation of the appointment. By 1119 the articles of peace were agreed upon at Mouzon and were to be ratified by the Synod of Reims. At the last moment, however, negotiations were broken off, and the pope renewed the excommunication of the emperor. But the German princes succeeded in reopening the proceedings, and peace was finally arranged between the legates of the pope, the emperor and the princes on 23 September, 1122. This peace is usually known as the Concordat of Worms, or the "Pactum Calixtinum". In the document of peace, Henry yields up "to God and his Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and to the Holy Catholic Church all investitures with ring and staff, and allows in all Churches of his kingdom and empire ecclesiastical election and free consecration". On the other hand, the pope grants to "his beloved son Henry, by the Grace of God Roman Emperor, that the election of bishops and abbots in the German Empire in so far as they belong to the Kingdom of Germany, shall take place in his presence, without simony or the employment of any constraint. Should any discord arise between the parties, the emperor shall, after hearing the advice and verdict of the metropolitans and other bishops of the province lend his approval and support to the better side. The elected candidate shall receive from him the temporalities (regalia) with the sceptre, and shall discharge all obligations entailed by such reception. In other portions of the empire, the consecrated candidate shall within six months receive the regalia by means of the sceptre, and shall fulfil towards him the obligations implied by this ceremony. From these arrangements is excepted all that belongs to the Roman Church" (i. e. the Papal States). The different parts of the empire were therefore differently treated; in Germany the investiture was to precede the consecration, while in Italy and Burgundy it followed the consecration and within the succeeding six months. The king was deprived of his unrestricted power in the appointment of bishops, but the Church also failed to secure the full exclusion of every alien influence from canonical elections. The Concordat of Worms was a compromise, in which each party made concessions. Important for the king were the toleration of his presence at the election (proesentia regis), which lent him a possible influence over the electors, and of investiture before consecration, whereby the elevation of an obnoxious candidate was rendered difficult or even impossible. The extreme ecclesiastical party, who condemned investitures and secular influence in elections under any form, were dissatisfied with these concessions from the very outset and would have been highly pleased, if Callistus had refused to confirm the Concordat. In appraising the significance of this agreement it remains to be seen whether it was intended as a temporary truce or an enduring peace. Doubts might very well be (and indeed have been) entertained on this matter, since formally the document is drawn up only for Henry V. But a close examination of our sources of information and of contemporary documents has shown that it is erroneous to maintain that the Concordat enjoyed but a passing recognition and was of small importance. Not only by the contracting parties, but also by their contemporaries, the compact was regarded as an enduring fundamental law. It was solemnly recognized not only as an imperial statute, but as a law of the Church by the Lateran OEcumenical Council of 1123. We also know from Gerhoh of Reichersberg, who was present at the council, that in addition to the imperial document, which it has been held was alone read, that of the pope was also read and sanctioned. As Gerhoh was one of the chief opponents of the Concordat, his evidence in favour of an unpleasant truth cannot be doubted. That the agreement was to possess perpetual binding power, neither party, of course, intended -- and the Concordat was very far from securing such continued recognition, since it reveals at most the anxiety of the Church for peace, under the pressure of certain circumstances. By new legislative act the provisions were modified. Under King Lothair (1125-37) and at the beginning of the reign of Conrad III (1138-52) the Concordat was still unchallenged and was observed in its entirety. In 1139, however, Innocent II, in the twenty-eighth canon of the Council of Rome, confined the privilege of electing the bishop to the cathedral chapter and the representatives of the regular clergy, and made no mention of lay participation in the election. The ecclesiastical party assumed that this provision annulled the king's participation in elections and his right to decide in the case of an equally divided vote of the electors. If their opinion was correct, the Church alone had withdrawn on this point from the compact, and the kings had no need to take cognizance of the fact. In truth the latter retained their right in this respect, though they used it sparingly, and frequently waived it. They had ample opportunity to make their influence felt in other ways. Frederick I (1152-90) was again complete master of the Church in Germany, and was generally able to secure the election of the candidate he favoured. In case of disagreement he took a bold stand and compelled the recognition of his candidate. Innocent III (1198-1216) was the first to succeed in introducing free and canonical election into the German Church. Royal investiture after his time was an empty survival, a ceremony without meaning. Such was the course and the consequence of the investiture conflict in the German Empire. In England and France, the strife never assumed the same proportions nor the same bitterness. It was owing to the importance of the German Empire and the imperial power that they had in the first instance to bear the brunt of the fight. Had they suffered defeat, the others could never have engaged in the contest with the Church. The Conflict in England In England the conflict is part of the history of Anselm of Canterbury (q. v.). As primate of England (1093-1109), he fought almost singlehanded for the canon law against king nobility and clergy. William the Conqueror (1066-87) had constituted himself sovereign lord of the Church in England; he ratified the decisions of the synods, appointed bishops and abbots, determined how far the pope should be recognized, and forbade all intercourse without his permission. The Church in England was therefore practically a national Church, in spite of its nominal dependence on Rome. Anselm's contest with William II (1087-1100) was concerned with other matters, but during his residence in France and Italy he was one of the supporters of ecclesiastical reform, and, being required on his return to take the oath of fealty to the new king (Henry I, 1100-35) and receive the bishopric from his hands, he refused to comply. This led to the outbreak of the investiture quarrel. The king despatched successive embassies to the pope to uphold his right to investiture, but without success. In his replies to the king and in his letters to Anselm, Paschal strictly forbade both the oath of fealty and all investitures by laymen. Henry then forbade Anselm, who was visiting Rome, to return to England, and seized his revenues, whereupon, in 1105, the pope excommunicated the councillors of the king and all prelates who received investiture at his hands. In the same year, however, an agreement was arrived at, and was ratified by the pope in 1106, and by the Parliament in London in 1107. According to this concordat the king renounced his claims to investiture, but the oath of fealty was still exacted. In the appointment of the higher dignitaries of the Church, however, the king still retained the greatest influence. The election took place in the royal palace, and, whenever a candidate obnoxious to the king was proposed, he simply proposed another, who was then always elected. The chosen candidate thereupon swore the oath of fealty, which always preceded the consecration. The separation of the ecclesiastical office from the bestowal of the temporalities was the sole object attained, an achievement of no very great importance. In France the question of investiture was not of such importance for the State as to give rise to any violent contention. The bishops had neither such power nor such extensive domains as in Germany, and but a certain number of the bishops and abbots were invested by the king, while many others were appointed and invested by the nobles of the kingdom, the counts and the dukes (i. e. for the so-called mediate bishoprics). The bishoprics were often dealt with in a very arbitrary manner, being frequently sold, presented as a gift, and bestowed upon kinsmen. After the reconciliation between the pope and king, in 1104, the right of appointment was tacitly renounced by the kings, and free election became the established rule. The king retained, however, the right of ratification, and exacted, usually after the consecration, the oath of fealty from the candidate before he entered on the use of the temporalities. After some minor conflicts, these conditions were extended to the mediate bishoprics. In some cases, e. g. in Gascony and Aquitaine, the bishop entered into immediate possession of the temporalities on the ratification of his election. It was in France, therefore, that the requirements of the Church were most completely fulfilled. MEYER VON KNONAU, Jahrbücher des deutschen Reiches unter Heinrich IV und Heinrich V, I-VII (Leipzig, 1890-1909); RICHTER, Annalen des deutschen Reiches im Zeitalter der Ottonen und Salier, II (Halle, 1897-98); HAMPE, Deutsche Kaisergeschichte in der Zeit der Salier und Staufer (Leipzig, 1909); HEFELE-KNÖPFLER, Conciliengeschichte, V (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1886); HAUCK, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands im Mittelalter, III (3rd and 4th eds., Leipzig, 1906); GFRÖRER, Papst Gregorius VII, I-VII (Schaffhausen, 1859-61); MARTENS, Gregor VII., I, II (Leipzig, 1894); SCHÄFER, Zur Beurteilung des Wormser Konkordats, in Abhandlungen der Berliner Akademie, phil.-hist. Klasse, I (1905), 1-95; BERNHEIM, Das Wormser Konkordat (Breslau, 1906); RUDORFF, Zur Erklärung des Wormser Konkordats (Weimar, 1906); SCHARNAGL, Der Begriff der Investitur (Stuttgart, 1908); SCHMITZ, Der englische Investiturstreit (Innsbruck, 1884); LIEBERMANN, Anselm von Canterbury und Hugo von Lyon in Hist. Aufsätze dem Andenken an G. Waitzgewidmet (Hanover, 1886); RULE, Life and Times of St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury (London, 1882); CHURCH, St. Anselm (London, 1888); IMBART DE LA TOUR, Les élections épiscopales dans l'église de France du IXe au XIIe siècle (Paris, 1890). KLEMENS LÖFFLER Invitatorium Invitatorium The Invitatorium, as the word implies, is the invitation addressed to the faithful to come and take part in the Divine Office. The psalm "Venite" has been used for this purpose from the earliest times. In the life of St. Porphyrius of Gaza we read that this saint, wishing the people to join in prayer, caused the "Venite exultemus Domino" to be sung, and the people replied "Alleluia" after each verse. In the Benedictine Office the "Venite exultemus Domino" is recited daily at the beginning of the nocturns in the night Office and is called the Invitatorium. It is never omitted, but the antiphons that follow each verse are changed according to whether it is a ferial or a saint's Office that is being recited. These antiphons are repeated twice before the psalm and once after the "Gloria Patri ". The Rule of St. Benedict calls this psalm the Invitatorium, while the Rule of the Master (Magister Anonymus, a Frankish author of the seventh century) calls it the Responsorium hortationis. The Mozarabic Liturgy makes use of an expressive word: sonus, as if to signify the bell that calls to the church. The most ancient Roman Liturgy we know of did not contain an Invitatorium; for it is omitted in the primitive liturgy, which is represented in our days by that of the last three days of Holy Week. If we find it in the Office of the Dead, it is because it was introduced at a later period. The Council of Aachen (816) mentions the invitatory psalm "Venite" and forbids its use in the Office of the Dead. This same canon, in speaking of the manner of reciting the Invitatorium, employs the very words of the Rule of St. Benedict, which shows clearly that the use of this psalm was closely connected with the monastic Office. The Invitatorium was purposely said slowly, like the preceding psalm: "Domine quid multiplicati sunt". This was to enable the monks who were coming to the vigil to arrive in time for the beginning of the Office. Indeed, it really seems that these two preliminary psalms (Ps. iii and xciv) were the prayers said privately by the monks while rising and coming to choir: "Ego dormivi et soporatus sum et exsurrexi." It is possible that in the course of time the custom was introduced of reciting them aloud in choir, while awaiting the arrival of those who were late, and thus, after a while, they were inserted in the Office itself. In effect, the psalm "Venite" would seem to be addressed to those who were to come to the vigil rather than to those who were already there. At Rome, on the feast of the Epiphany, there was no Invitatorium. The psalmody began, and still begins, with the psalms of the first nocturn and their antiphons. "Hodie non cantamus Invitatorium sed absolute incipimus" (To-day we chant no Invitatory but begin without it) is an instruction in a rubric of the Vatican antiphonary. The psalm "Venite" was recited with its own antiphon in its proper place, that is to say, the last of the psalms of the second nocturn. Later this psalm became the first psalm of the third nocturn, and the antiphon was repeated just as when it was used at the Invitatorium. Amalarius and Durandus of Mende try as usual to explain it mystically, but the most probable explanation is that the Invitatorium was suppressed because the psalm was recited later and they did not wish to recite it twice in the same Office. The Benedictine Breviary, which had hymns for its third nocturn, had not the same reason for excluding it and so retained it on the feast of the Epiphany. We see, nevertheless, that, before the ninth century, the Roman Liturgy had not the Invitatorium, at least not as regularly as the Benedictine Liturgy. It is likely that it was first introduced out of imitation of the monastic practice, on those days alone on which the people assisted at the vigil, when the Invitatorium would thus be addressed to some one. The "Ordines Romani" inform us that, on great festivals, two nocturnal offices were celebrated: one, without the Invitatorium, was recited by the priests of the papal chapel in their chapel; the other with the Invitatorium, at which the people assisted. Amalarius tells us that in his time only the Office for the vigil of Sunday had the Invitatorium, the ferial Office had not, because the people did not assist at it. On the feast of the Commemoration of the Dead the Invitatorium was recited, because the faithful came that day to pray for the deceased, but this brings us to a much later date. Most likely the origin of the Invitatorium is to be found in the call by which the monks were awakened: "Venite adoremus Dominum", which soon became the anthem or the refrain of the psalm "Venite exultemus Domino" which this prayer naturally recalled. Amalarius calls our attention to a peculiar fact. On week-days the Invitatorium was recited without the insertion of the antiphons: "Invitatorium diebus festivis hebdomadibus sine modulatione Antiphone solet dici." The version of the psalm "Venite exultemus" used in the Breviary is that of the ancient Roman psalter, which differs in some passages from the Vulgate. H. LECLERCQ School of Iona School of Iona Iona is the modern name derived by change of letter from Adamnan's Ioua; in Bede it is Hii; the Gaelic form is always I or Y, which becomes Hy by prefixing the euphonic h. This rugged, storm-swept island, three miles long and one in average breadth, and about a mile distant from the Ross of Mull, was next to Armagh the greatest centre of Gaelic Christianity -- the latter was Patrick's city and primatial see; the former Columba's monastic city, a "primatial island", and the light of all the North. Yet closely connected with Ireland for at least 600 years it may be described as an Irish island in the Scottish seas. Columba, born in 521 landed with twelve of his monks at the southern extremity of the island -- ever since called Porta Churraich, or the Bay of the Island -- on Whitsun Eve 12 May, 563. Whether he came to do penance for his share in the battle of Cuildreinhne two years before, or, as the Irish "Life" says, "to preach the Gospel to the men of Alba and to the Britons and to the Saxons" -- which in any case was his primary purpose -- we cannot now determine. It appears that he got a grant of the island from his relative Conall King of Dalriada. which was afterwards confirmed by Brude, King of the Picts, when the latter was converted by the preaching of Columba, who immediately set to work to build his monastery, more Scottorum of earth, timber, and wicker-work. Hence not a trace now remains of those perishable buildings -- all the existing ruins are medieval. A Celtic monastery consisted of a group of beehive cells around a central church or oratory, the other principal buildings being the common refectory or kitchen, the library or scriptorium, the abbot's house, and the guest-house. Adamnan, after Columba himself the brightest ornament of the School of Iona, in his "Life" of the founder, makes explicit references to the tabulae, waxen tablets for writing; to the pens and styles, graphia and calami, and to the ink-horn, cornicula atramenti, to be found in the scriptorium. Columba was certainly a most accomplished scribe if the "Book of Kells" be his own work, and he was engaged in copying one of the psalms when, overtaken by mortal illness, he directed his nephew Baithen to write the rest. And we are told, too, that Baithen during his brief abbacy of three years in succession to Columba was, like his master engaged in "writing, praying and teaching up to the hour of his happy death". When asked about the learning of Baithen, Fintan one of his monks replied: "Be assured that he had no equal on this side of the Alps in his knowledge of Sacred Scripture, and in the profundity of his science" -- and he was at once a pupil and a professor of the School of Iona. Language like this might be considered exaggerated if we did not possess the writings of Adamnan, the ninth abbot and the most illustrious scholar of Iona. Adamnan, otherwise Eunan, a native of Drumhome, in County Donegal, and a tribal relative of Columba, was educated from his youth in Iona, and it may be said that all his learning was the learning of Iona. His "Life of Columba", written at the request of the brotherhood, in Latin, not in Gaelic, is on the whole one of the most valuable works of the Western Church of the seventh century that have come down to us. He gives us more accurate and authentic information of the Gaelic Churches in Ireland and Scotland than any other writer, not excepting even Venerable Bede, who described him as "a good and wise man, and most nobly instructed in the knowledge of the Scriptures". But he was much more. We know from his writings that he was an accomplished Latin scholar, a Gaelic scholar too-Gaelic was his mother tongue-while he had a considerable acquaintance with Greek and some even with Hebrew. He was, moreover, painstaking, judicious, and careful in citing his authorities. He has also left us an admirable treatise "On the Holy Places" in Palestine which he compiled from the narrative of a shipwrecked French bishop named Arculfus, who returning from the Holy Land was cast on the shores of Iona. This is an invaluable treatise from which Bede has extracted long passages for his history, showing that its authority was as great in his own day as it has ever since continued to be in the estimation of scholars. This learned man was a true monk, and like Columba himself took a share in the manual labour of the monastery. With his own strong arms he helped to cut down as many oak trees in one of the neighbouring islands -- perhaps Erraid -- as sufficed to load twelve boats, and no doubt he had a share in building the boats and framing the monastic cells, like the cell of Columba, which was, he tells us, tabulis suffulta, framed of planks, and harundine tecta, thatched with reeds. During the century that closed with the death of Adamnan, Iona was in its glory, Columba and his monks had converted to the faith the whole of Pictland with its rulers. It sent three famous prelates to found and rule over Lindisfarne, second only to Iona itself as a centre of religious learning and influence in the North of Saxonland. Aidan, Finan, and Colman are men whose well-deserved eulogy has been recorded by Venerable Bede. The unhappy disputes about the frontal tonsure and the true time for celebrating Easter, caused much disturbance during the seventh century both in Iona itself and in its daughter houses. Even when Ireland and England had given up the strife and adopted the Roman Easter, the monks of Iona, true to the traditions of their sainted founder, still clung tenaciously to the old Easter. And so late as 716, when Iona itself conformed to the Roman usage, some of the daughter houses in Pictland stubbornly held to the ancient discipline. This stubbornness brought about a few years later the expulsion of the Columban monks from Pictland by Nectan, King of the Picts, who had accepted the Roman discipline. The ninth century brought woe and disaster to both Iona and Lindisfarne from the pagan Danes who ravaged all the British coasts. In 793 they destroyed the church of Lindisfarne with great rapine and slaughter. In 795 they made their first attack on Iona, but the monks on that occasion appear to have escaped with their lives. But in 806 sixty-eight of the community were slain at Port na Mairtir on the eastern shore of the island, and the white sands somewhat north were the scene of the massacre of another band of martyrs. A few years later again, in 814, Abbot Cellach found it necessary to transfer the primacy of the Columban Order from Iona-which Adamnan calls "this our primatial island"-to the monastery of Kells in Ireland, bringing with him the shrine containing Columba's relics which was however brought back later on. In 825 there was a further massacre of Iona monks, namely of St. Blaithmac who refused to give up the shrine, and his holy companions. Blaithmac's heroic death was celebrated in Latin verse by Walafridus Strabo, Abbot of Reichenau, South Germany. In 908 St. Andrews was formally recognized as the primatial see of Scotland, from which year we may date the disappearance of Iona's insular primacy. In the beginning of the thirteenth century, 1204, the ancient Celtic monastery finally disappeared, and a new Benedictine one was established by authority of the pope; but the original graveyard -- the Reilig Odhrain -- was still regarded as the holiest ground in Scotland, and is now crowded with the inscribed tombstones of the kings, chieftains and prelates who rest beneath. JOHN HEALY Ionian Islands Ionian Islands A group of seven islands (whence the name Heptanesus, by which they are also designated) and a number of islets scattered over the Ionian Sea to the west of Greece, between 36 deg. and 40 deg. N. lat., and 19 deg. and 23.5 deg. E. long. The seven islands are: Corfu (Kerkyra, Corcyra), Paxos, Leucadia or Santa Maura, Ithaca or Thiaki, Cephalonia, Zante or Zacynthus, and Cerigo or Cythera. Of the islets the most important are: Antipaxos, Othronos, and Anticythera or Cerigotto. The Ionian Isles have a total area of about 1095 square miles. The population amounts to 261,930, among them being 6615 Catholics of the Latin Rite, while the remainder, with the exception of a few thousand Jews and a small number of Mussulmans, belong to the Greek Orthodox Church. The climate of the islands is in general very mild and salubrious, and, in spite of the mountainous character of the land, there is a fairly extensive output of cotton, wine, oil, and raisins. The Ionian Isles are frequently mentioned or described by the ancient Greek and Latin authors, for whom they had many mythological associations. Many remains of antiquity are even to-day found on these islands (Rieman, "Recherches archéologiques sur les iles ioniennes," Paris, 1879-80). They all remained under Byzantine rule until about the end of the eleventh century, when the Normans of the Two Sicilies obtained possession of Corfu. In 1386 Venice took the islands, and retained them until the end of the eighteenth century. The Treaty of Campo Formio in 1797 gave them to France, which formed them into the three provinces of Ithaca, Corfu, and the Aegean Sea. In 1799 the Russian fleet seized the Ionian Isles, and they were constituted a small state tributary to Turkey, but in 1802 the Treaty of Amiens declared them free under the protectorate of Russia. In 1807 the Peace of Tilsit gave them back to France, and General Berthier was installed as their governor. The Second Treaty of Paris (November, 1815) placed them under English protection. An aristocratic government was then once more organized; the legislative functions were vested in a chamber of seventy deputies, eleven nominated by the Government and fifty-nine elected by the people; the executive power belonged to a Senate consisting of a president, appointed by the protecting power, and five senators elected for five years by the deputies from their own body. An English lord commissioner controlled foreign relations and the police. England enjoyed the right of garrisoning the forts and of military administration. After the French Revolution of 1848, an insurrection broke out in Cephalonia with the object of uniting the islands to Greece, but was rigorously repressed by England in 1849. From that time, however, the first vote of the Chamber, whenever it assembled, was in favour of the union with Greece, after which vote it was immediately dissolved. The English Government, after sending Mr. Gladstone to investigate the feeling of the population, at last decided to surrender the islands to Greece. King George I, upon ascending the throne at Athens, in 1863, consented to succeed Otho I only upon England's undertaking to cede the Ionian Archipelago to the Hellenic Kingdom. This cession was effected between 21 May and 2 June, 1864. The Ionian Isles have since then formed the three nomarchies, or departments, of Corfu, Cephalonia, and Zante. Cerigo alone has been incorporated in the continental nomarchy of Messenia. The Ionian Isles must have received the Gospel at a comparatively early date. The first known Bishop of Corfu is Apollodorus, or Alethodorus, who assisted at the Council of Nicaea in 325 (Gelzer, "Patrum nicaenorum nomina," LXIII, no. 168; see also the list of ancient Greek bishops in Le Quien, II, 232-5.) After the consummation of the Eastern Schism, the Ionian bishoprics remained in the power of the schismatics. Until 1260 the archipelago of the seven islands counted scarcely any Catholics. Under the domination of the House of Anjou, Catholicism made some progress there, and this was continued from 1386 to 1797, under Venetian rule. In the thirteenth century Zante and Cephalonia were made Latin bishoprics, suffragan to Corinth until 1386. These two dioceses (Zante and Cephalonia) were then made one and suffragan to Corfu, which was then raised to the status of an archbishopric (see the list of Latin bishops of the three sees in Le Quien, III, 877-82, 889-92; completed by Gams, 399, 430, and Eubel, I, 217). The political vicissitudes through which the Ionian Archipelago passed during the nineteenth century brought adversity to the Catholic missions, which, however, suffered less after 1850. At the time of the cession of the islands to Greece in 1864, the Hellenic Government promised to secure to the three Latin bishoprics their former rights and privileges. The archdiocese of Corfu (which besides the island of that name, comprises the islands and islets of Merlera, Phano, Samothrace, Paxos, and Antipaxos, as well as a few places in Epirus on the mainland between the towns of Parga and Sasina) is now governed by a resident archbishop, who is at the same time Administrator Apostolic of the Diocese of Zante-Cephalonia. This last diocese comprises, besides the two islands from which it derives its name, those of Santa Maura Leucas (or Leucadia), Ithaca, and Cerigo. The archdiocese numbers about 6000 Catholics, all of the Latin Rite; the Diocese of Zante-Cephalonia, 615 (Missiones catholicae, 1907, 145-7). (See CORFU, ARCHDIOCESE OF; ZANTE-CEPHALONIA, DIOCESE OF.) The Orthodox hierarchy until 1900 consisted of seven dioceses, one for each of the principal islands of the Ionian Archipelago; since then it has numbered but five, that of Paxos having been suppressed, and the two titles of Leucas and Ithaca united into one. Formerly dependent on the Phanar of Constantinople, the ecclesiastical eparchies of the ancient septinsular republic became connected in 1866 with the Holy Synod of Athens, to which they are still subject [Théarvic, "L'Eglise de Grèce" in Echos d'Orient," III (1899-1900), 288 sqq.]. (See GREECE.) BONDELMONTE, Liber insularum Archipelagi, written in fifteenth century and published by Sinner in 1824; KENDRICK, The Ionian Islands (London, 1822); MURRAY, Handbook for Travellers in the Ionian Islands (London, 1840); D'ISTRIA, Les iles Ioniennes sous la domination venitienne et le protectorat anglais (Athens, 1859); WHYTE-JERVIS, The Ionian Islands during the present century (London, 1864); LENORMANT, L'annexion des iles Ioniennes in Revue des Deux Mondes (Jan., 1864); KIRCKWALL, Four Years in the Ionian Islands (London, 1864); BURSIAN, Geographie von Griechenland, II (Leipzig, 1872); CHIOTIS, Historia tou Hioniou kratous (Athens, 1874); NOLHAC, La Damatie, les iles Ioniennes et le mont Athos (Paris, 1882); RIEMANN, Recherches archeologiques sur les iles Ioniennes (Paris, 1879-80); MAVROGIANNIS, Historia ton Hionion nesov (Athens, 1899). S. SALAVILLE Ionian School of Philosophy Ionian School of Philosophy The Ionian School includes the earliest Greek philosophers, who lived at Miletus, an Ionian colony in Asia Minor, during the sixth century B.C., and a group of philosophers who lived about one hundred years later and modified the doctrines of their predecessors in several respects. It is usual to distinguish, therefore, the Earlier Ionians and the Later Ionians. Earlier Ionians This group includes Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes, with whom the history of philosophy in Greece begins. They are called by Aristotle the first "physiologists", that is "students of nature". So far as we know they confined their philosophical enquiry to the problem of the origin and laws of the physical universe. They taught that the world originated from a primitive substance, which was at once the matter out of which the world was made and the force by which the world was formed. Thales said that this primitive substance was water; Anaximander said that it was "the boundless" (to apeiron); Anaximenes said that it was air, or atmospheric vapour (aer). They agreed in teaching that in this primitive substance there is an inherent force, or vital power. Hence they are said to be Hylozoists and Dynamists. Hylozoism is the doctrine of animated matter, and Dynamism the doctrine that the original cosmothetic force was not distinct from, but identical with, the matter out of which the universe was made. From the scanty materials that have come down to us -- a few fragments of the writings of the early Ionians, and allusions in Aristotle's writings -- it is impossible to determine whether these first philosophers were Theists or Pantheists, although one may perhaps infer from their hylozoistic cosmology that they believed God to be at once the substance and the formative force in the universe. Later Ionians This group includes Heraclitus Empedocles, and Anaxagoras, who lived in the fifth century B.C. These philosophers, like the early Ionians, were deeply interested in the problem of the origin and nature of the universe. But, unlike their predecessors, they distinguished the primitive world forming force from the primitive matter of which the world was made. In Heraclitus, however, and, to a certain degree, in Empedocles, this mechanism -- the doctrine that force is distinct from matter -- is expressed hesitatingly and in figurative language. Anaxagoras is the first Greek philosopher to assert definitely and unhesitatingly that the world was formed from a primitive substance by the operation of a force called Intellect. For this reason he is said by Aristotle to be "distinguished from the crowd of random talkers who preceded him" as the "first sober man" among the Greeks. Heraclitus was so impressed with the prevalence of change among physical things that he laid down the principle of panmetabolism: panta rei, "all things are in a constant flux". Empedocles has the distinction of having introduced into philosophy the doctrine of four elements, or four "roots", as he calls them, namely, fire, air, earth, and water, out of which the centripetal force of love and the centrifugal force of hatred made all things, and are even now making and unmaking all things. Anaxagoras, as has been said, introduced the doctrine of nous, or Intellect. He is blamed however, by Socrates and Plato for having neglected to make the most obvious application of that doctrine to the interpretation of nature as it now is. Having postulated a world-forming Mind, he should they pointed out, have proceeded to the principle of teleology, that the Mind presiding over natural processes does all things for the best. None of these early philosophers devoted attention to the problems of epistemology and ethics. Socrates was the first to conduct a systematic inquiry into the conditions of human knowledge and the principles of human conduct. WILLIAM TURNER Ionopolis Ionopolis A titular see in the province of Paphlagonia, suffragan of Gangres. The city was founded by a colony from Miletus already established at Sinope, and at first took the name of Abonouteichos. There, in the second century A.D., was born the false prophet Alexander, who caused the erection of a large temple to Apollo, and thus secured rich revenues. The city was afterwards called Ionopolis. Le Quien (Oriens Christ., I, 555) mentions eight bishops between 325 and 878; it had others since then, for the see is mentioned in the later "Notitiae episcopatuum." Ionopolis, to-day called Ineboli, is a Black Sea port, numbering 9000 inhabitants, 1650 of whom are Greek schismatics, and 230 Armenians; all the remainder are Turks. It is a caza of the sanjak and the vilayet of Castamouni, and enjoys a very healthy and pleasant climate. CUINET, La Turquie d'Asie, IV (Paris, 1894), 466-69. S. VAILHÉ Iowa Iowa Iowa is one of the North Central States of the American Union, and is about midway between the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans. It lies between two great rivers, the Mississippi and the Missouri, the Mississippi forming its eastern boundary and separating it from the States of Illinois and Wisconsin; the Missouri and its chief tributary, the Big Sioux, forming its western boundary, and separating it from the States of Nebraska and South Dakota. It extends from 40 deg. 36 min. to 43 deg. 30 min. north latitude. In the south-east corner, in Lee County, the boundary projects below the parallel, following the channel of the Des Moines River down to its junction with the Mississippi. The state is 310 miles from east to west and 210 miles from north to south, and has an area of 56,025 square miles, or 35,856,000 acres, being nearly the same size as Wisconsin or Illinois. Physical Characteristics The surface of the state is an undulating prairie, part of the Great Central Plain of North America. It rises gradually from the south-east corner, where the lowest point is but 444 feet above the sea-level, towards the north-west, to the Divide (an elevated plain beginning in Dickinson County in the north-western part of the state), where the highest point (1694 feet) is reached. The ridge then crosses the state from north to south, parallel with the western boundary and about 60 miles east of it, until it reaches Adair County, whence it sweeps eastwards to Appanoose County. That part of the state east of the Divide, comprising over two-thirds of its surface, is drained by rivers flowing in a southeasterly direction into the Mississippi and its tributaries. The principal rivers of this system are the upper Iowa, Turkey, Maquoketa, Wapsipinicon, Cedar, Skunk, and Des Moines. Of these the Des Moines is by far the largest and most important, rising in Minnesota and flowing diagonally across the entire state. West of the Divide the rivers flow southwesterly into the Missouri and its tributaries, and, as the watershed is near the western boundary of the state, the rivers have shorter courses and a more rapid flow than those of the eastern system. The principal western rivers are the Big Sioux, Rock, Floyd, Little Sioux, Boyer, and Nishnabotna. The principal lakes of Iowa are Spirit Lake, which is the largest, Lake Okoboji, a popular summer resort, Clear Lake, and Storm Lake. These are small but beautiful sheets of water situated in the north-western part of the state which is an extension of the lake region of Minnesota. Along the largest rivers are valleys from one to ten miles in width, bordered by irregular lines of bluffs. The picturesque ravines and bold rocky bluffs, ranging in height from 200 to 400 feet, along the Mississippi from Dubuque northwards, lend to that portion of the river a striking beauty all its own. There is but little native forest in the state, the timber being chiefly confined to the valleys of the rivers and the bordering bluffs. It was found, however, that all deciduous trees throve on the soil of the prairies; by special legislation, offering fiscal privileges, the farmers were encouraged to plant, and now woodland groves near the farmhouses are seen in all parts of the state, adding picturesqueness to the scenery. The principal trees are the cottonwood, ash, elm, maple, hickory, black walnut, poplar, box elder, cedar, and varieties of oak. There are no miasmatic bottomlands in the state; the air is dry and invigorating, and the general climatic influences salubrious. During the last ten years (1899 to 1908 inclusive) the average extremes of temperature were 102 deg. above to 31 deg. below zero; the average mean temperature was 48 deg. above zero. During the same time the average rainfall was 33 inches. For the year 1908, the mean temperature was 49.5 deg.; the highest temperature was 101 deg. (3 August) in Mahaska and Wapello Counties in the southern part of the state; the lowest temperature reported for the year was 18 deg. below zero (29 January) in Emmet and Winnebago Counties in the northern part of the state. The average amount of rain and melted snow for the year was 35.26 inches. Industries and General Social Conditions Iowa has less waste land than any other of the United States, 97 per cent of its surface being tillable. The soil of the greater part of the state consists of a dark drift loam from two to five feet deep and of wonderful fertility. In the western part of the state is found the bluff soil, or loess, believed to be the deposit of the winds from the plains of Kansas and Dakota; this soil is deep and very rich, and is peculiarly adapted to the growth of fruit trees. The soil of the river valleys consists of waste carried down from higher levels, and is known as alluvium; it is the richest soil in the state. Because of the richness of its soil Iowa has long held a leading place among the agricultural states of the Union. Travellers over the state cannot but be impressed by the sight of its vast fields of Indian corn and oats. More than one-half of its population are engaged in farming. The value of the agricultural products of the state in 1908, according to the United States Department of Agriculture, was $376,076,646. This includes 287,456,000 bushels of Indian corn, valued at $149,477,000, and 110,444,000 bushels of oats, valued at $46,386,000. The state ranks first in the production of oats and in the number of swine; second only to Illinois in the production of corn, second to Texas in the number of meat cattle, second to New York in the number of dairy cows, and second to Illinois in the number of horses. Iowa is famous for its dairy products, and the State Department of Agriculture estimates the value of these products for the year 1908 at $44,500,000. The most important mineral deposit in the state is bituminous coal; the coal-fields include an area of approximately 20,000 square miles in the southern and central parts of the state. The output in 1908 was 7,149,517 tons, valued at $11,772,228. Gypsum for stucco and plaster is found in Webster County, and clay for tile- and brick-making is abundant. In the year 1908 the value of clay products was $4,078,627. The mines in the vicinity of Dubuque, which attracted the first white people to the state, and which became known as the Mines of Spain, are still yielding lead and zinc ore. The manufactures of the state are steadily increasing, because of its growth and prosperity, and the possession of native coal. The value of the output of manufactures for the last statistical year, 1905, was $160,572,313. The Mississippi is now the only river navigable for large boats, the shifting channel and sand-bars of the Missouri constituting great obstacles to navigation. But the facilities for transportation are excellent, the state being covered by a network of railways, including seven great trunk lines. The total mileage of railways in the state, in 1908, was 9886.2 and the total mileage of electric interurban railways was 245.18. According to Federal estimates made in 1908, the population of Iowa was 2,196,970. By the last State Census (1905) the population -- 2,210,050 -- was made up of: 1,264,443 native whites of native parentage; 648,532 native whites of foreign parentage; 282,296 foreign-born whites; 14,831 coloured. There were only 53 Chinese in the state; but 39 per cent of the foreign-born population were born in Germany. Added to the immigrants from Germany, those from Sweden, Norway, and Denmark make 63.69 per cent of the foreign-born population derived from Teutonic races. Eight per cent of the foreign-born came from Ireland. Most of the native-born population are descendants of immigrants from the New England States, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Illinois. There were many Frenchmen among the earliest settlers (Bishop Loras preached sermons in the cathedral in French as well as in English), but there are now but few descendants of French families in the state. Prior to 1852, the immigrants from foreign countries were largely from Ireland and Germany, with the Irish in the majority; these immigrants settled in the eastern part of the state, and there were among them a large proportion of Catholics. But since that year the immigration has been largely from the Teutonic nations. The State Census of 1905 gives the membership of the four leading Churches as follows: Methodist Episcopal, 162,688; Catholic, 158,000; Lutheran, 91,889; Presbyterian, 47,765. According to Federal estimates in 1908, Des Moines, the capital and largest city, had a population of 83,717; the next largest cities in order are Dubuque, Sioux City, and Davenport. An admirably organized system of public schools exists throughout the state, generous provision for that purpose having been made by the State Constitution. The schools are supported chiefly by local taxation and the interest on the permanent school fund. Education is compulsory, the parents and guardians of children between the ages of seven and fourteen years inclusive being compelled to send them to some public, parochial, or private school for at least sixteen consecutive weeks during each school year. By statute passed in 1909, the attendance of the children during these sixteen weeks is excused for such time as they are attending religious service or receiving religious instruction. The State Superintendent of Public Instruction has general supervision of the public schools. In each county there is elected a county superintendent. Some of the townships of the counties constitute each a single district having one or two central schools, but generally the townships are subdivided into subdistricts and independent districts, where the latter consist of cities, the schools are managed by boards of education. No religious instruction is given, the Bible is not excluded from any public school or institution, but no pupil can be required to read it contrary to the wishes of his parent or guardian. In 1908 the number of schoolhouses was 13,914, the number of teachers 27,950, the enrolment of pupils 526,269, and the total appropriation for educational purposes for the year $1,936,363. There are 534 high schools in the state in which the course of study, generally speaking, covers four years. The State University, the head of the public school system is located at Iowa City. It was established in 1847; in 1908 it had 164 professors and instructors, and 2315 students enrolled. The State also maintains the College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts, at Ames, and the Normal School at Cedar Falls. There are in the state 276 private denominational and higher educational institutions. The Juvenile Court Law has been for several years in force in Iowa. Under the provisions of the law, offending children under the age of sixteen years are no longer treated as criminals, nor confined in jails. They, as well as neglected children, are treated as wards of the state and, under the supervision of probationary officers, are kept in their own or other homes, or sent to the State Industrial Schools. Many girls are sent to the Houses of the Good Shepherd. Catholic Education Through the unremitting zeal of the present Archbishop of Dubuque and his predecessors in office, and their labours among the clergy and people, the cause of Catholic religious education has so advanced that parochial schools exist in all the parishes of considerable size in the state, and are taught chiefly by religious orders. In the year 1909, there are in the state 36,942 pupils attending the parochial schools. These schools are supplemented by 36 academies and high schools in which 5812 students are taught; and to complete the system are two diocesan colleges: St. Joseph's College, at Dubuque, with 280 students, and St. Ambrose College, at Davenport, with 167 students. At Dubuque, the metropolitan city of the archdiocese, where the enrolled number of pupils attending the public schools is 4084, the number attending the parochial schools is 3000. The city is surrounded by a cordon of Catholic institutions, educational and charitable, and has become widely known as a centre of Catholic education. History The first white men who saw Iowa were the French Jesuit Father Marquette and Louis Joliet, who on the 17th day of June, 1673, coming down the mouth of the Wisconsin River, discovered the Mississippi and faced the picturesque bluffs of the Iowa shore. The first landing on Iowa territory recorded by Father Marquette in his journal was near Montrose, in Lee County, where he had a peaceful and memorable meeting with the natives. One hundred and fifteen years passed away from the time of Father Marquette's discovery until the first white settlement was made within the limits of the state. In 1788 Julien Dubuque, a French Canadian trader, obtained from the Indians a grant of land, in which to mine for lead; it extended seven leagues along the west bank of the Mississippi and was three leagues in width, including the territory on which now stands the city of Dubuque. This grant was afterwards confirmed by Baron de Carondelet, the Spanish governor of the province of Louisiana, and the strip of land became known as the Mines of Spain. Here Dubuque, with ten other Canadians, and aided by the Indians, operated the mines until his death in 1810, when the whites were driven out. Dubuque was buried on the top of an isolated bluff just below the present limits of the city of Dubuque, and a large cross marked his grave for many years. This became a well-known landmark to river men on the upper Mississippi, and is mentioned in books of travel. In 1832, in the territory east of the Mississippi, occurred the war with the Indians known as the Black Hawk War. This resulted in a treaty, made in the same year, by which the Indians relinquished that part of Iowa known as the Black Hawk Purchase, containing six million acres of land, lying immediately west of the Mississippi River, about ninety miles in width, and north of the Missouri State line. Although this was not the first concession of territory in Iowa by the Indians, it was the first which opened any portion of the land for settlement by the whites. Settlements were made in 1833 at Dubuque and at other points near the Mississippi River. Within ten years the title to practically all of the state was secured by treaties with the Indians. Attracted by glowing accounts of the richness of the soil, immigrants came pouring in from the New England states, New York, Illinois, Ohio, Kentucky, North Carolina, Missouri, and other states. In 1834 that part of the Louisiana Purchase now included in the State of Iowa was made a part of the Territory of Michigan; in 1836 it was attached to, and made a part of, the new Territory of Wisconsin, and in 1838 was established separately as the Territory of Iowa. On 28 December, 1846, it was admitted to the Union as the twenty-ninth State, being the fourth state created out of the Louisiana Purchase. In 1854 the first railroad was built from Davenport west, and railroad-building then extended rapidly. In the same year was passed a law, prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors which, with some changes, is still on the statute books. In 1857 the state adopted a revised Constitution which, with a few amendments, is still the law. The progress of the state was checked by the Civil War, at the close of which, however, immigration recommenced, and population and wealth increased. Although the population in 1860 was less than 700,000, the state furnished, during the Civil War, 75,519 volunteers. The Church in Iowa The first Mass celebrated within the limits of Iowa was said in the year 1833, by the Rev. C.P. Fitzmorris, of Galena, Illinois, in the home of Patrick Quigley in the city of Dubuque, and the first Catholic church in the state was built at Dubuque by the celebrated Dominican missionary, Samuel Mazzuchelli, in 1836. On 10 December, 1837, the Very Rev. Mathias Loras, Vicar-General of the Diocese of Mobile, Alabama, was consecrated first Bishop of Dubuque. Bishop Loras was a native of Lyons, France, and was a worthy comrade of Bl. Jean Baptiste Vianney, the celebrated Curé of Ars. Going to France for priests and financial aid, Bishop Loras arrived in Dubuque with two priests and four deacons on the 19th day of April, 1839. His diocese included all the territory between the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers, from the northern limit of the State of Missouri to the British Possessions. In his diocese he found but three churches and one priest, Father Mazzuchelli. The indefatigable labours of Bishop Loras in personally attending to the spiritual wants of the scattered settlers in his vast territory, in building churches and procuring funds, and in inducing immigration from the Eastern States and from Europe, have secured him a high rank among the pioneer missionaries and church-builders of this country. In 1843, he brought from Philadelphia the Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who established their mother-house near Dubuque and have become widely known as successful teachers. In 1849 he gave a home to the Trappist monks from Mount Melleray, Ireland, who founded the Abbey of New Melleray, still in existence, twelve miles from Dubuque. When he died (19 February, 1858) there were within the limits of the State of Iowa, 48 priests, 60 churches, and a Catholic population of 54,000. In 1850 the territory north of the State of Iowa had been formed into the Diocese of St. Paul. He was succeeded by his coadjutor, the Rt. Rev. Clement Smyth, who had been Prior of New Melleray Abbey. Bishop Smyth was a man of great scholarly attainments and was the founder of the school for young men which still flourishes in the Abbey of Mount Melleray, Ireland. His uniform courtesy and gentleness won all hearts, and he was noted for his ardent patriotism during the strenuous days of the Civil War. During his short episcopacy he cemented and greatly extended the work of Bishop Loras and died 23 September, 1865, lamented by priests and people. On 30 September, 1866, in St. Raphael's Cathedral, Dubuque, the Rev. John Hennessy, pastor of St. Joseph's church, St. Joseph, Missouri, was consecrated Bishop of Dubuque. Bishop Hennessy was renowned as a pulpit orator, and was a man of rare executive ability. The thirty-four years of his episcopacy were an era of great progress for the Diocese of Dubuque. Priests and teachers, churches and schools were multiplied in all parts of the state, new religious orders were introduced, and hospitals and asylums founded. The work became too great for one man, and in 1881 the diocese was divided, and the new Diocese of Davenport founded, comprising the southern portion of the state. In 1893 Bishop Hennessy was made first Archbishop of Dubuque; he died 4 March, 1900. On 24 July, 1900, Rome selected as successor to Archbishop Hennessy, the Most Rev. John J. Keane, titular Archbishop of Damascus, at one time Bishop of Richmond, Va., and first rector of the Catholic University of America. The results of his great ability and wide experience are shown in the marvelous growth of the Church within the limits of the state since his arrival. In the Archdiocese of Dubuque, he has thoroughly organized his clergy, increased the number of priests and parishes, and, by his episcopal visitations, has become acquainted with all parts of his territory. The cause of religious education has been the object of his special care, and the flourishing state of St. Joseph's College and other institutions of higher learning, and the number of children attending the parochial schools demonstrate the success of his labours. He expends all the revenues from the property of the archdiocese in the building of churches and schools. Among new orders introduced by him are: the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, who have two houses, one in Dubuque, the other in Sioux City; the Sisters of the Order of St. Dominie; the Brothers of Mary. He has also organized an apostolate band of diocesan priests. An enthusiastic advocate of temperance, many temperance societies have been formed at his instance. At his advent, in the cities in the eastern part of the state, the provisions of the modified liquor law, known as the Mulct Law, were entirely ignored, and saloons were open on Sundays. Archbishop Keane, by his sermons and addresses, and attendance at public meetings, aroused public sentiment in favour of the law, with the result that now, in all parts of the state, the Mulct Law is strictly carried out, and the observance of Sundays enforced. In 1902, at the instance of the archbishop, twenty-four counties in the north-western part of the state were separated from the archdiocese and formed into the Diocese of Sioux City. The province of Dubuque includes the States of Iowa, Nebraska, and Wyoming. The State of Iowa is divided into three dioceses. (1) The Archdiocese of Dubuque occupies that part of the state north of the counties of Polk, Jasper, Poweshiek, Iowa, Johnson, Cedar, and Scott, and east of the counties of Kossuth, Humboldt, Webster, and Boone, and has an area of 18,048 square miles. (2) The Diocese of Sioux City comprises 24 counties in the north-western part of the state, west of Winnebago, Hancock, Wright, Hamilton, and Story Counties, and north of Harrison Shelby, Audubon, Guthrie, and Dallas Counties, its area being 14,518 square miles. The present Bishop of Sioux City is the Rt. Rev. Philip Joseph Garrigan, residing at Sioux City, Iowa. (3) The Diocese of Davenport, with an area of 22,873 square miles, comprises all that portion of the state south of the other two dioceses and extends from the Mississippi River to the Missouri River. The present Bishop of Davenport is the Rt. Rev. James Davis, Davenport, Iowa. In 1909, according to the Wiltzius "Official Catholic Directory," there were in the state 579 churches, 492 priests, 27 different religious orders, 28 hospitals and asylums, and a total of 37,154 children being taken care of in schools and other institutions. The Catholic population of the state is as follows: Diocese of Dubuque 111,112; Diocese of Davenport, 75,518; Diocese of Sioux City, 54,543. Total Catholic population, 241,173. The best of feeling exists amongst the different denominations, and there is but little bigotry anywhere in the state. The Constitution provides that the General Assembly shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and that no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office, or public trust, and no person shall be deprived of any of his rights, privileges, or capacities, or disqualified from the performance of any of his public or private duties, or rendered incompetent to give evidence in any court of law or equity in consequence of his opinions on the subject of religion. By statute, the disturbance of public worship is punished by fine or imprisonment, and the breach of Sunday by "carrying firearms, dancing, hunting, shooting, horse racing, or in any manner disturbing a worshipping assembly or private family, or buying or selling property of any kind, or engaging in any labour except that of necessity or charity" is punished by fine and imprisonment. In general all stores in cities and towns are closed on Sunday. The customary form of oath is: "I do solemnly swear." Placing the hand on the Bible is not required. A person conscientiously opposed to taking an oath may affirm. The use of blasphemous or obscene language is prohibited under penalty of fine and imprisonment. By custom, a chaplain is appointed by each branch of the Legislature, and the daily sessions are opened with prayer. In addition to Sunday, the only days which are recognized as religious holidays are Christmas and Thanksgiving Day. By statute, no minister of the Gospel, or priest of any denomination is allowed, in giving testimony, to disclose any confidential communications properly entrusted to him in his professional capacity and proper to enable him to discharge the functions of his office according to the usual course of practice or discipline. The statutes of the state provide that any three or more persons of full age, a majority of whom shall be citizens, may incorporate themselves for the establishment of churches, colleges, seminaries, temperance societies, or organizations of a benevolent, charitable, or religious character. Any corporation so organized may take and hold by gift, purchase, devise, or bequest, real and personal property for purposes appropriate to its creation. The corporation shall endure for fifty years and may be then reincorporated. As a rule, real estate in the State of Iowa belonging to the Catholic Church is held in each diocese in the name of the bishop. All grounds and buildings used for benevolent and religious institutions and societies devoted to the appropriate objects of these institutions, not exceeding 160 acres in extent, and not leased or otherwise used with a view to pecuniary profit, are exempt from taxation. Cemeteries are also exempt. The State imposes what is called a collateral inheritance tax of 5 per cent on all property within the state which passes, by will, or by the statutes of inheritance, or by deed to take effect after the death of the grantor, to collateral heirs or strangers to the blood. From this tax are exempt bequests or deeds to charitable, educational, or religious institutions within the state, and, by a statute passed in 1909, there is also exempt from this tax "any bequest not to exceed $500 to and in favour of any person having for its purpose the performance of any religious service to be performed for and in behalf of decedent or any person named in his or her last will, or any cemetery associations," thus exempting bequests for Masses. Clergymen are excused from jury service, and the Constitution of the State provides "that no person having conscientious scruples against bearing arms shall be compelled to do military duty in time of peace." Prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors is still the law of the state, but in cities where a majority of the voters consent, liquors may be sold by complying with the "Mulct Law," the principal conditions imposed by which are: the written consent of the owners of property situated within fifty feet of the proposed place of sale; the payment of a tax of $600 annually to the state; the giving of a bond of $3000. The liquors must be sold in one room, having but one exit, with no tables or chairs therein and no curtains on the windows to obstruct the view; there must be no sales to minors or drunkards, nor after ten o'clock at night; the place must be closed on Sundays and legal holidays, and in no case shall the business be conducted within 300 feet of a church building or schoolhouse. In the state penitentiaries, each warden is required to appoint "some suitable minister of the Gospel as chaplain" and all regular officiating ministers of the Gospel are authorized to visit the penitentiaries at pleasure. This privilege is, in fact, true of all public institutions of the state. Marriage is regarded as a civil contract, and, outside of the usual degrees of consanguinity, is valid between a male of sixteen years and a female of fourteen years. It can be solemnized by any minister of the Gospel or civil magistrate. Previous to the solemnization, a licence must be obtained from the clerk of the district court of the county in which the marriage is to be performed. If the parties are minors the written consent of their parents or guardians is required. Divorces can be granted by the district court for any of the following causes: desertion, adultery, felony, habitual drunkenness, cruel and inhuman treatment. In no case can either of the parties divorced marry again within a year, unless specially permitted to do so by the decree. Any person of full age and of sound mind can make a valid testamentary disposition of all his property subject to the homestead and dower right of his wife and the payment of his debts. But no devise or bequest to any corporation organized for religious, charitable, or educational purposes or for any purpose of a similar character, is valid in excess of one-fourth of the testator's estate after payment of debts, in case a wife, child, or parent survive the testator. The will must be in writing, signed by the testator in presence of two witnesses, who must attest the same in writing, except that verbal wills of personal property to the value of three hundred dollars are valid. Associations for cemetery purposes may be incorporated under statutes provided for that purpose, and the land so occupied is exempt from tax, but throughout the state Catholic cemeteries, like all other church property, is held in the name of the bishop of the diocese. For reasons, none of which had anything to do with religion, Catholics have generally allied themselves with the Democratic party which has for many years been the minority party in the state, and therefore few of them have attained political eminence. The following Catholic laymen have been prominent in the history of the state: George W. Jones, first delegate to Congress from Michigan Territory, introduced in Congress bills creating the Territory of Wisconsin and the Territory of Iowa, afterwards U.S. Senator from Iowa for twelve years, and Minister to Bogota; Patrick Quigley, pioneer benefactor of the Church; Charles Corkery, postmaster of Dubuque under President Buchanan, and prominent in colonization work; D.A. Mahony, founder and first editor of the Telegraph-Herald, and imprisoned in Fort Lafayette by order of Secretary Stanton; John S. Murphy, a brilliant editor of the same paper; William J. Knight, one of the leaders of the Bar of the state and counsel for two railways; M.J. Wade, Representative in Congress; M.D. O'Connell, Solicitor of the Treasury, Washington; Jerry B. Sullivan, Democratic candidate for Governor. GUE, History of Iowa (New York, 1903); SALTER, Iowa (Chicago, 1905); DE CAILLY, Life of Bishop Loras (New York, 1897); Census of Iowa, 1905 (Des Moines); Statistical Abstract of U.S., 1908 (Washington); Census of Manufactures, 1905, Iowa Bulletin No. 32 (Washington, 1906); Climatological Service, Iowa Section, Report for December, 1908 (Washington); Crop Reporter, Department of Agriculture, December, 1908 (Washington); Biennial Report, Department of Public Instruction (Des Moines, 1909). JOHN I. MULLANY Arnold Ipolyi Arnold Ipolyi (Family name originally STUMMER) Bishop of Grosswardein (Nagy-Várad), b. at Ipoly-Keszi, 20 Oct., 1823; d. at Grosswardein, 2 December 1886. At the age of thirteen years he entered the ranks of the alumni of the Archdiocese of Gran (Esztergom), studied two years in the Emericianum at Presburg (Pozsony) and later at Tyrnau (Nagy-Szombat), and finished at the Pazmaneum at Vienna, where he attended lectures on theology for four years. In 1844 he entered the seminary of Gran, took minor orders in 1845, and was ordained priest in 1847. From 1845 to 1847 he acted as tutor in the family of Baron Mednyánszky, was then curate at Komorn-Sankt-Peter (Komárom-Szen-Péter), in 1848 preacher at Presburg, in 1849 spent a short time as tutor in the family of Count Palffy, and became in this year parish priest of Zohor. Even before his ordination he concerned himself with historical and art-historical matters. In 1854 his "Ungarische Mythologic" came out, as the firstfruit of his work, in which he treats of the ancient religion of Hungary. Although the work won the prize offered by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the author afterwards withdrew it from the press, so that at the present time it is very rare. In 1860 Ipolyi became parish priest at Török-Szent-Miklós. Accompanied by Franz Kubinyi and Emerich Henszlmann, he made in 1862 a journey to Constantinople, where he discovered the remainder of the library of Matthias Corvinus. In 1863 he was made canon of Eger, and in 1869 director of the Central Ecclesiastical Seminary at Pesth; in 1871 he became Bishop of Neusohl (Besztereze-Bánya), and in 1886 Bishop of Grosswardein where he died on 2 December of the same year. Ipolyi was member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, as well as a member of different learned Societies at home and abroad. He was one of the founders and at first vice-president, then president of the Hungarian Historical Society. His literary activity extended into the provinces of history, art-history, archaeology, and Christian art. He enriched the Hungarian National Gallery with sixty valuable paintings. He bequeathed to Grosswardein in his will, for the purpose of founding a museum, his collections which had been brought together with a great expert knowledge of art. Of his literary works, in addition to his "Mythologie", the following are well known: "Biography of Michael Veresmarti", an author of the seventeenth century (Budapest, 1875); the "Codex epistolaris Nicolai Olah", in tyhe "Monumenta Hungariae Historica: Scriptorum", XXV (Budapest, 1876); the "Biographie der Christina Nyáry von Bedez" (Budapest, 1887), in Hungarian; also the "Historische und kunsthistorische Beschreibung der ungarischen Kronisignien" (Budapest, 1886), in Hungarian. A collection of his lesser works has appeared in five volumes (Budapest, 1887). SZINNYEY, Leben und Werke ungarischer Schriftsteller, V, 145-158; POR, Leben und Werke A. Ipolyyis, Bischofs von Grosswardein (Presburg, 1886); also the memorial oration on Ipolyi by FRAKNOI in Jahrbuch der Ung. Akademie der Wissenschaften, XVII, 1888 (all in Hungarian). A. ALDASY Bl. Ippolito Galantini Blessed Ippolito Galantini Founder of the Congregation of Christian Doctrine of Florence; b. at Florence of obscure parentage, 12 October. 1565; d. 20 March, 1619. While still a child a wonderful cure turned his thoughts towards the service of God, and he devoted himself to teaching the truths of the Christian religion in the Jesuit church of Florence. He was only twelve years old when he attracted the attention of the Archbishop Alexander de' Medici (afterwards Leo XI), who gave him the church of Sta Lucia al Prato in which to carry on his work. He divided his time between his trade of silk-weaving and the religious instruction of poor children and adults, and at sixteen felt impelled to found a society for this purpose. The opposition aroused by his solicitude for the poor he overcame by the exercise of wonderful patience. Generous benefactors made it possible for him to erect an oratory, which Clement VIII dedicated in honour of St. Francis, in 1602, and in which the work begun at Sta Lucia was continued. The foundation was called the Congregation of Christian Doctrine under the invocation of Sts. Francis and Lucy. It was divided into fifteen classes, according to the age and religious knowledge of the pupils, each class being governed by special rules and assisting in the instruction of the class below. The members of the first class were admitted to the congregation after a good confession. Ippolito was indefatigable in his work, collecting alms from the wealthy Florentines, which he distributed among the poor, founding and reorganizing branches of his congregation, which spread to Volterra, Lucca, Pistoia, Modena, etc. He introduced the practice of nocturnal adoration to draw the people from the theatre and sinful amusements. In Florence, the members of his congregation, by reason of their modesty, were called Van Chetoni. Ippolito was the object of violent persecution, envy and malice accusing him of sharing the errors of Luther, of introducing new rules and reforms. One of his spiritual sons accused him before the pope and Grand Duke Cosimo of excessive severity, but the charge was not sustained, and Ippolito's congregation was declared to be for God's glory and the public good. Shortly before the holy man's death the grand duke founded a perpetual chaplaincy for the order. Ippolito made a pilgrimage to Loreto to place his foundation under the protection of the Blessed Virgin. The statutes of the congregation were approved by the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, and confirmed by Leo XII in a decree of 17 September, 1824. The founder was beatified by the same pontiff, 13 May, 1825. His ascetical works, written for the government and direction of his congregation, had been approved by Benedict XIV in 1747, and were published at Rome in 1831, together with a brief life of the saint by Canon Antonio Santelli. BRISCHAR in Kirchenlex., s.v. Doctrinarier. BLANCHE M. KELLY Ipsus Ipsus A titular see of Phrygia Salutaris, suffragan of Synnada. The locality was famous as the scene of the great battle fought in 301 B.C.between the successors of Alexander, in which Antigonus was slain and his kingdom divided between his rivals. As Ipsos or Hypsos the city is mentioned by Hierocles and George of Cyprus and in most of the medieval "Notitiae Epicopatuum". Le Quien (Oriens Christianus, I, 840-4I), names four of its bishops; Lucian, at the Council of Chalcedon in 451; George, at the Seventh Council in 787, Photius and Thomas at the Councils of Constantinople in 868 and 878. The city was situated at the junction of two roads, one leading to Byzantium and the other towards Sardeis; the exact site has not been discovered. Modern geographers identify it with the ruins of Ipsili-Hissar; others, like Ramsay ("Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia", Oxford, 1897, 748), with those of Tchai, 82 miles from Apamea. S. VAILHÉ Ireland Ireland GEOGRAPHY Ireland lies in the Atlantic Ocean, west of Great Britain, from which it is separated in the north-east by the North Channel, in the east by the Irish Sea, and in the south-east by St. George's Channel. Situated between the fifty-first and fifty-sixth degrees of latitude, and between the fifth and eleventh parallels of longitude (Greenwich), its greatest length is 302 miles, its greatest breadth 174 miles, its area 32,535 square miles. It is divided into four provinces, these being subdivided into thirty-two counties. In the centre the country is a level plain; towards the coast there are several detached mountain chains. Its rivers and bays are numerous, also its bogs; its climate is mild, though unduly moist. In minerals it is not wealthy like Great Britain, but is soil is generally more fertile, and is specially suitable for agriculture and pasturage. EARLY HISTORY In ancient times it was known by the various names of Ierna, Juverna, Hibernia, Ogygia, and Inisfail or the Isle of Destiny. It was also called Banba and Erin, and lastly Scotia, or the country of the Scots. From the eleventh century, however, the name Scotia was exclusively applied to Caledonia, the latter country having been peopled in the sixth century by a Scottish colony from Ireland. Henceforth Ireland was often called Scotia Major and sometimes Ireland, until, after the eleventh century, the name Scotia was dropped and Ireland alone remained. Even yet it is sometimes called Erin--chiefly by orators and poets. Situated in the far west, out of the beaten paths of commercial activity, it was little known to the ancients. Festus Avienus wrote that it was two days' sail from Britain. Pliny thought that it was part of Britain and not an island at all; Strabo that it was near Britain, and that its inhabitants were cannibals; and all that Caesar knew was that it was west of Britain, and about half its size. Agricola beheld its coastline from the opposite shores of Caledonia, and had thought of accepting the invitation of an Irish chief to come and conquer it, believing he could do so with a single legion. But he left Ireland unvisited and unconquered, and Tacitus could only record that in soil and climate it resembled Britain, and that its harbours were then well known to foreign merchants. But if we have not any detailed description from his lively pen, the native chroniclers have furnished us with abundant materials, and, if all they say be true, we can understand the remark of Camden that Ireland was rightly called Ogygia, or the Ancient Island, because in comparison, the antiquity of all other nations is in its infancy. Passing by the absurd story that it was peopled before the Deluge, we are told that, beginning with the time of Abraham, several successive waves of colonization rolled westward to its shores. First came Parthalon with 1000 followers; after which came the Nemedians, the Firbolgs, and the Tuatha-de-Dananns, and lastly the Milesians or Scots. In addition, there were the Fomorians, a people of uncertain origin, whose chief occupation was piracy and war, and whose attacks on the various settlers were incessant. These and the Milesians excepted, the different colonists came from Greece, and all were of the same race. The Milesians came from Scythia; and from that country to Egypt, from Egypt to Spain, from Spain to Ireland their adventures are recorded in detail. The name Scot which they bore was derived from Scota, daughter of Pharaoh of Egypt, the wife of one of their chiefs; from their chief Miledh they got the name Milesians, and from another chief Goidel they were sometimes called Gadelians, or Gaels. The wars and battles of these colonists are largely fabulous, and the Partholanians, Nemedians, and Fomorians belong rather to mythology than to history. So also do the Dananns, though sometimes they are taken as a real people, of superior knowledge and skill, the builders of those prehistoric sepulchral mounds by the Boyne, at Dowth, Knowth, and Newgrange. The Firbolgs however most probably existed, and were kindred perhaps to those warlike Belgae of Gaul whom Caesar encountered in battle. And the Milesians certainly belong to history, though the date of their arrival in Ireland is unknown. They were Celts, and probably came from Gaul to Britain, and from Britain to Ireland, rather than direct from Spain. Under the leadership of Heremon and Heber they soon became masters of the island. Some of the Firbolgs, it is said, crossed the seas to the Isles of Arran, where they built the fort of Dun Engus, which still stands and which tradition still associates with their name. Heber and Heremon soon quarrelled, and, Heber falling in battle, Heremon became sole ruler, the first in a long line of kings. This list of kings, however, is not reliable, and we are warned by Tighearnach, the most trustworthy of Irish chroniclers, that all events before the reign of Cimbaeth (300 B.C.) are uncertain. Even after the dawn of the Christian Era fact and fiction are interwoven and events are often shrouded in shadows and mists. Such, for instance, are the exploits of Cuchullain and Finn Macumhael. Nor have many of these early kinds been remarkable, if we except Conn of the Hundred Battles, who lived in the first century after Christ; Cormac, who lived a century later; Tuathal, who established the Feis of Tara; Niall, who invaded Britain; and Dathi, who in the fifth century lost his life at the foot of the Alps. The Irish were then pagans, but not barbarians. Their roads were indeed ill-constructed, their wooden dwellings rude, the dress of their lower orders scanty, their implements of agriculture and war primitive, and so were their land vehicles, and the boats in which they traversed the sea. On the other hand, some of their swords and shields showed some skill in metal-working, and their war-like and commercial voyages to Britain and Gaul argue some proficiency in shipbuilding and navigation. They certainly loved music; and, besides their inscribed Ogham writing, they had a knowledge of letters. There was a high-king of Ireland (ardri), and subject to him were the provincial kings and chiefs of tribes. Each of these received tribute from his immediate inferior, and even in a sept the political and legal administration was complete. There was the druid who explained religion, the brehon who dispensed justice, the brughaid or public hospitaller, the bard who sang the praises of his chief or urged his kinsman to battle; and each was an official and had his appointed allotment of land. Kings, though taken from one family, were elective, the tanist or heir-apparent being frequently not the nearest relation of him who reigned. This peculiarity, together with gavelkind by which the lands were periodically redistributed, impeded industry and settled government. Nor was there any legislative assembly, and the Brehon law under which Ireland lived was judge-made law. Sometimes the ardri's tribute remained unpaid and his authority nominal; but if he was a strong man he exacted obedience and tribute. The Boru tribute levied on the King of Leinster was excessive and unjust, and led to many evils. The pagan Irish believed in Druidism, resembling somewhat the Druidism Caesar saw in Gaul; but the pagan creed of the Irish was indefinite and their gods do not stand out clear. They held the immortality and the transmigration of souls, worshipped the sun and moon, and, with an inferior worship, mountains, rivers, and wells. And they sacrificed to idols, one of which, Crom Cruach, they are said to have propitiated with human sacrifices. They also believed in fairies, holding that the Tuatha-de-Dananns, when defeated by the Milesians, retired into the bosom of the mountains, where they held their fairy revels. One of the women fairies (the banshee) watched the fortunes of great families, and when some great misfortune was impending, the doomed family was warned at night by her mournful wail. EARLY CHRISTIAN PERIOD Intercourse with Britain and the Continent through commerce and war sufficiently accounts for the introduction of Christianity before the fifth century. There must have been then a considerable number of Christians in Ireland; for in 430 Palladius, a bishop and native of Britain, was sent by Pope Celestine "to the Scots believing in Christ". Palladius, however, did little, and almost immediately returned to Britain, and in 432 the same pope sent St. Patrick. He is the Apostle of Ireland, but this does not imply that he found Ireland altogether pagan and left it altogether Christian. It is however quite true that when St. Patrick did come paganism was the predominant belief, and that at his death it had been supplanted as such by Christianity. The extraordinary work which St. Patrick did, as well as his own attractive personal character, has furnished him with many biographers; and even in recent years his life and works have engaged erudite and able pens. But in spite of all that has been written many things in his life are still doubtful and obscure. It is doubtful when and where he was born, how he spent his life between his first leaving Ireland and his return, and in what year he died. It has been maintained that he never existed; that he and Palladius were the same man; that there were two St. Patricks; again, some, like Jocelin, have multiplied his miracles beyond belief. These contradictions and exaggerations have encouraged the scoffer to sneer; and Gibbon was sure that in the sixty-six lives of St. Patrick there must have been sixty-six thousand lies. In reality there seems no solid reason for rejecting the traditional account, viz., that St. Patrick was born at Dumbarton in Scotland about 372; that he was captured and brought to Ireland by the Irish king, Nial; that he was sold as a slave to an Ulster chief Milcho, whom he served for six years; that he then escaped and went back to his own people; that in repeated visions he, a pious Christian, heard the plaintive cry of the pagan Irish inviting him to come amongst them; that, believing he was called by God to do so, he went first to the monastery of St. Martin of Tours, then to that of St. Germanus of Auxerre, after which he went to Lerins and to Rome; and then, being consecrated bishop, he was sent by Pope Celestine to Ireland, where he arrived in 432. From Wicklow, where he landed, his course is traced to Antrim; back by Downpatrick, near which he converted Dichu and got from him a grant of land for his first church at Saul; then by Dundalk, where Benignus was converted; and to Slane, where in sight of Tara itself he lighted the paschal fire. The enraged druids pointed out to the ardri the heinousness of the offence, for during the great pagan festival then being celebrated it was death to light any fire except at Tara. But St. Patrick came to Tara itself, baptized the chief poet, and even the ardri; then marched north and destroyed at Leitrim the idol, Crom Cruach, after which he entered Connaught, and remained there for seven years. Passing through Connaught to Ulster, he went through Donegal, Tyrone, and Antrim, consecrated Macarten Bishop of Monaghan, and Fiace Bishop of Sletty; after which he entered Munster. Finally he returned to Ulster, and died at Saul in 493. His early captivity in Ireland interfered seriously with his education, and in his Confession and in his Epistle to Caroticus, both of which have survived the wreck of ages, we can discover no graces of style. But we see his great familiarity with the Scripture. And the man himself stands revealed; his piety, his spirit of prayer, his confidence in God, his zeal, his invincible courage. But while putting his entire trust in God, and giving Him all the glory, he rejected no human aid. Entering into a pagan territory he first preached to the chief men, knowing that when they were converted the people would follow. Wonderful indeed was his labour, and wonderful its results. He preached in almost every district in Ireland, confounded in argument the druids and won the people from their side; he built, it is said, 365 churches and consecrated an equal number of bishops, established schools and convents, and held synods; and when he died the whole machinery of a powerful Church was in operation, fully equal to the task of confirming in the faith those already converted and of bringing those yet in darkness into the Christian fold. One of the apostle's first anxieties was to provide a native ministry. For this purpose he selected the leading men--chiefs, brehons, bards--men likely to attract the respect of the people, and these, after little training, and often with little education, he had ordained. Thus equipped the priest went among the people, with his catechism, missal, and ritual, the bishop in addition his crosier and bell. In a short time, however, these primitive conditions ceased. Abut 450 a college was established at Armagh under Benignus; other schools arose at Kildare, Noendrum, and Louth; and by the end of the fifth century these colleges sent forth a sufficient supply of trained priests. Supported by a grant of land from the chief of the clan or sept and by voluntary offerings, bishop and priests lived together, preached to the people, administered the sacraments, settled their disputes, sat in their banquet halls. To many ardent natures this state of things was abhorrent. Fleeing from men, they sought for solitude and silence, by the banks of a river, in the recesses of a wood, and, with the scantiest allowance of food, the water for their drink, a few wattles covered with sods for their houses, they spent their time in mortification and prayer. Literally they were monks, for they were alone with God. But their retreats were soon invaded by others anxious to share their penances and their vigils, and to learn wisdom at their feet. Each newcomer built his little hut, a church was erected, a grant of land obtained, their master became abbot, and perhaps bishop; and thus arose monastic establishments the fame of which soon spread throughout Europe. Noted examples in the sixth century were Clonard, founded by St. Finian, Clonfert by St. Brendan, Bangor by St. Comgall, Clonmacnoise by St. Kieran, Arran by St. Enda; and, in the seventh century, Lismore by St. Carthage and Glendalough by St. Kevin. There were still bardic schools, as there was still paganism, but in the seventh century paganism had all but disappeared, and the bardic were overshadowed by the monastic schools. Frequented by the best of the Irish, and by students from abroad, these latter diffused knowledge over western Europe, and Ireland received and merited the title of Island of Saints and Scholars. The holy men who laboured with St. Patrick and immediately succeeded him were mostly bishops and founders of churches; those of the sixth century were of the monastic order; those of the seventh century were mostly anchorites who loved solitude, silence, continued prayer, and the most rigid austerities. Nor were the women behindhand in this contest for holiness. St. Brigid is a name still dear to Ireland, and she, as well as St. Ita, St. Fanchea and others, founded many convents tenanted by pious women, whose sanctity and sacrifices it would be indeed difficult to surpass. Nor was the Irish Church, as has been sometimes asserted, out of communion with the See of Rome. The Roman and Irish tonsures differed, it is true, and the methods of computing Easter, and it may be that Pelagianism found some few adherents, though Arianism did not, nor the errors as to the natures and wills of Christ. In the number of its sacraments, in its veneration for the Blessed Virgin, in its belief in the Mass and in Purgatory, in its obedience to the See of Rome, the creed of the early Irish Church was the Catholic creed of to-day (see CELTIC RITE). Abroad as well as at home Irish Christian zeal was displayed. In 563 St. Columba, a native of Donegal, accompanied by a few companions, crossed the sea to Caledonia and founded a monastery on the desolate island of Iona. Fresh arrivals came from Ireland; the monastery with Columba as its abbot was soon a flourishing institution, from which the Dalriadian Scots in the south and the Piets beyond the Grampians were evangelized; and when Columba died in 597, Christianity had been preached and received in every district in Caledonia, and in every island along its west coast. In the next century Iona had so prospered that its abbot, St. Adamnan, wrote in excellent Latin the "Life of St. Columba", the best biography of which the Middle Ages can boast. From Iona had gone south the Irish Aidan and his Irish companions to compete with and even exceed in zeal the Roman missionaries under St. Augustine, and to evangelize Northumbria, Mercia, and Essex; and if Irish zeal had already been displayed in Iona, equal zeal was now displayed on the desolate isle of Lindisfarne. Nor was this all. In 590 St. Columbanus, a student of Bangor, accompanied by twelve companions, arrived in France and established the monastery of Luxeuil, the parent of many monasteries, then laboured at Bregenz, and finally founded the monastery of Bobbio, which as a centre of knowledge and piety was long the light of northern Italy. And meantime his friend and fellow-student St. Gall laboured with conspicuous success in Switzerland, St. Fridolin along the Rhine, St. Fiacre near Meaux, St. Kilian at Wurzburg, St. Livinus in Brabant, St. Fursey on the Marne, St. Cataldus in southern Italy. And when Charlemagne reigned (771-814), Irishmen were at his court, "men incomparably skilled in human learning". In the civil history of the period only a few facts stand out prominently. About 560, in consequence of a quarrel with the ardri Diarmuid about the right of sanctuary, St. Columba and Rhodanus (Reudan) of Lorrha publicly cursed Tara, an unpatriotic act which dealt a fatal blow at the prospect of a strong central government by blighting with maledictions its acknowledged seat. Nearly thirty years later the National Convention of Drumceat restrained the insolence and curtailed the privileges of the bards. In 684 Ireland was invaded by the King of Northumbria, though no permanent conquest followed. And in 697 the last Feis of Tara was held, at which, through the influence of Adamnan, women were interdicted from taking part in actual battle. At the same time the ardri Finactha, at the instance of St. Moling, renounced for himself and his successors the Boru tribute. As the eighth century neared its close, religion and learning still flourished; but unexpected dangers approached and a new enemy came, before whose assaults monk and monastery and saint and scholar disappeared. These invaders were the Danes from the coasts of Scandinavia. Pagans and pirates, they loved plunder and war, and both on land and sea were formidable foes. Like the fabled Fomorians of earlier times they had a genius for devastation. Descending from their ships along the coast of western Europe, they murdered the inhabitants or made them captives and slaves. In Ireland as elsewhere they attacked the monasteries and churches, desecrated the altars, carried away the gold and silver vessels, and smoking ruins and murdered monks attested the fury of their assaults. Armagh and Bangor, Kildare and Clonmacnoise, Iona and Lindisfarne thus fell before their fury. Favoured by disunion among the Irish chiefs, they crept inland, effected permanent settlements at Waterford and Limerick and established a powerful kingdom at Dublin; and, had their able chief Turgesius lived much longer, they might perhaps have subdued the whole island. For a century after his death in 845 victory and defeat alternated in their wars; but they clung tenaciously to their seaport possessions, and kept the neighbouring Irish in cruel bondage. They were, however, signally defeated by the Ardri Malachy in 980, and Dublin was compelled to pay him tribute. But, able as Malachy was, an abler man soon supplanted him in the supreme position. Step by step Brian Boru had risen from being chief of Thomond to be undisputed ruler of Munster. Its chiefs were his tributaries and his allies; the Danes he had repeatedly chastised, and in 1002 he compelled Malachy to abdicate in his favour. It was a bitter humiliation for Malachy thus to lay down the sceptre which for 600 years had been in the hands of his family. It gave Ireland, however, the greatest of her high-kings and unbroken peace for some years. War came when the elements of discontent coalesced. Brian had irritated Leinster by reviving the Boru tribute; he had crushed the Danes; and these, with the Danes of the Isle of Man and those of Sweden and the Scottish Isles, joined together, and on Good Friday, 1014, the united strength of Danes and Leinstermen faced Brian's army at Clontarf. The victory gained by the latter was great; but it was dearly bought by the loss of Brian as well as his son and grandson. The century and a half which followed was a weary waste of turbulence and war. Brian's usurpation encouraged others to ignore the claims of descent. O'Loughlin and O'Neill in the North, O'Brien in the South, and O'Connor beyond the Shannon fought for the national throne with equal energy and persistence; and as one set of disputants disappeared, others replaced them, equally determined to prevail. The lesser chiefs were similarly engaged. This ceaseless strife completed the work begun by the Danes. Under native and Christian chiefs churches were destroyed, church lands appropriated by laymen, monastic schools deserted, lay abbots ruled at Armagh and elsewhere. Bishops were consecrated without sees and conferred orders for money, there was chaos in church government and corruption everywhere. In a series of synods beginning with Rathbreasail (1118) and including Kells, at which the pope's legate presided, many salutary enactments were passed, and for the first time diocesan episcopacy was established. Meanwhile, St. Malachy, Archbishop of Armagh, had done very remarkable work in his own diocese and elsewhere. His early death in 1148 was a heavy blow to the cause of church reform. Nor could so many evils be cured in a single life, or by the labours of a single man; and in spite of his efforts and the efforts of others the decrees of synods were often flouted, and the new diocesan boundaries ignored. THE ANGLO-NORMANS In Henry II of England an unexpected reformer appeared. The murderer of Thomas a' Becket seemed ill-fitted for the role, but he undertook it, and in the first year of his reign (1154) he procured a Bull from the English-born Pope Adrian IV authorizing him to proceed to Ireland "to check the torrent of wickedness to reform evil manners, to sow the seeds of virtue." The many troubles of his extensive kingdom thwarted his plans for years. But in 1168 Macmurrogh, King of Leinster, driven from his kingdom sought Henry's aid, and then Adrian's Bull was remembered. a first contingent of Anglo-Normans came to Ireland in 1169 under Fitzgerald, a stronger force under Strongbow (de Clare, Earl of Pembroke) in 1170, and in 1171 Henry himself landed at Waterford and proceeded to Dublin, where he spent the winter, and received the submission of all the Irish chiefs, except those of Tyrconnell and Tyrowen. These submissions, however, aggravated rather than lessened existing ills. The Irish chiefs submitted to Henry as to a powerful ardri, still preserving their privileges and rights under Brehon law. Henry, on his side, regarded them as vassals holding the lands of their tribes by military service and in accordance with feudal law. Thus a conflict between the clan system and feudalism arose. Exercising his supposed rights, Henry divided the country into so many great fiefs, giving Meath to be Lacy, Leinster to Strongbow, while de Courcy was encouraged to conquer Ulster, and deCogan Connaught. At a later date the deBurgos settled in Galway, the Fitzgeralds in Kildare and Desmond, the Butlers in Ossory. Discord enfeebled the capacity of the Irish chiefs for resistance; nor were kernes and gallowglasses equal to mail-clad knights, nor the battle-axe to the Norman lance, and in a short time large tracts had passed from native to foreign hands. The new Anglo-Irish lords soon outgrew the position of English subjects, and to the natives became tyrannical and overbearing. Ignoring the many evidences of culture in Ireland, her Romanesque architecture, her high crosses, her illuminated manuscripts, her shrines and crosiers, the scholars that had shed lustre on her schools, the saints that had hallowed her fame throughout Europe--ignoring all these, they despised the Irish as rude and barbarous, despised their language, their laws, their dress, their arms; and, while not recognizing the Brehon law, they refused Irishmen the status of English subjects or the protection of English law. At last, despairing of union among their own chiefs, or of justice from Irish viceroy or English king, the oppressed Irish invited Edward Bruce from Scotland. In 1315 he landed in Ireland and was crowned king. Successful at first, his allies beyond the Shannon were almost annihilated in the battle of Athenry (1316); and two years later he was himself defeated and slain at Faughart. His ruin had been effected by a combination of the Anglo-Irish lords, and this still further inflated their pride. Titles rewarded them. Birmingham became Lord of Athenry and Earl of Louth, Fitzgerald Earl of Kildare, his kinsman Earl of Desmond, de Burgo Earl of Ulster, Butler Earl of Ormond. But these titles only increased their insolence and disloyalty. Favoured by the weakness of the viceroy's government the native chiefs recovered most of the ground they had lost. Meanwhile the De Burgos in Connaught changed their name to Burke, and became Irish chiefs; many others followed their example; even the ennobled Butlers and Fitzgeralds used the Irish language, dress, and customs, and were as turbulent as the worst of the native chiefs. To recall these colonists to their allegiance the Statute of Kilkenny made it penal to use Irish customs, language, or law, forbade intermarriage with the mere Irish, or the conferring of benefices on the native-born. But the barriers of race could not be maintained, and the intermarrying of Irish with Anglo-Irish went on. The long war with France, followed by the Wars of the Roses, diverted the attention of England from Irish affairs; and the viceroy, feebly supported from England, was too weak to chastise these powerful lords or put penal laws in force. The hostility of native chiefs was bought off by the payment of "black rents". The loyal colonists confined to a small district near Dublin, called "the Pale", shivered behind its encircling rampart; and when the sixteenth century dawned, English power in Ireland had almost disappeared. Those within the Pale were impoverished by grasping officials and by the payment of "black rents". Outside the Pale the country was held by sixty chiefs of Irish descent and thirty of English descent, each making peace or war as he pleased. Lawlessness and irreligion were everywhere. The clergy of Irish quarrelled with those of English descent; the religious houses were corrupt, their priors and abbots great landholders with seats in Parliament, and more attached to secular than to religious concerns; the great monastic schools had disappeared, the greatest of them all, Clonmacnoise, being in ruins; preaching was neglected except by the mendicant orders, and these were utterly unable to cope with the disorders which prevailed. THE TUDOR PERIOD Occupied with English and Continental affairs, Henry VIII, in the beginning of his reign, bestowed but little attention on Ireland, and not until he was a quarter of a century on the throne were Irish affairs taken seriously in hand. The king was then in middle age, no longer the defender of the Faith against Luther, but, like Luther, a rebel against Rome; no longer generous or attractive in character, but rather a cruel capricious tyrant whom it was dangerous to provoke and fatal to disobey. In England his hands were reddened with the best blood of the land; and in Ireland the fate of the Fitzgeralds, following the rebellion of Silken Thomas, struck Irish and Anglo-Irish alike with such terror that all hastened to make peace. O'Neill, renouncing the inheritance of his ancestors, became Earl of Tyrone; Burke became Earl of Clanrickard, O'Brien Earl of Thomond, Fitzpatrick Lord of Ossory; the Earl of Desmond and the other Anglo-Irish nobles were pardoned all their offences, and at a Parliament in Dublin (1541) Anglo-Irish and Irish attended. And Henry, who like his predecessors had been hitherto but Lord of Ireland (Dominus Hiberniae), was now unanimously given the higher title of king. This Parliament also passed the Act of Supremacy by which Henry was invested with spiritual jurisdiction, and, in substitution for the pope, proclaimed head of the Church. As the proctors of the clergy refused to agree to this measure, the irate monarch deprived them of the right of voting, and in revenge confiscated church lands and suppressed monasteries, in some cases shed the blood of their inmates, in the remaining cases sent them forth homeless and poor. These severities, however, did not win the people from their faith. The apostate friar Browne, whom Henry made Archbishop of Dublin, the apostate Staples, Bishop of Meath, and Henry himself, stained with so many adulteries and murders, had but poor credentials as preachers of reform; whatever time-serving chiefs might do, the clergy and people were unwilling to make Henry pope, or to subscribe to the varying tenets of his creed. His successor, an ardent Protestant, tried hard to make Ireland Protestant, but the sickly plant which he sowed was uprooted by the Catholic Mary, and at Elizabeth's accession all Ireland was Catholic. Like her father Henry, the young queen was a cruel and capricious tyrant, and in her war with Shane O'Neill, the ablest of the Irish chiefs, she did not scruple to employ assassins. She was neither a sincere Protestant nor a willing persecutor of the Catholics; and though she re-enacted the Act of Supremacy and passed the Act of Uniformity, making Protestantism the state creed, she refused to have these acts rigorously enforced. But when the pope and the Spanish king declared against her, and the Irish Catholics were found in alliance with both, she yielded to her ministers and concluded, with them, that a Catholic was necessarily a disloyal subject. Henceforth toleration gave way to persecution. The tortures inflicted on O'Hurley, Archbishop of Cashel, and O'Hely, Bishop of Mayo, the Spaniards murdered in cold blood at Smerwick, the desolation of Munster during Desmond's rebellion, showed how cruel her rule could be. Far more formidable than the rebellion of Desmond, or even than that of Shane O'Neill, was the rebellion of Hugh O'Neill, Early of Tyrone. No such able Irish chief had appeared since Brian Boru. Cool, cautious, vigilant, he laid his plans with care and knew how to wait patiently for results. Never impulsive, never boastful, wise in council and wary in speech, from his long residence in London in his youth he learned dissimulation, and was as crafty as the craftiest English minister. Repeatedly he foiled the queen's diplomatists in council as he did her generals in the field, and at the Yellow Ford (1598) gained the greatest victory ever won in Ireland over English arms. What he might have done had he been loyally supported it is hard to say. For nearly ten years he continued the war; he continued it after his Spanish allies had brought upon him the disaster of Kinsale; after his chief assistant, O'Donnell, had been struck down by an assassin's hand; after Carew had subdued Munster, and Mountjoy had turned Ulster into a desert; after the Irish chiefs had gone over to the enemy. And when he submitted it was only on condition of being guaranteed his titles and lands; and by that time Elizabeth, who hated him so much and so longed for his destruction, had breathed her last. UNDER THE STUARTS James I (1603-25) was the first of the Stuart line, and from the son of Mary Stuart the Irish Catholics expected much. They were doomed, however, to an early disappointment. The cities which rejoiced that "Jezabel was dead", and that now they could practise their religion openly, were warned by Mountjoy that James was a good Protestant and as such would have no toleration of popery. Salisbury, who had poisoned the mind of the queen against the Catholics, was equally successful with her successor, with the result that persecution continued. Proclamations were issued ordering the clergy to quit the kingdom; those who remained were hunted down; O'Devany, Bishop of Down, and others were done to death. The Acts of Supremacy and uniformity were rigorously enforced. The Act of Oblivion, under which participants in the late rebellion were pardoned, was often forgotten or ignored. English law, which for the first time was extended to all Ireland, was used by corrupt officials to oppress rather than to protect the people. The Earl of Tyrone and the Early of Tyroconnell (Rory O'Donnell) was so spied upon and worried by false charges of disloyalty that they fled the country, believing that their lives were in danger; and to all their pleas for justice the king's response was to slander their characters and confiscate their lands. It is indeed true that Irish juries found the earls guilty of high treason, and an Irish Parliament, representing all Ireland, attained them. But these results were obtained by carefully packing the juries, and by the creation of small boroughs which sent creatures of the king to represent them in Parliament. And the Catholic members acquiesced under threat of having enacted a fresh batch of penal laws. Thus, aided by corrupt juries and a complaisant Parliament, James I was enabled to plant the confiscated lands of Ulster with English Protestants and Scotch Presbyterians. Other plantations had fared badly. That of King's and Queen's County in Mary's reign had decayed; and the plantation of Munster after the Desmond war had been swept away in the tide of O'Neill's victories. The plantation of Ulster was more thorough and effective than either of these. Whole districts were given to the settlers, and these, supported by a Protestant Government, soon grew into a powerful and prosperous colony, while the despoiled Catholics, driven from the richer to the poorer lands, looked helplessly on, hating those colonists for whose sake they had been despoiled. Under the new king, Charles I (1625-49), the policy of persecution and plantation was continued. Under pretence of advancing the public interest and increasing the king's revenue, a crowd of hungry adventurers spread themselves over the land, inquiring into the title by which lands were held. With venal judges, venal juries, and sympathetic officials to aid them, good titles were declared bad, and lands seized, and the adventurers were made sharers in the spoil. The O'Byrnes were thus deprived of their lands in Wicklow, and similar confiscations and plantations took place in Wexford, King's County, Leitrim, Westmeath, and Longford. Hoping to protect themselves against such robbery, the Catholics offered the king a subsidy of £120,000 in exchange for certain privileges called "graces", which among other things would give them indefeasible titles to their estates. These "graces" granted by the king, were to have the sanction of Parliament to make them good. The money was paid, but the "graces" were withheld, and the viceroy, Strafford, proceeded to Connaught to confiscate and plant the whole province. The projected plantation was ultimately abandoned; but the sense of injustice remained. All over the country were insecurity, anxiety, unrest, and disaffection; Irish and Anglo-Irish were equally menaced. Seeing the futility of appealing to a helpless Parliament, a despotic viceroy, or a perfidious king, the nation took up arms. To describe the rebellion as the "massacre of 1641" is unjust. The details of cruel murders committed and horrible tortures inflicted by the rebels are mischievously untrue. On the other hand, it is true that the Protestants suffered grievous wrong, and that many of them lost their lives, exclusive of those who fell in war. The Catholics wanted the planters' lands; when driven away in wintry weather, without money, or food, or sufficient clothes, many planters perished of hunger and cold. Others fell by the avenging hand of some infuriated Catholic whom they might have wronged in the days of their power. Many fell defending their property or the property and lives of their friends. The plan of the rebel leaders, of whom Roger Moore was chief, was to capture the garrison towns by a simultaneous attack. But they failed to capture Dublin Castle, containing large stores of arms, owing to the imprudence of Colonel MacMahon. He imparted the secret to a disreputable Irishman named O'Connolly, who at once informed the Castle authorities, with the result that the Castle defences were strengthened, and MacMahon and others arrested and subsequently executed. In Ulster, however, the whole open country and many towns fell into the rebels' hands, and Munster and Connaught soon joined the rebellion, as did the Catholics of the Pale, unable to obtain any toleration of their religion, or security of their property, or even of their lives. Before the new year was far advanced the Catholic Bishops declared the rebellion just, and the Catholics formed a confederation which, from its meeting place, was called the "Confederation of Kilkenny". Composed of clergy and laity its members swore to be loyal to the king, to strive for the free exercise of their religion, and to defend the lives, liberties, and possessions of all who took the Confederate oath. Supreme executive authority was vested in a supreme council; there were provincial councils also, all these bodies deriving their powers from an elective body called the "General Assembly". The Supreme Council exercised all the powers of government, administered justice, raised taxes, formed armies, appointed generals. One of the best-known of these officers was General Preston, who commanded in Leinster, having come from abroad with a good supply of arms and ammunition, and with 500 trained officers. A more remarkable man still was General Owen Roe O'Neill, nephew of the great Earl of Tyrone, who took command in Ulster, and whose defence of Arras against the French caused him to be recognized as one of the first soldiers in Europe. He also, like Preston, brought officers, arms, and ammunition to Ireland. At a later state came Rinuccini, the pope's nuncio, bringing with him a supply of money. Meanwhile, civil war raged in England between king and Parliament; the Government at Dublin, ill supplied from across the Channel, was ill fitted to crush a powerful rebellion, and, in 1646, O'Neill won the great victory of Benburb. But the strength of which this victory was the outcome was counterbalanced by elements of weakness. The Catholics of Ulster and those of the Pale did not agree; neither did Generals O'Neill and Preston. The Supreme Council, with a feeble old man, Lord Mountgarret, at its head, and four provincial generals instead of a commander-in-chief, was ill-suited for the vigorous prosecution of a war. Moreover, the influence of the Marquis of Ormond was a fatal cause of discord. A personal friend of the king, and charged by him with the command of his army and with the conduct of negotiations, a Protestant with Catholic friends on the Supreme Council, his desire ought to have been to bring Catholic and Royalist together. But his hatred of the Catholics was such that he would grant them no terms, even when ordered to do so by His Majesty. The Catholics' professions of loyalty he despised, and his great diplomatic abilities were used to sow dissensions in their councils and to thwart their plans. Yet the Supreme Council, dominated by an Ormondist faction, continued fruitless negotiations with him, agreed to a cessation when they themselves were strong and their opponents weak, and agreed to a peace with him in spite of the victory of Benburb, and in spite of the remonstrances of the nuncio and of General O'Neill. Nor did they cease these relations with him even after he had treacherously surrendered Dublin to the Parliament (1647), and left the country. On the contrary, they still put faith in him, entered into a fresh peace with him in 1648, and when he returned to Ireland as the Royalist viceroy they received him in state at Kilkenny. In disgust, General O'Neill came to a temporary agreement with the Parliamentary general, and Rinuccini, despairing of Ireland, returned to Rome. The Civil War in England was then over. The Royalists had been vanquished, the king executed, the monarchy replaced by a commonwealth; and in August, 1649, Oliver Cromwell came to Ireland with 10,000 men. Ormond meanwhile had rallied his supporters, and, with the greater part of the Catholics of Leinster, Munster, and Connaught, the Protestants of the Pale and of Munster, and great part of the Ulster Presbyterians, his strength was considerable. His obstinate bigotry would not allow him to make terms with the Ulster army, and he thus lost the support of General O'Neill at a critical time. Early in August he had been disastrously beaten by the Puritan general Jones, at Rathmines; in consequence he offered no opposition to Cromwell's landing and made no attempt to relieve Drogheda. It was soon captured by Cromwell and its garrison put to the sword. A month later the same fate befell Wexford. Waterford repelled Cromwell's attack, and Clonmel and Kilkenny offered him a stout resistance; but other towns were easily captured, or voluntarily surrendered; and when he left Ireland, in May, 1650, Munster and Leinster were in his hands. His successors, Ireton and Ludlow, within two years reduced the remaining provinces. Meanwhile Owen Roe O'Neill had died after making terms with Ormond, but before meeting with Cromwell. The Catholic Bishops, however, repudiated Ormond, who then left Ireland. Some negotiations subsequently between Lord Clanricarde and the Duke of Lorraine came to nothing, and the long war was ended in which more than half the inhabitants of the country had lost their lives. In the beginning of the rebellion many Englishmen subscribed money to put it down, stipulating in return for a share of the lands to be forfeited, and thus hatred of the Catholics was mingled with hope of gain. The English Parliament accepted the money on the terms proposed, and the subscribers became known as "adventurers", because they adventured their money on Irish land. When the rebellion was over, the problem was to provide the lands promised, and also to provide lands for the soldiers who were in arrears of pay. It was a difficult problem. There was an Act for Settling Ireland, and and Act for the Satisfaction of Adventurers in Lands and Arrears due to the soldiers and other public Debts; there was a High Court of Justice to determine who were guilty of rebellion; there were soldiers who had got special terms when laying down their arms; and there were those who had never had a share in the rebellion, but had merely lived in the rebel quarters during the war. The best of the lands east of the Shannon were for the adventurers and soldiers, the dispossessed being driven to Connaught. To determine where the planters were to be settled and where the transplanted, and what amount they were to get, there were commissions, and committees, and surveys, and court of claims. Nor was it till 1658 that the Cromwellian Settlement was complete, and even then many of the transplanted protested their innocence of any share in the rebellion, and many of the adventurers and soldiers complained that they had been defrauded of their due. In the amount of suffering it entailed and wrong inflicted the whole scheme far exceeded the plantation of Ulster. But it failed to make Ireland either English or Protestant, and in setting up a system of alien landlords and native tenants it proved the curse of Ireland and the fruitful parent of many ills. To the Irish Cromwell's death in 1658 was welcome news, all the more so because Charles II (1860-85) was restored. For their attachment to the cause of the latter they had suffered much; and now the Catholic landlord in his Connaught cabin and the Irish soldier abroad felt equally assured that the recovery of their lands and homes was at hand. They soon learned that Stuart gratitude meant little and that Stuart promises were written on sand. Had Charles been free to act, the Cromwellian Settlement would not have endured; for he loved the Catholics much more than he loved the Puritans. But the planters were a dangerous body to provoke, sustained as they were by the English Parliament and by the king's chief adviser, Ormond, who indeed hated the Cromwellians, but hated the Catholics much more. Some attempt, however, was made to right the wrong that had been done, and by the Act of Settlement, six hundred innocent Catholics were restored to their lands. Many more would have been restored had the court of claims been allowed to continue its sittings. The irate planters wanted to know what was to become of them if the despoiled papist thus back their lands; utterings threats and even breaking out into rebellion they alarmed the king. Under Ormond's advice the Act of Explanation was then passed (1665) and the court of claims set up by the Act of Settlement closed its doors, though three thousand cases remained untried. Thus the Cromwellians who had murdered the king's father were, with few exceptions, left unmolested while the Catholics were abandoned to their fate. Before the rebellion two-thirds of the lands of the country were in the hands of the latter; after the Act of Explanation scarcely one-third was left them, a sweeping confiscation especially in the case of men who were denied even the justice of a trial. After this the toleration of the Catholics was but a small concession. Not, however, during the whole of Charles's reign; for Ormond, now a duke, filled the office of viceroy for many years; he at least would maintain Protestant ascendancy, and exclude the Catholics from the bench and the corporations. In the English Council and in Parliament he bitterly attacked and defeated the proposed revision of the Act of Settlement. He does not appear to have had any sympathy with the lying tales of Oates and Bedloe, or with the storm of persecution which followed, and he disapproved of the judicial murder of Oliver Plunket. But his aversion from the Catholics continued, and was in no way chilled by advancing age. One of the last acts of Charles was to dismiss him from office as an enemy to toleration. The king himself soon after died in the Catholic Faith, and James II, an avowed Catholic, succeeded, the first Catholic sovereign since the death of Mary Tudor. Religious toleration had then made little progress throughout Europe, and England, aggressively Protestant, looked with special disfavour on Catholicism. In these circumstances James II should have moved with caution. He should have taken account of national prejudices and the temper of the times, and respected established institutions; while conscientiously practising his own religion, he should have sought for no favour for it, at least until the nation was in a more tolerant and yielding mood. Instead of this, and in defiance of English bigotry and English law, he appointed Catholics to high civil and military offices, opened the corporations and the universities to them, had a papal nuncio at his court, and issued a declaration of Indulgence suspending the penal laws. When the Protestant bishops refused to have this declaration read from their pulpits he prosecuted them. Their acquittal was the signal for revolt, and James, deserted by all classes, fled to France leaving the English throne to William of Orange, whom the Protestants invited from Holland. Meanwhile sweeping changes had been effected in Ireland by the viceroy, the Duke of Tyreconnell, a militant Catholic and a special favourite of King James. Protestant magistrates, sheriffs, and judges had been displaced to make room for Catholics; the army and corporations underwent similar changes; and the Act of Settlement was to be repealed. Timid Protestants trembling for their lives fled to England; others formed centres of resistance to the viceroy in Munster and Connaught, and, in Ulster, Derry and Enniskillen expelled the Catholics and closed their gates against the viceroy's troops. This was rebellion, for James, though repudiated in England, was still King of Ireland. In March, 1689, he arrived at Kinsale from France to subdue these rebels. But the task was beyond his strength. Derry and Enniskillen defied all his attacks, and a Wiliamite force, issuing from the latter town, almost annihilated a Jacobite army at Newton-Butler. Disaffection became general among the Protestants when the Irish Parliament repealed the Act of Settlement and attained eighteen hundred persons who had fled to England through fear; and when, in August, a Williamite force of twenty thousand landed at Carrickfergus, the Protestants everywhere welcomed it. This great force, however, effected nothing, and in June, 1690, William himself came and encountered James on the banks of the Boyne. The battle was fought on 1 July, and resulted in the defeat of James. Hastening to Dublin he told the Duchess of Tyrconnell that the Irish soldiers had shamefully run away, to which the lady is said to have replied; "But your Majesty won the race." The retort was just. The Irish cavalry behaved with conspicuous gallantry, as did the greater part of the infantry. Some of the latter did run away, but not so fast as James himself, who fled taking the ablest of the Irish generals, Sarsfield, with him. That the Irish were no cowards was soon shown by their defence of Athlone and the still more glorious defence of Limerick. After being compelled to raise the siege of the latter city, King Williams left for England, committing the civil authority to lords justices and the military command to General Ginkel. In the following year Ginkel captured Athlone, owing to the carelessness of the Jacobite general, St-Ruth; and on 12 July, 1691, the last great battle of the war was fought at Aughrim. The Irish were not inferior to their opponents in numbers, discipline, or valour, and though overmatched in heavy guns they had the advantage of position. Nor was St-Ruth inferior to Ginkel in military capacity. His dispositions were excellent, and after several hours' desperate fighting Ginkel was driven back at every point. Just then St-Ruth was struck down by a cannon ball. Panic-stricken, the Irish fell back, allowing their opponents to advance and inflict on them a crushing defeat. The surrender of Galway and Sligo followed, and in a short time Ginkel and his whole army were before the walls of Limerick. When he had effectually surrounded it and made a breach in the walls, further resistance was seen to be hopeless, and Sarsfield and his friends made terms. By the end of the year the war was over, King William had triumphed, and Protestant ascendancy was secure. THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY By the Treaty of Limerick the Catholic soldiers of King James were pardoned, protected against forfeiture of their estates, and were free to go abroad if they chose. All Catholics might substitute an oath of allegiance for the oath of supremacy, and were to have such privileges "as were consistent with the laws of Ireland, or as they did enjoy in the reign of Charles II". King William also promised to have the Irish Parliament grant a further relaxation of the penal laws in force. This treaty, however, was soon torn to shreds, and in spite of William's appeals the Irish Parliament refused to ratify it, and embarked on fresh penal legislation. Under these new laws Catholics were excluded from Parliament, from the bench and bar, from the army and navy, from all civil offices, from the corporations, and even from the corporate towns. They could not have Catholic schools at home or attend foreign schools, or inherit landed property, or hold land under lease, or act as executors or administrators, or have arms or ammunition, or a horse worth £5. Neither could they bury their dead in Catholic ruins, or make pilgrimages to holy wells, or observe Catholic holidays. They could not intermarry with the Protestants, the clergyman assisting at such marriages being liable to death. The wife of a Catholic landlord turning Protestant got separate maintenance; the son turning Protestant got the whole estate; and the Catholic landlord having only Catholic children was obliged at death to divide his estate among his children in equal shares. All the regular clergy, as well as bishops and vicars-general should quit the kingdom. The secular clergy might remain, but must be registered, nor could they have on their churches either steeple or bell. This was the Penal Code, elaborated through nearly half a century with patience, and care, and ingenuity, perhaps the most infamous code ever elaborated by civilized man. Such legislation does not generate conviction, and, in spite of all, the Catholics clung to their Faith. Deprived of schools at home, the young clerical student sought the halls of Continental colleges, and being ordained returned to Ireland, disguised perhaps as a sailor and carried in a smuggler's craft. And in secrecy and obscurity he preached, taught, lived, and died, leaving another generation equally persecuted to carry on the good fight. Poverty was his portion, and frequently the prison and the scaffold; and yet, while Protestantism made no progress, Catholicism more than held its own. In 1728 the Catholics were to the Protestants as five to one, and half a century later Young calculated that to make Ireland Protestant would take 4000 years. Indeed the Protestant clergy made no serious effort to convert the Catholics; nor was this the object of the Penal Code. Passed by Protestants possessing confiscated Catholic lands, it object was to impoverish, to debase, to degrade, to leave the despoiled Catholics incapable of rebellion and ignorant of their wrongs. In this respect it succeeded. A few Catholics, with the connivance of some friendly Protestants, managed to hold their estates; the remainder gradually sank to the level of cottiers and day-labourers, living in cabins, clothed in rags, always on the verge of famine. Shut out from every position of influence, rackrented by absentee landlords, insulted by grasping agents and drunken squireens, paying tithes to a Church they abhorred, hating the Government which oppressed them and the law which made them slaves, their condition was the worst of any peasantry in Europe. From a land blighted by such laws the enterprising and ambitious fled, seeking an outlet for their enterprise and ambition in happier lands. In the time of Elizabeth and James, and still more in Cromwell's time, thousands joined the army of Spain. But in the latter half of the seventeenth century the stream was diverted to France, then the greatest military power in Europe. Thither Sarsfield and his men went after the fall of Limerick, and in the fifty years which followed 450,000 Irish died in the service of France. They fought and fell in Spain and Italy, in the passes of the Alps, in the streets of Cremona, at Ramillies and Malplaquet, at Blenheim and Fontenoy. Irishmen were marshals of France; an Irishman commanded the armies of Maria Theresa; another the army of Russia; and there were Irish statesmen, generals, and ambassadors all over Europe. Beyond the Atlantic, Irish had settled in Pennsylvania and Maryland, in Kentucky and Carolina and the New England states; Irish names were appended to the Declaration of Independence; and Irish soldiers fought throughout the War of Independence. Now were soldiers and statesmen the only Irish exiles whom penal laws had sent abroad. The decay of schools and colleges continued from the eleventh to the sixteenth century; nor did Ireland in that period produce a single great scholar, except Duns Scotus, who was partly educated broad. Any hope of a revival of learning in the sixteenth century was blasted by the suppression of monasteries and the penal laws; early in the seventeenth century, however, Irish colleges were already established at Louvain, Salamanca, and Seville, at Lisbon, Paris, and Rome. In these colleges the brightest Irish intellects learned and taught, and Colgan and O'Clery, Lynch and Rothe, Wadding and Keating recalled the greatest glories of their country's past. At home Trinity College had been established (1593) to wean the Irish from "Popery and other ill qualities"' but the Catholics held aloof, and either went abroad or frequented the few Catholic schools left. The children of the poor, avoiding the Protestant schools, met in the open air, with only some friendly hedge to protect them from the blast; but they met in fear and trembling, for the hedge-school and its master were proscribed. Thus was the lamp of learning kept burning during the long night of the penal times. In the Irish Parliament meanwhile a spirit of independence appeared. As the Parliament of the Pale it had been so often used for factious purposes that in 1496 Poyning's Law was passed, providing that henceforth no Irish Parliament could meet, and no law could be proposed, without the previous consent of both the Irish and English Privy Councils. Further, the English Parliament claimed the right to legislate for Ireland; and in the laws prohibiting the importation of Irish cattle (1665), and Irish woollen manufactures (1698), and that dealing with the Irish forfeited estates (1700), it asserted its supposed right. The Irish Parliament, dominated by bigotry and self-interest, had not the courage to protest, and when one member, Molyneux, did, the English Parliament condemned him, and ordered his book to be burned by the common hangman. Moreover, it passed an Act in 1719 expressly declaring that it had power to legislate for Ireland, taking away also the appellate jurisdiction of the Irish House of Lords. The fight made by Swift against Wood's halfpence showed that, though Molyneux was dead, his spirit lived; Lucas continued the fight, and Grattan in 1782 obtained legislative independence. England was then beaten by the American colonies; an Irish volunteer force had been raised to defend Ireland against a possible invasion, and it seems certain that legislative independence was won less by Grattan's eloquence than by the swords of the Volunteers. These events favoured the growth of toleration. The Catholics, in sympathizing with Grattan and in subscribing money to equip the Protestant Volunteers, earned the goodwill of the Protestant Nationalists; in consequence the penal laws were less rigorously enforced, and from the middle of the century penal legislation ceased. In 1771 came the turn of the tide, when Catholics were allowed to hold reclaimed bog under lease. The grudging concession was followed in 1774 by an Act substituting an oath of allegiance for the oath of supremacy; in 1778 by an Act enabling Catholics to hold all lands under lease; and in 1782 by a further Act allowing them to erect Catholic schools, with the permission of the Protestant bishop of the diocese, to own a horse worth more than £5, and to assist at Mass without being compelled to accuse the officiating priest. Nor were Catholic bishops any longer compelled to quit the kingdom, nor Catholic children specially rewarded if they turned Protestant. Not for ten years was there any further concession, and then an Act was passed allowing Catholics to erect schools without seeking Protestant permission, admitting Catholics to the Bar, and legalizing marriages between Protestants and Catholics. Much more important was the Act of 1793 giving the Catholics the Parliamentary and municipal franchise, admitting them to the universities and to military and civil offices, and removing all restrictions in regard to the tenure of land. They were still excluded from Parliament, from the inner Bar, and from a few of the higher civil and military offices. Always in favour of religious liberty, Grattan would have swept away every vestige of the Penal code. But, in 1782, he mistakenly thought that his work was done when legislative independence was conceded. He forgot that the executive was still left independent of Parliament, answerable only to the English ministry; and that, with rotten boroughs controlled by a few great families, with an extremely limited franchise in the counties, and with pensioners and placement filling so many seats, the Irish Parliament was but a mockery of representation. Like Grattan, Flood and Charlemont favoured Parliamentary reform, but, unlike him, they were opposed to Catholic concessions. As for Foster and Fitzgibbon, who led the forces of corruption and bigotry, they opposed every attempt at reform, and consented to the Act of 1793 only under strong pressure from Pitt and Dundas. These English ministers, alarmed at the progress of French revolutionary principles in Ireland, fearing a foreign invasion, wished to have the Catholics contented. In 1795 further concessions seemed imminent. In that year an illiberal viceroy, Lord Westmoreland, was replaced by the liberal-minded Lord Fitzwilliam, who came understanding it to be the wish of Pitt that the Catholic claims were to be conceded. He at once dismissed from office a rapacious office-holder named Beresford, so powerful that he was called the "King of Ireland"; he refused to consult Lord Chancellor Fitzgibbon or Foster, the Speaker; he took Grattan and Ponsonby into his confidence, and declared his intention to support Grattan's bill admitting Catholics to Parliament. The high hopes raised by these events were dashed to the earth when Fitzwilliam was suddenly recalled, after having been allowed to go so far without any protest from Portland, the home secretary, or from the premier, Pitt. The latter, disliking the Irish Parliament because it had rejected his commercial propositions in 1785, and disagreed with him on the regency in 1789, already mediated a legislative union, and felt that the admission of Catholics to Parliament would thwart his plans. He was probably also influenced by Beresford, who had powerful friends in England, and by the king, whom Fitzgibbon had mischievously convinced that to admit Catholics to Parliament would be to violate his coronation oath. Possibly, other causes concurred with these to bring about the sudden and disastrous change which filled Catholic Ireland with grief, and the whole nation with dismay. The new viceroy, Lord Camden, was instructed to conciliate the Catholic bishops by setting up a Catholic college for the training of Irish priests; this was done by the establishment of Maynooth College. But he was to set his face against all Parliamentary reform and all Catholic concessions. These things he did with a will. He at once restored Beresford to office and Foster and Fitzgibbon to favour, the latter being made Earl of Clare. And he stirred up but too successfully the dying embers of sectarian hate, with the result that the Ulster factions, the Protestant "Peep-of-Day Boys" and the Catholic "Defenders", became embittered with a change of names. The latter, turning to republican and revolutionary ways, joined the United Irish Society; the former became merged in the recently formed Orange Society, taking its name from William of Orange and having Protestant ascendancy and hatred of Catholicism as its battle cries. Extending from Ulster, these rival societies brought into the other provinces the curse of sectarian strife. Instead of putting down both, the Government took sides with the Orangemen; and, while their lawless acts were condoned, the Catholics were hunted down. An Arms' Act, an Insurrection Act, an Indemnity Act, a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act placed them outside the pale of law. An undisciplined soldiery, recruited from the Orange lodges, were than let loose among them. Martial law, free quarters, flogging, picketing, half-hanging, destruction of Catholic property and life, outrages on women followed, until at last Catholic blood was turned into flame. Then Wexford rose. Looking back, it now seems certain that, had Hoche landed at Bantry in 1796, had even a small force landed at Wexford in 1798, or a few other counties displayed the heroism of Wexford, English power in Ireland would, temporarily at least, have been destroyed. But one county could not fight the British Empire, and the rebellion was soon quenched in blood. Camden's place was then given to Lord Cornwallis, who came to Ireland for the express purpose of carrying a Legislative Union. Foster refused to support him and joined the opposition. Fitzgibbon, however, aided Cornwallis, and so did Castlereagh, who for some time had discharged the duties of chief secretary in the absence of Mr. Pelham, and who was now formally appointed to the office. And then began one of the most shameful chapters in Irish history. Even the corrupt Irish Parliament was reluctant to vote away its existence, and in 1799 the opposition was too strong for Castlereagh. But Pitt directed him to persevere, and the great struggle went on. On one side were eloquence and debating power, patriotism, and public virtue, Grattan, Plunket, and Bushe, Foster, Fitzgerald, Ponsonby, and Moore, a truly formidable combination. On the other side were the baser elements of in Parliament, the needy, the spendthrift, the meanly ambitious, operated upon by Castlereagh, with the whole resources of the British Empire at his command. The pensioners and placemen who voted against him at once lost their places and pensions, the military officer was refused promotion, the magistrate was turned off the bench. And while anti-Unionists were unsparingly punished, the Unionists got lavish rewards. The impecunious got well-paid sinecures; the briefless barrister was made a judge or a commissioner; the rich man, ambitious of social distinction, got a peerage, and places and pensions for his friends; and the owners of rotten boroughs to large sums for their interests. The Catholics were promised emancipation in a united Parliament, and in consequence many bishops, some clergy, and a few of the laity supported the Union, not grudging to end an assembly so bigoted and corrupt as the Irish Parliament. By these means Castlereagh triumphed, and in 1801 the United Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland opened its doors. SINCE THE UNION The next quarter of a century was a period of baffled hopes. Anxious to stand well with the Government, Dr. Troy, the Archbishop of Dublin, had been a strong advocate of the Union, and had induced nine of his brother bishops to concede to the king a veto on episcopal appointments. In return, he wanted emancipation linked with the Union, and Castlereagh was not averse; but Pitt was non-committal and vague, though the Catholic Unionists had no doubt that he favoured immediate concession. Disappointment came when nothing was done in the first session of the United Parliament, and it was increased when Pitt resigned office and was succeeded by Addington, a narrow-minded bigot. Cornwallis, however, assured Dr. Troy that Pitt had resigned, unable to overcome the prejudices of the king, and that he would never again take office if emancipation were not conceded. Yet, in spite of this, he became premier in 1804, no longer an advocate of emancipation but an opponent, pledged never again to raise the question in Parliament, during the lifetime of the king. To this pledge he was as faithful as he had been false to his former assurances; and when Fox presented the Catholic petition in 1805, Pitt opposed it. After 1806, when both Pitt and Fox died, the Catholic champion was Grattan, who had entered the British Parliament in 1805. In the vain hope of conciliating opponents he was willing, in 1808, to concede the veto. Dr. Troy and the higher Catholics acquiesced; but the other bishops were unwilling, and neither they nor the clergy, still less the people, wanted a state-paid clergy or state-appointed bishops. The agitation of the question, however, did not cease, and for many years it distracted Catholic plans and weakened Catholic effort. Further complications arose when, in 1814, the prefect of the Propaganda, Quarantotti, issued a rescript favouring the veto. He acted, however, beyond his powers in the absence of Pius VII, who was in France, and when the pope returned to Rome, after the fall of Napoleon, the rescript was disavowed. In these years the Catholics badly needed a leader. John Keogh, the able leader of 1793, was then old, and Lords Fingall and Gormanstone, Mr. Scully and Dr. Dromgoole, were not the men to grapple with great difficulties and powerful opponents. An abler and more vigorous leader was required, one with less faith in petitions and protestations of loyalty. Such a leader was found in Daniel O'Connell, a Catholic barrister whose first public appearance in 1800 was on an anti-Unionist platform. A great lawyer and orator, a great debater, of boundless courage and resources, he took a prominent part on Catholic committees, and from 1810 he held the first place in Catholic esteem. Yet the Catholic cause advanced slowly, and, when Grattan died in 1820, emancipation had not come. Nor would the House of Lords accept Plunket's Bill of 1821, even though it passed the House of Commons and conceded the veto. At last O'Connell determined to rouse the masses, and in 1823, with the help of Richard Lalor Sheil, he founded the Catholic Association. Its progress at first was slow, but gradually it gathered strength. Dr. Murray, the new Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, joined it, and Dr. Doyle, the great Bishop of Kildare; other bishops followed; the clergy and people also came in; and thus rose a great national organization, supervising from its central office in Dublin subsidiary associations in every parish; maintained by a Catholic rent; watching over local and national affairs, discharging, as Mr. Canning described it, "all the functions of a regular government, and having obtained a complete mastery and control over the masses of the Irish people". The Association was suppressed in 1825 by Act of Parliament; but O'Connell merely changed the name; and the New Catholic Association with its New Catholic rent continued the work of agitation as of old. Nor was this all. By the Catholic Relief Act of 1793 the forty-shilling freeholders obtained the franchise. These freeholders, being so poor, were necessarily in the power of the landlords and were wont to be driven to the pools like so many sheep. But now, protected by a powerful association, and encouraged by the priests and by O'Connell, the freeholders broke their chains, and in Waterford, Louth, Meath, and elsewhere they voted for the nominees of the Catholic Association at elections, and in placing them at the head of the pool humbled the landlords. When they returned O'Connell himself for Clare in 1828, the crisis had come. The Tory ministers, Welllington and Peel, would have still resisted; but the people were not to be restrained: it must be concession or civil war, and rather than have the latter the ministers hauled down the flag of no surrender, and passed the Catholic Relief Bill of 1829. The forty-shilling freeholders were disfranchised, and there were some vexations provisions excluding Catholics from a few of the higher civil and military offices, prohibiting priests from wearing vestments outside their churches, bishops from assuming the titles of their sees, regulars form obtaining charitable bequests. In other respects Catholics were placed on a level with other denominations, and at last were admitted within the pale of the constitution. From that hour O'Connell was the uncrowned king of Ireland. Where he led the people followed. They cheered him when he praised Lord Anglesey and when he attacked him; when he supported the Whigs and when he described them as "base, brutal and bloody"; when he advocated the Repeal of the Union and when he abandoned the Repeal agitation; and when, after long years of waiting for concessions that never came, he again unfurled the flag of Repeal, they flocked to hear him, and laughed or wept with him, responsive to his every mood. Finally, to leave him free to devote his whole time to public affairs they subscribed yearly to the O'Connell tribute, given him thus an income which never fell below £16,000 and often went far beyond that figure. And yet the legislative results of nearly twenty years of such devotion and sacrifice were poor. The National Education system, established in 1831, required much amendment before it worked smoothly, and even now is far from being an ideal system. The Commutation of Tithes Act only transferred the odium of collection from the parson to the landlord, but gave little relief to the people. The Poor Law system, though it often relieved destitution, too often encouraged idleness and immorality. And the Corporation Act, while reforming a few of the corporations, abolished many. Nor could anything be more complete than the failure of the Repeal agitation. The explanation is not far to seek. O'Connell had a wretched party, men without capacity or patriotism. His acceptance of offices for his friends and his alliances with the Whigs was surely not a sound policy. And when he took up Repeal in earnest he was already old, with the shadow of death upon him. Lastly, as he neared the end, he lost the support of the Young Irelanders, the most vigorous and capable section of his followers. These things embittered his last days and hastened his death in 1847. Meantime the shadow of famine had fallen upon the land. The potato blight first appeared in Wexford, in 1845, whence it marched with stealthy tread all over the country, poisoning the potato fields as it passed. The stalks withered and died, the potatoes beneath the soil became putrid, and when they were dug and the sound ones separated from the unsound ones and put into pits, it was soon discovered that disease had entered the pits. The reckless creation of forty-shilling freeholders by the landlords for political purposes, the reckless subdivision of holdings by the tenants, had so augmented the population that in 1845 the inhabitants of Ireland were well beyond 8,000,000, most of them living in abject poverty with the potato as their only food. And now, with half the crop of 1845 gone and with the loss of the whole crop in the two succeeding years, millions were face to face with hunger. To cope with such a calamity required heroic measures, and O'Connell urged that distilleries should be closed, the export of provisions prohibited, public granaries set up, and reproductive works set on foot. But the premier, Peer, minimized the extent of the famine, and Lord John Russell, who succeeded him in 1846 was equally sceptical. He would neither stop distilling nor the export of provisions, nor build railways; and when he set up public works they were not reproductive, and the money expended on them, largely levied on the rates, was squandered by corrupt officials. Ultimately indeed he set up government stores, and in many cases food was distributed free. Charity supplemented the efforts of Government, and with no niggard hand. There were Quaker, Evangelical, and Baptist relief committees, and subscriptions from Great Britain and from Continental Europe, from Australia and from the West Indies. But America was generous most of all. In every city from Boston to New Orleans meetings were held and subscriptions given. Philadelphia sent eight vessels loaded with provisions; Mississippi and Alabama large consignments of Indian corn; railroads and shipping companies carried relief parcels free; and the Government turned some of the war vessels into transports to carry food to the starving millions beyond the Atlantic. Yet were the sufferings of the people great, and the number of deaths from famine and famine-fever appalling. Thousands lived for weeks on cabbage and a little meal, on cabbage and seaweed, on turnips, on diseased horse and ass flesh; and one case is recorded where a woman ate her dead child. Men died from cold as well as from hunger. They died on the roads and in the fields, at the relief works and on their way to them, at the workhouses and at the workhouse doors. They died in their cabins unattended, often surrounded by the dying and frequently by the dead. Flying from the country they died in the hospitals of Liverpool or Glasgow, or on board the sailing vessels to America. And thousands who crossed the ocean reached America only to die. In 1848 and in 1849 the famine was only partial, but in the latter year cholera appeared. In 1851 the famine was over, and such was the havoc wrought that a population, which at the previous rate of increase should have been 9,000,000, was reduced to 6,500,000. The conduct of the landlords during this terrible time was selfish and cruel. With few exceptions they gave no employment and no subscriptions to the relief funds. Unable to get rents from tenants unable to pay, they used their right to evict, and in thousands of cases the horrors of eviction were added to the horrors of famine. Retribution soon followed. The evictors, without rents and crushed by poor-rates, became hopelessly insolvent. The British Parliament considered them a nuisance and a curse, and in 1849 passed the Encumbered Estates Act, under which a creditor might petition to have the estate sold and his debt paid. Insolvent landlords were thus sent adrift, and solvent men took their places, and to such an extent that in a few years land to the value of £20,000,000 changed hands. But the new landlords were no better than the old. They raised rents, confiscated the tenant's improvements, worried him with vexatious estate rules, evicted him cruelly; and from 1850 to 1870 was the period of the great clearances. The necessary result was a constant and ever-increasing stream of emigration from Ireland, chiefly to America. Nor would British statesmen do anything to stem the tide, Lord John Russell would not interfere with the rights of property by passing a Land Act. Lord Derby was a landlord with a landlord's strong prejudices. Lord Palmerston declared that tenant right was landlord wrong. Nothing could be expected from the Irish members. Sadleir and Keogh broke up the Tenant Right party; Lucas was dead; Duffy in despair went to Australia; Moore was out of Parliament; and from 1855 to 1870 the Irish members were but placehunters and traitors. In these circumstances the Irish peasant joined the Ribbon Society, which was secret and oath-bound, and specially charged to defend the tenants' interests. Agrarian outrages naturally followed. The landlord evicted, the Ribbonman shot him down, and the evictor fell unpitied by the people, who refused to condemn the assassin. After 1860 the Robbonmen were gradually merged in the Fenian Society, which extended to America and England, and had national rather than agrarian objects in view. The Irish are not good conspirators, and the attempted Fenian insurrection in 1867 came to nothing. But the mediated assault on Chester Castle, the Clerkenwell explosion, and the Fenian raids into Canada showed the extent and intrepidity of Irish disaffection. An increasing number of Englishmen began to think that the non possumus attitude of Lord Palmerston was no longer wise; and with the advent to power of Mr. Gladstone in 1868, at the head of a large Liberal majority, the case of Ireland was taken up. The Catholic masses had a threefold grievance calling urgently for redress: the state Church, landlordism, and educational inequality. Mr. Gladstone called them the three branches of the Irish ascendancy upas tree. Commencing with the Church, he introduced a Bill disendowing and disestablishing it. Commissioners were appointed to wind it up, taking charge of its enormous property, computed at more than £15,000,000 ($75,000,000). Of this sum, £10,000,000, ultimately raised to £11,000,000, was given to the disestablished Church, part to the holders of existing offices, part to enable the Church to continue its work. A further sum of nearly £1,000,000 was distributed between Maynooth College, deprived of its annual grant, and the Presbyterian Church deprived of the Regium Donum, the latter getting twice as much as the former. The surplus was to be disposed of by Parliament for such public objects as it might determine. This was generous treatment for the state Church which had been so conspicuous a failure. Supported with an ample revenue, and by the whole power of the State, its business was to make Ireland Protestant and English. It succeeded only in intensifying their attachment to Catholicity and their hatred of Protestantism and England. In 1861, after the havoc wrought by the famine, the Catholics were seven times as numerous as the members of the state Church. There were many parishes without a single Protestant; and in a poor country a Church numbering but 600,000 persons had an income of nearly £700,000, mostly drawn from people of a different creed, who at the same time had their own Church to support. Yet there were members of Parliament who described Mr. Gladstone's Bill as robbery and sacrilege. The House of Lords, afraid to reject it altogether, emasculated it in committee. And Ulster Protestants declared that if it became law they would kick the Queen's crown into the Boyne. Ignoring these threats, Mr. Gladstone rejected the Lords' amendments, though on some minor points he gave way, and in spite of all opposition the Bill became law. And thus one branch of the upas tree came crashing to the earth. The Land Act of 1870 was well-meant, but in reality gave the tenants no protection against rackrenting or eviction. Two years later the Ballot Act freed the Irish tenant from the terrors of open voting. In 1873 the education question was reached. And first as to the primary schools. What the Catholic primary schools were in the early years of the nineteenth century we learn from Carleton. The teacher, the product of a local hedge-school and of a Munster classical school, or perhaps an ex-student of Maynooth, had first been employed as a tutor in some farmer's family. Then he became a hedge-schoolmaster, and the manner in which he attained to this position was peculiar. Challenging the schoolmaster already in possession to a public disputation, they met at the church gates on Sunday in presence of the congregation. The intellectual swordplay between the combatants was keenly relished, and, if the younger man won the applause of the audience by his depth of learning and readiness of reply, his opponent left the district and the victor was installed in his place. His school, built by the roadside by the people's voluntary efforts, was of earthen sods, with an earthen floor, a hole in the roof for a chimney, and stones for the pupils' seats. In many districts the teacher received little fees, but the people supplied him liberally with potatoes, meal, bacon, and turf, and entertained him at their houses. A century before Carleton's time the Charter schools were established, and endowed to educate the children of the destitute poor. They were to give industrial as well as literary training, and took religion and learning as their motto. But they became dens of infamy, with incompetent and immoral teachers, who taught the pupils nothing except to hate Catholicism. As such the schools were shunned by the Catholics, and were manifest failures, and yet till 1832 they received government grants. Such societies as the Society for Discountenancing Vice, the London Hibernian Association, and the Baptist Society were proselytizing institutions. The Kildare Street Society founded in 1811, though Protestant in its origin, was on different lines. The design was to have Catholics and Protestants educated together in secular subjects, leaving their religious training to the ministers of their religion outside of school hours. O'Connell favoured the scheme and joined the governing board, grants were obtained from Parliament, and for some years all went well. But again the bread of knowledge given to Catholics was steeped in the poison of proselytism. The bigots insisted on having the Bible read in the schools "without note or comment"; the Society was then vigorously assailed by John MacHale, at the time a young professor at Maynooth, and O'Connell retired from the board. Recognizing the failure of such a system, Lord Stanley; the Irish chief secretary, passed through Parliament in 1831 a bill empowering the lord lieutenant to constitute a National Board of Education with an annual grant for building schools, and for payment of teachers and inspectors. Religious instruction was to be given on one day of the week by ministers of the different religions to children of their own Faith. The schools were open to all denominations, and even "the suspicion of proselytism" was to be excluded. But the Catholics were treated unfairly. In spite of their numbers they were given but two of the seven members of the Board. Mr. Carlisle, a Presbyterian, was made resident commissioner, and as chief executive officer appointed non-Catholics to the principal offices; and he and his fellow-commissioner, Dr. Whately, the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin, compiled lesson-books, in which the history of Ireland and the Catholic religion were treated with injustice. In a few years the original rules of the Board were so changed that Catholic priests were entirely excluded from all Ulster schools under Presbyterian management. Outside of Ulster, a bigoted Protestant clergyman, named Stopford, was able in 1847 to abrogate the rule compelling Catholic child in Protestant schools to leave when the hour for religious instruction arrived. This left it optional with the children to remain, and brought much suffering on poor Catholics at the hands of tyrannical and bigoted landlords. Among the Catholic bishops there was toleration rather than approval of the National system. But Dr. MacHale, who had become Archbishop of Tuam in 1834, opposed the system from the first, believing that education not founded on religion was a curse. He preferred to have in his diocese the Christian Brothers' schools in which religious instruction was given the premier place. Dr. Murray of Dublin and Dr. Crolly of Armagh were not so hostile, and, when the matter was referred to Rome in 1841, the reply was that the National system might be given a further trial. The "Stopford Rule" strengthened MacHale's hands, as did a board rule in 1845 providing that all schools even partially erected by a board grant should be vested in the Board itself, and not as hitherto in the local manager, who in Catholic schools was usually the priest. MacHale also objected to the disproportionately small representation of Catholics on the Board, to the character of the lesson-books, to the large number of non-Catholics in the higher positions. These attacks told. In 1850 the Synod of Thurles condemned the National schools as then conducted. In 1852 Dr. Murray of Dublin died, and was succeeded by Dr. Cullen, who shared MacHale's views. The following year Whately's lesson-books were withdrawn from the Board's lists, and Whately in consequence resigned his seat. In 1860 the board was enlarged from seven to twenty, and thenceforth half of these were to be Catholics. The "Stopford Rule" and the rule regarding the vesting of schools were abrogated, and, with the resident commissioner a Catholic, the system became more acceptable to Catholics. For the training of teachers however there was only one Training College under non-Catholic control, but the Catholics established the Training College at Drumcondra, and in 1883 that at Baggot Street, Dublin, and since then they have established others at Belfast, Limerick, and Waterford. But even as the National system stood in 1873, Mr. Gladstone thought that the Catholics had no substantial grievance, and did nothing. Nor did he interfere with the state of things in intermediate education, though the inequality which existed was glaring. The diocesan free schools of Elizabeth, maintained by county contributions, and the free schools of James I and those of Erasmus Smith, maintained by confiscated Catholic lands, were under Protestant management and as such generally shunned by Catholics. Further, the Protestants were the richer classes, and, though their Church had been disestablished, it had been but partially disendowed. The Dissenters also had wealth and had well-equipped schools. But the Catholics, long prohibited from having any schools, got no help from the state even when the pressure of penal legislation had been removed. They had, however, set manfully to work, and, partly by private donations, principally by collections, had established colleges all over the land. Carlow College was founded in 1793, Navan College in 1802, St. Jarlath's College, Tuam, in 1817, Clongowes by the Jesuits in 1814, and others in the years that followed. but they could get no state assistance till 1879, when the Intermediate Education Act was passed. The yearly interest on £1,000,000 was then appropriated for prizes and exhibitions to pupils, and for result fees to colleges, and without distinction of creed, following competitive examinations to be annually held. The system, depending so much on examination and encouraging cramming, is certainly not ideal, but is has been of enormous assistance to struggling Catholic schools. It was in the field of higher education that Catholics suffered most. In 1795 Maynooth College had been founded for the education of the clergy. Its annual Parliamentary grant had been lost in 1869, but it nevertheless continued to flourish, and flourishes still as one of the first ecclesiastical colleges in the world. There were other ecclesiastical colleges at Carlow, Thurles, Waterford, and Drumcondra. But the laity had only Trinity College or the Queen's Colleges. The former had first opened its doors to Catholics in 1793, but would give them no share in its emoluments, nor did it abolish religious tests till 1873. The Queen's Colleges, three in number, one at Galway, one at Cork, and one at Belfast, were constituent colleges of the Queen's University, and were meant by Peel to do for higher education what Stanley had done for the primary schools. But the Catholic bishops' demand to have some adequate provision made for religious teaching, some voice in the appointment and dismissal of professors, and separate chairs in history and philosophy, not been acceded to, the Queen's Colleges were denounced by Dr. MacHale as godless colleges, and condemned by Rome as intrinsically dangerous to faith and morals; and at the Synod of Thurles, in 1850, it was resolved on the advice of Rome to set up a Catholic University. The model given was the University of Louvain. A committee was then appointed, subscriptions received both from Ireland and from abroad, a site was purchased in Stephen's Green, Dublin, Dr. Newman was made first rector, professors and lecturers were appointed, and in 1854 work was begun. But there were difficulties from the first. The nation still felt the effects of the famine, the secondary schools were but imperfectly organized and unable to furnish sufficient students, and Dr. MacHale and Dr. Cullen did not agree. Dr. MacHale complained that the administration was too centralized, that he could get no details of the expenditure, that there were too many Englishmen among the professors. He objected also to Dr. Newman. Though the great Oratorian loved Ireland, he was an Englishman with English ideas, and wanted Oxford and Cambridge men as his colleagues. MacHale, on the contrary, would have the whole atmosphere of the University Irish, and thus, trained by Irish teachers, Irish students would go forth to exhibit the highest capabilities of the Irish character. Dr. Cullen did not fully share these views, and generally agreed with Newman. Not always, however, for he objected to have Newman appointed an Irish bishop, and he disliked Newman's excessive partiality for professors trained in the English universities. This want of harmony was not conducive to enthusiasm or efficiency, and the pecuniary contributions obtained left the various faculties woefully undermanned. Nor could nay provision be made for students' residence or for tutorial superintendence. Most fatal of all, the Government refused to give a charter, and students could not be expected to frequent a university where they could get no degree. Unable to succeed where the elements of failure were so many, Newman resigned in 1857. In 1866 the Government of Earl Russell granted a supplemental charter making the Catholic University a constituent college of the queen's University, a sort of fourth Queen's College, but the charter was found to be illegal. Nor did Lord Mayo's attempt to settle the university question in 1868 succeed, and thus the Catholic University struggled painfully on. Nor was Mr. Gladstone's Bill of 1873 satisfying. He proposed to abolish the Queen's University and the Queen's College, Galway, and to have Dublin University separated from Trinity College, but with Trinity College, the Queen's Colleges at Belfast and Cork, Magee College and the Catholic University as constituent colleges. From Trinity College £12,000 a year would be taken and given to the Dublin University, which would have in all an income of £50,000, for the payment of examiners and professors and the founding of fellowships, scholarships, and prizes to be competed for by students of all the constituent colleges. There was to be a senate, at first wholly nominated by the Crown and subsequently half and half by the Crown and Senate. The endowment of the Queen's Colleges would remain, though the Catholic University would get nothing; nor would there be in any of the colleges any endowment for chairs of history, theology, or philosophy. This was perpetuating the inferior position of the Catholic University, as it was perpetuating the endowment of the godless colleges, and it would be almost impossible for the Catholics ever to have their proper share of representation in the Senate. Finally, men asked what sort of university that was which had no chairs of history or philosophy. The Bill in fact satisfied nobody, and Mr. Gladstone being defeated resigned office. It will be convenient here to anticipate. In 1879 the Queen's University was abolished and the Royal University took its place, empowered to give degrees to all comers who passed its examinations. The Queen's Colleges were left. In 1882 the Catholic University passed under Jesuit control, and of the twenty-eight fellowships of £400 a year founded by the Royal University fourteen were given to the Catholic University staff. With this slender indirect endowment it entered the lists with the Queen's Colleges and beat them all. Subsequently there were two University commissions, one dealing with the Royal University, the other with Trinity College, but nothing was done. Finally, in 1908, Mr. Birrell passed his Irish Universities Act leaving Trinity College untouched. Abolishing the Royal University, the Act sets up two new universities, the Queen's University with the Queen's College at Belfast, and the National University at Dublin, with the Queen's Colleges at Cork and Galway and a new college at Dublin as constituent colleges. In these colleges there are new governing bodies, largely Catholic and National, but religious services of any kind are prohibited within the precincts, and there are no religious tests. This change has resulted in the Jesuits severing their connection with the Catholic University, the buildings of which have been taken over by the new Dublin college. To go back, when Mr. Gladstone was replaced by the Tories, in 1874, a new Irish party had been already formed demanding an Irish Parliament, with full power to deal with purely domestic matters. It was called the Home Rule party, Mr. Butt, a Protestant lawyer of great ability, being its chief. At the general election in 1874, sixty Home Rulers were returned. But Mr. Butt accomplished nothing. His own methods of conciliation and argument were not the most effective. His party, nominal Home Rulers, were mostly place-hunters, and except the Intermediate Education Act of 1878 there were no legislative results. Mr. Butts died in 1879, and for a brief period the Home Rule leader was Mr. Shaw; but after the general election of 1880 Mr. Shaw was deposed, and a younger and more vigorous leader was appointed in the person of Charles Stewart Parnell. There had been a serious failure of the potato crop in 1877 and 1878, but in 1879 there was only half the average yield. The landlords unable to get their rents began to evict, and it seemed as if the horrors of 1847 were to be renewed. Large relief funds were collected and disbursed by the Duchess of Marlborough, the viceroy's wife, and by the Lord Mayor of Dublin; and Mr. Parnell went to America in the last days of 1879 and appealed in person to the friends of Ireland. He was accompanied by Mr. John Dillon, son of Mr. Dillon, the rebel of 1848. Within two months they addressed meetings in sixty-two cities, bringing back with them to Ireland £40,000 ($200,000). Nor would Mr. Parnell have come back in March but that the Tory premier, Lord Beaconsfield, had dissolved Parliament. Appealing to the county on an anti-Irish cry, his answer came in a crushing defeat, and in the return of Mr. Gladstone to power with a strong Liberal majority. Of the Home Rulers returned many were mere Whigs, but a sufficient number favoured an active policy to depose Mr. Shaw and put Mr. Parnell in his place. In 1879 the Torries had followed up the Intermediate Act by the Royal University Act, which left the Queen's Colleges and Trinity College untouched, but set up the Royal University, a mere examining board. But they would do nothing to restrain the landlords and nothing effective to relieve Irish distress. Better was expected from the new Liberal Government which included, besides Mr. Gladstone, such men as Bright, Chamberlain, and Forster, the latter appointed chief secretary for Ireland. Yet the Liberals were slow to move, and not until evictions had swelled to thousands did they introduce the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. It was thrown out in the Lords and not reintroduced. But the Irish peasants were in no humour to acquiesce in their own destruction and already a great land agitation was shaking Ireland from sea to sea. Begun in Mayor by Mr. Michael Davitt, the son of a Mayo peasant, and favoured by the prevailing distress and by the heartlessness of the landlords, it rapidly spread. Mr. Parnell soon joined it, and in October, 1979, the Land League was formed, its declared object being to protect tenants from eviction and to substitute peasant proprietary for the existing system of landlorism. Extending to America, many branches were formed there and large subscriptions sent home. In November, 1879, an abortive prosecution of Mr. Davitt and others only strengthened the League. In the new year a Mayo land agent, Captain Boycott, roused the ire of his tenants by issuing processes and threatening evictions; in consequence no servant would remain with him, no labourer would work for him, no shopkeeper would deal with him, no neighbour would speak to him. This system of ostracism became known as boycotting, and was freely used by the League against landlords, agents, and grabbers, with the result that they were compelled to make terms with the people. Government was unable to aid the boycotted, and before the end of 1880 the law of the League had supplanted the law of the land. These events changed Mr. Forster in a coercionist. He prosecuted Mr. Parnell and thirteen others in November, 1880, but failed to convict them. Then he asked for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. Mr. Gladstone reluctantly acquiesced, and early in 1881, after a fierce struggle with the Irish members, the measure passed. In a short time nearly two hundred persons were in jail without trial. Mr. Gladstone next passed a comprehensive Land Act, setting up courts to fix rents, and giving increased facilities to tenants to purchase their holdings. But the Irish members, angered because of the Coercion Act, received the Land Act without gratitude; and Mr. Parnell advised the tenants not to rush to the land courts, but rather go there with a limited number of test cases. Mr. Gladstone retorted by imprisoning Mr. Parnell and his principal lieutenants. For the next few months terror reigned supreme. Mr. Forster filled the jails, broke up meetings, suppressed newspapers, and yet succeeded so ill in pacifying the country that he felt compelled to ask for more drastic coercion. Mr. Gladstone, however, had had enough of coercion, and in May, 1882, Lord Cowper, the viceroy, and Mr. Forster were relieved of office, and Mr. Parnell and his colleagues were set free; and by an arrangement often called the Kilmainham Treaty an Arrears' Bill was to be introduced, while Parnell on his side, was to curb the agitation and gradually re-establish the reign of law. On the evening of 6 May these happy changes were fatally marred by the murder in the Phoenix Park, Dublin, of the under-secretary, Mr. Burke, and of the new chief secretary, Lord Frederick Cavendish. The assassins, entirely unconnected with the Land League, belonged to a secret society called the Invincibles. Mr. Parnell was stunned, the Irish cause grievously injured, and in England there was a cry of rage. A new Coercion Act was passed and vigorously enforced, and during the remainder of Gladstone's parliament between the Irish and the Liberals there was bitter enmity. But meanwhile Parnell's power increased. In place of the suppressed land League the National League was established, and spread over the United Kingdom and America. Mr. Parnell, while opposing Mr. Dillon's project of a renewed land agitation and Mr. Davitt's scheme of land nationalization, was aided by the Fenians; and though English intrigue succeeded in obtaining a papal rescript condemning a testimonial that was being raised for him, its only effect was to increase the subscriptions. Being friendly with the Tories, he joined with them to defeat Mr. Gladstone in 1885, and for a brief period Lord Salisbury was premier. He governed without coercion, and passed the Ashbourne Act, which advanced £5,000,000 to Irish tenants for the purchase of their holdings. In return, Mr. Parnell advised the Irish electors in Great Britain to vote for the Tories at the general election in October, 1885. But the Liberals were given a majority over the Tories, though not sufficient to form a government without the Irish. On the understanding that Home Rule was to be conceded, Liberals and Irish coalesced, the Tories were turned out, and Gladstone because premier and brought in his Home Rule Bill of 1886, setting up an Irish Parliament with an executive dependent on it. Deserted by a large section of his followers under Bright, Chamberlain, and Hartington, he was defeated, and going to the country was seriously defeated at the polls. In August Lord Salisbury was again in office at the head of the Tories and Liberal Unionists, and in overwhelming strength. The rejection of Mr. Parnell's Bill of 1886 providing for the admission of leasholders to the benefits of the Land Act of 1881, and for a revision of judicial rents to meet the recent heavy fall in prices, led to the starting of the Plan of Campaign by Messers. Dillon and O'Brien. The tenant was to offer his landlord a fair rent; and if it was refused he banked the money and fought the landlord, and was assisted by his fellow tenants throughout the land. The Plan was not approved or by Mr. Parnell, and it had the unfortunate effect of placing the perpetual Coercion Act of 1887 on the Statute Book. But it caused the Government to pass the very measure they had so lately rejected, and it compelled many of the poorer landlords to make terms with the tenants. While on the one hand the Plan was thus put in operation in Ireland, and on the other hand the Coercion Act, the Liberals and Irish worked well together in Parliament and on British platforms, the London "Times", always the bitter enemy of Ireland, became enraged, and in its anxiety to do harm published a series of articles on Parnellism and Crime. It relied, as it pretended, on authentic documents which connected Parnell and his colleagues with crime, and showed that Parnell himself condoned the Phoenix Park murders. A Special Commission appointed by Parliament discovered that the chief letters were forgeries and that the "Times" had been fooled by a disreputable Irishman named Richard Pigott. The forger confessed his crime and then committed suicide, and Parnell became the hero of the hour. When the Special Commission issued its report, early in 1890, the tide had turned with a vengeance against the Tories. Their majority was then seriously diminished, and when the general election came it was certain that nothing could prevent the triumph of Home Rule. In the midst of these bright hopes for Ireland there came the mournful wail of the banshee, and, even before the Special Commission report was issued, Captain O'Shea had filed a petition for divorce on the ground of his wife's adultery with Mr. Parnell. There was no defence, and could be none, and the decree was issued, Mr. Gladstone evidently expected that Mr. Parnell would have retired from the leadership, and, finding that he did not, intimated that his continuance in that position would wreck Home Rule. The Irish party which had re-elected Mr. Parnell were not prepared to go so far, and, as he would not retire even for a day, they deposed him. A minority still supported him, and at the head of these he appealed to the Irish people. Week after week he attended meetings and made speeches. But his health, already bad, could not stand the strain; the stubborn and reckless fight ended in his collapse, and at Brighton, on the 6th of October, 1891, the greatest Irish leader since O'Connell breathed his last. In the years that followed faction was lord of all. At the general election in 1892 the Parnellite members were reduced to nine, while the anti-Parnellites were seventy-two, and at the election in 1895 there was no material change. To argument and entreaty the minority refused to listen, and though the anti-Parnellite leaders, Mr. MacCarthy and Mr. Dillon, were ready to make any sacrifice for unity and peace, their opponents rejected all overtures; and under the shelter of Parnell's name they continued to shout Parnell's battle-cries. At last patriotism triumphed over faction, and in 1900 Mr. John Redmond, the Parnellite leader, was elected chairman of the reunited Irish party. Much had been lost during these years of discord in unity and strength, in national dignity and self-reliance. To faction it was due that the Liberal victory of 1892 was not more sweeping; that, in consequence, the Home Rule Bill of 1893 was rejected by the Lords; and that, in 1894, Mr. Gladstone retired, baffled and beaten, from the struggle. At the elections of 1895 and 1900 the Tories were victorious, and during their long term of power the Coercion Act was frequently enforced. But there were concessions also. In 1890, Mr. Balfour's Land Act provided £33,000,000 for Irish land purchase, and in 1891 the Congested Districts Board was established. In 1896, there was an amending Land Act; and in 1898, the Local Government Act transferred the government of counties and rural districts from the non-representative Grand Juries to popularly elected bodies. A further important Act was that of Mr. Wyndham, in 1903, providing more than £100,000,000 for the buying out of the whole landlord class. Mr. Wyndham also favoured a policy of devolution, that is a delegation to local bodies of larger powers. But nothing was done till the Liberals came into office in 1906, and they had nothing more generous to offer than Mr. Birrell's National Councils Bill, a measure so halting and meagre, that an Irish National Convention rejected it with scorn. Mr. Birrell has been more fortunate in his University Bill, which, though not establishing a purely Catholic University, provides one in which Catholic influences will predominate. In recent years also the programmes both in the national and secondary schools have been made more practical, facilities have been given for agricultural and technical education, and the great ecclesiastical college of Maynooth continues to maintain its reputation as the first ecclesiastical college in the world. RELATIONS BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE By the Catholic Relief Act of 1829 legal proscription ceased for the Catholic Church, as did legal ascendancy for the Protestant Church by Mr. Gladstone's Act of 1869. In practice, however, Protestant ascendancy largely remains still. Only within living memory was the first Catholic lord chancellor appointed in the person of Lord O'Hagan; Catholics are still excluded, except in rare instances, from the higher civil and military offices; and from the lord-lieutenancy they continue to be excluded by law. ECCLESIASTICAL ORGANIZATION The Catholic Church, divided into four provinces, not, however, corresponding with the civil divisions, is ruled by four archbishops and twenty-three bishops. But the number of dioceses is more than twenty-seven, for there have been amalgamations and absorptions. Cashel, for instance, has been joined with Emly, Waterford with Lismore, Kildare with Leighlin, Down with Connor, Ardagh with Clonmacnoise, Kilmacduagh with Galway, the bishop of Galway being also Apostolic Administrator of Kilfenora. In many dioceses there are chapters, in others none. The number of parishes is 1087. A few are governed by administrators, the remainder by parish priests, while the total number of the secular clergy--parish priests, administrators, curates, chaplains, and professors in colleges--amounts to 2967. There are also many houses of the regular clergy: Augustinians, Capuchins, Carmelites, Fathers of the Holy Ghost, Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits, Marists, Order of Charity, Oblates, Passionists, Redemptorists, and Vincentians. The total number of the regular clergy is 666. They are engaged either in teaching or in giving missions, but not charged with the government of parishes. There is, however, one exception--that of the Passionists of Belfast, who have charge of the parish of Holy Cross in the city. There are the two Cistercian abbeys of Mount Melleray and Roscrea, each ruled by a mitred abbot, and having forty-three professed priests. STATISTIC The population of Ireland has been steadily diminishing. In 1861, it was 5,798,564; in 1871, 5,412,377; in 1881, 5,174,836; in 1891, 4,704,751; in 1901, 4,458,775. The decrease is due to emigration, and as the great majority of the emigrants are Catholics, the Catholic population has suffered most. In 1861, it numbered 4,505,265; in 1871, 4,150,867; in 1881, 3,960,891; in 1891, 3,547,307; in 1901, 3,310,028. In the period from 1851 to 1901 the total number of emigrants, being natives of Ireland, who left Irish ports was 3,846,393. No less than 89 per cent went to the United States, the remainder going to Great Britain, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. The saddest feature of this exodus is that 82 per cent of the emigrants were between 15 and 35 years of age. The healthy and enterprising have gone, leaving the weaker in mind and body at home, one result being that the number of lunatics increased from 16,505 in 1871 to 21,188 in 1891. In the latter year the total number of primary schools was 9157, of which 8569 were under the National Board, 97 under the Christian Brothers and other communities, and 471 other primary schools. In 1908 the total number of National Board schools was 8538 under 3057 managers, of whom 2455 were clerical and 602 laymen. Of the clerical managers 1307 were Catholics, 713 were Protestant Episcopalians, 379 Presbyterians, 52 Methodists, and 4 unclassed. In 1901 the number of pupils in all the primary schools was 636,777, of whom 471,910 were Catholics. There has been a steady improvement in the matter of illiteracy. In 1841 the percentage of those above five years who could neither read not write was 53; in 1901 it had fallen to 14. Of the whole population 14 per cent could speak Irish. In 1901 there were 35,373 pupils in the Intermediate schools, the number of Catholics being 78 per cent of the total Catholic population. The Catholic girls in these schools were for the most part educated in the various convents. The boys were educated in the diocesan colleges, or in the colleges of the religious orders, and a proportion also in the Christian Brothers' schools. "In Colleges of Universities and other Colleges", in 1901, there were 3192 students, of whom 91 were females. The highest form of ecclesiastical education is obtained at Maynooth, other such colleges being All Hallows and Clonliffe in Dublin, Thurles, Waterford, and Carlow colleges. CHURCH PROPERTY, CHURCHES, SCHOOLS, CEMETERIES Church property is usually held in trust by the parish priest for the parish, the bishop for the diocese, the religious superior for his order, and often associated with other trustees. In many cases the title-deeds have been lost, but undisputed possession is considered sufficient, and the parish-priest or other superior for the time being is recognized as the legal owner of the church, church grounds, and cemetery, if there be such. New churches are built on land purchase out, or acquired free of rent or under very long lease, and church and ground are exempt from taxation. New cemeteries belong to the District Council, and many of the older cemeteries have been taken over by the same authority. Schools under the National Board are either vested or non-vested. If vested, they are held by trustees--usually the priest, who is manager, and two others--and in this case only two-thirds of the cost of building is granted by Government. In the case of non-vested schools, which are the property of the National Board itself, the full amount for building is granted by Government, and the school is also kept in repair, while in vested schools repairs have to be made by the manager. Both in vested and non-vested schools the National Board regulates the programme, selects the school books, and provides for the cost of examination and inspection. The appointment and dismissal of teachers rests with the manager, from whom in the Catholic schools there is an appeal to the bishop. All these are exempted from taxation. Clergymen of all denominations get loans from Government on easy terms to build residences. These houses, however, are not exempt from taxation, and belong to the clergyman and his successors, not to himself personally. PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS Prisons are under government management, and always have a Catholic chaplain, when there are Catholic inmates. So also have workhouses, asylums, and county hospital, which are under the local authority. Reformatories and industrial schools in the great majority of cases are under Catholic management, but they must be certified as suitable by a government official and are subject to government inspection from time to time. In 1900 there were in Ireland six reformatories and seventy industrial schools; the number of both sexes in the former being 624 and in the latter 8221. Both reformatories and industrial schools are maintained partly by a government grant and partly by the local rates. LEGAL STATUS OF THE CLERGY The clergy have, with some few exceptions, the usual rights of citizens. They can receive and dispose of property by will as all others, and they can vote at elections. But they are excluded by law from the House of Commons, though not from the House of Lords; and they are excluded from the County and District Councils, though not from the various committees appointed by these bodies. They are exempt from military service and from serving on juries. Public worship is free; but priests may not celebrate the Mass outside the churches or private houses, nor appear publicly in their vestments, nor have religious processions through the streets; nor many the regular clergy go abroad in the distinctive dress of their order. These laws, however, are not enforced and not infrequently processions do take place through the streets, and the regular clergy do go abroad in their distinctive dress. Similarly, it is illegal for religious orders of men to admit new members; but this provision of the Catholic Relief Act of 1829 has never been enforced. LAWS RELATING TO CHARITABLE BEQUESTS, MARRIAGE, DIVORCE Generally speaking, all bequests for the advancement of public worship are valid; but bequests for superstitious uses are void. A bequest, for instance, to maintain a light before an image for the good of one's soul is void; but the bequests for Masses are good, unless left to a member of a religious order as such, the reason being that religious orders are still technically illegal. For the validity of a will nothing is required but that the testor be of sound mind at the time, and free from undue influence, and that the document be signed by two witnesses. As to marriage, it is necessary that the contracting parties should be free, and that the mutual consent be given in the presence of two witnesses and a clergyman, or registrar duly appointed for the purpose. In the Irish courts no marriage can be dissolved; only a judicial separation can be obtained. When such a separation is obtained there is no difficulty in having a Bill passed through Parliament dissolving the marriage. THE PRESS There is no purely Catholic newspaper acting as the mouthpiece either of an individual diocese or of the Irish Church. There are, however, in most of the provincial towns weekly newspapers, often owned by Catholics, and always ready to voice Catholic opinion. In Cork and Belfast there are daily papers animated with the same spirit, and in Dublin the "Freeman's Journal" and the "Daily Independent". In Dublin also is the "Irish Catholic", which is a powerful champion of Catholicity; and there is the "Leader", not professedly Catholic, but with a vigorous and manly Catholic tone. These two are weeklies. Published monthly are the "Irish Monthly" under the Jesuits, the "Irish Rosary" under the Dominicans, the "Irish Educational Review", dealing with Catholic educational matters, and the "Irish Ecclesiastical Record", edited by Dr. Hogan of Maynooth, under episcopal supervision. There is also the "Irish Theological Quarterly", which, as its name implies, is published quarterly, and conducted by the professors of Maynooth College with an ability, an extent of knowledge, a grasp of the subjects treated, and a vigour and freshness of style worthy of Maynooth College in its palmiest days. Annals of the Four Masters (Dublin, 1856); Annals of Ulster (Dublin, 1887); Annals of Loch Ce (London, 1871); Annals of Clonmacnoise (Dublin, 1896); LELAND, History of Ireland (London, 1773); JOYCE, Short History of Ireland (London, 1893); KEATING, History of Ireland (Dublin, 1859); HAVERTY, History of Ireland (Dublin, 1860); FERGUSON, The Irish before the Conquest (London, 1868); RICHEY, Lectures on Irish History (London, 1860); HYDE, Literary History of Ireland (London, 1899); D'ALTON, History of Ireland (London, 1906). FOR THE PAGAN AND EARLY CHRISTIAN PERIODS:--Senchus Mor (Dublin, 1865-1901); O'CURRY, Manners and Customs of the Ancient Irish (Dublin, 1873); IDEM, MSS. Materials of Ancient Irish History (Dublin, 1861); JOYCE, Social History of Ancient Ireland (London, 1903); JUBAINVILLE, The Irish Mythological Cycle (Dublin, 1903); WARE, Works, ed. HARRIS (Dublin, 1739-64); O'DONOVAN, Book of Rights (Dublin, 1847); WALKER, History of the Irish Bards (Dublin, 1786); STOKES, Tripartite Life of St. Patrick (London, 1887); LANIGAN, Ecclesiastical Hist. of Ireland (Dublin, 1822); HEALY, Ancient Schools and Scholars (Dublin, 1896); IDEM, Life and Writings of St. Patrick (Dublin, 1905); BURY, St. Patrick and his Place in History (London, 1905); MORRIS, St. Patrick, Apostle of Ireland (London, 1890); ZIMMER, Celtic Church (London, 1902); MORAN, Essays on the Early Irish Church (Dublin, 1864); W. STOKES, Ireland and the Celtic Church (London, 1892); IDEM, Lives of the Saints from the Book of Lismore (London, 1890); IDEM, The Felire of Aengus (Dublin, 1880); USHER, Works (Dublin, 1847); OLDEN, Church of Ireland (London, 1892); ADAMNAN, Life of St. Columba (Dublin, 1857); ARCHDALL, Monasticon Hibernicum (Dublin, 1873); REEVES, The Culdees (Dublin, 1864); PETRIE, Round Towers (Dublin, 1845); O'FLAHERTY, Ogygia (Dublin, 1793); HALLIDAY, Scandinavian Kingdom of Dublin (Dublin, 1882); WORSAE, The Danes in England, Scotland and Ireland (London, 1852); TODD, Wars of the Gael and Gall (London, 1867); DASENT, Burnt Njal (Edinburgh, 1861); O'HANLON, Life of St. Malachy (Dublin, 1859); see also (in Migne's Patrologia) the works of ALCUIN, BEDE, ST. BERNARD, COGITOSUS, ST. COLUMBANUS, DONATUS, DUNGAL, ST. GALL, MARIANUS, SCOTUS, SCOTUS ERIUGENA; and for incidental references in the earlier part, the works of HERODOTUS, PLINY, STRABO, CAESAR, TACITUS, CLAUDIAN, and GIBBON. FOR THE PLANTAGENET AND TUDOR PERIODS:--SWEETMAN, Calendars of State Papers; GIRALDUS CAMBRENSIS, Work (London, 1861-91); LYNCH, Cambrensis Eversus (Dublin, 1855); MISS STOKES, Early Christian Art in Ireland (London, 1887); ORPEN, The Lay of Dermot and the Earl (London, 1892); THIERRY, Norman Conquest (Bohn Series); MALONE, Adian IV and Ireland (Dublin, 1899); GINNELL, The Doubtful Grant of Ireland (Dublin, 1899); GOSSELIN, Power of the Popes in the Middle Ages (London, 1853); KING, Church History of Ireland (Dublin, 1898); GILBERT, Viceroys of Ireland (Dublin, 1865); O'CONNOR DON, The O'Connors of Connaught (Dublin, 1891); WARE, Annals (Dublin, 1704); GILBERT, Historic and Municipal Documents (Dublin, 1870); COX, Hibernia Anglicana (London, 1689); Ancient Irish Histories (Dublin, 1809); LINGARD, History of England; O'FLAHERTY, Iar Connaught (Dublin, 1846); ORDERICUS VITALIS, History of England and Normandy (Bohn); STOKES, Ireland and the Anglo-Norman Church (London, 1897); MANT, History of the Church of Ireland (London, 1841); CLYNN AND DOWLING, Annals (Dublin, 1849); COLTON, Visitation Statute of Kilkenny (Dublin, 1843); DAVIES, Historical Tracts (London, 1786); MEEHAN, History of the Geraldines (Dublin, 1878); HARRIS, Hibernica (Dublin, 1770); FROISSART, Chronicle (London, 1895); Correspondence relating to Ireland (reign of Henry VIII), Hamilton's Calendars of State Papers (1509-1600); Carew Papers (1509-1624); BAGWELL, Ireland under the Tudors (London, 1885-90); GREEN, Short History of the English People (London, 1878); GASQUET, Edward VI and the Book of Common Prayer (London, 1891); IDEM, Henry VIII and the English Monasteries (London, 1899); Harleian Miscellany (London, 1808-13); D'ALTON, Archbishops of Dublin (Dublin, 1838); MORAN, Archbishops of Dublin (Dublin, 1864); MORRIN, Calendar of the Patent Rolls (Dublin, 1861); CAMDEN, Annals (London, 1635); FROUDE, History of England (London, 1898); O'SULLIVAN, Catholic History of Ireland (Eng. tr. Dublin, 1903); CARTE, Life of Ormond (London, 1736); HOLINSHED, Chronicle (London, 1574); O'CLERY, Life of Red Hugh O'Donnell (Dublin, 1893); FYNES MORYSON, Irish Wars (London, 1617); CUELLAR, Narrative (London, 1897); MACGEOGHEGAN, History of Ireland (Dublin, 1844); HOGAN, Ireland in 1598 (Dublin, 1878); Pacata Hibernia (London, 1896). FOR THE STUART PERIOD:--RUSSELL AND PRENDERGAST, Calendars (1603-25); GARDINER, History of England (1844); Stuart Tracts (London, 1903); MEEHAN, Earls of Tyrone and Tyroconnell (Dublin, date uncertain); HILL, Plantation of Ulster (Belfast, 1877); STRAFFORD, Letters (London, 1739); BELLING, History of the Irish Confederation (Dublin, 1882); HICKSON, Ireland in the 17th Century (London, 1884); CLANRICARDE, Memoirs (Dublin, 1744); MAHAFFY, Calendars of State Papers (625-60); PRENDERGAST, Cromwellian Settlement (London, 1870); TEMPLE, History of the Irish Rebellion (Dublin, 1724); WARNER, History of the Rebellion (London, 1767); CLARENDON, History of the Rebellion (London, 1720); PETTY, Tracts (Dublin, 1769); CASTLEHAVEN, Memoirs (Dublin, 1815); GILBERT, Contemporary History (1641-52), (Dublin, 1879); RINUCCINI, Letters (Dublin, 1873); MURPHY, Cromwell in Ireland (Dublin, 1897); MORLEY, Cromwell (London, 1900); GARDINER, Cromwell (London, 1897); IDEM, History of the Commonwealth (London, 1894-1901); Cromwell's Letters and Speeches (London, 1846); D'ALTON, History of Drogheda (Dublin, 1844); LENIHAN, History of Limerick (Dublin, 1866); RANKE, History of England in the 17th Century (Clarendon Press); The Down Survey (Dublin, 1851); MORAN, Persecutions under the Puritans (Callan, 1903); IDEM, Life of Oliver Plunkett (Dublin, 1870); MOUNTMORRES, Irish Parliament 1634-66 (London, 1792); Diaries of PEPYS and EVELYN; WALSH, Irish Remonstrance; CLARKE, James II (London, 1816); MACAULAY, History of England; SOMERS, Tracts; Jacobite Narrative of the War in Ireland (Dublin, 1892); Macariae Excidium (Dublin, 1851); STORY, Impartial History (London, 1691); STORY, Continuation of the War (London, 1693); Diary of Dean Davies (Camden Society); BELLINGHAM, Diary; The Rawdon Papers (London, 1819); MURPHY, Our Martyrs (Dublin, 1896); MEEHAN, Franciscan Monasteries of the 17th Century (Dublin, --); HOGAN, Hibernia Ignatiana (Dublin, 1880); MASON, Parliaments in Ireland (Dublin, 1891); PRENDERGAST, Ireland from 1660 to 1685 (London, 1887); KING, State of the Irish Protestants (Cork, 1768); COLGAN, Trias Thaumaturga (Louvain, 1647); Calendars of the Stuart Papers at Windsor; SCULLY, Penal Laws (Dublin, 1812). FOR THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY:--FROUDE, English in Ireland (London, 1895); LECKY, History of Ireland in the 18th Century (London, 1902); YOUNG, Tour in Ireland (London, 1892); SWIFT, Prose Works (London, 1905); BERKELEY, Works (Clarendon Press, 1871); O'CALLAGHAN, Irish Brigade in the Service of France; D'ALTON, King James's Army List (Dublin, 1855); SWIFT MACNEILL, The Irish Parliament (London, 1888); MOLYNEUX, Ireland's Case Stated (Dublin, 1698); LECKY, Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland; DELANEY, Autobiography (London, 1861); Charlemont Papers and HARDY, Lord Charlemont (London, 1810); BARRINGTON, Rise and Fall of the Irish Nation (Dublin, 1853); IDEM, Personal Sketches (London, 1827); GRATTAN, Speeches (London, 1822); Journals of the Irish House of Commons; Irish Parliamentary Debates (1781-97); BALL, Irish Legislative Systems (London, 1888); PLOWDEN, Historical Review (London, 1803); MOORE, Lord Edward Fitzgerald (London, 1897); WOLFE TONE, Autobiography (London, 1893); MADDEN, United Irishmen (Dublin, 1857); Secret Service under Pitt (London, 1892); HAY, History of the Rebellion, also the Histories of TELLING, CLONEY, GORDON, KAVANAGH, and MAXWELL; FITZPATRICK, Sham Squire (Dublin, 1895); IDEM, Ireland before the Union (Dublin, 1880); SEWARD, Collectanea Hibernica (Dublin, 1812); GRATTAN, Life and Times of Henry Grattan (London, 1839); MACNEVIN, Pieces of Irish History (New York, 1807); HOUT, Memoirs (London, 1838); Cornwallis Correspondence (London, 1859); GUILLON, La France et l'Irlande (Paris, 1888); STANHOPE, Pitt (London, 1861); ASHBOURNE, Pitt (London, 1898); COOTE, History of the Union (London, 1802); Castlereagh Correspondence (London, 1848). PERIOD SINCE THE UNION:--MITCHELL, History of Ireland (Glasgow, 1869); MACDONAGH, The Viceroy's Postbag (London, 1904); Lord Sidmouth's Life (London, 1847); COLCHESTER, Diary (London, 1861); CANNING, Correspondence (London, 1887); PLOWDEN, History, 1800-10 (Dublin, 1811); DUNLOP, Daniel O'Connell (London, 1900); MACDONAGH, Daniel O'Connell London, 1903); O'Connell's Correspondence (London, 1888); FITZPARTICK, Dr. Doyle (Dublin, 1880); DOYLE, Letters on the State of Ireland (Dublin, 1826); PEEL, Memoirs (London, 1856); CLONCURRY, Recollections (London, 1849); WYSE, History of the Catholic Association (London, 1829); SHEIL, Speeches (London, 1845); IDEM, Sketches (London, 1855); The Annual Register; O'BRIEN, Life of Drummond (London, 1889); JOHN O'CONNELL, Recollections (London, 1849); Halliday Pamphlets; O'RORKE, Irish Famine (Dublin, 1902); O'BRIEN, Fifty Years of Concessions to Ireland (London, 1885); O'CONNOR, The Parnell Movement (London, 1887); A. M. SULLIVAN, New Ireland; GREVILLE, Memoirs (London, 1888); Hansard's Parliamentary Reports; LUCAS, Life of F. Lucas (London, 1886); DUFFY, The League of North and South (London, 1886); IDEM, Four Years of Irish History (London, 1883); IDEM, Young Ireland (London, 1880); Devon Commission Report (Dublin, 1847); CARLISLE, Speeches (Dublin, 1865); O'LEARY, Fenians and Fenianism (London, 1896); BUTT, Land Tenure in Ireland (Dublin, 1866); MORLEY, Life of Gladstone (London, 1905); BARRY O'BRIEN, Life of Parnell (London, 1899); REID, Life of Foster (London, 1888); DAVITT, Fall of Feudalism in Ireland (London, 1904); PLUNKETT, Ireland in the New Century (London, 1904); O'RIORDAN, Catholicity and Progress in Ireland (London, 1905); MACCAFFREY, History of the Church in the Nineteenth Century (2 vols., Dublin, 1909); O'DEA, Maynooth and the University Question (Dublin, 1903). For Statistics see Thom's Directories and The Irish Catholic Directory. E.A. D'ALTON Irish Literature Irish Literature It is uncertain at what period and in what manner the Irish discovered the use of letters. It may have been through direct commerce with Gaul, but it is more probable, as McNeill has shown in his study of Irish oghams, that it was from the Romanized Britons that they first learned the art of writing. The Italian alphabet, however, was not the first to be employed in Ireland. Whoever the early Irish may have been who first discovered letters, whether from intercourse with Britain or with Gaul, they did not apparently bring either the Latin or the Greek alphabet back with them to Ireland, but they invented an entirely new one of their own, founded with considerable skill upon the Latin; this was used in very early times by the Irish Celts for inscriptions upon pillars and gravestones. This ogham script, as it is called, consists of lines, straight or slanting, long or short, drawn either over, under, or through a given straight line, which straight line is in lapidary inscriptions usually formed by the angular edge of a rectangular upright stone. Thus, four cuts to the right of the line stand for S, to the left of the line they mean C, and if they pass through the line they mean E. None of even the oldest Irish manuscripts preserved to us is anything like as ancient as these lapidary inscriptions. The language of the ogham stones is in fact centuries older than that of the very oldest vellums, and agrees to a large extent to what has been found of the old Gaulish linguistic monuments. Early Irish literature and the sagas relating to the pre-Christian period of Irish history abound with references to ogham writing, which was almost certainly of pagan origin, and which continued to be employed up to the Christianization of the island. It was eventually superseded by the Roman letters which were introduced by the Church and must have been propagated with all the prestige of the new religion behind them; but isolated ogham inscriptions exist on grave stones erected as late as the year 600. When the script was introduced into Ireland is uncertain, but it was probably about the second century. Although it answered well, indeed better than the rounded Roman letters, for lapidary inscriptions, yet it was too cumbrous an invention for the facile creation of a literature, though a professional poet may well have carried about with him on his "tablet-staves", as the manuscripts call them, the catchwords of many poems, sagas and genealogies. Over a couple of hundred inscribed ogham stones still exist, mostly in the south-west of Ireland, but they are to be found sporadically wherever the Irish Celt planted his colonies in Scotland, Wales, Devonshire, and even further East. Earliest Manuscripts. The earliest existing examples of the written Irish language as preserved in manuscripts do not go back farther than the eighth century; they are chiefly found in Scriptural glosses written between the lines or on the margins of religious works in Latin, preserved on the Continent, wither they were carried by early Irish missionaries in the numerous monasteries which they founded in Switzerland, Germany, France, and Italy. The oldest piece of consecutive Irish preserved in Ireland is found in the "Book of Armaugh", written about the year 812. These early glosses, though of little except philological interest yet show the wide learning of the commentators and the extraordinary development, even at that early period, of the language in which they wrote. Their language and style, says Kuno Meyer, stand on a high level in comparison with those of the Old High German glosses. "We find here", he writes, "a fully-formed learned prose style which allows even the finest shades of thought to be easily and perfectly expressed, from which we must conclude that there must have been a long previous culture [of the language] going back at the very least to the beginning of the sixth century" (Kultur der Gegenwart, part I, section xi, p. 80). These glosses are to be found at Wertzburg, St. Gall, Karlsruhe, Milan, Turin, St. Paul in Carinthia, and elsewhere. The "Liber Hymnorum" and the "Stowe Missal" are, after the glosses and the "Book of Armaugh" perhaps the most ancient manuscripts in which Irish is written. They date from about the year 900 to 1050. The oldest books of miscellaneous literature are the "Leabhar na h-Uidhre", or "Book of the Dun Cow", transcribed about the year 1100, and the "Book of Leinster", which dates from about fifty years later. Both these books are great miscellaneous literary collections. After them come many valuable vellums. The date at which these manuscripts were penned is no criterion of the date at which their contents were first written, for many of them contain literature which, from the ancient forms of words and other indications, must have been committed to writing as early as the seventh century at least. We cannot carry these pieces farther back linguistically, but it is evident from their contents that many of them must have been handed down orally for centuries before they were committed to writing. It must also be noted that a seventeenth century manuscript may sometimes give a more correct version of a seventh-century piece than a vellum many centuries older. Early Christian Scholars in Ireland. It happens that Ireland's first great saint is also the first person of whom it can be said without hesitation that some at least of the writings ascribed to him are really his. We actually possess a manuscript (Book of Armaugh) 1100 years old, containing his "Confession" or apology. There is no reason, however, for supposing that it was with St. Patrick that a knowledge of the Roman alphabet was first brought to Ireland. Before his arrival there were Christians in Munster. At the beginning of the third century there were British missionaries at work, according to Zimmer, in the southern province of the island. Bede says distinctly that Paladius was sent from Rome to the Irish who already believed in Christ "ad Scottos in christum credentes" (Eccl. Hist., bk. I, xiii). Pelagius, the subtle heresiarch who taught with such success at Rome, and who acquired great influence there, was of Irish descent. "Habet", says St. Jerome, "progenium Scotticæ gentis de Brittanorum vicinia" (P.L., XXIV, 682, 758). He came probably from those Irish who had settled in Wales and South Britain. His friend and teacher Celestius is said by some to have been an Irishman also, but this is doubtful. Sedulius, however (Irish Siadal, now Shiel in English), the author of the "Carmen Paschale", who flourished in the first half of the fifth century, and who has been called the Virgil of theological poetry, was almost certainly an Irishman. Indeed the Irish geographer Dicuil in the eighth century calls him noster Sedulius, all of which shows that some Irish families at least were within the reach of a cosmopolitan literary education in the fourth and fifth centuries and that they were quick to grasp it. Existing Manuscript Literature. Although so many scholars have during the last fifty years given themselves up to Celtic studies, it remains true that the time has not yet come, nor can it come for many years when it will be possible to take anything like an accurate survey of the whole field of Irish literature. Enormous numbers of important MSS. still remain unedited; many gaps occur in the literature which have never been filled up, unless perhaps here and there by some short piece in a learned magazine; of many periods we know little or nothing. There are poets known to us at present practically only by name, whose work lies waiting to be unearthed and edited, and so vast is the field and so enormous the quantity of matter to be dealt with that there is room for an entire army of workers, and until much more pioneer work has been done, and further researches made in Irish grammar, prosody, and lexicography, it will be impossible to reduce the great mass of material into order, and to date it with anything like certainty. The exact number of Irish manuscripts still existing has never been accurately determined. The number in the Royal Irish Academy, Dublin, alone is enormous, probably amounting to some fifteen hundred. O'Curry, O'Longan, and O'Beirne catalogued a little more than half the manuscripts in the Academy, and the catalogue filled thirteen volumes containing 3448 pages; to these an alphabetic index of the pieces contained was made in three volumes, and an index of the principle names, etc. in thirteen volumes more. From an examination of these books one may roughly calculate that the pieces catalogued would number about eight or ten thousand, varying from long epic sagas to single quatrains or stanzas, and yet there remains a great deal more to be indexed, a work which after a delay of very many years is happily now at last in process of accomplishment. The library of Trinity College, Dublin, also contains a great number of valuable manuscripts of all ages, many of them vellums, probably about 160. The British Museum, the Bodeian Library at Oxford, the Advocates Library in Edinburgh, and the Bibliothèque Royale in Brussels are all repositories of a large number of valuable manuscripts. Contents of the Manuscripts. From what we know of the contents of the existing manuscripts we may set down as follows a rough classification of the literature contained in them. We may well begin with the ancient epics dating substantially from pagan times, probably first reduced to writing in the seventh century or even earlier. These epics are generally shot through with verses of poetry and often with whole poems, just as in the case of the French chantefable, "Aucassin et Nicollet". After the substantially pagan efforts may come the early Christian literature, especially the lives of the saints, which are both numerous and valuable, visions, homilies, commentaries on the Scriptures, monastic rules, prayers, hymns, and all possible kinds of religious and didactic poetry. After these we may place the many ancient annals, and there exists besides a great mass of genealogical books, tribal histories, and semi-historical romances. After this may come the bardic poetry of Ireland, the poetry of the hereditary poets attached to the great Gaelic families and the provincial kings, from the ninth century down to the seventeenth. Then follow the Brehon laws and other legal treaties, and an enormous quantity of writings on Irish and Latin grammar, glossaries of words, metrical tracts, astronomical, geographical, and medical works. Nor is there any lack of free translations from classical and medieval literature, such a Lucam's "Bellum Civile", Bede's "Historica Ecclesiastica", Mandeville's "Travels", Arthurian romances and the like. Finally there exists a rich poetical literature of the last three centuries, and certain prose works such as Keating's invaluable history of Ireland, with great quantities of keenes, hymns, love-songs, ranns, bacchanalian, Jacobite, poetical, and descriptive verses, of which thousands have still to be found, although an enormous number have perished. To this catalogue may perhaps be added the unwritten folk-lore of the island both in prose and verse which has only lately begun to be collected, but of which considerable collections have already been made. Such, then, is a brief and bald résumé of what the student will find before him in the Irish language. There may be observed in this list two remarkable omissions. There is no epic handed down entirely in verse, and there is no dramatic literature. The Irish epic is in prose, though it is generally interwoven with numerous poems, for though many epopees exist in rhyme, such as some of the Ossianic poems, they are of modern date, and none of the great and ancient epics we constructed in this way. The absence of the drama, however, is more curious still. Highly cultivated as Irish literature undoubtedly was, and excellent scholars both in Greek and Latin as the early Irish were, nevertheless they do not seem to have produced even a miracle play. It has been alleged that some of the Ossianic poems, especially those containing a semi-humorous, semi-serious dialogue between the last of the great pagans, the poet Oisin (Ossian he is called in Scotland), and the first of the great Christian leaders, St. Patrick, were originally intended to be acted, or at least recited, by different people. If this be really so, then the Irish had at least the rudiments of a drama, but they never appear to have carried it beyond these rudiments, and the absence of all real dramatic attempt, however it may be accounted for, is one of the first things that is likely to strike with astonishment the student of comparative literature. Early Irish Epic or Saga. During the golden period of the Greek and Roman genius no one thought of writing a prose epic or a saga. Verse epics they left behind them, and history, but the saga of the Northmen, the sgeul or úrsgeul of the Gael, was unknown to them. It was only in a time of decadence that a body of Greek prose romance appeared, and the Latin language produced in this line little of a higher character that the "Golden Ass" or the "Gesta Romanorum". In Ireland, on the other hand, the prose epic or saga developed to an abnormal degree, and kept on developing, to some extent at least, for well over a thousand years. It is probable that very many sagas existed before the coming of Christianity, but it is highly improbable that any of them were written down in full length. It was no doubt only after the full Christianization of the island, when it abounded in schools of learning, that the Irish experienced the desire to write down their primitive prose epics and as much as they could recapture of their ancient poetry. In the "Book of Leinster", a manuscript of the middle twelfth century, we find a list of the names of 187 epic sagas. The ollamh (ollav), or arch-poet, who was the highest dignitary among the poets, and whose training lasted for some twelve years, was obliged to learn two hundred and fifty of these prime sagas and one hundred secondary ones. The manuscripts themselves divide these prime sagas into the following romantic categories, from the very names of which we may get a glance of the genius of the early Gael, and form some conception of the tragic nature of his epic:--Destruction of Fortified Places, Cow Spoils (i.e., cattle-raids), Courtships or Wooing, Battles, Stories of Caves, Navigations, Tragical Deaths, Feasts, Sieges, Adventures of Travel, Elopements, Slaughters, Water-eruptions, Expeditions, Progresses, and Visions. "He is no poet", says the Book of Leinster, "who does not synchronize and harmonize all these stories." In addition to the names of 187 sagas in that book, there exist the names of many more that occur in the tenth or eleventh century tale of MacCoise, and all the known ones, with the exception of one added later and another in which there is evidently an error in transcription, refer to events prior to the year 650 or thereabouts. We may take it then that the list was drawn up in the seventh century. Who were the authors of these sagas? That is a question that cannot be answered. There is not a trace of authorship remaining, if, indeed, authorship be the right word for what is far more likely to have been the gradual growth of stories, woven around racial, or tribal, or even family history, and in some cases around incidents of early Celtic mythology, thus forming stories which were ever being told and retold, burnished up and added to by professional poets and saga-tellers, and which were, some of them, handed down for perhaps countless generations before they were ever put on parchments or before lists of their names and contents were made by scholars. Those which recount ancient tribal events or dynastic wars were probably much exaggerated, magnified, and undoubtedly distorted during the course of time; others, again, of more recent growth, give us perhaps fairly accurate accounts of real events. It seems quite certain that, as soon as Christianity had pervaded the island, and bardic schools and colleges had been formed alongside of the monasteries, there was no class of learning more popular than that which taught the great traditionary doings, exploits, and tragedies of the various tribes and families and races of Ireland. Then the peregrinations of the bards and the inter-communication among their colleges must have propagated throughout all Ireland any local traditions that were worthy of preservation. The very essence of the national life of the island was embodied in these stories, but, unfortunately, few only of their enormous number have survived to our days, and even these are mostly mutilated or preserved in mere digests. Some, however, exist at nearly full length, although probably in no case are they written down in the ancient vellums in just the same manner as they would have been recounted by the professional poet, for the writers of most of the early vellums were not the poets but generally Christian monks, who took an interest and a pride in preserving the early memorials of their race, and who cultivated the native language to such an amazing degree that at a very early period it was used alongside Latin, and soon almost displaced it, even in the domain of the Church itself. This patriotism of the Irish monks and this early cultivation of the vernacular are the more remarkable when we know that it is the very reverse of what took place throughout the rest of Europe, where the almost exclusive use of Latin by the Church was the principal means of destroying native and pagan tradition. In spite, however, of the irrevocable losses inflicted upon the Irish race by the Northmen from the end of the eighth to the middle of the eleventh century, and of the ravages of the Normans after their so-called conquest, and of the later and more ruthless destructions wrought wholesale and all over the island by the Elizabethan and Cromwellian English, O'Curry was able to assert that the content of the strictly historical tales known to him would be sufficient to fill up 4000 large quarto pages. He computes that the tales belonging to the Ossianic and the Fenian cycle would fill 3000 more, and that, in addition to these, the miscellaneous and imaginative cycles which are neither historical nor Fenian, would fill 5000, not to speak of the more recent and novel-like productions of the later Irish. Pagan Literature and Christian Sentiment. The bulk of the ancient stories and some of the ancient poems were probably, as we have seen, committed to writing by monks of the seventh century, but are themselves substantially pagan in origin, conception, and colouring. And yet there is scarcely one of them in which some Christian allusion to heaven, or hell, or the Deity, or some Biblical subject, does not appear. The reason of this seems to be that, when Christianity succeeded in gaining the upper hand over paganism, a kind of tacit compromise was arrived at, by means of which the bard, and the filè (i.e., poet), and the representative of the old pagan learning were permitted by the sympathetic clerics to propagate their stories, tales, poems, and genealogies, at the price of tacking on to them a little Christian admixture, just as the vessels of some feudatory nations are compelled to fly at the masthead the flag of the suzerain power. But so badly has the dovetailing of the Christian into the pagan part been performed in most of the oldest romances that the pieces come away quite separate in the hands of even the least skilled analyser, and the pagan substratum stands forth entirely distinct from the Christian accretion. Thus, for example, in the evidently pagan saga called the "Wooing of Etain", we find the description of the pagan paradise given its literary passport, so to speak, by a cunningly interwoven allusion to Adam's fall. Etain was the wife of one of the Tuatha De Danann., who were gods. She is reborn as a mortal--the pagan Irish seem, like the Gaulish druids, to have believed in metempsychosis--and weds the king of Ireland. Her former husband of the Tuatha De Danann race still loves her, follows her into life as a mortal, and tries to win her back by singing to her a captivating description of the glowing unseen land to which he would lure her. "O lady fair, wouldst thou come with me" he cries "to the wondrous land that is ours", and he describes how "the crimson of the foxglove is in every brake--a beauty of land the land I speak of. youth never grows into old age there, warm sweet streams traverse the country", etc.: and then the evidently pagan description of this land of the gods is made passable by an added verse in which we are adroitly told that, though the inhabitants of this glorious country saw everyone, yet nobody saw them, "because the cloud of Adam's wrongdoing has concealed us". It is this easy analysis of the early Irish literature into its ante-Christian and post-Christian elements which lends to it an absorbing interest and a great value in the history of European thought. For, when all spurious accretions have been stripped off, we find in it a genuine picture of pagan life in Europe, such as we look for in vain elsewhere. "The church adopted [in Ireland] towards Pagan sagas the same position that it adopted toward Pagan law. . . . I see no reasons for doubting that really genuine pictures of a pre-Christian culture are preserved to us in the individual sagas" (Windisch, Irische Texte, I, 258). "The saga originated in Pagan and was propagated in Christian times, and that too without its seeking fresh nutriment, as a rule, from Christian elements. But we must ascribe it to the influence of Christianity that what is specifically pagan in Irish saga is blurred over and forced into the background. And yet there exist many whose contents are plainly mythological. The Christian monks were certainly not the first who reduced the ancient sagas to fixed form. but later on they copied them faithfully and promulgated them after Ireland had been converted to Christianity" (ibid., 62). Irish Literature and Early Europe. When it is understood that the ancient Irish sagas record, even though it be in a more or less distorted fashion, in some cases reminiscences of a past mythology, and in others real historical events, dating from the pagan times, then it needs only a moment's reflection to realize their value. "Nothing" writes Zimmer "except a spurious criticism which takes for original and primitive the most palpable nonsense of which Middle-Irish writers from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth century are guilty with regard to their own antiquity, which is in many respects strange and foreign to them, nothing but such a criticism can on the other hand make the attempt to doubt of the historical character of the chief persons of the saga cycles. For we believe that Méve, Conor MacNessa, Cuchulainn, and Finn MacCumhail (Cool) are just as much historical personalities as Arminius or Dietrich of Berne or Etzel, and their date is just as well determined." (Kelt-Studien, fasc. ii, 189.) The first three of these lived in the first century B.C., and Finn in the second or third century. D'Arbois de Jubainville expresses himself to the same effect. "We have no reason", he writes, "to doubt the reality of the principal rôle in this [cycle of Cuchulainn]" (Introduction à l'étude de la littérature celtique, 217); and of the story of the Boru tribute imposed on Leinster in the first century he writes: "The story has real facts for a basis though certain details may have been created by the imagination"; and again, "Irish epic story, barbarous though it be, is, like Irish law, a monument of a civilization far superior to that of the most ancient Germans" (L'épopée celtique en Irlande, preface, p. xli.). "Ireland in fact", writes M. Darmesteter in his "English Studies", summing up his legitimate conclusions derived from the works of the great Celtic scholars, "has the peculiar privilege of a history continuous from the earliest centuries of our era to the present days. She has preserved in the infinite wealth of her literature a complete and faithful picture of the ancient civilization of the Celts. Irish literature is therefore the key which opens the Celtic world (Eng. tr., 1896, 182). But the Celtic world means a large portion of Europe and the key to its past history can be found at present nowhere else than in the Irish manuscripts. Without them we would have to view the past history of a great part of Europe through that distorting medium, the coloured glasses of the Greeks and Romans, to whom all outer nations were barbarians, into whose social life they had no motive for inquiring. Apart from Irish literature we would have no means of estimating what were the feelings, modes of life, manners, and habits of those great Celtic races who once possessed so large a part of the ancient world, Gaul, Belgium, North Italy, parts of Germany, Spain, Switzerland, and the British Isles, who burnt Rome, plundered Greece, and colonized Asia Minor. But in the ancient epics of Ireland we find another standard by which to measure, and through this early Irish medium we get a clear view of the life and manners of the race in one of its strongholds, and we find many characteristic customs of the continental Celts, which are just barely mentioned or alluded to by Greek and Roman writers, reappearing in all the circumstance and expansion of saga-telling. Of such is the custom of the "Hero's Bit", mentioned by Posidonius, upon which one of the most famous Irish sagas, "Bricriu's Feast", is founded. Again the chariot, which had become obsolete in Gaul a couple of hundred years before Caesar's invasion, is described repeatedly in the sagas of Ireland, and in the greatest of the epic cycles the warriors are always represented as fighting from their chariots. We find, as Diodorus Siculus mentions, that the bards had power to make battles cease by interposing with song between the combatants. Caesar says (Gallic War, bk. VI, xiv) the Gaulish druids spent twenty years in studying and learned a great number of verses, but Irish literature tells us what the arch-poet, probably the counterpart of the Gaulish druid, actually did learn. "The manners and customs in which the men of the time lived and moved are depicted", writes Windisch, "with a naive realism which leaves no room for doubt as to the former actuality of the scenes depicted. In matter of costume and weapons, eating and drinking, building and arrangement of the banqueting hall, manners observed at the feasts and much more, we find here the most valuable information" (Ir. Texte I, 252). "I insist", he says elsewhere, "that Irish saga is the only richly-flowing source of unbroken Celtism." "It is the ancient Irish language", says d'Arbois de Jubainville, "that forms the connecting point between the neo-Celtic languages and the Gaulish of the inscribed stones, coins, and proper names preserved in Greek and Roman literature." It is evident then that those of the great Continental nations of to-day whose ancestors were mostly Celtic, but whose language, literature, and traditions have completely disappeared, must, if they wish to study their own past, turn themselves to Ireland, and there they will find the dry bones of Posidonius and Caesar rise up before them in a ruddy covering of flesh and blood which, for the first time, will enable them to see what manner of men were their own forebears. Three Principal Saga Cycles. There are three great cycles in Irish story-telling, two of them very full, but the third, in many ways the most interesting, is now but scantily represented. This last cycle was the purely mythological one, dealing with the Tuatha De Danann, the gods of good, and the Fomorians, gods of darkness and evil, and giving us, under the apparently early history of the various races that colonized Ireland, really a distorted early Celtic pantheon. According to these accounts, the Nemedians first seized upon the islands and were oppressed by the Fomorians, who are described as African sea-robbers; these races nearly exterminated each other at the fight round Conning's Tower on Tory Island. Some of the Nemedians escaped to Greece and came back a couple of hundred years later calling themselves Firbolg. Others of the Nemedians who escaped came back later, calling themselves the Tuatha De Danann. These last fought the battle of North Moytura and beat the Firbolg. They fought the battle of South Moytura later and beat the Fomorians. They held the island until the Gaels, also called Milesians or Scoti, came in and vanquished them. From these Milesians the present Irish are mostly descended. Good sagas about both of these battles are preserved, each existing in only a single copy. Nearly all the rest of this most interesting cycle has been lost or is to be found merely in condensed summaries. These mythological pieces dealt with people, dynasties, and probably the struggle between good and evil principles. There is over it all a sense of vagueness and uncertainty. The heroic cycle (or Red Branch, Cuchulainn, or Ulster Cycle as it is variously called), on the other hand, deals with the history of the Milesians themselves within a brief but well-defined period, and we seem here to find ourselves not far removed from historical ground. The romances belonging to this cycle are sharply drawn, numerous, and ancient, many of them fine both in conception and execution. The time is about the birth of Christ, and the figures of Cuchulainn (Coohullin), King Conor Mac Nessa, Fergus, Naoise (Neesha), Meadhbh (Mève), Déirdre, Conall Cearnach, and their fellows, have far more circumstantially about them than the dim, mist-magnified, distorted forms of the mysterious Dagda, Nuada of the Silver Hand, Bres, Balor of the Evil Eye, Dana, and the other beings which we find in the mythological cycle. The best known and greatest of all these sagas is the "Táin Bo Chuailgne", or "Cattle-Raid of Cooley", a district in the county of Louth. It gives a full account of the struggle between Connacht and Ulster, and the hero of the piece, as indeed of the whole Red Branch cycle, is the youthful Cuchulainn, the Hector of Ireland, the most chivalrous of enemies. This long saga contains many episodes drawn together and formed into a single whole, a kind of Irish Iliad, and the state of society which it describes from the point of culture-development is considerably older and more primitive than that of the Greek epic. The number of stories that belong to this cycle is considerable. Standish Hayes O'Grady has reckoned ninety-six (appendix to Eleanor Hull's "Cuchulainn Saga"), of which eighteen seem now to be wholly lost, and many others very much abbreviated, though they were all doubtless at one time told at considerable length. After the Red Branch or heroic cycle we find a very comprehensive and even more popular body of romance woven round Finn Mac Cumhail (Cool), his son Oscar, his grandson Oisin or Ossian, Conn of the Hundred Battles of Ireland, his son Art the Lonely, and his grandson Cormac of the Liffey, in the second and third centuries. This cycle of romance is usually called the Fenian cycle because it deals so largely with Finn Mac Cumhail and his Fenian militia. These, according to Irish historians, were a body of Irish janissaries maintained by the Irish kings for the purpose of guarding their coasts and fighting their battles, but they ended by fighting the king himself and were destroyed by the famous cath (or battle of) Gabhra (Gowra). As the heroic cycle is often called the Ulster cycle, so this is also known as the Leinster cycle of sagas, because it may have had its origin, as MacNeill has suggested, amongst the Galeoin, a non-Milesian tribe and subject race, who dwelt around the Hill of Allen in Leinster. This whole body of romance is of later growth or rather expresses a much later state of civilization than the Cuchulainn stories. There is no mention of fighting in chariots, of the Hero's Bit, or of many other characteristics which mark the antiquity of the Ulster cycle. Very few pieces belonging to the Finn story are found in Old Irish, and the great mass of texts is of Middle and Late Irish growth. The extension of the story to all the Gaelic-speaking parts of the kingdom is placed by MacNeill between the years 400 and 700; up to this time it was (as the product of a vassal race) propagated only orally. Various parts of the Finn saga seem to have developed in different quarters of the country, that about Diarmuid of the Love Spot in South Munster, and that about Goll the son of Morna in Connacht. Certain it is that this cycle was by far the most popular and widely spread of the three, being familiarly known in every part of Ireland and of Gaelic-speaking Scotland even to the present day. It developed also in a direction of its own, for though none of the heroic tales are wholly in verse, yet the number of Ossianic epopees, ballads, and poems is enormous, amounting to probably some 50,000 lines, mostly in the more modern language. Early Christian Literature. Perhaps no country that ever adopted Christianity was so thoroughly and rapidly permeated and perhaps saturated with its language and concepts as was Ireland. It adopted and made its own in secular life scores and hundreds of words originally used by the Church for ecclesiastical purposes. Even to the present day we find in Irish words like póg, borrowed from the Latin for "[the kiss] of peace", pac[ is], Old Irish póc; the word for rain, báisteach, is from baptizare, and meant originally "the water of baptism". From the same root comes baitheas, "the crown of the head", i.e. the baptized part. A common word for warrior, or hero, laich, now laoch, is simply from laicus, a layman. The Latin language was, of course, the one used for religious purposes, both in prose and verse, for some time after the introduction of Christianity. In it were written the earliest hymns: Patrick used it in his "Confession", as did Adaman in his "Life of Columcille". But already by the middle of the eighth century the native language had largely displaced it all over Ireland as a medium for religious thought, for homilies, for litanies, books of devotion, and the lives of saints. We find the Irish language used in a large religious literature, much of which is native, some of which represents lost Latin originals which are now known to us only in the Irish translations. One interesting development in this class of literature is the visions-literature beginning with the vision of St. Fursa, which is given at some length by Bede, and of which Sir Francis Palgrave states that "tracing the course of thought upwards we have no difficulty in deducing the poetic genealogy of Dante's Inferno to the Milesian Fursæus". These "visions" were very popular in Ireland, and so numerous they gave rise to the parody, the twelfth century "Vision of Mac Conglinne". More important than these, however, are the lives of the saints, because many of them, dating back to a very remote period, throw a great deal of light on the manners of the early Irish. In the first half of the seventeenth century Brother Michael O'Cleary, a Franciscan, travelled round Ireland and made copies of between thirty and forty lives of Irish saints, which are still preserved in the Burgundian library at Brussels. Nine, at least, exist elsewhere in ancient vellums. A part of one of them, the voyage of St. Brendan, spread all through Europe, but the Latin version is much more complete than any existing Irish one, the original having probably been lost. Irish Historical Literature. Owing to the nature of the case, and considering the isolation of Ireland, it is extremely difficult, or rather impossible, to procure independent foreign testimony, to the truth of Irish annals. But, although such testimony is denied us, yet there happily exists another kind of evidence to which we may appeal with comparative confidence. This is nothing less than the records of natural phenomena reported in the annals, for if it can be shown by calculating backwards, as modern science has enabled us to do, that such natural phenomena as the appearance of comets or the occurrence of eclipses are recorded to the day and hour by the annalists, then we can also say with something like certainty that these phenomena were recorded at their appearance by writers who personally observed them, and whose writings must have been actually consulted and seen by these later annalists whose books we now possess. If we take, let us say, the "Annals of Ulster", which treat of Ireland and Irish history from about the year 444, but of which the written copy dates only from the fifteenth century, we find that they contain from the year 496 to 884 as many as eighteen records of eclipses and comets, and all these agree exactly to the day and hour with the calculations of modern astronomers. How impossible it is to keep such records unless written memoranda are made of them at the time by eyewitnesses is shown by the fact that Bede, born in 675, in recording the great solar eclipse which took place only eleven years before his own birth, is yet two days astray in his date; while on the other hand the "Annals of Ulster" give, not only the correct day, but the correct hour, thus showing that their complier, Cathal Maguire, had access either to the original, or a copy of an original, account by an eyewitness. Whenever any side-lights have been thrown from an external quarter on the Irish annals, either from Cymric, Saxon, or Continental sources, they have always tended to show their accuracy. We may take it then without any credulity on our part, that Irish history as recorded in the annals may be pretty well relied upon from the fourth century onward. The first scholar whom we know to have written connected annals was Tighearnach, Abbott of Clonmacnoise, who died in 1088. He began in Latin with the founding of Rome; later on he makes occasional mention of Irish affairs, and lays it down that Irish history is not to be trusted before the reign of Cimbaed, that is, prior to about the year 300 B.C., "Omnia monimeta Scotorum [the Irish were always called Scotti till into the late Middle Ages] usque Cimbaed incerta erant." In the fourth century B.C. the references to Ireland become fuller and more numerous, they are partly in Latin, partly in Irish, but towards the end of the work Latin gives way to the native speech. The greatest book of annals, with a few trifling exceptions also the latest, is known under the title of the "Four Masters" (q. v.). It is evident from the entries that the compilers of the "annals of Ulster" and the rest copied from ancient originals. In the "Annals of Ulster" for instance, we read under the year 439 "Chronicon magnum scriptum est", at the years 467 and 468 the compiler writes "sic in libro Cuanach inveni", at 482 "ut Cuana scriptsit", at 507 "secundum librum Mochod", at 628 "sicut in libro Dubhdaleithe narratur", etc. No nation in Europe can boast of so continuous and voluminous a history preserved in a vernacular literature. The only surviving history of Ireland as distinguished from annals was written Geoffrey Keating, a learned priest, in the first half of the seventeenth century; it also is taken, almost exclusively, from the old vellum manuscripts then surviving, but which mostly perished, as Keating no doubt foresaw they would, in the cataclysm of the Cromwellian wars. Irish Poetry. There is no other vernacular poetry in Europe which has gone through so long, so unbroken, and so interesting a period of development as that of the Irish. The oldest poems are ascribed to the early Milesians and are perhaps the most ancient pieces of vernacular literature existing. None of the early poems rhymed. There is little we can see to distinguish them from prose except a strong tendency, as in the Teutonic languages, toward alliteration, and a leaning toward dissyllables. They are also so ancient as to be unintelligible without heavy glosses. It is a tremendous claim to make for the Celt that he taught Europe to rhyme, yet it has often been made for him, and not by himself, but by such men as Zeuss, the father of Celtic learning, Constantine Nigra, and others. Certain it is that as early as the seventh century we find the Irish had brought the art of rhyming verses to a high pitch of perfection, that is, centuries before most of the vernacular literatures of Europe knew anything at all about it. Nor are their rhymes only such as we are accustomed to in English, French, or German poetry, for they delighted not only in full rhymes, like these nations, but also in assonances, like the Spaniards, and they often thought more of a middle rhyme than of an end rhyme. The following Latin verses, written no doubt after his native models by Aengus Mac Tipraite some time prior to the year 704, will give the reader an idea of the middle or interlinear rhyming which the Irish have practiced from the earliest times down to the present day: Martinus mirus more Ore laudavit Deum, Puro Corde cantavit Atque amavit Eum. A very curious and interesting peculiarity of a certain sort of Irish verse is a desire to end a second line with a word with a syllable more than that which ends the first, the stress of the voice being thrown back a syllable in the last word of the second line. Thus, if the first line end with an accented monosyllable, the second line will end with a dissyllabic word accented on its first syllable, or if the first line end with a dissyllable accented on its penultimate the second line will end with a trisyllable accented on its ante-penultimate. This is called aird-rinn in Irish, as: Fall'n the land of learned mén The bardic band is fállen, None now learn a song to sing For long our fern is fading. This metre, which from its popularity must be termed the hexameter of the Irish, is named Deibhidhe (D'yevvee), and well shows in the last two lines the internal rhyme to which we refer. If it be maintained, as Thurneysen maintains, that the Irish derived their rhyming verses from the Latins, it seems necessary to account for the peculiar forms that so much of this verse assumed in Irish, for the merest glance will show that the earliest Irish verse is full of tours de force, like this "aird-runn", which cannot have been derived from Latin. After the seventh century the Irish brought their rhyming system to a pitch of perfection undreamt of by any nation in Europe, even at the present day, and it is no exaggeration to say that perhaps by no people was poetry so cultivated and, better still, so remunerated as in Ireland. There were two kinds of poets known to the early Gael. the principle of those was called the filè (filla); there were seven grades of filès, the most exalted being called an ollamh (ollav). These last were so highly esteemed that the annalists often give their obituaries, as though they were so many princes. It took from twelve to twenty years to arrive at this dignity. Some fragments of the old metrical textbooks still exist, showing the courses required from the various grades of poets, in pre-Norse times. One of these, in elucidation of the metric, gives the first lines of three hundred and fifty different poems, all no doubt well known at the time of writing, but of which only about three have come down entire to our own time. If there were seven species of filès there were sixteen grades of bards, each with a different name, and each had its own peculiar metres (of which the Irish had over 300) allotted to him. During the wars with the Norsemen the bards suffered fearfully, and it must have been at this time, that is during the ninth and tenth centuries, that the finely-drawn distinction between poets and bards seems to have come to an end. So highly esteemed was the poetic art in Ireland that Keating in his history tells us that at one time no less than a third of the patrician families of Ireland followed that profession. These constituted a heavy drain on the resources of the country, and at three different periods in Irish history the people tried to shake off their incubus. However, Columcille, who was a poet himself, befriended them; at the Synod of Drum Ceat, in the sixth century, their numbers were reduced and they were shorn of many of their prerogatives; but, on the other hand, public lands were set apart for their colleges, and these continued until the later English conquest, when those who escaped the spear of Elizabeth fell beneath the sword of Cromwell. Modern Irish Poetry. Much of the ancient poetry in the schools was in the nature of a memoria technica, the frame in which valuable information was enshrined, but the bards attached to the great houses chanted a different strain. So numerous are the still-surviving poems from the Battle of Clontarf down to the sixteenth century that Meyer has remarked that the history of Ireland could be written out of them alone. When the great houses fell beneath the sword of Elizabeth, of Cromwell, and of William, it is unnecessary to mention that the entire social fabric of Gaeldom fell with them, and amongst other things the colleges of the bards and brehons, which had existed, often on the same spot and in possession of the same land, for over a thousand years. The majority of learned men were slain, or driven out, or followed their masters into exile. No patrons for the native arts remained in Ireland, and, worse still, there was no security for the life of the artist. The ancient metres, over three hundred of which had at one time been cultivated, and which, although reduced to less than a score in the Elizabethan period, were still the property only of the learned and highly educated, so intricate were the verse forms, now died away completely. There was, perhaps, not a single writer living by the middle of the eighteenth century who could compose correct verses in the classical metres of the schools. On the other hand, however, there arose a new kind of poetry, in which the consonant rhyming of the old school was replaced by vowel chiming or vowel rhyming, and in which only the syllables on which the stress of the voice fell were counted; a splendid lyrical poetry sprung up amongst the people themselves upon these lines. The chief poets in these latter times were in very reduced circumstances, mostly school masters or farmers, and very different indeed in status from the refined, highly educated, and stately poets who had a century or two before sat at the right hand of powerful chieftains advising them in peace and war. A usual theme of the new poets, who seemed to revel in their newly found freedom of expression, was the grievances of Ireland sung under a host of allegorical names, the chances of the Stuarts returning, and the bitterness of the present compared with the glories of the past, or the vision of Ireland appearing as a beautiful maiden. The poets of the South used even to hold annual bardic sessions, though such attempts must always have been attended with great danger, for the possession of a manuscript was often a sufficient cause for persecuting or imprisoning the possessor; many fine books were on this account hidden away or walled up lest they should bring the owner into trouble with the authorities. Even as late as 1798, the grammarian Neilson of County Down, who was a Protestant clergyman of the Established Church and perfectly loyal to the Government, was arrested by a dozen dragoons and accused of treason because he preached in Irish. It is very difficult to convey in the English language any idea of the beautifully artistic and recondite measures in which the poets of the last two or three centuries have rejoiced, both in Ireland and in the Highlands of Scotland, where also they produced a splendid lyrical outburst, about the same time as in Ireland, and on the same lines. Suffice it to say that most of their modern poetry was written and is being written to this very day upon a wonderful scheme of vowel sounds, arranged in such a manner that first one and then another vowel will strike the ear at skillfully recurring intervals. Some poems are written entirely on the æ sound, others on the ú (oo), í (ee) or á (au) sounds, but most upon a delightful intermingling of two or more of them. Here is a typical verse of Tadhg Gaelach O'Sullivan, who died in 1800 and who consecrated his muse, which had first led him astray, to the service of religion, his poems producing a sound effect for good all over the South of Ireland. The entire poem was made upon the sounds of é (æ) and o, but, while the arrangement in the first half of the verse is o/é, é/o, o, the arrangement in the second half is o, é/o, é/o, é/é. To understand the effect that this vowel rhyming should produce, we must remember that the vowels are dwelt upon in Irish, and not passed over quickly as they are in English: The p oets we pra ise are up-ra ising the n otes Of their l ays, and they kn ow how their t ones will delight, For the g olden-haired l ady so gr aceful so p oseful So Ga elic so gl orious enthroned in our sight. Unf olding a t ale how the so ul of a f ay Must be cl othed in the fr ame of a l ady so bright, Unt old are her gr aces, a r ose in her f ace is, And n o man so sta id is but fa ints at her sight. Owen Roe O'Sullivan, the witty and facetious namesake of the pious Tadhg Gaelach, is the best know of the southern poets, and Raftery, who, like his famous Scottish contemporary Donnchadh Bán Mackintyre, was completely illiterate, but who composed some admirable religious as well as secular pieces, is best known in Connacht. Irish Folk-Literature. If any country in the world has ever undergone an educational martyrdom it is Ireland. From 1649, down almost to the present day, her Catholic population were either denied education by law or given an education which taught them to neglect their own country. Under the carefully devised system of "National" education, as it was called, which came into being about the year 1830, and which supplanted the hedge schools of the natives, the children, who over a great part of Ireland were still Irish-speaking, were deprived of the right of being taught to read or write the language of their homes. Over a great part of the island, schoolmasters who knew no Irish were appointed to teach children who knew no English. Needless to say this entailed a horrible amount of useless suffering all round, and blasted for over two generations the life-prospects of many hundreds of thousands of Irish children by insisting upon their growing up unable to read or write, sooner than teach them to read or write the only language that they knew. Up to this period, Irish MSS. which had, on the relaxation of the penal laws, ceased to be dangerous possessions, were commonly possessed and cherished, but from this time forward the peasantry began to neglect them. The new generation, taught in the government schools, conceived that Irish was the mark of the beast, and grew ashamed of it, and as a natural consequence the manuscripts perished by the hundreds and thousands. Admirable poets existed in Connacht and in Ulster in the middle and at the close of the eighteenth century whose works have absolutely disappeared, except for a very few that were enshrined in people's memories. The books that contained them were lost, torn up or burned. It is only a few years ago that an English gentleman stopping for the fishing at a farm-house in a midland county found a whole washing-basket full of Irish manuscripts thrown into the river to make room on the loft for his portmanteau. A friend saved for the present writer three manuscripts which he had found the children tearing up on the floor in a house in County Clare, one of which contained one of the most valuable sagas known for elucidating the belief in metempsychosis of the ancient Irish, one for which d'Arbois de Jubainville, who was aware of its existence, had searched the libraries of Europe in vain. The story continued thus until the rise of the Gaelic League and its rapid spread during the last few years. But in spite of the enormous loss of modern MSS. the memory of the people has preserved a very large quantity of folk-poems on all the usual topics of folk-poetry, songs of religion, love, wine (or its Irish equivalent), and beauty; eulogies, laments, death-songs, etc. These have only recently been to some extent recovered. In prose also the people have a large unwritten literature of folk-stories, the equivalent of the German Märchen, but as a rule much longer and better told. Many of these are stories of Finn and his Fenian warriors already mentioned, but many others are of pure Aryan origin and have their counterparts in most Aryan literature. Of these, too, it is only recently that collections have been made. There is one remark which must not be omitted about this folk-poetry and indeed about Irish MS poetry as well--it possesses scarcely anything in the nature of a ballad. Lyrics couched in the most exquisitely artful rhyme, and delicate and bacchanalian and religious poetry of all sorts, Ireland and the Highlands of Scotland produced in plenty. But they have almost nothing in the nature of the splendid lowland ballads. They could not tell a story in verse. With the exception of the Ossianic poems and a few poems of the classic school there was never an attempt made to recount a striking tale through the medium of verse. Modern Irish Printed Literature. For long it was believed that the Celtic languages were connected with the East--with the Phoenicians according to a favourite theory--or at least that they had nothing in common with the Aryan or Indo-European group of tongues. All the scholars of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth took up this attitude. Even the great German scholar Bopp excluded Celtic from his Indo-European grammar. Lhuyd, the Welsh antiquary, had already shown early in the eighteenth century the close co-relationship between all the Celtic tongues, but it remained to the Bavarian Zeuss to prove to the world beyond yea or nay in his "Grammatica Celtica" published in 1853 that the Celtic languages were Indo-European. Since that day Celtic scholarship, based on Zeuss's monumental work has made enormous strides. The work of the great native Irish scholars O'Curry and O'Donovan, who first penetrated the difficult heritage of the Brehon Laws, and who from their marvelous and unique acquaintance with Irish manuscripts first gave the world a general knowledge of Irish literature, was succeeded by the more strictly scientific labours of Whitley Stokes, Father Edmund Hogan, S. J., Robert Atkinson, and of Standish Hayes O'Grady (whose acquaintance with the modern and ancient literature makes him the legitimate successor of O'Donovan and O'Curry), of W. M. Hennessey and Father Bartholomew McCarthy, all in Ireland, while Zeuss found a worthy successor in Ebel, who published a corrected and augmented version of his "Grammatica" in 1871. In recent days Windisch, Thurneysen, Zimmer, and Kuno Meyer have done immense work in the same field. In France, Gaidoz founded the "Revue Celtique" in 1870, afterwards edited by d'Arbois de Jubainville, and of which twenty-eight volumes have appeared; in them many Irish texts have been published and much light thrown upon Celtic subjects in general. The "Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie" made its appearance in 1896, and was followed by the "Archiv für celtische Lexicographie". Up to this point, and by most of those learned men, the Irish language was regarded as a subject for pure scholarship only, and as a thing dead, having no immediate or necessary connexion with the country or the people that had given it birth. Their scholastic labours, however, may to some extent have paved the way for the popular movement which succeeded. Certain it is that a great popular movement in favour of the language and literature sprang up at the very close of the nineteenth century in Ireland itself, under the auspices of a society called the Gaelic League, founded upon a previous society called the Gaelic Union, which was an offshoot from an older and still existing body, the Society for the Propagation of the Irish Language. The Gaelic League was founded in the year 1893; the objects were: (1) The preservation of Irish as the national language in Ireland and the extension of its use as a spoken tongue. (2) The study and publication of existing Irish literature and the cultivation of a modern literature in Irish. Such was the intellectual stagnation in Ireland at the period of this foundation that it would be safe to assert that there were not, at the time, more than a few hundred people living, if so many, who could read or write in Irish. After many years of silent labour and much painful uphill toil, the League has at last become a widely spread popular movement throughout the Irish world. Hundreds of books have been written and published under its auspices and many thousands of people have been taught to read them. It publishes a weekly and a monthly paper, and it has done a great deal toward collecting the rapidly-perishing folklore of the country. The number of working affiliated branches belonging to the League, carrying on education work from week to week, in the year 1908, was in Munster 192, in Leinster 115, in Ulster, 113, and in Connacht 74. There were 22 branches in Scotland, 11 in England, and a few more isolated ones scattered over England and America. The League is governed by a president, two vice-presidents, and an annually elected executive of forty-five members, of whom fifteen must reside in or near Dublin, the rest represent various parts of the country and Scotland and England. These meet once a month in Dublin and govern the League. They controlled and paid out of their own funds in 1908 seven organizers for Conn's Half of Ireland (Connacht and Ulster), and there were forty-two district teachers working for the League in this part of Ireland. In Mogh's Half (Leinster and Munster) there were six organizers and eighty district teachers. There are also six colleges connected with and practically funded by the Gaelic League, at Ballingeary in Cork, at Partry in Mayo, at Cloghaneely in Donegal, at Ring in Waterford, and one each in Dublin and Belfast. The country colleges have two terms, each of which lasts about six weeks. The Dublin and Belfast colleges are open during the winter. There were over two hundred students at each of the Cork and Mayo colleges in 1908. Scores of writers in Irish have arisen under the impetus of the new movement, scarcely one of whom, it is safe to say, would ever have put pen to paper in English. Perhaps the best-known and most idiomatic writer in Irish at the present day in Canon Peter O'Leary, P. P., of Castlelyons in County Cork. He is a novelist, grammarian, and writer on miscellaneous subjects. Michael Breathnach (or Walsh), J. J. Doyle, T. Haynes, Father Dineen, M. O'Malley, P. O'Conaire, Conan Maol (P. J. O'Shea), P. O'Shea, Agnes O'Farrelly, J. P. Craig, and Michael MacRuaidhri (Rogers) are all story writers or novelists. D. O'Flaherty, M. Timoney, Patrick O'Leary, M. MacRuaidhri, the Rev. Dr. Sheehan, and the O'Malley brothers have all been rescuing Irish folk-lore both in prose and verse. The League abounds in grammarians, a phase of its activity which recalls to us the Greek renaissance of the sixteenth century. Fathers O'Leary, O'Reilly, Edmund Hogan S. J., Crehan, Dr. Bergin, Dr. Henry P. McGinley, J. H. Loyd, D. Foley, S. O'Cathain, and J. Craig have all worked on grammar as well as on other scholastic and literary subjects; while the Rev. Dr. Henebry, Father Hayden, S. J., Dr. Quiggin and Father Mullin have written upon Irish pronunciation and dialects. Voluminous writers on history and other subjects are Michael Breathnach (d. in October, 1908), Eoghan O'Neachtain, and Sean O'Kelly. Father Dineen is a lexographer, editor of texts, and miscellaneous writer. Father John C. McErlean, S. J., R. Foley, and Tadhg O'Donoghue are all editors of texts; the latter is also a poet and miscellaneous writer. Canon O'Leary, Father T. O'Kelley, T. Hayes, W. Ryan, P. O'Conaire, Dr. O'Beirne and F. Patridge have all written plays; Father O'Kelly has written the libretto of an Irish opera which was produced in 1909. The Gaelic league has also published editiones principes of the poetry of Owen Roe O'Sullivan, Seághan Clárach MacDonnell, Pierce Ferriter, Geoffrey Keating, Geoffrey O'Donohue of the Glen, Pierce Fitzgerald, Murphy of Raithineach, Collum Wallace, and others. The works of all these poets existed previously only in scattered manuscripts or in the mouths of the people until the League saved them. The Irish Texts Society, founded in London in 1898, has published ten handsome volumes of hitherto unpublished Irish texts, including Keating's "History" in three volumes. T. O'Concannon, M. Foley, Rev. P. O'Sullivan (a Protestant clergyman), P. Stanton, the late Denis Fleming, and others have been enriching Irish by translations from English and other languages. Nearly all the Catholic and Nationalist papers publish more or less Irish in every issue, so there is little danger of the language ceasing to be written. Of the 11,332 students who followed the various courses under the intermediate, or secondary, school system in 1908-09, 6085 took up Irish as one of their subjects. The language is also taught more or less satisfactorily in 3047 primary schools out of 8538. Of these schools, however, many belong to the more Protestant counties of the North of Ireland, and these have as yet had little to do with the new movement. The School of Irish Learning under Dr. Bergin, of which Kuno Meyer was the practical founder, gives higher university teaching in comparative philology, phonology, comparative grammar, and the reading of the old vellum MSS. Its courses in 1908-09 were attended by over 30 students, its journal "Eriu" and its "Anecdota Hibernica" are known to all Celtic scholars. We may now briefly sum up what we have said about the native Gaelic literature. The Irish probably learnt the use of letters in the second century, but did not use the Roman alphabet until the country was converted to Christianity in the fourth and fifth centuries. The earliest existing manuscripts do not go back earlier than the eighth century, but the inscribed Ogham stones are centuries older than these. The early epics and sagas contain a substantially accurate picture of pagan times and of pagan manners and customs. The feeling of the Church was from the first thoroughly sympathetic towards the native language and native scholarship. The number of existing Irish manuscripts is great, but it is difficult to say with accuracy what they contain, nor can they be certainly dated and sifted until Celtic studies have made further progress. The introduction of Christianity left its mark deeply upon the people and on the language. The Irish annals may be substantially relied on from the fourth century onwards. The Irish had already highly developed the use of rhyme as early as the seventh century, and Zeuss, the father of Celtic learning, Constantino Nigra, and others ascribe the invention of rhyme to the Celts, but Thurneysen and other deny that. There has been a great loss of manuscripts in recent times, but owing to the literary revival brought about by the Gaelic League during the last fifteen years there is small fear of any further losses in this direction. Under the stimulus of the new literary movement, dozens of Irish writers have sprung up, and a new literature of novels, stories, dramas, history, and poetry has arisen. This brings the story of Irish literature to a close. Whether the new movement will be an enduring one or not, no one can yet tell, but in 1909 the County Councils (i.e., the elective governing bodies) of twenty counties, including the whole of Munster and Connacht, 130 urban and district councils out of about 170, the general council of county councils (the largest really representative body in Ireland), the corporations of Dublin and other cities, and the Convention of the Irish Race, held in February 1909, at which were present between two and three thousand delegates from public bodies, branches of the United Irish League and A. O. H., all passed resolutions asking the Senate of the new National University of Ireland to make a knowledge of Irish an essential for matriculation. From which it would appear that there is up to the present no falling off of Gaelic enthusiasm, but rather a desire to rebuild the nation, if possible, upon native lines. ANGLO-IRISH LITERATURE When the Norman knights landed in Ireland they arrived speaking Norman French, but they soon dropped French, and, becoming assimilated with the natives, used Irish only as their common language. The Palesmen, however, and the inhabitants of some of the walled cities like Kilkenny must have spoken early English side by side with French. About the oldest book produced on Irish soil which contains written English is a vellum MS of 64 leaves in the British Museum marked Harl. 913, written in the first quarter of the fourteenth century, very probably at the Grey Abbey of Kildare, which contains among other writings no less than sixteen Old English pieces, some of which were composed in Ireland, for one is on the death of De Birmingham, the life-long enemy of the Irish, and another contains two Irish words, russin (Irish, ruisin, a luncheon) and corrin (Irish, cuirín, a pot or wallet). One piece is attributed to a friar Michel Kyldare, which would make it appear that the author is an Irishman. One or two other vellum MSS. of the fifteen century also exist in English writing which may have been produced in Ireland, "A Conquest of Ireland", "Secreta Accrotorum", and the Lamboth MS. 623, a kind of sixteenth-century miscellany; but with these very trifling exceptions, up to almost the end of the sixteenth century all literature written in Ireland had been either in Irish or Latin. Strange as it may appear, the Latin language, although it yielded to Irish in the eighth century as a literary medium, was nevertheless almost universally learned in Ireland as spoke language by anyone of any pretensions to breeding and culture. Blessed Edmund Campion, who wrote his "History of Ireland" in 1571, writes thus of the "Meere Irish": "Without either precepts or observation of congruity, they speake Latin like a vulgar language learned in their common schools of Leachcraft and law." The earliest books of importance written in Ireland in the English language were probably Spenser's "View of the present state of Ireland" and Hammer's "Chronicle". In the seventeenth century, however, Ireland produced a more vigorous literature in English, which began to be written occasionally by natives as well as Palesmen. Stanihurst (1547-1618), although he wrote "De rebus in Hibernia gestis" in Latin, was perhaps the first Irish-born man (he was a native of Dublin) to attempt more ambitious things in English verse. He translated the first four books of Virgil's Æneid into "English heroic verse" in 1583, but only aroused the scornful derision of his English contemporaries by his effort. The seventeenth century, however, was in Ireland an era of great men and great learning, if not great literature. It witnesses from start to finish a war of race and of religion, miserable and merciless, a long drawn out agony. Such eras are necessarily fatal to literature. During this century Keating and McFirbis wrote in Irish, O'Mulchonry in Irish and Latin and translated from the Spanish. O'Sullevan Bearr wrote his great history of the Irish wars in Latin. Ussher, the renown scholar and ecclesiastic, the glory of the Pale, wrote in Latin and English. Stanihurst, his uncle, answered him in Latin; Ward, Colgan, and O'Clery wrote in Irish and Latin. Ware wrote in Latin. So did Lynch and Luke Wadding, pride of the Franciscan Order. Of all the great writers and scholars of the seventeenth century Keating, McFirbis, and O'Flaherty were the only ones who remained throughout upon their native soil. During many years the lives of most of these men would not have been worth an hour's purchase had they been caught upon their native soil. It is indeed only with the advent of Molyneux (b. in 1656), that we find the first Irishman who used the English language with effect on behalf of Ireland herself. He forms a kind of connecting link between the nationality of the Catholic and Celtic Irish, by this time largely banished, broken, or exterminated, and those Protestant nationalists who waxed ever stronger during the succeeding century. A scientific and learned writer of renown, a friend of Locke, and by training and inclination a philosopher, Molyneux was moved to write his "Case of Ireland" is 1698 by his indignation at the violent action of the English Parliament in ruining Ireland by forcibly throttling its woolen trade to help the traders of England. His book was by order of the British House of Commons burnt by the common hangman. But it found a mighty echo soon after in the sæva indignatio of Swift, and its legitimate consummation, three-quarters of a century later, in the burning eloquence of Gratten and the humiliation of England. One brilliant Irish writer of this century, Count Hamilton (b. at Roscrea, in 1646; d. 1720) used French for his literary medium. His "Mémoires du Chevalier de Gramont" is a delightful classic, which gives a brilliant description of the Court of Charles II. A number of poets of Anglo-Irish birth, but chiefly of English upbringing, whose names figure rather prominently in the story of English literature, are found through this and the next century. Of these, one of the most remarkable as a man, though hardly as a poet, was Roger Noyle, Earl of Orrery, a son of the Earl of Cork. He was at once soldier, statesman, courtier, playwright, poet and romancist. A bloody supporter of Cromwell, the murderer of the Bishop of Ross, and extirpator of the native Irish, he had the wit to turn with the times, and under Charles II to exchange the rusty broadsword of Oliver for the polished pen of the wit and the graceful jibe of the courtier. A different character was Wentworth Dillon, Earl of Roscommon (1633-1684), whom Pope characterized as the most correct writer of English verse before Addison; he was almost the only moral writer of the reign of the "merry monarch". Denham (1615-1658), "majestic Denham" as Pope calls him, was also an Irishman, and was in a way a forerunner both of Dryden and of Pope, and had much of the strength of the one and of the pointed antithesis and classic polish of the other. "He is one of the writers", says Dr. Johnson, "that improved our taste and advanced our language." His lines on the river Thames are widely known even still, though it is safe to say that not one in a thousand knows they were composed by an Irishman. Richard Flecknoe (d. 1678), whom Dryden damned as being "without dispute . . . through all the realms of nonsense absolute", was another Irishman. So were Tate and Brady, the translators of the Psalms into a kind of doggerel verse, which, bad as it was, held its own in Protestant worship for generations. So was Southern, the celebrated playwright, who made seven hundred pounds by a single play, while "glorious John" Dryden had to confess that he never made more than one hundred. So was Farquhar (1678-1707), born in Derry, one of the most brilliant dramatists of his age. So was the inimitable Richard Steele (1676-1729), whose delightful essays glorified the "Spectator". So was Parnell, the poet (1679-1717). Congreve too, the witty dramatist, though born in England, was educated in Ireland. Of all these men, however, and many more who might be mentioned, it may at once be predicated that though born in Ireland they did not draw from the land of their childhood any inspiration whatsoever. They were in Ireland but not of her; England they looked upon as their real country; to her and her alone they consecrated their talents. But in justice to them it must be remembered that men who would rise by the pen or shine in literature in the English language must look to England and to it alone, for there only was to be had a public who would understand them. It is really with Jonathan Swift (1667-1745) that English literature in Ireland for the first time allowed itself to be coloured, in part at least, by the country of its birth. For although the bulk of Swift's direct, lucid, powerful, and nervous writings belong to England, yet a considerable portion of them are a direct outcome of his Irish life and his Irish surroundings. It is true that Molyneux had preceded him as an exponent of that Protestant nationalism which, by making the English in Ireland as independent as possible of the English in England, tended also in some measure towards the uplifting of the enslaved and disenfranchised native Irish. But Molyneux did not wield the pen of Swift. He was a thinker, not a stylist, a philosopher rather than a writer. Swift was both. He who in England had been beyond all comparison the most powerful political pamphleteer of his day, the protagonist and mainstay of his party, became in Ireland the determined support of the civil rights of his fellow countrymen and their outspoken champion against English aggression. His services to his native country rendered his name endeared to hundreds of thousands of native Irish Catholics, men whom he himself looked on, and quite truly, as being powerless in Ireland either for good or evil, merely "hewers of wood and drawers of water". Indeed the dean was, like all other Protestant dignitaries of his day, the declared enemy, if not of the Irish race, at least of the Irish language which was the only one used by the great majority of the native inhabitants. At one time he thought he had a scheme by which the Irish language "might easily be abolished and become a dead one in half an age, with little expense and less trouble". "It would be", he said again, "a noble achievement to abolish the Irish language in the kingdom" but whatever his scheme was he did not further enlighten the public upon it and it died with him. One of his own most spirited poems, "O'Rourke's Feast", is a translation from the Irish, perhaps the first of the kind ever made in Ireland. He heard it sung at a banquet in the County Leitrim, and was so taken by the air that he asked for a translation, and was told that McGovern, the author, could give it to him in either Latin or English. Several other poems of the dean's relate to his life in Ireland and his surroundings there. It is because a certain percentage of Swift's writings both in prose and verse are concerned with the people and conditions of Ireland, that he may be regarded as the father of Anglo-Irish literature, a term which can properly be applied only to literature coloured or inspired by Ireland or Irish themes, written in the English language but by Irish-born people. If this definition of Anglo-Irish literature be correct, it would exclude almost all of Swift's predecessors and his successors also, for indifference to Ireland on the part of Irish writers of English did not by any means end with Swift. With the eighteenth century, it became increasingly difficult to place Irish-born writers, for an ever-growing number belong, like Swift, to both countries. It is hard to see how by any stretch of the imagination Laurence Sterne, the author of "Tristram Shandy", though born and partly educated in Ireland, could be called an Anglo-Irish writer. Ireland, as the Psalmist says, was not in all his thoughts. The same is true of Sir Philip Francis, the reputed author of "Letters of Junius". Even our beloved Goldsmith (1728-1774), typical and altogether delightful Irishman though he was, cannot properly be termed an Anglo-Irish poet. His "Vicar of Wakefield" struck a new note in English literature and even profoundly affected the rising genius of Goethe, but neither it, nor his plays, nor his poetry concerned themselves even indirectly with his native country. What is true of Goldsmith is true to some extent even of Richard Brinsley Sheridan (1751-1816), who was of pure Milesian descent, and whose nature, like that of Goldsmith was Irish in the extreme. Bishop Berkeley (1684-1753), on the other hand, after whom the State University of California is named, is really an Irish writer. His wonderful "Queries" are almost as pertinent to the case of Ireland today as they were eight score years ago. Edmund Burke (1730-1797), the profoundest and perhaps the noblest political thinker that the British Isles ever produced, while he was never for a moment forgetful of the country of his birth, yet belongs for the most part, as far as his writings go, to England and English politics. It is apparent from what we have written that Ireland gave to England in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries some of its most distinguished authors, that these authors, though born in Ireland and born amidst Irish surroundings, were mostly of English descent, and turned naturally for a public to the England of their fathers, whose language they spoke and wrote. It is also evident that, as time went on, an ever-increasing number of Irish Gaels (still unemancipated and denied education in their own language) joined the rank of those Irish writers who looked to an English and not an Irish public. It is only in the nineteenth century, however, that we get a vigorous and thriving Anglo-Irish literature, inspired wholly by Irish themes and written mainly for the Irish people themselves. The foremost of these new Anglo-Irish writers were, in prose, Miss Edgeworth, and in poetry, Thomas Moore. Maria Edgeworth (1767-1849), the creator of the Anglo-Irish novel, was the scion of a good family. some of whose members belonged to the Catholic and some to the Protestant religion. She herself belonged to the latter, but it was a relative of hers (see EDGEWORTH, HENRY ESSEX) who attended the unfortunate Louis XVI to the scaffold. She was gifted with a mind as singularly open and unprejudiced as it was acute and observant. To this she united an admirable style, clear and pungent, and a dramatic power of presentment which rarely failed her. She never looked upon herself as a writer with a mission, but undoubtedly she was not without a certain didactic sense which impelled her to point out to Irishmen in her novels, some of the absurdities and faults of which they were guilty. Her "Castle Rackrent", the story of the downfall through its own reckless squandering of a great Irish family, as told through the mouth of an ancient servitor of their house, is a tale of very great power. In her novel the "Absentee" she attacks, and with equal force though in a different vein, another side of the same social evil who effects she had portrayed so powerfully in "Castle Rackrent". Following Macklin (really McLaughlin) in his play of "The True-Born Irishman" produced in 1763, she holds up to merciless ridicule the Irish land-owners who deserted their own estates to try to cut a figure in London, and there compete with men who were at once much wealthier than themselves and also, so to speak, born and bred to the life of the English metropolis. Her "Moral Tales" are frequently reprinted even to this day. Miss Edgeworth cannot in any political sense be called a nationalist writer. The cry "Ireland a Nation" never appealed to her, nor does the struggle of the native Irish against the English garrison, nor the doings of the men of '98, nor the feelings of the natives against the settlers. With her began the Irish novel, but not the Irish political novel. Her contemporary Lady Morgan (1783-1859) wrote Irish novels also, but no one ever reads them now, while Miss Edgeworth's popularity is perennial. Of a different temperament was Thomas Moore (1779-1852), the first great Anglo-Irish poet. It is true that he had some few predecessors, among whom were Ned Lysaght, the poet of Gratten and the Volunteers, and William Drennan, the poet of the United Irishmen, but he owed nothing to any of them. A Catholic and in his youthful days a sympathizer with the men of the '98 rebellion, and with Irish national aspirations, his muse spread the name and fame of his native land throughout thousands upon thousands of those gilded drawing-rooms, where, before that, Irish aspirations or even the very name of Erin would have been met only by a scoff or perhaps some still more emphatic disapproval. While rescuing the admirable ancient muse of Ireland from oblivion he wedded it to the most melodious songs that the English language had yet produced, and he never shrank from insisting upon the national character both of his music and of his verses, nor hesitated to depict the sad and oppressed state of his mother country. Who can say what considerable if indirect influences Moore's verses may have exercised on the hearts of men, when it came, as it soon after did, to dealing with the gravest Irish problems in the House of Commons, including the emancipation of the Catholics. Just as Sir Walter Scott's novels effected a profound change in the outlook of England upon Scotland, and of the Lowlanders upon the Highlanders, so Moore's "melodies" must have made hundreds of thousands of Englishmen and loyalists for the first time familiar with the wrongs, the aspirations, and the inner soul of Ireland. Not that Moore was in any sense a poet of the people; he was a poet rather of the cultured classes and of the drawing-room, and thus the very antithesis of Burns. It is safe to say that the Irish peasantry themselves never grasped his memories as a popular possession or sang them commonly at their firesides. But with the cultured classes his vogue was enormous. Probably no poet ever lived whose lines penetrated into so many drawing-rooms alien in sympathy to himself and his ideals. It has been of late years the custom on many sides to decry Moore. It is, however, hard to subscribe to almost any of the complaints. It is true that divorced to a certain extent from the life of the native Gael, and being ignorant of the national language, he takes war tunes and welds them to love-songs and takes love-songs and makes slogans of them. This is a real fault of commission; with regard to other criticisms it is not always fair to judge a poet for faults of omission, or in other words fro not being what nature did not make him. Above all it is hard to accuse of time-serving or of pusillanimity a poet who could imperil his popularity in England by such a vigorous melody as that in which he compares the oppression of Ireland to the captivity of the Jews and prophecies the destruction of her tyrant. A great deal of Moore's success as a poet is due to the national music of Ireland to which his songs are wed, and lyrics such as "Avenging and Bright", "The Minstrel Boy", "Let Erin Remember", "When he who adores the", and "She is far from the land" have become almost embedded in the life of Ireland and part and parcel of the national mind. Moore died in 1852, but long before his death there had sprung into being a distinctly Irish literature, inspired by Irish feelings and ideals, and looking not to an English but an Irish public. The poets Callahan and Walsh were its precursors. The foundation by Davis, Dillon, and Duffy of the weekly paper "The Nation" in 1842 produced a profound effect all over Ireland, but the Young Ireland writers who then arose never attempted to reach the people through any other medium than English, although at this time Irish was still the familiar speech of about four millions. Of the poets of the Young Ireland movement two stand out pre-eminently, Thomas Davis (d. 1845) and Clarence Mangen (d. 1849). Davis sang, not so much because he was born with the divine afflatus, as because he deliberately set himself to act upon the soul of the people, through the medium of poetry. In this he succeeded, for his vigorous political verse, ballads and other national and patriotic songs, thrown off in haste and not always polished, though generally powerful, exercised a profound effect upon Ireland. Mangen on the other hand, though a Young Irelander by conviction, shrank from the glare and blare of political movements, led a lonely life, consumed by the fires of his own thoughts. Though the effect of his poems upon the people was far less than that of Davis, he, when at his best, as in his "Dark Rosaleen", attained to heights which would have been impossible to the other. By far the greatest prose writer of the Young Ireland movement was that ardent rebel against English rule, John Mitchel (1815-1872), of whom it is safe to say, that no man born in Ireland, Swift alone excepted, ever made such powerful use of the English tongue as a medium of thought, instruction, and invective. His powers of sardonic scorn and indignation are very Swiftian, and his "Last Conquest of Ireland (perhaps)" is one of the most scathing political works ever written, while his "Jail Journal" gives a good idea of the man himself. At this time also appeared a group of novelists whose works have never ceased to be popular for nearly two generations. Of these the most remarkable was Carleton (1794-1859), who understood the peasantry and depicted their feelings in a way that no one else has ever done. In books like "Fardoroughs the Miser", the "Black Prophet", and "Traits and Stories of the Irish Peasantry", he portrays not so much the life as the passions of the people with vividness and power. Samuel Lover (1797-1868), on the other hand, and John Banim (1798-1844), were the novelists of the bourgeoise class, and Charles Lever (1797-1868) and perhaps W. H. Maxwell, of the rocking, sporting, jovial gentry, whose day of doom was even then approaching, though they knew it not. The gentle and retiring Gerald Griffin, a poet also, gave Ireland at least one novel of supreme excellence in the "Colleen Bawn", and Sheridan Le Fanu (1814-1873) left behind him some very weird stories, the excellent ballad "Shamus O'Brien", and a capital novel of eighteenth century life in Ireland, "The House by the Churchyard". On the whole it may be said of the Young Ireland movement that it, more than any other movement before or after it, worked by and through letters; but strong political passions do not make for a true and abiding literature; and the vigorous ballads and political verses of Davis, Gavan Duffy (q. v.), and D'Arcy McGee and their group seem to us to-day to contain but little originality. After the great famine, and the dispersion of the Young Irish group, Ireland lay exhausted and listless until the Fenian movement stirred her into action once more, in the sixties. But this movement passed off without any great influence on literature. Charles Kickham, whose peasant ballads are admirable and whose novel of "Knocknagow" is still widely read, is almost the only literary Fenian of any note. Then came the land war and the Parnell movement, but it too produced no literary output of any consequence. The ballads and poems of Timothy D. Sullivan are probably the most popular and enduring of these writings. Through all these periods of storm and stress, but almost wholly untouched by them so far as their art went, lived Sir Samuel Ferguson, the first and greatest poet to drawn extensive inspiration from Ireland's Gaelic past, William Allingham (1824-1889), a graceful singer of the fairies, and Aubrey de Vere (1814-1902), the friend of Tennyson, and at once the most productive and the most essentially Catholic poet ever born in Ireland. Of these names Ferguson's is the greatest. A scholar, an antiquary, and a successful man of the world, he gave Ireland her best epic poems in his "Conary" and his "Congal", while his translations from the Irish language have seldom been excelled. Dowden characterizes him as "the only epic poet of the Victorian age" and Stopford Brooke as "the first and perhaps the best of all who have striven to bring into recognition, light, and beauty the Ancient Sagas and tales of Ireland. Taking as a whole the popular English poetry of Ireland, as produced from the close of the eighteenth to the last decade of the nineteenth century, we find it replete with notes and themes that would be practically unrepresented in English literature were it not for Ireland. Through a vast proportion of this poetry flame the lightnings of rebellion. To this is frequently joined a devout Catholicism; for though the worst of the Ascendancy was over, and the blood-hounds were no longer taught, in the words of Davis, alike to run upon the scent of wolf and friar", still the memory of those days remained, and continued to colour men's passions and their poetry. Almost all of it is shot through with insistent national aspirations. Then we have the poetry of exile, which fills so dreadful a space in every Irish anthology, the wail of the immigrant, the cry of the coffin ship, the poetry of misery--the misery not of units but of a whole country--for as Stopford Brooke has well put it, "Ireland has added to English literature this poetry of the Sword, the Famine and the pestilence" (Preface to the "Treasury of Irish Poetry"). The early English verses of the Irish peasant himself, as distinguished from the poets of education. were made upon the models of his native songs, and consisted principally of word-rhyming. Unhappily no collection has been made of these pieces which are of great interest, for their manner rather than for their matter. The last decade of the nineteenth century ushered in a fresh era for English-Irish poetry. A new band of poets made their appearance who sacrificed less to passion and more to craftsmanship. The Gaelic movement, unlike the upheavals that went before it, has created an atmosphere which is more favourable to poetry than the reverse, and many of these poets have written under its influence. Others of them, however, as Stopford Brooke writes in the preface to his and Rolleston's anthology, "have been so deeply influenced by Wordsworth, Keats, and in part by Shelley, that even when they write on Irish subjects the airs of England breathe and the waters of England ripple in their poetry". Of all these new writers there is an almost universal consensus of opinion that the greatest is William Butler Yeats. He has in his art applied the most refined technique to a subject-matter drawn alternately from things symbolic or mystic, or from nature in its simplest moods, or again from the old Irish sagas and folklore, which he visualizes from his own standpoint. Mysticism also is the prevailing note of George Russell ("A. E."), painter, poet, and editor. On the other hand religion and simple faith are the distinguishing characteristics of Katherine Tynan Hinkson. Ardent love of country and depth of feeling mark the works of Anna McManus ("Ethna Carbery"). Almost all the poets of the last fifteen years draw their inspiration more or less from Ireland and things Gaelic. The greatest Irish historian of the last half century has been beyond all question W. E. Hartpole Lecky (1838-1903). His earliest writings were coloured by a strong nationalism; this, however, gradually departed from him. Of the seventeen volumes of his "History of England" in the eighteenth century, five are given up to the history of Ireland in the same period, and are written with an admirable impartiality which makes them a valuable and necessary antidote to the biassed picture of Froude. After Lecky's work, Alexander Richey's (1830-1883) "Lectures on Irish history" present us with what are probably the soundest and most philosophic studies that have appeared on this subject. Another book which has produced a deep effect upon the country and upon the current of historic thought has been Alice Stopford Green's "Making of Ireland and its Undoing" which appeared in 1908. A. M. Sullivan's "Story of Ireland" and P. W. Joyce's "Social History of Ireland" are two popular and useful works. We must now turn to Anglo-Irish drama. The Irish have always been a dramatic race, and also a race of born actors. Beginning with Lodowick Berry, an Irishman whose play of "Ram Alley" was actually written during Shakespeare's life, Ireland has given to England an entirely disproportionate number of her best dramatists and actors. It is necessary to mention only the names of Southern, Macklin, Farquhar, Steele, Goldsmith, Sheridan, O'Keefe, Kenney--and so on through Sheridan Knowles, Dion Boucicault and the two great operatic composers, Michael Balfe and William Vincent Wallace, down to Bernard Shaw, to show how deeply this branch of English literature is beholden to Irishmen. Now again a vigorous Anglo-Irish drama is in full swing, and the Abbey Theatre, Dublin, under the direction of Lady Gregory and Mr. Yeats, where some forty-nine of fifty new plays by Irish writers have recently been produced, has aroused a great deal of interest and is undoubtedly the most remarkable development of Irish literature at the present day. In romance Ireland seems at present to fall far short of the palmy days of Carleton and Lever, Le Fanu and Lover, Banim and Gerald Griffin. Of romance proper, Standish O'Grady, to whose stimulating books dealing with Gaelic Ireland a host of younger men owe inspiration, is the leading representative. One of the best novel-writers of the day is Canon Sheehan of Doneraile, who has struck a new note in literature by his brilliant and sympathetic descriptions of clerical life in the Catholic church. Other well-known and widely-read authors are Jane Barlow, Lady R. M. Gilbert, Rev. James Hannay, Emile Lawless, the poet of the "Wild Geese", Katherine Tynan Hickson, and Shan Bullock. Nor can we close this article without some allusion to the translators of and adapters from the Irish, of whom two stand out pre-eminently, Lady Gregory in prose and Dr. Sigerson in verse. The one has popularized the ancient Irish sagas, and the other, in his "Bards of Gael and Gall" has given us in English verse a long vista of Irish poetry reaching back for some fourteen hundred years and lost in the dim twilight of bygone ages. Of memoirs and autobiographical works the most remarkable are Swift's "Journal to Stella", Wolf Tone's "Diary", the "Memoirs of Joseph Holt", a leader of the Irish rebellion of 1798, Carleton's "Autobiography" (1896), Miles Byrne's "Memoirs" (he was another '98 man), and the remarkable series of letters, mostly unpublished, written by John O'Donovan on his official investigations of Irish topography--perhaps one of the most extensive collections of official letters in the world. GENERAL LITERATURE.--O'REILLY, Irish Writers, ed. for the Iberno-Celtic Society (Dublin, 1820); O'CURRY, Lectures on the Manuscript Materials of Ancient Irish History (re-issue, Dublin, 1878); Idem, Manners and Customs of the Ancient Irish, with introduction by W. K. Sullivan (3 vols., Dublin, 1873); DOUGLAS HYDE, Story of early Gaelic Literature (London, 1895); Idem, A Literary History of Ireland (London, 1899); TOURNEUR, Esquisse d'une histoire des études celtiques (Liège, 1905); DOTTIN, La littérature gaëlique de Irlande; MEYER, Die irisch-gälische Literatur in Kultur der Gegenwart (Berlin and Leipzig, 1909); JOYCE, Social History of Ancient Ireland (2 vols., London, 1903); ELEANOR HULL, A Textbook of Irish Literature (2 vols, Dublin, 1906-08); O'GRADY, Catalogue of Irish MSS. in the British Museum. DOGHAM ALPHABET.--BRASH, The Ogham inscribed monuments of the Gaedhil in the British Islands (London, 1879); FERGUSON, Ogham Inscriptions in Ireland, Wales, and Scotland (Edinburgh, 1887); MACALISTER, Studies in Irish Epigraphy (3 vols., London, 1897-1907); JOHN MacNEIL, The Irish Ogham Inscriptions in Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy (July, 1909); HYDE, Literary History of Ireland, xi; RHYS, articles passim in the Proc. R. I. A. and elsewhere. EARLY MSS. AND GLOSSES.--WHITLEY STOKES and STRACHAN, Thesaurus Palæohibernicus (2 vols., Cambridge, 1901-1903); this contains the sum of all the glosses published previously by many different Celtologists. EPIC LITERATURE.--D'ARBOIS de JUBAINVILLE, Essai d'un catalogue de la littérature épique de l'Irlande (Paris, 1883); Idem, Le cycle mythologique irlandais, et la mythologie celtique (Paris, 1884); Idem, Cours de littérature celtique, especially volume V, which contains translations of eleven pieces from the Ulster, three form the Leinster, and two from the mythologic cycles; WINDISCH, Die altirische Heldensage Táin Bó Cúalnge, Irish text with tr., notes, and glossary (Leipzig, 1905); WINDISCH and STOKES in Irische Texte (Leipzig, 1880-1909); WINIFRED FARADAY, The Cattle-raid of Cualnge (London, 1904); ELEANOR HULL, The Cuchullin Saga (London, 1898); WHITLEY STOKES, The Destruction of Da Derga's Hostel (Paris, 1902); Idem, The Second Battle of Maytura in Revue Celtique, XII, 52; THURNEYSEN, Sagen aus dem alten Irland (Berlin, 1901) (contains translations of fourteen sagas); MEYER, the Battle of Ventry, in series Anecdota Oxoniensia (Oxford, 1885); Idem, Death Tales of Ulster Heroes in Proc. R. I. A., Todd Lecture Series (Dublin, 1906); Idem, The Story of MacDatho's Pig and Hound, in Anecdota Oxoniensia, medieval and modern series, part VIII (Oxford, 1894), 51; HENDERSON, Bricriu's Feast, edited for the Irish Texts Society (London, 1899); PATRICK MacSWEENEY, The Marital Career of Conghal Clairingneach, edited for the Ir. Texts Soc. (London, 1902); O'BEIRNE CROWNE, Táin Bó Fraich, in Proc. R. I. A. (Dublin, 1870); Idem, The Courtship of Bec Fola, ibid; LIZERAY and O'DWYER, Livre des Invasions [i.e., Leabhar Gabála] (Paris, 1884); STANDISH HAYES O'GRADY, Silva Gadelica (2 vols., London, 1892). Irish text and translation of thirty-one pieces containing many Fenian stories; EDMUND HOGAN, The Battle of Rosnaree in Proc. R. I. A, Todd Lecture series (Dublin, 1892); HENNESSY, The Intoxication of the Ultonians in Proc. R. I. A, Todd Lecture Series (Dublin, 1884). For other sagas see Irische Texte (Leipzig, 1884-90), The Revue Celtique, the Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie (Halle, 1896-1909), and Eriu (Dublin). FENIAN POEMS AND OSSIANIC SAGAS.--The Transactions of the Ossianic Society (6 vols., Dublin, 1854-1861); O'CURRY, Cath Mhuighe Léana (Dublin, 1855); J. F. CAMPBELL (of Islay), Leabhar na Féinne (London, 1872); McLAUGHLIN and SKENE, Book of the Dean of Lismore (Edinburgh, 1862); CAMERON, Reliquiæ Celticæ (2 vols., Inverness, 1892); JOHN MacNEILL, Duannaire Finn, ed. for the Irish Texts Society, VII (London, 1908). EARLY IRISH BELIEFS.--See MEYER and DAVID NUTT, The Voyage of Brann (2 vols., London, 1897). LIVES OF SAINTS.--WHITLEY STOKES, Lives of Saints from the Book of Lismore (Oxford 1890); Idem, Tripartite life of St. Patrick (London, 1887); O'GRADY, Silva Gadelica; EDMUND HOGAN, Latin Lives of the Saints as Aids toward the Translation of Irish Texts in Proc. R. I. A, Todd Lecture series, V (Dublin, 1894). SEVENTH-CENTURY SAGA.--O'DONOVAN, Battle of Magh Rath, edited for the Irish Archæological Society (Dublin, 1842). NORSE INVASIONS.--TODD, Wars of the Gaedhil with the Gaill in Rolls Series (London, 1867); O'DONOVAN, Three Fragments of Annals, edited for the Archæological and Celtic Society (Dublin, 1860). TWELFTH-CENTURY BURLESQUE.--MEYER, The Vision of Mac Conglinne (London, 1892). EARLY POETRY.--MEYER, King and Hermit (London, 1903); Idem, Stories and Songs from Irish MSS. in Otia Merseiana. IRISH INFLUENCE ON THE CONTINENT.--ZIMMER, Ueber die bedeutung des irischen Elements für die mittelalterliche Cultur in Preussiche Jahrbücher (January, 1887). VERSIONS FROM FOREIGN LITERATURE.--MEYER, Die irische Alexandersage in Irische Texte, II, ii; Idem, The Irish Odyssey (London, 1886); CALDER, Ir. vers. of Virgil's Æneid. Irish Text Society, VI, WHITLEY STOKES, Abridgment of the Book of Ser Marco Polo in Celt. Zeitsch., I, 245; Idem, The Gaelic Maundeville, ibid., II, 1; ROBINSON, Two Fragments of an Irish Romance of the Holy Grail, ibid, IV, 381; Idem, Irish Life of Fuy of Warwick, ibid, VI; WHITLEY STOKES, Destruction of Troy (Calcutta, 1882), which was also published in Irische Texte (Leipzig, 1884); MACALISTER, Story of the Crop-eared Dog and Story of Eagle Boy, two Arthurian romances, edited for the Irish Text Society, X (London, 1908); WHITLEY STOKES, Stair Fortibus in Revue Celtique, XX; Idem, Civil War of the Romans in Irische Texte (Leipzig, 1909). See also Revue Celtique, XI, 39;, XV, 79, for articles on this subject. ANNALS AND HISTORY.--WHITLEY STOKES, Annals of Tigernach in Revue Celtique, XVII; HENNESSY and MacCARTHY, The Annals of Ulster in the Roll Series (4 vols., Dublin, 1887-1901); HENNESSEY, Chronicon Scotorum (Dublin, 1866); O'DONOVAN, The Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland (i.e., The Four Masters, q. v.); Denis Murphy, The Annals of Clonmacnoise, a seventeenth-century English translation of a lost Iris original (Dublin, 1896); Idem, Life of Red Hugh O'Donnell written by LUGHAIDR O'CLEIRIGH, Irish text and translation (Dublin, 1893); ALEXANDER BUDGE, Cathréim Cellacháin Caisill (Christiania, 1905); BEST, Leabhar Oiris in Eriu, I, 74; HENNESSEY, Annals of Loch Cé in Rolls Series (2 vols, 1871). ANCIENT LAW.--See Ancient Laws of Ireland (i.e., the Brehon Laws, q. v.) in Rolls Series (8 vols., Dublin, 1865-1901); D'ARBOIS JUBAINVILLE, Etudes sue le droit celtique (2 vols., Paris, 1895); O'DONOVAN, The Book of Rights, edited for the Celtic Society (Dublin, 1874); MEYER, Law of Adamnan (Oxford, 1905); O'KEEFE, Law of Sunday in Eriu, II, 189; WHITLEY STOKES, The Irish Ordeals in Irische Texte, III, 183; see also Anecdota from Irish MSS (3 vols., Dublin, 1907-10), and Eriu (1904-10). INFLUENCE OF LATIN ON IRISH.--VENDRYES, De Hibernicis Vocabulis quæ a Latina lingua originem duxerunt (Paris, 1902). VISIONS.--WHITLEY STOKES, The Vision of Adamnan (Simla, 1870), and in Revue Celtique, XII, p. 420; WINDISCH in Ir. Texte, I, 165-196; MEYER and FRIEDEL, Vision de Tondale (Paris, 1907); BOSWELL, An Irish Precursor of Dante. RELIGIOUS LITERATURE IN PROSE AND VERSE.--The Irish Liber Hymnorum, ed. ATKINSON and BERNARD, for the Henry Bradshaw Society, vols. XIII, XIV; ATKINSON, The Passions and Homilies from the Leabhar Breac. text, translation, and glossary, in Proc. R. I. A. Todd Lecture Series II (Dublin, 1887); WHITLEY STOKES, Saltair na Rann (Oxford, 1883); Idem, The Martyrology of Oengus the Culdee (London, 1905); O'DONOVAN, TODD, and REEVES, The Martyrology of Donegal (Dublin, 1864); Idem, The Martyrology of Gorman (London, 1895), edited for the Henry Bradshaw Society, vol. IX (1895); ATKINSON, Three Shafts of Death, R. I. Academy, MS. series, vol. II; O'BRIEN, Eochair-sgiath an Aifrinn (Dublin, 1900); MEYER, Colgu's scuap chábuid in Otia Merseiana, II (Liverpool), 92; WHITLEY STOKES, The Ever-new tongue in Eriu, II (Dublin); MEYER, Old Irish Treatise on the Psalter, Hibernica Minora (Oxford, 1894). OLD IRISH METRIC.--O'MULLOY, Grammatica Latino-Hibernica (Rome, 1677), 144-280, re-edited and translated by O'FLANNGHAILE (Dublin, 1908); ATKINSON, Irish metric, an inaugural lecture of Celtic philology (Dublin, 1884); THURNEYSEN, Irische Texte, III, 1, pp 1-182; Idem, Zur irischen Accent- und Verslehre in Revue Celtique, VI; MEYER, Primer of Irish Metrics (Dublin, 1909); ZIMMER, Ueber altiriche Betonuna und Verskunst in Keltische Studien, II (Berlin, 1884). BARDIC POETRY.--O'DONOVAN, Topographical Poems, edited for the Irish Archæological and Celtic Society (Dublin, 1841, 1862); STERN, Bardic poems from a collection in Copenhagen in Zeit. für celt. Phil., II; O'GRADY, Catalogue of Irish MSS. in the British Museum. MODERN IRISH POETRY.--The Gaelic Journal (Dublin, 1882-1909); HARDIMAN, Irish Minstrelsy (2 vols., London, 1831); HYDE, Irish Poetry, An essay in Irish with translation (Dublin, 1902); Idem, Love songs of Connacht (4th ed., Dublin, 1909); Idem, Religious songs of Connacht (2 vols., Dublin, 1906); Idem, Poems ascribed to Raftery (Dublin); DINNEEN, Egan O'Rahilly's poems, edited for the Irish Texts Society (1900); MacGIOLLA MEIDHRE (i.e., MacCONMARA), The Midnight Court, ed. STERN, Ger. tr. in Zeit für celt. Phil., V (1905), and by O'BRIEN and O'CONNELL without tr. (Dublin, 1909); DONCHADH RUADH MacCONMARA, Poems, ed. FLANNERY (Dublin, 1897), another edition was brought out edited by FOLEY (Dublin, 1908); O'DALY, Poets and Poetry of Munster, with tr. by MANGAN, vol. I (Dublin, 1849); II, with tr. by SIGERSON (Dublin, 1860); O'LOONEY, Poems written by the Clare Bards (Dublin, 1863); WALSH, Irish Popular Songs (Dublin, 1847); O'DALY, Irish Language Miscellany (1876); MICHAEL and THOMAS O'MALLEY, Amhráin Chlainne Gaedhal (Dublin, 1905). Within the past few years the poems of a number of seventeenth and eighteenth century writers have been collected and edited for the first time by JOHN MAC ERLEAN, Poems of Geoffrey Keating (Dublin, 1900); DINEEN, Poems of Geoffrey O'Donoghue of the Glen; Idem, Poems of Pierce Ferriter; Idem, Poems of Seighan Clárach Mac Donnell; idem, Poems of Owen Roe O'Sullivan; Idem, Poets of Maigue, John O'Twomy and Andrew Magrath; Idem, Poems of Tadhg Gaelach O'Sullivan; T. O'Donoghue, Poems of Seághan, O'Murchadha na Raithineach; R. FOLEY, Poems of Pierce Fitzgerald; J. H. Lloyd, the Poems of Colm Wallace, a recent Connacht poet. FACSIMILES OF IRISH MSS.--The Book of the Dun Cow, a MS. of about A.D. 1100; the Book of Leinster, a MS. of about A.D. 1150; the Yellow Book of Lecan; the Book of Ballymote; the Lebhar Breac, or Speckled Book. "Rawlinson B. 502" (a Bodleian MS., Oxford, 1909). ANGLO-IRISH LITERATURE.--CROFTON CROKER, The Popular Songs of Ireland (London, 1839); McCarthy, Poets and Dramatists of Ireland (Dublin, 1846); D'ARCY McGEE, Irish writers of the 17th Century (Dublin, 1846); HEUSER, Die Kildare-Gedichte, die ältesten Mittelenglischen Denkmäler in anglo-irische Ueberlieferung (Bonn, 1904); STOPFORD BROOKE and ROLLESTON, Treasury of Irish Poetry in the English Tongue (London, 1900); READ, Cabinet of Irish Literature (4 vols, London, 1902); COOKE, The Dublin Book of Irish Verse, 1728-1909 (Dublin, 1909); GAVAN DUFFY, Ballad Poetry of Ireland (Dublin, 1845); WILLIAM, Poets and Poetry of Ireland (Boston, 1991); HAYES, Ballads of Ireland (2 vols., 1855); SPARLING, Irish Minstrelsy (London, 1887); YEATS, A Book of Irish Verse, selected from modern writers (London, 1895); O'DONOGHUE, Biographical Dictionary of the Poets of Ireland (Dublin, 1901); WELSH, Irish Literature (10 vols., Philadelphia, 1904). DOUGLAS HYDE Ven. William Ireland Ven. William Ireland ( Alias Ironmonger.) Jesuit martyr, born in Lincolnshire, 1636; executed at Tyburn, 24 Jan. (not 3 Feb.), 1679; eldest son of William Ireland of Crofton Hall, Yorkshire, by Barbara, a daughter of Ralph Eure, of Washingborough, Lincolnshire (who is to be distinguished from the last Lord Eure) by his first wife. He was educated at the English College, St. Omer; admitted to the Society of Jesus at Watten, 1655; professed, 1673; and was for several years confessor to the Poor Clares at Gravelines. In 1677 he was sent on the English Mission and appointed procurator of the province. On the night of 28 September, 1678, he was arrested by Titus Oates in person, and amongst others who shared his fate was John Grove, a layman, the nominal occupier of that part of Wild House, London, occupied by the Jesuits, the Spanish ambassador living under the same roof. After rigorous confinement in Newgate they were both sentenced to death on 17 December following, together with Thomas Pickering, for having, in the rooms of William Harcourt, the Jesuit, on the previous 19 August, planned to assassinate the king. Oates and Bedloe swore that Grove was to have £1500 for the job, and Pickering 30,000 Masses. Ireland, in a journal written in Newgate, accounted for every day of his absence from London between 3 August and 14 September, but a woman having sworn that she saw him in Fetter Lane, on 20 August, all three were found guilty, and after two reprieves Ireland and Grove were executed together, Grove saying: "We are innocent, we lose our lives wrongfully, we pray God to forgive them that are the causes of it." Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.; G.E.C(OKAYNE), Peerage of England, III (London, 1890), 294; Harleian Soc. Publ., L (London, 1902), 338; CHALLONER, Missionary Priests, II (London and Derby, s. d.), 361; POLLOCK, The Popish Plot (London, 1903). JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT St. Irenaeus St. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons, and Father of the Church. Information as to his life is scarce, and in some measure inexact. He was born in Proconsular Asia, or at least in some province bordering thereon, in the first half of the second century; the exact date is controverted, between the years 115 and 125, according to some, or, according to others, between 130 and 142. It is certain that, while still very young, Irenaeus had seen and heard the holy Bishop Polycarp (d. 155) at Smyrna. During the persecution of Marcus Aurelius, Irenaeus was a priest of the Church of Lyons. The clergy of that city, many of whom were suffering imprisonment for the Faith, sent him (177 or 178) to Rome with a letter to Pope Eleutherius concerning Montanism, and on that occasion bore emphatic testimony to his merits. Returning to Gaul, Irenaeus succeeded the martyr Saint Pothinus as Bishop of Lyons. During the religious peace which followed the persecution of Marcus Aurelius, the new bishop divided his activities between the duties of a pastor and of a missionary (as to which we have but brief data, late and not very certain) and his writings, almost all of which were directed against Gnosticism, the heresy then spreading in Gaul and elsewhere. In 190 or 191 he interceded with Pope Victor to lift the sentence of excommunication laid by that pontiff upon the Christian communities of Asia Minor which persevered in the practice of the Quartodecimans in regard to the celebration of Easter. Nothing is known of the date of his death, which must have occurred at the end of the second or the beginning of the third century. In spite of some isolated and later testimony to that effect, it is not very probable that he ended his career with martyrdom. His feast is celebrated on 28 June in the Latin Church, and on 23 August in the Greek. Irenaeus wrote in Greek many works which have secured for him an exceptional place in Christian literature, because in controverted religious questions of capital importance they exhibit the testimony of a contemporary of the heroic age of the Church, of one who had heard St. Polycarp, the disciple of St. John, and who, in a manner, belonged to the Apostolic Age. None of these writings have come down to us in the original text, though a great many fragments of them are extant as citations in later writers (Hippolytus, Eusebius, etc.). Two of these works, however, have reached us in their entirety in a Latin version: + A treatise in five books, commonly entitled Adversus haereses, and devoted, according to its true title, to the "Detection and Overthrow of the False Knowledge" (see GNOSTICISM, sub-title Refutation of Gnosticism). Of this work we possess a very ancient Latin translation, the scrupulous fidelity of which is beyond doubt. It is the chief work of Irenaeus and truly of the highest importance; it contains a profound exposition not only of Gnosticism under its different forms, but also of the principal heresies which had sprung up in the various Christian communities, and thus constitutes an invaluable source of information on the most ancient ecclesiastical literature from its beginnings to the end of the second century. In refuting the heterodox systems Irenaeus often opposes to them the true doctrine of the Church, and in this way furnishes positive and very early evidence of high importance. Suffice it to mention the passages, so often and so fully commented upon by theologians and polemical writers, concerning the origin of the Gospel according to St. John (see JOHN, GOSPEL OF SAINT), the Holy Eucharist, and the primacy of the Roman Church. + Of a second work, written after the "Adversus Haereses", an ancient literal translation in the Armenian language. This is the "Proof of the Apostolic Preaching." The author's aim here is not to confute heretics, but to confirm the faithful by expounding the Christian doctrine to them, and notably by demonstrating the truth of the Gospel by means of the Old Testament prophecies. Although it contains fundamentally, so to speak, nothing that has not already been expounded in the "Adversus Haereses", it is a document of the highest interest, and a magnificent testimony of the deep and lively faith of Irenaeus. Of his other works only scattered fragments exist; many, indeed, are known only through the mention made of them by later writers, not even fragments of the works themselves having come down to us. These are + a treatise against the Greeks entitled "On the Subject of Knowledge" (mentioned by Eusebius); + a writing addressed to the Roman priest Florinus "On the Monarchy, or How God is not the Cause of Evil" (fragment in Eusebius); + a work "On the Ogdoad", probably against the Ogdoad of Valentinus the Gnostic, written for the same priest Florinus, who had gone over to the sect of the Valentinians (fragment in Eusebius); + a treatise on schism, addressed to Blastus (mentioned by Eusebius); + a letter to Pope Victor against the Roman priest Florinus (fragment preserved in Syriac); + another letter to the same on the Paschal controversies (extracts in Eusebius); + other letters to various correspondents on the same subject (mentioned by Eusebius, a fragment preserved in Syriac); + a book of divers discourses, probably a collection of homilies (mentioned by Eusebius); and + other minor works for which we have less clear or less certain attestations. The four fragments which Pfaff published in 1715, ostensibly from a Turin manuscript, have been proven by Funk to be apocryphal, and Harnack has established the fact that Pfaff himself fabricated them. ALBERT PONCELET Sister Irene (Catherine Fitzgibbon) Sister Irene (Catherine FitzGibbon.) Born in London, England, 12 May, 1823; died in New York, 14 August, 1896. At the age of nine emigrated to Brooklyn, New York, with her parents, and in 1850 joined the community of the Sisters of Charity at Mount St. Vincent, New York, taking in religion the name of Irene. During her novitiate she taught in St. Peter's parish school, and finally became sister servant there. At that time no public provision was made to take are of abandoned infants. When picked up in the streets, they were sent to the municipal charity institutions to be looked after by paupers. Many were left at the doors of the sisters' schools and houses, in the evident hope that they might receive from them some special consideration. Sister Irene, noting the constant increase in number of these waifs, suggested the establishment of a foundling asylum, such as had long existed in Europe. Archbishop McCloskey sanctioned the project and in 1869 Sister Irene was assigned to carry it into effect. After visiting the public homes for infants in several cities she organized a woman's society to collect the necessary found for the proposed asylum with Mrs. Paul Thebaud as its head. By their aid a house (17 East Twelfth Street) was hired, and here on 11 October, 1869, the foundling asylum was opened with a crxche at its door. On the evening of the same day it held its first infant, and forty-four others followed before the first month passed. Within a year a large house (3 Washington Square, North) had to be taken. In 1870 the city was authorized by the Legislature to give the asylum the block bounded by Third and Lexington Avenues, Sixty-eighth and Sixty-ninth Streets, for the site of a new building, and $100,000 for the building fund, provided a similar amount was raised by private donation. Of the required sum, $71,500 was realized by a fair held in 1871, and $27,500 came from three private donations. The new building was opened in October, 1873. The city pays 45 cents a day each for all children cared for under two years of age, and 32 cents for all over that age. It costs (1909) $1000 a day to run the institution, in which from six to seven hundred children are sheltered, with more than 1500 others on the outdoor list. In addition to what is paid by the city, $40,000 is donated annually by Catholic charity to carry on the work. Since it was opened, 50,000 children have been placed in good homes throughout the country, the average of those thus given for adoption being from two and a half to three years. The title of "The Foundling Asylum", under which it was incorporated in 1869, was changed by legal enactment in 1891 to "The New York Foundling Hospital". In addition to caring for the children, homeless and indigent mothers are also provided for, to the yearly average of five hundred. St. Ann's Maternity Hospital was opened for them in 1880 and in 1881 a children's hospital at Spuyten Duyvil on the Hudson. Sister Irene's whole life was given to the care of foundlings, and just before she died she added the Seton Hospital for incurable comsuptives, the cost of which ($350,000) she collected herself. THOMAS F. MEEHAN Irenopolis Irenopolis A titular see of Isauria, suffragan of Seleucia. Five of its bishops are known: John (325), Menodorus (451), Paul (458), George (692), Euschemon (878). The city is mentioned by Hierocles in the sixth century and George of Cyprus in the seventh. It figures in the "Notitia Episcopatuum" of Anastasius, Patriarch of Antioch in the sixth century, and in the "Nova Tactica" of the tenth century, as attached to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. At this period the Byzantine emperors had taken the province of Isauria from the Patriarchate of Antioch. Ramsay ("Asia Minor," London, 1890, p. 365), following Sterrett, identifies Irenopolis of Isauria with Irnebol, of which he does not indicate the exact situation. Coins found bearing the name Irenopolis belong rather to a city of the same name located in Cilicia, the ancient Neronias, some of whose bishops are also known. LE QUIEN, Oriens Christianus, II, 897-900, 1029 sq. S. VAILHÉ Ignacio de Iriarte Ignacio de Iriarte Painter, b. at Azcoitia, Guipuzcoa, in 1620; d. at Seville, 1685. Iriarte was the son of Esteban de Iriarte and Magdalena Zabala, and received his early education at home, but in 1642 went to Seville, and entered the studio of the elder Herrera. Here he learned to understand colouring, but he was never able to draw the human figure with spirit or accuracy, and therefore determined to devote his attention exclusively to landscape, and was the one Spanish artist who walked that rarely trodden path, and obtained in it the greatest possible celebrity. In 1646 we hear of him as residing at Aracena, near to the mountains, and there it was that he married Doña Francisca de Chaves, but his first wife lived a very short time, and in 1649 he married in Seville his second wife Doña Maria Escobar. He was an original member of the Academy of Seville, its first secretary in 1660, and again secretary from 1667 to 1669. For very many years, he was the intimate friend and associate of Murillo, who praised his landscapes very highly, and on many occasions the two artists worked together, Murillo executing the figures, and Iriarte the landscape. In consequence, however, of a dispute with reference to a series of pictures on the life of David, this division of labour came to an end, and the two painters, both of them men of great determination, decided to work separately and not in conjunction. Murillo painted the whole of the picture representing an episode in the life of David, and Iriarte contented himself with his exquisite landscapes, as a rule wild and rugged scenes, somewhat allied to those of Salvator Rosa, in which at that time he was the greatest exponent. There is a landscape preserved at Madrid in an unfinished condition, with the figures merely sketched in by Murillo and the background left incomplete by Iriarte, and this is said to have been left incomplete at the time of the quarrel. The painter has been called the Spanish Claude Lorraine, and Murillo declared that his best landscapes were painted "by Divine inspiration", but the comparison and statement are not accurate, as there is a forced character and an imaginary romance about Iriarte's landscapes with an extraordinary lack of atmosphere. They are, however, pleasing and attractive, although rare. His works are to be found principally in Madrid, but can also be studied in the galleries of St. Petersburg and the Louvre. QUILLIET, Dictionaire des Peintres Espagnols (Paris, 1816); DE CASTRO Y VELASCO, El Museo Pictorico y Escala Optica (Madrid, 1715); STIRLING-MAXWELL, Annals on the Artists of Spain (London, 1848); HUARD, Vie Complete des Peintres Espagnols (Paris, 1839); HARTLEY, A Record of Spanish Painting (London, 1904). GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON The Irish (In Countries Other Than Ireland) The Irish (in countries other than Ireland) I. IN THE UNITED STATES Who were the first Irish to land on the American continent and the time of their arrival are perhaps matters of conjecture rather than of historical proof; but that the Irish were there almost at the beginning of the colonial era is a fact support by historical records. The various nations of Europe whose explorers had followed Columbus were alive to the possibilities of land conquest in the new continent. For this purpose colonists were needed, and expeditions were fitted out under government protection, which brought over the earliest settlers. England was especially active in promoting these expeditions, and during the seventeenth century, various colonies, beginning with that of Jamestown in 1607, were planted with immigrants, most of them of English nationality. Irish names, however, are met with occasionally in the documents relating to these settlements; it is certain that there were Irish Catholics in the Virginia Colony prior to 1633. In the narrative of the voyage of the Jesuit Father Andrew White and his associates in the "Dove and "Ark" from England to Maryland in 1633 in Lord Baltimore's expedition, we are told that on the way over they put in at Monserrat (one of the smallest of the Caribbean Islands) where they found a colony of Irishmen "who had been banished from Virginia on account of professing the Catholic Faith" (see Old Catholic Maryland, p. 14). The accepted history of that island attests the fact that it was originally settled by Irish, although at present the white population has largely disappeared. A modern traveller (Stark, 1893) says: "It is not surprising therefore that the descendants of the slaves who belonged to the Irish settlers all have Irish names, and speak a jargon of Irish, English, and African in which the brogue predominates. While Father White and most of his companions who first planted the cross in Maryland were of English origin, it is equally true that Ireland, as well as other Catholic lands in Europe contributed their quota of missionaries who nourished the Faith in the early Maryland settlement, and among the Jesuit missionaries of these times we find Fathers Carroll, Murphy, Hayes, Quinn, O'Reilly, Casey, and others whose names indicate their Celtic origin. But the beginnings of immigration from Ireland to America, in such numbers and under such circumstances so notable as to become a matter of definite historical record, may be said to date from the subjugation of Ireland by Cromwell in 1651. Under that merciless conqueror the English policy of transplanting the Irish was ruthlessly carried out. The native Irish were deprived of their lands, routed from their homes, and ordered to remove their families and such effects as were permitted to the Province of Connaught in the west, where a certain territory, mostly wild and desolate, had been prescribed, within which they were to remain under military surveillance and establish a new residence. Those who refused suffered various punishments and sometimes death. In many cases the complaisant commissioners appointed by Cromwell ordered the deportation of the recalcitrant Irish to the American plantations, and enterprising merchants from Bristol and London carried on a lucrative business in shipping and transferring these unfortunate victims to their destination. In order to sustain their traffic, leave was granted to fill their ships which such destitute or homeless inhabitants (made such by their conquerors) as might be delivered to them by the military governor for transportation abroad, so that, as the records show, during the years 1651 to 1654, 6400 young exiles (mostly young men and women) were carried away and delivered, some to Barbados, and some to the different English colonies in America. Two thousand more boys and girls were shipped the following year to Barbados and to the American plantations, and it has been estimated that in the year 1660 there were 10,000 Irish who had been distributed thus among the different English colonies in America (see American Catholic Quarterly Review, IX, 37). Of the total number thus shipped out of Ireland across the main, the estimates vary between 60,000 and 100,000 [Lingard, "History of England", X (Dolman ed., 1849), 366]. Prior to this deportation there had been some voluntary emigration from Ireland to America; with the development of the colonies this emigration increased and later assumed such enormous proportions that, before attempting to trace its progress, it may be useful to inquire what were the causes which compelled over five million people, pouring out in a continuous stream for nearly two centuries, to abandon their native land, with all its associations, religious, domestic, and national, and seek homes for themselves and their families beyond the Western Ocean. For over a hundred years before the Cromwellian era Ireland had been distracted by the frequent invasions of the English under desperate and unscrupulous leaders, whose professed purpose was to re-establish English supremacy in Ireland, and to force the new religion of Henry VIII upon her clergy and laity. The old religion which the nation as a whole had cherished for over a thousand years was proscribed, and her churches, monasteries, and other shrines of religion plundered. The lands attached to them were confiscated by the Crown, and parcelled out among the greedy adventurers, whose success in despoiling the true owners of their property meant their own enrichment. The adherents of the old Faith, comprising as they did much more than five-sixths of the population, were made outlaws, their homes destroyed, their estates forfeited and their liberties and life itself were the price they had to pay for their refusal to conform to the new religion. In aid of the policy of exterminating the Catholic Irish (of which no concealment was made) a system of penal laws was put into force, under which they were disfranchised, disqualified from acquiring or holding property, compelled to remain illiterate, fined, imprisoned, and many of them tortured with every refinement of cruelty. Their bishops and priests were classed as felons, a price set on their heads, and an incredible number of both clergy and people who adhered loyally to the religion of their forefathers were either put to the sword or hanged, drawn, and quartered. So cruel and atrocious was this code that Edmund Burke described it as "a truly barbarous system; where all the parts are an outrage on the laws of humanity and the laws of nature; it is a system of elaborate contrivance, as well fitted for the oppression, imprisonment and degradation of a people, and the debasement of human nature itself, as ever proceeded from the perverted ingenuity of man". "The law", says another writer, "did not suppose the existence of an Irish Roman Catholic, nor could they even breathe without the contrivance of government" (Lecky, Ireland in the Eighteenth Century, I, 246). Concurrently with the enforcement of these laws, various schemes were projected by the English adventurers, some as early as the reign of Elizabeth (1573), for the colonization of Ireland chiefly with English and Scottish settlers. For instance, in 1709, in pursuance of the policy of stamping out the Irish and replacing them with a more tractable race, 820 families of German Palatines, comprising 3073 persons, landed at Dublin at a cost to the government of £34,000 (Young, I, 371). Military expeditions were organized and sent over to take possession of the lands of the disaffected Irish. Great tracts of land, sometimes embracing whole counties, were declared confiscated to the Crown and were allotted to the "gentlemen undertakers" who financed these enterprises. Under James I 5,000,000 acres, and under Charles I about 2,500,000 acres were thus confiscated. The native Irish chiefs and their clansmen naturally resisted these attempts to dispossess them of their lands. If they remained passive some provocation was invented for goading them into rebellion. In either case, they were adjudged to be rebels who might lawfully be hunted and shot down on sight. The methods adopted to crush them were cruel in the extreme, their cattle were taken from them, their houses levelled, and their harvests burned. Men, women, and children were indiscriminately shot down and even hanged by a brutal soldiery, and the remnant which escaped found shelter in the neighbouring bogs and mountains where they were hunted to death as outlaws or perished from starvation. In other parts of Ireland, where these methods of transplantation or extermination had not yet been attempted and where the inhabitants had escaped the horrors of this guerrilla warfare, there were hundreds of thousands of fertile acres. These were then and had been for over three hundred years in the undisputed possession of their owners, the native Irish, and were held under the tribal system of tenure. As a pretext for dispossessing these lawful proprietors from their lands and making them available for plantation, a Royal Commission, appointed for the purpose, declared the titles defective, and over ha;f a million acres of land not heretofore confiscated were adjudged to have reverted to the Crown. In consequence the true owners, against which no disaffection could be alleged, were forced either to retire, or were permitted to remain practically as tenants, upon onerous conditions, on a small portion of their former holdings, the balance being reserved in part to the Crown, and in part being distributed among the adventurers who had advanced money for carrying out the scheme, and the soldiers as a reward for services rendered. The reformers, or "discoverers" as they were called, who attacked these titles before the Commission, were likewise rewarded by grants of portions of the plundered lands. Speaking of these various changes in the ownership of the land, Arthur Young, an impartial Protestant observer, writing in 1776 (Tour of Ireland, Vol. II, p. 59), says: "Nineteen-twentieths of the kingdom (comprising 11,420, 682 Irish acres or nearly 21,000,000 acres, English measure) changed hand from Catholic to Protestant. . . . So entire an overthrow of landed possessions is, within the period, to be found scare within any country in the world. In such great revolutions of property the ruined proprietors had usually been extirpated or banished." While the enforcement of these laws and such methods of conquest bore heaviest on Roman Catholics, yet the Presbyterian Irish, chiefly in the north, and the Quakers were likewise made to suffer for their attachment to their country and to the religion which their consciences dictated, so that no element of the native population escaped the savage vengeance of their English conquerors. The periods of respite were few, and the calm was only the peacefulness of death and desolation. At the beginning of the eighteenth century, the population of Ireland, as a result of this barbarous treatment, had been reduced to about one and a half million souls. Lest the survivors, in whom the native instinct of industry and enterprise still prevailed, should draw any measure of prosperity to themselves and away from England, the legislation for Ireland was steadily directed toward the restraint, if not the absolute ruin, of all her trade and commerce. Embargoes were laid on the exportation from Ireland of cattle, meat, and other food products, and the exportation of wool and woolen goods to any other country than England (which manufactured a supply sufficient for home consumption) was forbidden under heavy penalties so that in 1699 as many as 40,000 weavers were denied of the means of livelihood and many of them the forced to emigrate. Such trading as was not positively forbidden had to be carried out only in English built ships, to the ruin, of course, of the seaboard towns and the shipbuilding industries of Ireland, and in 1696 all import trade direct to Ireland, whether from foreign countries, or from the English colonies was prohibited; even the linen industry, then slowly growing, was checked by heavy duties imported on its sailcloth and other manufactures exported to England, where alone they were allowed to find a market. With the success of the American patriots and the re-establishment of the Irish Parliament in 1782, some prospect of improvement appeared, only to be dispelled by the Act of Union of 1800. Their legislative independence thus extinguished, their trade and commerce destroyed, with every avenue for honourable occupation closed against them, the Irish people were thrown back on the soil for their means of support and became victims of a system of landlordism with its rents, fines, and rack-rents, its tithes and other iniquitous conditions under which human beings could not live except by almost super-human industry and self-denial. These, briefly stated, were the conditions which confronted the Irish yet remaining on their native soil at the close of the eighteenth century. That those who could should go elsewhere to find relief was most natural. As a result, a tide of emigration set in, to be continued during two centuries, carrying away millions of the people who were destined to become so important an element in the establishment and maintenance of the American Republic. It was no ordinary overflow of a surplus population, seeking new fields of industry, nor the enterprise of adventurous spirits induced, as had been other colonists, by the promise of rich rewards, but rather the mournful flight of a people seeking to escape the ruin which had overtaken so many of their fellow-countrymen, and which as surely was to be their lot if they remained at home. During the period of 1680 to 1720 thousands of woolen weavers, mostly Protestants from Ulster, deprived of their means of livelihood, and dissenters as well as Roman Catholics anxious to avoid persecution, had left Ireland for the American Colonies, where they "were changed into enemies who paid off old scores in the war of American Independence" (Gregg, "Irish History", 92). Other Catholic Irish from the middle and south of Ireland had likewise voluntarily emigrated to the different colonies, through which they dispersed, to find or make homes for themselves and their families where circumstances favoured. In the early years of the eighteenth century we find abundant records of Irish emigration. Thus, in 1718, five ships arrived in Boston with 200 emigrants from Ulster. So considerable was the influx that, in 1720, the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony passed an ordinance directing that "certain families recently arrived from Ireland be warned to move off", and, in 1723, another ordinance was passed requiring all Irish emigrants to be registered. During the years 1736-1738 ten ships arrived at Boston harbour bearing 1000 such immigrants, and hardly a year passed without a fresh infusion of Irish blood into the existing population. Irish names frequently appeared in the early records of many of the New England towns, showing how widely the immigration had distributed itself, and in some cases those emigrating from particular localities in Ireland were numerous enough to establish their own independent settlements, to which they gave the names of their Irish home places, such as the towns of Belfast, Limerick, and Londonderry in Maine, Dublin, Derryfield, and Kilkenny in New Hampshire, and Sullivan and Carroll Counties in the latter state, and this practice was followed in many instances by the Irish arriving in other colonies, notably Pennsylvania and New York, where the names of counties and towns of Ireland attest to the place of origin of the first settlers. It was from Irish settlers in New Hampshire that Stark's Rangers were recruited who fought the battle of Bennington and took part in the campaign leading to the surrender of Burgoyne. The official military records of the province of New York show that from early times Irishmen were there in large numbers. Thomas Dongan, the first colonial governor (appointed in 1683), who gave New York its first charter of liberties, was a native of the County Kildare and a Catholic. The muster-rolls of the various military companies which were maintained under British rule down to the time of the Revolution and participated in the French and Indian Wars show a large proportion of unmistakable Irish names, and there were some thousands of Irish soldiers in the various regiments of the line and of the militia of New York serving in the Continental Army. On account of its reputation for religious tolerance and wise administration, William Penn's colony attracted Irish settlers in unusual numbers. Penn's trusted agent and administrator of the affairs of the colony during the period 1701-1751, James Logan, distinguished for his high character and the ability with which he discharged his trust, was a native of Lurgan, Ireland; among the "first purchasers" who embarked with Penn on the "Welcome", arriving with Penn in 1682, we find the names of several Irishmen, who with their families had left their native towns of Wexford and Cashel respectively for America. (See list in Scharff and Westcott, "History of Philadelphia", I, 99.) Other early Irish immigrants arriving at Philadelphia were, Patrick, Michael, and Philip Kearney, natives of Cork, among whose descendants may be named General Stephan W. Kearney, first governor of California, Commodore Lawrence Kearney, and the dashing General Phil Kearney, the distinguished soldier of the Civil War, and, in 1719, George Taylor, later one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. In 1727, 1155 Irish landed at Philadelphia and in 1728, 5600 more. Holmes's "American Annals" states that out of a total of 6310 immigrants, arriving during 1729 by way of the Delaware River, 5655 were Irish. In one week alone, as reported by the "American Weekly Mercury" of 14 August, 1729, there arrived "about two thousand Irish, and an abundance more daily expected". In 1737 thirty-three vessels are registered as arriving at Philadelphia bringing passengers from different ports in Ireland, and although definite statistics are not available, there is sufficient evidence to show that this tide of emigration did not slacken for many years. So great was it that in 1735 a bill was introduced in Parliament to prohibit emigration from Ireland entirely. The great number of Irish in Pennsylvania at the beginning of the War of Independence, their high character, and important standing in that community indicate how large and valuable had been the immigration there. Besides the Irish who had come into Virginia Colony before referred to, there was other emigration to it, as well as to the Carolinas, while as early as 1734 a colony of 500 Irish settlers planted themselves on the Santee River; among these are to be found such names as Rutledge, Jackson, and Calhoun, which a generation later were to be famous in the history of the United States. Other settlements in the United States were made by Irish immigrants who had come thither from the northern Colonies. From various town and other colonial records (see Hanna, "Scotch-Irish", II, 9 and passim), it has been ascertained that Irish emigrants had settled in Pennsylvania in 1682, in North Carolina in 1683, in South Carolina and New Jersey in 1700. The historian of South Carolina (Ramsay) writes, "but of all other countries none has furnished the Province with so many inhabitants as Ireland" (Vol 1., 20). The disastrous famine of 1740, like that still more terrible one a hundred years later, greatly increased the immigration to America; besides those who left from Galway, Dublin, and other ports it is recorded that for "several years afterwards 12,000 emigrants annually left Ulster for the American plantations", and that "from 1771 to 1773 the whole emigration from Ulster is estimated at 30,000 of whom 10,000 are weavers". (Lecky, "History of England in the Eighteenth Century", II, 261; Froude, "England in Ireland", II, 125.) There are no official records of immigration to the United States prior to 1820. But with reference to the period from 1776 to 1820 the Bureau of Statistics has adopted an estimate, based on the most reliable data which could be obtained, showing 250,000 as the total immigrants of all nationalities arriving in the United States during that time. In his notebook for 1818, Bishop Connolly says, "At present there are here [New York] about 16,000 Catholics -- mostly Irish; at least 10,000 Irish Catholics had arrived in New York only within these last three years. They spread", he adds, "over all the large states of this country and make their religion known everywhere." And beginning about this time, namely the close of the second war with England, 1812-1815, the stream of Irish emigration, which before had been largely Presbyterian, was changed, so that Catholic Irish have ever since constituted the bulk of such immigration into the United States. The number recorded as arriving from Ireland in the year 1820, the first year of the official registration of immigrants, is 3614, and judging from these figures and from the proportion of immigrants arriving prior to the War of Independence, we may safely say that, out of the above official estimate of 250,000 as the total number of immigrants during the period from 1776 to 1820, at least 100,000 were Irish. Since the year 1820 the number of immigrants arriving in the United States from Ireland is shown by the official records as follows: -- 1821-1830: 50,724 1831-1840: 207,381 1841-1850: 780,719 1851-1860: 914,119 1861-1870: 435,778 1871-1880: 436,871 1881-1890: 655,482 1891-1900: 403,496 Total: 3,884,570 and for the years 1901 to 1908 inclusive as follows: -- 1901: 30,561 1902: 29,138 1903: 35,300 1904: 36,142 1905: 37,644 1906: 34,995 1907: 34,530 1908: 21,382 Total: 259,692 (See Reports of Com. General of Immigration for 1906-7-8 and "Immigration", p. 4338), the above figures indicating that emigration from Ireland during the past eight years has been maintained at nearly the same average as during the last preceding decade. As a result the population of Ireland has diminished according to the censuses from 1861 to 1901 at the following rate per cent: -- 1861: 11.8 percent 1871: 6.7 1881: 4.4 1891: 9.1 1901: 5.2 (See Statesman's Year-Book, 1907). The greatest immigration in any one year was in 1851 when 221,253 persons are recorded as arriving; next to this was the year 1850 with the arrivals numbering 164,004. The arrivals during the decade 1841 to 1850 were nearly four times greater than those of the preceding ten years, and this number in turn was exceeded by the figures for the next succeeding decade 1851-1860, when the highest level in the history of Irish immigration to the United States was reached. The statistics given above show a total immigration from Ireland between 1820 and 1907 of 4,144,262 persons, to which add 100,000, the number as above estimated for the years 1776 to 1820, making a total of 4,244,262, exclusive of the Irish who were in the United States prior to the Revolution. But there are reasons for believing that the figures thus given underestimate the actual volume of Irish immigration. During the decade 1841-1850 Irish labourers went in large numbers every year to England in search of employment, and many of them remained, especially in Liverpool, the population of which became in time to a large extent Irish. In 1846 alone, 278,005 Irish of both sexes were reported to have left Ireland for Liverpool, whence most of them embarked for America (see British Commissioners' Report", cited in O'Rourke's "History of the Great Irish Famine", pp. 487-8). Many such emigrants sailed directory to the United States and arrived in largest numbers at the port of New York. During the years 1847-70, the State of New York through its Emigration Commission maintained a system of registration of aliens arriving at that port, and the records thus kept show the total of Irish immigrants largely exceeding the number reported by the National Bureau of Statistics. These variations may be explained by remembering that under the New York system immigrants were classified according to the country of their nativity, while in the Federal reports for the most part classification is made according to the "country of last permanent residence" of the immigrant, so that those who had left Ireland and had sojourned for a while in England were not classified as Irish immigrants. Again during the same period there was a large immigration to Canada, some of it officially promoted and assisted by public money (O'Rourke, op. cit., p. 483). Much of it was destined for America, but was diverted to Canada by English shipowners, who found it easier to deliver their human freight there than at the port of New York, where the condition and circumstances of the immigrant were more carefully scrutinized. The United States Bureau of Statistics estimates the total immigration into Canada between 1821 and 1890 at 3,000,000, of which it is safe to assume that more than half came from Ireland. No official record has been kept of immigrants arriving in the United States from Canada, except in certain cases neither numerous nor important enough to be mentioned here, and it is impossible to state the precise number of persons of Irish birth who, sooner or later after their arrival in Canada, crossed the borders and thus increased the Irish element in the United States. That the number was very large there is abundant evidence. In an official statement presented in 1890 to the Canadian House of Parliament, the opinion was expressed that over one-half of the immigrants arriving in Canada ultimately removed to the United States. (See Immigration into the U. S., in U. S. Bureau of Statistics, 1909, p. 4335.) And it has been argued that if the 3,000,000 immigrants arriving in Canada had had to remain there, the total population of the Dominion must have increased far beyond 5,371,315, the figures officially reported in 1901. These considerations, we think, justify a revision and correction of the estimate of Irish immigration into the United States (for the period 1820 to 1903), which up to the present time has been officially quoted at "about four million"; we would say that, taking the entire period from the War of Independence (1776) to and including 1908, such immigration easily numbers five and a half million souls. Recurring to the statistics of recorded immigration, we find the number of persons of Irish nativity included in the resident population of the continental United States at the close of each decennial period since 1850 to be as follows: -- 1850: 961,719 1860: 1,611,304 1870: 1,855,827 1880: 1,854,571 1890: 1,871,509 1900: 1,615,459 [see Abstract of 12th (1900) census, p. 9]. And the same census (1900) shows that in that year there were 4,968,182 persons resident in the United States of whose parents at least one was born in Ireland, including the 1,615,459 residents above specified, who were themselves of Irish birth. Of these 67 per cent were located in the states of the North Atlantic division and twenty-two per cent in the North Central division. About three-fourths of the above foreign-born population shown by the census of 1900 were comprised in the following eight states with the respective numbers set opposite: New York: 425,553 Massachusetts: 249,916 Pennsylvania: 205,909 Illinois: 114,563 New Jersey: 94,844 Connecticut: 70,994 Ohio: 56,918 California: 44,476 While the twelve cities having the largest population of Irish nativity were as follows: New York: 275,102 Chicago, Ill: 73,912 St. Louis, Mo.: 19,421 Providence, R.I.: 18,686 San Francisco, Cal: 15,963 Newark, N. J.: 12,792 Philadelphia: 98,427 Boston, Mass.: 70,147 Jersey City, N. J.: 19,314 Pittsburgh, Pa.: 18,620 Cleveland, O.: 13,120 Lowell, Mass.: 12,147 Beyond the immediate ancestry of persons comprising the population, no classification according to race origin has been made in any census, and there is consequently no official record showing what part of the native-born population (excluding descendants of the first degree) is of Irish origin. But various unofficial estimates have been made. In 1851 Hon. W.E. Robinson, M.C., in a carefully prepared disclosure (reported in the "New York Tribune", 30 July, 1851) refuting the claim then urged by various public writers and speakers that the population of the United States was chiefly Anglo-Saxon in character, presented statistics of emigration showing that not more than one-eighth of the population could be considered as of Anglo-Saxon origin and that out of a population then (1850) numbering 23,191,876 there were: -- Irish born: 3,000,000 Irish by blood: 4,500,000 making a total Irish element of: 7,500,000 Rev. Stephen Byrne, O. S. D., author of "Irish Emigration to the United States", puts the Celtic element at one-half of the present (1873) population, the Anglo-Saxon at one-fourth. The official census of 1870 gives the total population of the United States as 38,696,984. And the New York "Irish World" (25 July, 1874), speaking of the census, claims that two-thirds of the people are Celts by birth or descent and only about one-ninth are Anglo-Saxon, and in a tabulated statement of the components of the population, that journal estimates the "joint product in 1870 of Irish Colonial element and subsequent Irish immigration (including that from Canada) at 14,325,000" (cited from O'Kaine Murray's "History of the Catholic Church in the United States", p. 611). In 1882 Philip H. Baganel, an English writer, in his work "The American Irish", p. 33, states: "the American Irish themselves lay claim to a population of between ten and fifteen millions. There can be no doubt that the amount of Celtic blood in the American people is very much greater than they themselves would like to allow." Since 1870, 1,749,460 immigrants from Ireland have arrived, according to the above-quoted official statistics, apart from those arriving through Canada, and if the estimated Irish element of that year has doubled itself and no more, during the forty years which have now elapsed, the number of persons of Irish birth or origin in the continental United States would appear now to be not less than thirty millions. We have referred to the Irish immigration for 1851 as the largest in history. The steady and extraordinary increase from 44,821 in 1845 to 257,372 in 1851 (figures of Thom's Almanac for 1853, cited in O'Rourke, "History, etc.", p. 496) compels attention chiefly on account of the tragical causes from which it arose and the distressing conditions under which the immigrants of that period established themselves ion the United States. As is well known the potato blight appeared in Ireland in 1845, as it had appeared before, namely in 1740, 1821, and in several later years. By 1846 it extended over the whole country, so that nowhere in the land were there any potatoes fit either for food for human belongs or for seed. But side by side with the blackened potato fields there were abundant crops of grain which were in no way affected by the potato blight. These, however, were disposed of frequently by distraint, as the sole means of providing the rent for the landlord, while the unfortunate tenants by whose labour they had been produced were left without food. Famine which brought fever and other miseries in its train set in, so that tens of thousands of people sank into their graves, many of them dying within the shelter of the poorhouses. There were evictions without limit, many of them under heart-rending circumstances. Dr. Nulty, Bishop of Meath, tells of 700 human beings evicted in one day in 1847 from one estate (Parnell Movement, p. 114), and other appalling instances may be cited. In 1847 there were in the Irish workhouses 104,455 persons, of whom 9,000 were fever patients (O'Rourke, "History of the Great Irish Famine", p. 478). Nearly three-quarters of a million were employed on public works which had been devised as a means of relieving the distress, and 3,020,712 persons were receiving daily rations of food from the Government (ibid, 471). Of the horrors of that time it is almost impossible to speak with moderation. "While myriads starved to death in Ireland" says O'Neill Daunt (Ireland and her Agitators, p. 231), "ships bursting with grain and laden with cattle were leaving every port for England. There would have been no need for the people to emigrate if their food did not emigrate. But the exhausting result of the Union had brought matters to a point that compelled Ireland to sell her food to supply the enormous money drain. The food is first taken away and then its price is taken away also." "The Union has stripped them" (the Irish people) "of their means and the only alternatives left to the perishing multitude were the work-house, emigration, or the grave." The condition to which the Irish people were thus reduced was extremely pitiable and excited the sympathy of the whole world. "The peoples of Europe sent alms, the Turks opened their hearts and hands, while ship after ship freighted generously from the American shores passed fleets of English vessels carrying away from a dying people the fruits of their own labour (see Lester, "Glory and Shame of England", I, 161). 114 ships carrying provisions, the result of charitable contributions for a starving nation, landed their cargoes in Ireland in 1847 (O'Rourke, "History, etc." p. 512), and the United States, responding to the universal sentiment of the nation, sent its to ships of war, the "Jamestown" and "Macedonian", on these errands of mercy. From these causes the population of Ireland was diminished during the famine period by two and a half million souls: they disappeared by death and emigration. it was to America that by far the greatest number of emigrants went. The transportation of emigrants in those early days was attended with such cruel conditions that reviewing them now after a lapse of fifty years, it seems almost incredible that they should have been tolerated by any civilized nation. The ships employed in this service were only too often broken-down freight ships, in which merchants were unwilling to entrust valuable merchandise. The humane provisions of modern times with respect to light, ventilation, and cleanliness were wholly unknown. More often than not the ships were undermanned, so that in case of a storm the passengers were required to lend a hand in doing the work of sailors. The provisions supplied were always uncooked, scanty in amount, and frequently unfit for use. With favourable weather the voyage lasted from six to eight weeks. Against head-winds and storms the old hulks were frequently from twelve to fourteen weeks on the way. With the emigrants already predisposed by famine and hardship, it is not to be wondered at that fever often broke out on board ship and that many died and their remains were tossed overboard during the voyage. This was especially true in the British vessels, in which the death-rate exceeded that of the vessels of all other nationalities (see Kapp, "Immigration", p. 34). As a result these emigrant ships when reaching the United States were in many instances little else than floating hospitals. When they arrived in port the shipmaster made haste to discharge his human cargo, and the sick and dying, as well as those who had survived unharmed, were put ashore on the wharves and the public landing-places and were left to their fate. Some of the sick, when they reached New York, were fortunate enough to gain admission to the Marine Hospital; others were carried to the sheds and structures which had been provided by the brokers and agents of the shipowners, under their agreement with the municipal authorities to provide for such sick emigrants as they might land. But the treatment of the emigrants in these institutions was little less brutal than they had experienced on shipboard. The food there was often unfit for any human being, still less for the sick. Sanitary conditions were ignored, and medical attendance was rarely adequate to the existing needs. Not only the sick and dying, but often the corpses of the dead, were huddled together. One instance is specified where the bodies of two who had died four to five days before were left unburied upon the cots whereon they had died, in the same room with their sick companions (see Maguire, "The Irish in America", p. 186). So fatal were these conditions that it has been estimated by medical statisticians that not less than 20,000 emigrants perished by ship fever and in the various emigrant hospitals in American ports in the year 1847 (Kapp, "Immigration", p. 23). Those of the emigrants who survived the hardships of the voyage and retained strength enough to go about encountered troubles of a different kind. Boarding-house runners, ticker-sellers, and money-changers swarmed about the landing-places. Boarding-house charges were fraudulently multiplied, money-brokers practiced their calling at extortionate rates, while the selling of fraudulent railroad-tickets was one of the commonest practices by which the poor immigrant was plundered. As a result the able-bodied immigrant was compelled to remain in and around new York without means to help himself or his family, and this oftentimes became a charge upon the charity of the public. So gross did these abuses become that a number of the most prominent citizens of New York applied to the Legislature for relief. Included in these were Archbishop Hughes, Andrew Carrigan, John E. Devlin, Charles O'Connor, James T. Brady, John McKeon, Gregory Dillon, and other men of Irish blood who were identified with the Irish Emigrant Society, which had been organized for the purpose of aiding the Irish immigrants arriving at the port of New York. The result of their exertion was the creation by Act of Legislature of the State of New York of the board generally known as the "Commissioners of Emigration", composed of men of the highest standing in the community, who served without compensation, and to whom was entrusted the general care and supervision of the immigrants as they arrived. Gulian C. Verplanck, distinguished alike as scholar and public-spirited citizen of New York, served during twenty-three years as president of this board, and although not of Irish blood, his long and faithful service in the behalf of the Irish immigrants ought not to pass without honourable mention in these pages. Under the watchful supervision thus established the evils complained of were gradually overcome, notwithstanding persistent opposition from shipowners and emigrant runners. In 1855 the first state emigration depot was opened in Castle Garden at the lower end of Manhattan Island, and since then millions of immigrants have streamed through this gateway, under the inspection and protection of the officials, on their way to the various places throughout the land where they were to make their homes. In 1874 the Congress of the United States assumed control of the question of immigration, and the admission and supervision of arriving immigrants are now in charge of a Commissioner of General Immigration appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury. In 1884 a Home and Mission House were established in close proximity to Castle Garden for the protection of Irish immigrant girls. This institution was founded by Cardinal John McCloskey, with the co-operation of other prelates, and was placed in charge of Rev. John J. Riordan, a zealous Irish priest who gave his life in its service. The beneficent work of the Home in sheltering unprotected women, and in promoting their moral and material welfare, is universally recognized. Speaking of the distribution of the immigrants upon their arrival in the United States, Bishop J. L. Spalding estimates (Mission of the Irish People, p. 113) that only eight in one hundred of the Irish emigrating to the United States have been employed in agricultural pursuits, a percentage smaller than that of the emigrants from any other country, the remaining ninety-two going to make up the tenement-house population in the larger cities. He asserts further (op. cit. p. 166) that the agricultural settlers became such more by accident than from choice, following the lines of the railroads or the canals on which they laboured, saving their wages and buying lands. This tendency of the Catholic Irish to congregate in the large cities was seen to be attended by consequences so injurious both morally and materially to the well-being of the immigrants, that efforts were made from time to time to withdraw them from the large cities in which they arrived and to settle them on the land. Bishop Fenwick of Boston planted a colony in Maine, and Bishop Reynolds of Charleston, S. C., diverted some of the immigrants from Liverpool to his diocese. About 1848-50, two French bishops, Mathias Loras of Dubuque and Joseph Cretin of St. Paul, induced and helped many of the Irish to settle in the states of Iowa and Minnesota, and in 1850 Bishop Andrew Byrne of Little Rock welcomed a colony of Irish Catholics brought over by Father Hoar of Wexford. Of these latter, only a small number remained in Arkansas, the rest going to Iowa, where they established a colony known as "New Ireland". After the Civil War the question of Irish colonization engaged the attention of various prelates, including Archbishop John Ireland (then Bishop) of St. Paul, who established the St. Paul Catholic Colonization bureau; through his efforts various colonies were established in Minnesota. Later, in May, 1879, the Irish Catholic Colonization Association of the United States was established at Chicago, under the auspices of various archbishops, with the co-operation of eminent Irish Catholic laymen, and during the ensuing decade it assisted many immigrants to find homes in the Western states. Other parish or local societies took up the work of colonization in their own neighbourhood, and successful colonies were established in Minnesota and Kansas. In all these organized efforts at colonization the promoters have aimed to provide for the religious needs of the colonists, by securing the services of priests and the building of churches and schools, at the same time that homes and other material assistance were provided for them. These movements for the colonization of Irish immigrants differed from the ordinary schemes of emigration in that the promoters did not invite or encourage the Irish to leave their native land, but for those who had arrived or resolved to come they sought to provide homes free from the distressing and degraded conditions which so many of those who remained in the large cities had to face. The entire white population of the Colonies at the outbreak of hostilities in 1775 has been estimated by various authorities, including the historian Bancroft, at 2,100,000, of which about one-third was settled in New England, and the remaining two-thirds in New York, Pennsylvania, and the Southern Colonies. Dr. Carroll estimated the Catholics in all the Colonies at that time at 25,000. It is well known that a considerable number of the colonists were adverse to the War of Independence, and these refrained from giving any support to the struggling Colonies. Lecky estimates (England in the Eighteenth century, IV, 153) that one-half of the Americans were either openly or secretly hostile to the revolution. Other writers are content to fix the proportion of those who were disaffected towards the cause of the patriots at one-third of the entire population. but the records show very few, if any, Irish, whether Catholics or Protestants, among those lukewarm patriots. On the contrary, Irish immigrants, and the sons of Irishmen in the various colonies were among the most active and unwavering supporters in the cause of liberty. Ramsay says, in his "History of the American Revolution", II, 311: "the Irish in America, with few exceptions, were attached to independence". Whether in the counsels of state, or while enduring the hardships of military service, or by the material and financial support which they gave to the struggling colonists, they contributed so generously of their blood and treasure that without their aid the issue of the contest may well appear doubtful. In June, 1779, when Parliament was investigating the reverses sustained by the British armies in their American campaigns, Joseph Galloway, who had held various offices under the Crown in Philadelphia until the evacuation of that city in 1778 was asked: "That part of the rebel army that enlisted in the service of congress were they chiefly composed of natives of America, or were the greatest part of them English, Scotch and Irish?" His answer was: "The names and places of their nativity being taken down, I can answer the question with precision. They were scarcely one-fourth natives of America; about one-half Irish; the other fourth English and Scotch." And this was confirmed by the English Major General Robinson, who, testifying before the same committee, said: "I remember General Lee telling me that half of the rebel army were from Ireland" ("House of Commons Reports", 5th Session, 14th Parliament, III, 303, 431; see also "The Evidence as given before a committee of the House of Commons on the detail and conduct of the American War, London, 1785", cited in Bagenal, "The American Irish", p. 12). And these facts gave point to the taunt thrown at the ministers by Lord Mountjoy during the debate in Parliament over the repeal of the Penal Laws: "You have lost America through the Irish." "It is a fact beyond question" says Plowden, "that most of the early successes in America were immediately owing to the vigorous exertions and prowess of the Irish immigrants who bore arms in that cause" (Historical Review of the State of Ireland, II, 178). The historians Marmion and Gordon write to the same effect. Speaking of the Irish immigrants a recent American writer, Douglas Campbell says: "They contributed elements to American thought and life without which the United States of to-day would be impossible. By them American Independence was first openly advocated and but for their efforts seconding those of New England Puritans that Independence would not have been secured" (The Puritan in Holland, England, and America, II, 471). And Lecky speaking of the Ulster emigrants writes: "They went with hearts burning with indignation, and in the War of Independence they were almost to a man on the side of the insurgents. They supplied some of the best soldiers of Washington. The famous Pennsylvania Line was mostly Irish" (op. cit., II, 262). So, too, we may add, the Maryland Line was largely made up of Irish exiles or of the sons of Irishmen. The colonial records of New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, the Carolinas and other localities show that from Lexington to Yorktown Irishmen took part in every campaign, and W. E. Robinson declares, "There was no battlefield in the Revolution in which Irish blood did not flow freely for American Independence". Nor did the Irish shrink from making large pecuniary sacrifices for the cause. In 1870, when the Continental Army, severely tried by nearly five years of exhausting struggle, was in desperate straits for necessary clothing and supplies, to say nothing of the pay of the troops, a fund of two million dollars was raised by subscription from ninety of the most prominent American patriots in the Pennsylvania Colony. Twenty-nine of these subscribers were Irish either by birth or parentage, all members of the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick, and their united subscriptions amounted to four hundred and forty thousand dollars. Among the signers of the Declaration of Independence thirteen (some authorities claim more) were of Irish origin. They were Matthew Thorton and William Whipple who signed for New Hampshire, James Smith, James Wilson, and George Taylor of Pennsylvania, Thomas Lynch, Jr., and Edward Rutledge of South Carolina, George Read and Thomas McKean of Delaware, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, Maryland, Thomas Nelson, Jr., of Virginia, William Hooper of North Carolina, and Philip Livingston of New York. It was promulgated over the signatures of the President of the Continental Congress and of Charles Thompson, its Irish secretary. Col. John Nixon, a member of the Committee of Safety and son of an Irishman born in the County of Wexford, first read that document to a great concourse of people assembled in the State House yard, Philadelphia, and it was first printed from the press of another Irishman, John Dunlap of Tyrone, who had already (1771) started the "Pennsylvania Packet", the first daily newspaper published in the United States. The convention whose deliberation produced the written constitution upon which the Government rests, included among its members a large proportion of Irishmen. Prominent among them were William Livingston, the first Governor of New Jersey, William Paterson, later to be Governor of the same state, Daniel Carroll of Maryland, Thomas FitzSimons of Philadelphia, George Read of Delaware, Richard Dobbs Spaight, afterwards Governor of North Carolina and Hugh Williamson of the same state, Pierce Butler and John Rutledge of South Carolina, the latter to become afterwards Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. One of the most influential men in the service of the struggling patriots was Charles Thompson, born in the County of Derry, Ireland, who had arrived at Newcastle, Delaware, in 1740. He was the confidential friend of every leader of the Colonies throughout the struggle, and his knowledge of affairs and administrative capacity were so universally conceded that he was chosen secretary of the First Continental Congress, serving the succeeding congresses in the same capacity for a period of fourteen years. Among the officers of Irish nationality in the Continental Army who won distinction by brilliant service, we may name the following. General Henry Knox, son of a Belfast emigrant, who was master of ordnance, served in every battle with Washington, and was appointed first secretary of War on the organization of Government in 1789. General John Stark, the hero of Bennington, another native of Ireland. General Anthony Wayne whose father had emigrated from Limerick, and who commanded the troops sometimes known as the "Line of Ireland". His successful campaigns in Georgia and the Carolinas and at the battle of Monmouth are historic. For his services, including the recapture of Stony Point from the British, Congress voted him its thanks and a gold medal. General Richard Montgomery, a native of Donegal, in command of the expedition to Canada, who fell before Quebec in 1775, one of the earliest victims in the cause of American liberty. A monument to him in St. Paul's churchyard in the city of New York marks the nation's appreciation of his services. General Stephan Moylan, a native of Cork, of which city his brother was the Catholic bishop. He was First Quartermaster General of the Continental Army and afterwards commanded the Pennsylvania troops known as Moylan's Dragoons. Richard Butler, a native of Kilkenny, who participated in many engagements, and was present at the surrender of Yorktown. Daniel Morgan, a native of Ballinascreen, County Derry, Ireland, the hero of Cowpens, North Carolina, where with five hundred men, mostly Irish, and sons of Irishmen, he defeated twice the number of British troops and took many of them prisoners. Edward Hand, a native of county Kerry, who had served as surgeon of the Irish brigade (of France) in Canada. On the retirement of the French, he cast his lot with the Americans and served throughout the Revolutionary War with distinction. Andrew Lewis, an emigrant from Donegal, who came to Virginia in 1732, and served with his four brothers until the close of the war. His statue in Capitol Square in the city of Richmond shows that his adopted state, Virginia, recognized him as one of her most distinguished sons. George Clinton was the son of Charles Clinton, and native of Longford, Ireland, who landed at Cape Cod in 1729. Besides his military service he became the first Governor of New York, in which capacity he served twenty-one years and was then (1801) chosen Vice-President of the United States. His brother James was in charge of one of the New York regiments and succeeded to the command made vacant by the death of General Montgomery, and his nephew De Witt Clinton became governor of that state in 1817. John Sullivan, one of the most distinguished commanders in the Revolutionary War, was son of John Sullivan, an Irish immigrant from Limerick who settled in Belfast, Maine in 1723. His capture of Fort William and Mary near Portsmouth in 1774, was the first blow struck for independence. Besides many other civil offices which he filled after the close of the war, he was President of the Commonwealth of New Hampshire. His brother James Sullivan was chosen Governor of Massachusetts. In addition we might name General Walter Stewart and William Irvine, who regiments formed part of the famous Pennsylvania Line. William Thompson, William Maxwell, James Hogan, John Rutledge, brother of Edward Rutledge, one of the signers, Colonel Charles Lynch, son of John Lynch, an Irish immigrant who with his brother John founded the settlement now known as Lynchburg, Va., besides many others whose names would unduly extend this list. In recounting the part taken by the Irish in achievement of our independence, it would be ungracious if we neglected to record the presence and the services of those other Irish who, equally exiles as their brothers in America, had taken service in the armies of France and had thereby become allies in that memorable struggle, fighting American battles both by sea and land under the banner of the fleur-de-lis. We refer especially to the Dillon and Walsh regiments of Catholic and Irish troops which in October, 1781, under de Rochambeau and de Grassi helped to surround the army of Cornwallis at Yorktown and compelled its surrender to the "combined forces of America and France". The first naval engagement of the War of Independence was fought and won 11 May, 1775, shortly after the battle of Lexington, by Jeremiah O'Brien of Machias, Maine. This son of an Irish immigrant with his four brothers and a few other townsmen went out in O'Brien's lumber schooner "The Liberty", and against great odds attacked and captured the British armed schooner, "Margaretta", the captain of which had previously ordered the pine tree set up in the town as a liberty pole to be taken down. Easily the foremost figure in the naval service of the American patriots was the Catholic Irishman John Barry (q. v.), a native of Wexford, to whom a commission was issued by the Continental Congress on 14 October, 1775, when he was placed in command of the "Lexington" and later commanded the "Alliance". With the former he captured the British war vessel the "Atlanta", and, adds the historian, "the 'Lexington' was thus the first vessel that bore the Continental flag to victory upon the ocean" (see Preble, "Origins of the Flag", p. 243). How highly Barry's character and ability were esteemed may be judged from the circumstance that the British General Howe offered £2000 and the command of the best frigate in the English navy if he would abandon the service of the patriots; to which Barry made the memorable answer that he had devoted himself to the cause of his country and not the value and command of the whole English fleet could seduce him from it (see Frost, "History of the American Navy", p. 86). On 4 July, 1794, after the Government had regularly organized its navy, its first commission was issued to John Barry who thus became its senior captain, the highest rank then known in the naval service. These appointments, together with his devoted service continued throughout the war, clearly justify the designation of "Father of the American Navy" accorded to Barry. His remains are interred in St. Mary's Catholic Churchyard in Philadelphia and a life-sized statue erected (1906) by the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick within the precincts of Independence Hall attests to the esteem in which Barry as held. It should not be overlooked that Barry's life as a Catholic was as consistent and edifying as his public career was patriotic and valuable to the country of his adoption. In the second war with England (1812) the services rendered by the Irishmen and the sons of Irishmen were among the most important in that memorable context. Johnson Blakely, who fought and captured the British frigate "Reindeer", was Irish by birth. Steven Decatur, who captured the "Macedonian" was of Irish parentage. So were Charles Stewart, Captain James Lawrence, and Thomas McDonough whose victory on Lake Champlain was a famous achievement. At the battle of Lake Erie the British fleet was almost annihilated, and the most brilliant naval victory of the war was won under the command of Oliver Hazard Perry, the son of an Irish mother (Sarah Alexander). On land, the last decisive battle of the war, that at New Orleans, was won by troop largely of Irish origin under the leadership of Andrew Jackson, another son of Irish parents. The devotion of the Irish in America to the country of their adoption and their readiness to sacrifice themselves in her defence were again conspicuously demonstrated when the safety of the republic was imperilled by the unfortunate Civil War. During that long struggle (1861-1865), Irish patriotism and Irish valour were everywhere in evidence, and impartial historians have freely acknowledged the great and important military service rendered by the Irish element in defence of the Union. There are no statistics showing the full percentage of the Irish element in the federal services in that war, but that it constituted a very large proportion there can be no doubt. A table published by C. G. Lee of Washington, an authority on the statistics of the Civil War, shows the enlistment in the Union army of 144,200 men of Irish birth. D. P. Conyngham, the historian of the Irish brigade, estimated the number of Irishmen so enlisted at 175,000 (see "The Irish Brigade and its Campaigns", p. 8). but these figures very inadequately represent the part taken by Irishmen and their descendants in the defense of the Union. In the analysis of the nationality of 337,800 soldiers from the State of New York, compiled by B. A. Gould, actuary of the U. S. Sanitary Commission (see "New York in the War of the Rebellion", p. 49, by Frederick Phisterer, late Captain of the U. S. Army), the race or nationality by birth of 230,267 of them was obtained by official records and, estimating from these it was found that of such total number of soldiers supplied from that state there were: Natives of the United States: 203,622 Of foreign birth: 134,178 the latter being divide as follows: Natives of Ireland: 51,206 Natives of Germany: 36,680 Natives of British America: 19,985 Natives of England: 14,024 Natives of other foreign countries: 12,283 Total: 134,178 Of those registered as natives of the United States, it is safe to assert that a large part was made up of sons of Irish parents and, judging from the history of Canadian immigration, that the number credited to British America included many others, sons of Irish emigrants to Canada who, later, had taken up their residence in the United States. In view of the great extent of the Irish element already present in the population registered as native-born, as before indicated, it can hardly be questioned that at least one-fourth of the soldiers so recorded were descendants of Irish immigrants. If to these we add only a fraction of those registered as native to British America, sons of Irish emigrants who had landed in Canada before taking up residence in the United States, the Irish race would appear to have furnished about one-third of the entire quota of soldiers supplied by the State of New York in defence of the Union. But the troops from other states, notably Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Illinois, included in each case a large contingent of soldiers of Irish birth or descent, whose number may fairly be estimated as between one-third and one-fourth of the total number of troops supplied by those several states. Not a few regiments were composed almost exclusively of men of Irish birth or Irish descent, such as the 9th and 28th Massachusetts volunteers under the command of Colonel Cahill and Colonel Richard Byrnes respectively, and later under Colonel Thomas Cass (who fell at Malvern Hill) and Colonel Patrick Guiney; the 88th New York Volunteers under Colonel Patrick Kelly, and the 69th of the same state which assembled under the order of their colonel, Michael Corcoran, bidding his men to "rally to the support of the Constitution and the laws of the United States" -- a sentiment which was the inspiration of the subsequent outpouring of Irish soldiers in defence of the Union; 166th Pennsylvania Volunteers, recruited in Philadelphia, and later forming part of Meagher's Irish brigade, which went to the front in command of Colonel Dennis Heenan; the 37th N. Y. (Irish Rifles); and Meagher's Zouaves under the command of Thomas F. Meagher. At the very outset of the war, an Irish brigade made up of about 2000 Catholic Irishmen was organized in Chicago by Colonel James A Mulligan, who after four years of hard service fell mortally wounded in one of the engagements at Winchester, Va. An Irish legion, composed almost exclusively of Irish Catholic soldiers, was mustered into service as the 90th Illinois Volunteers, recruited largely through the exertions of an Irish priest, Father Dunn, and was one of the first regiments to respond to the president's call for troops. The first fortification thrown up for the defence of Washington was Fort Corcoran, on Arlington Heights, built by the men of the New York 69th Regiment. When the ranks of these regiments had been thinned by death or from disability by wounds or disease, they were filled with fresh volunteers, many of them being immigrants only recently arrived from Ireland. One of these, the 69th of New York, was thus recruited thrice during the war. Besides these entire regiments of Irish soldiers, there were many regiments from the different states, each containing one or more companies composed exclusively of Irishmen. Later the Irish brigade of New York was organized under the command of General Thomas F. Meagher, with the 69th as its nucleus, the 63rd and 88th regiments of New York being added, numbering in all over 2500 men. Another Irish legion, better known as the Corcoran Legion, composing four full regiments, namely the 69th, 115th, 164th and 170th, was organized in 1862 by General Michael Corcoran upon his return to New York after a year's confinement in a confederate war prison. Irish priests, among then Rev. (now Archbishop) John Ireland, Bernard O'Reilly, Lawrence S. McMahon, afterwards Bishop of Hartford, William Corby, Thomas J. Mooney, James Dillon, John Scully, Daniel Mullen, Philip Sheridan, Paul Gillan, Edward McKee, and others, accompanied the regiments as chaplains, sharing the hardships of war with them. To recount the deeds of the Irish soldiers in that war would be to write a history of most of its important battles. At Antietam, Williamsburg, Fair Oaks, Chickahominy, Malvern Hill, Chancerlorsville, Spottsylvania, Bull Run, Gettysburg, the Wilderness and Fredericksburg, the Irish soldier was found in the fore-front of battle, braving every danger, and unhesitatingly giving up life itself in defence of the flag of his adopted country. The official war records contain frequent acknowledgement of the valuable service rendered by Irish regiments in these various battles, and distinguished officers in both contending armies have testified to the heroic conduct of the Irish soldier. There are no statistics to show the total number of men of Irish blood who in the various armies and during the four years of struggle gave their lives in defence of their country but it was unquestionably very great. At Fredericksburg alone, in the memorable attack on Marye's Heights, the Irish brigade was so depleted that the number of men remaining alive was so small that not enough were left over for a general to command, and General Meagher, their commander, thereupon resigned his commission (see "The Irish Brigade", pp. 349, 350, 356). According to the statistics over 4000 men of the brigade and legion lost their lives on the field of battle, or of wounds received, or of disease contracted in the service. The 69th New York lost 998 men during the war. At Antietam, out of 18 officers and 210 men engaged, it lost in killed and wounded 16 officers and 112 men. Out of 1703 men enlisted in the Irish 28th of Massachusetts from the organization to the close of service, the killed, wounded, and missing in action reached the large number of 1133, of whom 408 were killed or wounded in the campaign of the Wilderness (The Irish Brigade, p. 586). And the last Union general killed in the war was the Irish General Thomas H. Smith, who fell at Petersburg on April, 1865. Space does not permit an enumeration of all the names of men of Irish blood who held responsible command in the Union armies of that war. Some of the generals were Logan, Lalor, and Dougherty of Illinois, Gorman of Minnesota, Magenis and Sullivan of Indiana, Reilly and Mulligan of Ohio, Stevenson of Missouri, and with him James Shields, already a hero of two wars and United States Senator from three states, Shirley of Michigan, Smith of Delaware, Meagher, Corcoran, Patrick H. O'Rourke, P. H. Jones, and Thomas F. Sweeney of New York, George G. Meade, Geary, and Birney of Pennsylvania, McPherson, McDowell, and McCook, the dashing Phil McKearney, and George B. McClellan. It was another Irishman's son, "little" Phil Sheridan, the greatest cavalry leader of the war, whose brilliant work just preceding the surrender at Appomattox undoubtedly contributed greatly to that result. When hostilities ceased, Sheridan as lieutenant general occupied the next to highest rank in the military service of the country, while at the same time the highest command in the navy was held by Admiral Porter, the descendant of an Irishman, the next highest command being held by Admiral Rowan, a native-born Irishman. While men of the Irish race were engaged on the battlefield in defence of their adopted country, accompanied and encouraged by the clergy, the religious orders of women within the Church were no less diligent in nursing the sick and wounded in camps and hospitals. Among these volunteer nurses it is no exaggeration to say that the Irish element predominated. Thus in July, 1862, at the request of the Secretary of War, a band of seven Sisters of Mercy left New York and took charge of the Soldiers' Hospital at Beaufort, N. C. which was later on transferred to Newbern. This was in charge of Mother Augustine McKenna, a native of County Monaghan, Ireland. Several of these, exhausted by the hardships incident to their work, gave up their lives only to be replaced by others from their community in New York. The hospital at Jefferson City, Mo. was put in charge of another company of nuns of the same order who came from their home in Chicago, and when this institution had to be abandoned, they took charge of the hospital department of the steamboat "Empress", which was about to start for the battlefield of Shiloh. These Chicago sisters were in charge of Mother Alphonsus Butler, and Confederate and Union soldiers alternately came under their care (see "Annals of the Sisters of Mercy", III, 279, 284). The Stanton and Douglas military hospitals were placed in charge of the same sisters. The Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul sent from Emmitsburg and other houses many of their members, whose ministrations in the hospital at Norfolk and elsewhere elicited the grateful admiration of Protestant and Catholic alike. The Hospital of the Good Samaritan at Cincinnati was the gift of some enlightened and appreciative Protestant gentlemen to Sister Anthony, born at Limerick, whose services in the field hospitals had won for her the title of "Ministering Angel of the Army of the Tennessee" (see McGuire, "Irish in America", p. 482). The earliest use of the Mercy Hospital at Pittsburgh, established by the Irish Sisters of Mercy, was for the relief of the sick and disabled soldiers returning from the Mexican War, 1848. At Helena and Little Rock, Ark., hospitals were maintained by the same community, who served the sick and wounded, now of the Union, next of the Confederate, forces, as the fortunes of war shifted the control of the territory in which the hospital stood. There were Irish women in the community of the Sisters of St. Joseph who served at Harrisburg, caring for the disabled soldiers and taking charge of the floating hospitals that received the wounded from the Virginia battle-fields. The same community afterwards (1864) opened and maintained an asylum at Philadelphia for the orphaned daughters of the Union soldiers of the Civil War (Hist. Sketch of the Church in Philadelphia, p. 193), and all over the country the orphans, made such by war, found shelter under the hospitable roofs of one or another of the religious communities, whose members were largely of the Irish race. The record of the service rendered by the Irish in that war would be incomplete without reference to the part taken by John Hughes, the great Irish Archbishop of New York. This distinguished prelate, the friend of President Abraham Lincoln and his Secretary of State, William H. Seward, undertook at their request a confidential mission to Europe in 1861, where at the French Court and in other influential circles he advocated the justice of the conduct of the government at Washington in resisting the secession of the States and the consequent disruption of the Union. At that time the British Government and English public men with few notable exceptions had manifested their hostility to the Government, as they continued to do afterwards, and efforts were being made (as was believed) to engage France in an alliance with England, with a view to their joint acknowledgment of the Southern States as an independent nation. This would have entitled the Confederacy to all the rights of a belligerent, and would have permitted England to become its ally openly and to furnish troops and supplies in support of the rebellion. But the efforts in question failed, and the Government gratefully acknowledged the patriotic services performed by Archbishop Hughes in that behalf. But the genius of the Irish race, which thus helped found the Republic and to preserve it when it needed defenders, was not lacking in times of peace in the development of the country and in the practice of the arts and sciences. One of the greatest enterprises of the last century, and the one which contributed most to the supremacy of the State of New York, namely the construction of the Erie Canal, was planned and carried out during the year 1817-18 by De Witt Clinton, then governor of that state, who was a descendant of Charles Clinton, himself an immigrant, born at Longford, Ireland, as already noted. But this great enterprise had already, as early as 1874, been publicly advocated by another Irish immigrant, Christopher Coles, then living in the city of New York, who had been an engineer and an instructor in the Continental Army. With almost prophetic insight, the same Irish immigrant proposed a system of water supply for New York City by means of aqueducts, models of which he publicly exhibited, thus anticipating by more than half a century the existing Croton aqueduct system. Another Irishman's son, James Sullivan, Governor of Massachusetts, projected the Middlesex (Mass,) Canal. It is a well-known fact that the actual work of construction of the railroads and canals during the greater part of the last century was accomplished mainly by Irish hands and Irish energy. In the higher plane of railroad operation Irish talent and ability have been constantly in evidence, and in the honest and successful administration of the affairs of a railroad system, no name stands higher than that of the late Samuel Sloan, an emigrant from the north of Ireland. An Irish surveyor, Jasper O'Farrell, laid out the city of San Francisco. Among the California pioneers (1828) there were Irish Martins, Sullivans, and Murphys, including Don Timotheo Murphy, who had lived two years in Peru, and who with O'Farrell gave the land on which the first orphan asylum in San Francisco was built. In later days, the Floods, Friars, and O'Briens are associated with the successful development of the great mining industries of that state, while Eugene Kelly, another great Catholic Irishman of San Francisco, stands out as a type of the successful merchant and banker. In scientific investigation and discovery, Robert Fulton, whose name is identified with the first success of steam navigation in America, Samuel F. B. Morse of electric telegraph fame, and Cyrus McCormick, the inventor of the mowing machine, which has revolutionized agricultural operations the world over were sons or grandsons of Irish immigrants from Ulster. The cotton industry, to which new England owes so much of its wealth, had its beginning in the inventions and improvements in machinery designed by, and under the direction of Patrick, Tracy, Jackson, the son of an Irish immigrant, who had settled at Newburyport, Mass. A cotton mill erected by him in Waltham, Mass., in 1813, is said to have probably been the first one in the world to have combined all the operations necessary for converting the raw cotton into finished cloth (see McGee, "Irish Settlers, etc.", p. 217-218. It was the same Patrick Tracey Jackson who founded the city of Lowell (named after his partner in business) and connected that city with metropolis of New England by building the Boston and Lowell Railroad (McGee, op cit., 220-222). Passing to the arts, we find that in the country's history, many representatives of the Irish race who have risen to eminence, Thus in sculpture, Thomas Crawford, whose statue of Armed Liberty surmounts the dome of the Capitol in Washington, and whose bronze doors at the entrance to the building are a notable work of art; Launt Thompson; Martin and Joseph Milmore; James E. Kelly, and Augustus St. Gaudens, whose statues of Lincoln in Chicago and Farragut and Sherman in New York, and the Parnell memorial in Dublin (his last work), are among his admired productions. In architecture, the young Irishman, James Hoban, resident of Charleston, whose plan for the construction of the Executive Mansion (the White House) at Washington was adopted in competition with others. In portrait painting, John Singleton Copley, Charles C. Ingam, and John Ramage, accounted the best miniature painter of his time (1789), and to whom George Washington sat for his portrait; William McGrath, J. Francis Murphy, Thomas Hovedon, and Thomas S. Cummings. Asa Gray, the famous botanist, was the grandson of an immigrant from Ulster. In horticulture, John Barry and William Doogue, who laid out the grounds of the Centennial exhibition in Philadelphia, and the Public Gardens at Boston, were of Irish birth. In music, Patrick S. Gilmore. As exponents of the dramatic art, Lawrence Barrett, John McCullough, William James Florence, Dion Boucicault, John Brougham, John Drew, Barney Williams (O'Flaherty) stand forth as types of Irish genius which instructed and delighted bygone generations. In literature the American Irish may claim as representative of their race the scholarly Kenricks, Francis Patrick, Archbishop of Baltimore, and Peter Richard, Archbishop of St. Louis, both born in Dublin, John England, Bishop of Charleston, a native of Cork, Edmund O'Callghan, the historian of New York, John Mitchell, Brother Azarius (P. F. Mullany), John Gilmary Shea, John O'Kane Murray, Father James Fittin, the historian of the Church in New England, Rev. Stephen Byrne, O. S. D., Rev. John O'Brien, Rev. Bernard O'Reilly, Matthew Carey, James McShery, Henry Giles, William E. Robinson ("Richelieu"), John R.G. Hassard, for many years managing editor of the "New York Tribune", D. P. Conyngham, and many others. Among the poets are John Savage, Rev. Abram J, Ryan, the 'poet priest of the South", Rev. W, D. Kelly, Richard Dalton Williams, physician and littérateur, John Boyle O'Reilly, whose excellent verse rivals, if it does not surpass his prose writings, Charles G. Halpine (Miles O'Reilly), and Theodore O'Hara, whose lyric "The Bivouac of the Dead" will ever remain a classic. Among the journalists and publishers of Irish birth or parentage, we may name John Dunlap, publisher (1771) of the "Pennsylvania Packet"; Matthew Carey who (1785) founded the "Pennsylvania Herald" and in 1790 issued the first Catholic Bible published in the United States; Matthew Lyon, the "Hampden of Congress" who (1793) published the "Farmer's Library", one of the earliest newspaper published in Vermont; George Pardow of the "Truth Teller" 1828; Rev. R. J. O'Flaherty, who edited "The Jesuit", and his successors, the publishers and editors of the "Boston Pilot", namely, Patrick Donahue, Thomas D'Arcy McGee, Rev. John Roddan, John Boyle O'Reilly; Thomas O'Connor, publisher of the "Shamrock", whose son Charles became the most distinguished jurist of his time; Bishop John England, who founded and edited the "Catholic Miscellany"; Rev. James Keogh, first editor of the "Philadelphia Catholic Standard"; Bishop Michael O'Connor, who founded the "Pittsburgh Catholic", and Rev. Tobias Mullen, afterwards Bishop of Erie, who continued its publication; Bernard Dornin, an exile with Emmet and MacNevin, and John Doyle, early publishers of Catholic books in New York; Dr. P. E. Moriarty, O. S. A., distinguished both as a writer and controversialist; Daniel W. Mahoney and Charles A. Hardy, who published "The Catholic Standard" of Philadelphia and later "The American Catholic Quarterly Review", under the editorship of the scholarly Dr. James A. Cocoran; James A. McMaster, editor of the "Freeman's Journal"; Patrick J. Meehan, of the "Irish American"; Edward Dungan and James B. Kirker and their successor; Felix E. O'Rourke, Denis and James Sadlier, all of New York; Eugene Cummiskey and John Murphy of Baltimore; Lawrence Kehoe of New York; besides many other Irishmen and sons of Irishmen whose names are identified with Irish and Catholic journalism and the publication of Irish and Catholic literature in the United States. Prominent in the ranks of secular journalism were Horace Greeley, of the "New York Tribune", E. L. Godkin, of the "New York Evening Post", William Cassidy of the "Albany Argus", Henry O'Reilly of the "Rochester Adviser", and Hugh J. Hastings. Nearly one-half of all the presidents of the United States have been of Celtic extraction. The list includes James Monroe, James K. Polk, Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Ulysses S. Grant, Chester A. Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, Andrew Johnson, and William McKinley. And at no time since the establishment of the Government has the Irish race been without representation in Congress, among the judiciary, in the diplomatic service, and in the cabinets of presidents. Many of the men named for their distinguished military services afterwards held posts of honour in the civil service of the Government. To the names already mentioned of patriots of the Revolution, who afterwards became governors or chief justices of their respective states, we may add William Claiborne, of Irish birth, first Governor of Louisiana when that state was admitted to the Union (1812), Andrew Jackson, Governor of Florida, General James Shields, first Governor of the Oregon Territory, Thomas F. Meagher, first Governor of Montana territory, and Edward Kavanaugh, Governor of Maine in 1843. At the bar and on the bench the list of names of Irish men who acquired distinction would fill a volume. When an attempt was made in 1813 in a New York court to compel the Jesuit Father Anthony Kohlman to disclose matters communicated to him in a confession, it was the Irish Presbyterian lawyer, William Sampson, one of the exiles of '98, who justified Father Kohlman's refusal to reveal the information thus acquired and vindicated the principal (since incorporated in statute law) protecting ministers of the Gospel against being compelled to disclose matters so communicated. Another Irish exile, Thomas Addis Emmet, attained distinction as one of the leaders of the bar in New York. In later days James T. Brady, David Graham, Charles O'Connor, John McKeon, Charles P. Daly, who to his judicial accomplishments added those of broad scholarship and served for many years as President of the American Geographical Society, Robert J. Dillon, Richard O. Gorman of New York, Francis Kernan of Utica, afterwards U. S. Senator from New York, Bernard Casserly, U. S. Senator from California, Daniel Dougherty of Philadelphia, Patrick A. Collins of Boston, are a few only of the names of men of that profession who by their talents and high character have reflected honour on the race from which they sprang. In medicine another distinguished Irish exile of '98, William James MacNevin, achieved national reputation in his profession. Prior to his time, Edward Hand, John Hart, Richard Ferguson and Ephraim McDowell, all natives of Ireland, had attained distinction as practitioners in this country. Irish physicians and surgeons were found attached to all the Irish regiments serving in the Civil War. A few are now surviving, honoured wherever known. Together they constituted a body of devoted and self-sacrificing men, true to the noblest ideals of their profession. In 1902 it was an Irish American, Surgeon Major James Carroll, who with another United Sates Army surgeon deliberately submitted himself to the perilous experiment then being made by the Government to ascertain by what means the yellow-fever germ was transmitted. As a result he contracted the disease and gave up his life as a sacrifice in the cause of science for the good of humanity. To the American-born son of Irish immigrants, Dr. Joseph O'Dwyer, humanity the world over is indebted for the process of intubation of the larynx in cases of diphtheria and the invention of the instruments used in that operation. Always known for his charities, Dr. O'Dwyer declined to patent his invention, thereby sacrificing large pecuniary gains. The merit of these inventions was recognized by the medical profession both in this country and in Europe, and their use has resulted in saving the lives of thousands of children. The Carney Hospital, devoted to the relief of suffering humanity, was a gift to the citizens of Boston from Andrew Carney, a successful Irishman resident in that city. A similar foundation was established at St. Louis, Mo., named after the donor, John Mullanphy, another prosperous Irishman, who likewise established the Mullanphy orphanage, a religious and charitable endowment at St. Louis. Cornelius Heeny, an Irishman resident in Brooklyn, gave a large estate to the "Brooklyn Benevolent Society"" in trust for the poor, and especially poor orphan children, and procured the incorporation of the society, which continues to administer his charity. Still another Irish immigrant, Judge Miles P. O'Connor, established and endowed a home for orphans at San José, Cal., besides distributing a large fortune during his lifetime towards the support of works of charity and religion throughout the country. A statue in one of the public squares of New Orleans, inscribed "Margaret", marks the appreciation of the people of that community for Margaret Haughery, an Irishwoman whose charitable labours during life won for her the title of "the orphan's friend", and who bequeathed a considerable fortune for the support of the orphan asylum which she had greatly helped to establish. Of the lesser gifts of Irish men and women to the cause of religion and humanity it would be impossible to give even a summary. It is enough to state that no people have given more freely or more steadily for these object than have the Irish, and that a great number of the churches, chapels, convents, hospitals, asylums, and homes for sick and destitute humanity which are the boast of the present generation have all had their origin in the piety, goodwill, and generous contributions of the early Irish immigrants and their descendants. A notable feature in the history of the Irish arriving in this country has been their tendency to associate themselves in societies composed exclusively of persons of their own race. As early as 1737 we find twenty-six "Gentlemen, merchants and others, natives of Ireland or of Irish extraction" assembled at Boston on St. Patrick's Day to organize the Charitable Irish Society. The professed object of their association was to relieve their fellow-countrymen who might be in need and to preserve the spirit of Irish nationality. With like purpose the Society of the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick was established at Philadelphia in 1771, the New York society of the same name in 1784, the Hibernian Society for the Relief of Emigrants from Ireland in Philadelphia in 1790, and the Hibernian Society of Charleston, S. C., in 1799. Later on, and as the Irish element in the population increased, similar societies were established in other cities with the same benevolent purposes. In all of them the bond of union was the Irish nationality of the members either by birth or parentage, and the maintenance of such national spirit was one of the objects of the society. But this devotion to the history and traditions of their native land was constantly and inseparably coupled with an unwavering attachment to their adopted country and the Irish in America have demonstrated beyond question that their affection for the land from which they or their fathers had sprung was no hindrance to the discharge of their duty as American citizens. Indeed, it needed no declaration to prove that men who were thus associated were devoted to the interests of their adopted country, for the list of men who, having done valiant service for that country in its hour of need, became later the trusted officers of the Government which they had helped to establish, and held high rank in the social and business circles of the respective communities in which they lived. With the great increase in the volume of immigration in later years (we refer to the period since 1820), the Irish immigrants, both those newly arriving, then mostly Catholics, as well as those already residing in the country, found themselves confronted with a deep-seated sense of antagonism based on both racial and religious prejudice entertained by certain elements of the population. While this spirit of hostility was avowed against all residents of foreign birth, Irish Catholics, by reason of their religion, their large numbers, and the resulting influence which as citizens they exercised in the political contests of the time, were singled out as a class to be especially attacked by this un-American section of the nation. This anti-Irish and anti-Catholic sentiment was of unmistakable English origin. It had its beginning here in the legislation of the Colonies, which, copying the English penal laws directed against Catholic Ireland, proscribed the Catholic religion and ostracized the Irish "Papists". It was embodied in the state church establishments of several of the colonies. Although the principal of freedom of religion was definitely incorporated in the Federal Constitution, yet so persistent and obstinate was this prejudice that it found expression in the original constitutions of various of the states which made the profession of the Protestant religion a condition of holding office in the Government. It was further manifested in the repeated efforts to change the naturalization laws so as to withhold the rights and privileges of citizenship from all immigrants except upon onerous conditions, including a fourteen years' residence in the country. We are not attempting to detail the history or development of this spirit of prejudice against the Irish Catholic immigrant. Suffice it to say that it was only too real and widespread, and that, under the guidance of bigots and unprincipled agitators, it took shape and form in the various native American and Know-Nothing movements which were organized during the period of 1830 to 1855. As a result of the activities of these associations, Irish Catholics in many parts of the country, almost alone among all classes of the population, were subjected to insult and oppression and were made the victims of mob violence, their dwellings demolished, their families made homeless, their churches and convents fired, and their clergy ill-treated. Prior to any threatening manifestation of this anti-Irish sentiment, there had existed various societies made up of Irishmen or their descendants, known as the Sons of Erin, Montgomery-Greens, Irish Volunteers, various Provident Societies, and others, whose social and benevolent purposes in no wise diminished the patriotic attachment of their members to the country of their adoption. Although the number of such societies and their membership were comparatively small, yet they served as rallying-points for the maintenance of the spirit of Irish nationality, and as centres of the charitable activity of their members. When the fateful spirit of native Americanism darkened the land and the Irish Catholics realized the need of sustaining one another against a common aggressor, these societies multiplied, and many of the Irish thus became proficient in military drill and the use of arms. There were likewise various county associations, composed of immigrants or their descendants from the various counties of Ireland and named after their respective counties. The great increase in these societies, and the fact that in important political contests their members were arrayed almost in a unit in opposition to political parties identified with these anti-Catholic movements, were made pretexts for accusing the Irish of a certain clannishness which unfitted them to be good citizens. Some, even of their own co-religionists (though not of their race), deplored the fact that the Irish seemed to have isolated themselves from their fellow citizens, and thereby subjected themselves, however undeservedly, to the reproach of having put Irish nationality above American citizenship. But the wrongs committed against the Catholic Irish immigrants (at that time mostly poor and incapable of resistance), the insults and injuries put upon them because of their race and faith, and the attacks upon their persons and property, which almost without exception went unpunished by law, are an effective answer to these criticisms. In later days many Gaelic societies have been organized, as well as various Home Rule associations and branches of the Irish Land League. Through these organizations the Irish in America have sought to co-operate with their brethren at home in the movements undertaken for the improvement of the political, social, and industrial conditions of the Irish people in their native land, and the success attending those movements is due in large part to the sympathy of the American Irish and their generous contributions of money. The constant affection manifested in a practical way by the Irish in America for their less fortunate brethren in Ireland may be judged by the large amounts of money remitted to the latter out of the earnings of the Irish in this country. As early as 1834 R. R. Madden ascertained (see Madden, "Memoirs", p. 105) that $30,000 was then being sent over annually. This assistance was increased from year to year until during the period from 1848 to 1864 the American Irish sent home no less a sum than £13,000,000, that is $65,000,000 (see Parnell Movement, p. 166). The report of the British Emigration Commissioners for 1873 (cited in O'Rourke, op. cit., p. 503), states that in 1870, £727,408 (equal to $3,000,000) was sent to Ireland from North America, and that in the twenty-three years from 1848 to 1870 £16,634,000 or $83,000,000 was so remitted though banks and commercial houses, apart from the money sent through private channels. The historian whom we have quoted estimates the total transmitted through all channels to relatives and friends in Ireland by the Irish in America at £1,000,000 annually, or in all the enormous sum of over £20,000,000 ($100,000,000) for the twenty-three years proceeding the date when he wrote (1874). That the amount remitted from that time to the present has been equally large, there can hardly be any doubt. The most prominent, as it is the most distinctively Irish perhaps, among the societies to which we have referred, is the Ancient Order of Hibernians, which was organized in America in the year 1836 for the avowed purpose of promoting friendship, unity, and Christian charity among its members, and the advancement of the principles of Irish nationality. Many of the branches maintain systems of insurance, paying death benefits not exceeding $3,000. In 1908 it had a total membership of 200,000 persons associated in 2365 divisions, distributed in forty-seven states and the territories of the Union. The property owned by the order was valued (1906) at $1,722,069. During the last twenty-three years the order paid out for sick and funeral benefits $7,174,156, and in other charitable donations $4,481,146, besides many contributions for the relief of sufferers from extraordinary calamities, the latest being the gift of $40,000 in aid of those who suffered in the San Francisco earthquake of 1906. Its contributions in support of education include an endowment of $50,000 to the Catholic University at Washington and $10,000 to Trinity College, Washington, besides over 500 scholarships in various colleges and academies throughout the country, and it has given over $25,000 in aid of the work of the Gaelic League for the revival of the Irish language and literature. Other societies such as The Emerald Beneficial Association, The Irish Catholic Benevolent Union, founded in 1896 for benevolent purposes and composed almost entirely of members of Irish nationality, have a large membership in various states and territories. Besides these societies which are of national extent, numerous other smaller societies have been organized, mostly since 1840, and in the larger cities of the Eastern states, each society comprising immigrants or their descendants from particular counties in Ireland. Their purposes are purely social and benevolent, and their memberships nearly all Catholics, Of the relations of the Roman Catholic Irish to the Church in America it is almost needless to speak. Not only do the Catholics of other nationalities, but their fellow-citizens of other faiths, acknowledge the great services rendered by the Irish in America to the up-building of the Church. So identified have they been with the progress of the Church that their race and religion united have made them a marked element in the community. The mission of the Irish race, as evidenced by the part they have taken in the support of religion in the United States has been the theme of many writers, and it would be as endless as unnecessary a task to detail here what the Irish have done in that respect. Their number alone, coming from a land where they had suffered so greatly for conscience' sake, implied a corresponding religious activity and influence in the United States, where they were released from the restraints to which they were subject at home. With their constantly increasing numbers, they provided in turn the laity with which new congregations were formed and the clergy which supplied to a large extent their spiritual needs. From the time of the first Bishop, John Carroll, of the See of Baltimore, to the present day there is hardly a diocese or archdiocese in continental United States but has been governed by prelates of Irish birth or descent. In the earlier days of the Republic and continuing to about 1830, bishops of other nationalities, chiefly French bishops, had much the larger share in the government of the Church; but with the steady and large accession of the Irish to the Catholic population, the latter acquired a predominance which has ever since been maintained. At the time of the First Provincial Council of Baltimore (1829) two only of the nine prelates constituting the hierarchy were of Irish birth. At the time of the Third Council (1837) there were four such prelates. In 1846, of the twenty-three diocese represented in the Sixth Council, ten sent bishops of Irish origin. In 1852, of the incumbents of the twenty-seven sees. fifteen were of the Irish race. In 1876 the hierarchy of the Church included four archbishops, who were Irish either by birth or descent, and twenty-eight bishops sprung from the same race. Of the fourteen provinces now (1906) constituting the territorial divisions of the Church in the continental united States, nine are governed by archbishop of Irish blood, and forty-eight of the bishops of the seventy-eight dioceses comprised in these provinces are of the Irish race. The same race has furnished the two cardinals with which the Church in the United States has been honoured, viz.: John McCloskey, formerly Archbishop of New York, and James Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to apportion the Catholic laity of the present day strictly according to their racial origins, but in view of the immigration figures as before ascertained, and the proportion of ecclesiastics of Irish origin engaged in the service of religion, it is safe to assume that more than one-half of the total number of Catholics in the United States come of Irish stock. As regards the moral and material aid contributed by the Irish in the United States in support of religion, the distinguished French Jesuit Rev. A. J. Thébaud, in his work, "Ireland, Past and Present" (p. 453), quotes approvingly the language of John Francis Maguire, M. P., who says "What Ireland has done for the American Church, every bishop, every priest can tell. Throughout the vast extent of the United States, there is scarcely a church, an academy, a hospital, or a refuge in which the piety, the learning, the zeal, and the self-sacrifice of the Irish -- of the priest or the professor, of the Sisters of every order or denomination -- are not to be traced; there is scarcely an ecclesiastical seminary for English-speaking students in which the great majority of those now preparing for the service of the sanctuary do not belong, if not by birth, at least by blood, to that historic land to which the grateful church of past ages accorded the proud title, "Insula Sanctorum" (McGuire, "The Irish in America", p. 540). Still another competent judge, the distinguished Bishop J. L. Spalding, in his work "The Mission of the Irish Race", says (p. 61): "As in another age men spoke of the gesta Dei per Francos, so we may now speak of the gesta Dei per Hibernos. Were it not for Ireland, Catholicism would to-day be feeble and non-progressive in England, America, and Australia. Nor is the force of this affirmation weakened by the weight and significance which must be given to what the converts in England, and the German and the French in the United States, have done for the Church. The Irish have made the work of the convert possible and effective, and they have given to Catholicism in this country a vigour and cohesiveness which enable it to assimilate the most heterogeneous elements, and without which it is not at all certain that the vast majority of Catholics emigrating hither from other lands would not have been lost to the Church, 'No other people', to repeat what I have written elsewhere, 'could have done for the Catholic Church in the United States what the Irish people have done. Their unalterable attachment to their priests; their deep Catholic instincts, which no combination of circumstances has ever been able to bring into conflict with their love of country; the unworldly and spiritual temper of the national character; their indifference to ridicule and contempt and their unfailing generosity, all fitted them for the work which was to be done, and enabled them, in spite of the strong prejudices against their race which Americans have inherited from England, to accomplish what would not have been accomplished by Italian, French, or German Catholics'." II. IN AUSTRALIA Nowhere in modern times has the Church made such substantial progress as in the United States of America and in the great island commonwealth of Australasia. In both Irish immigration has been a large contributing factor to this development, and between both, notwithstanding the immense intervening distance, there is to be found in the early records a curious correlation of pioneer effort. To the political and economic results of British rule in Ireland both of these countries owe no little part of their present-day vigour and expansion. It was the declaration of American independence that stopped the transportation of British convicts across the Atlantic, and forced the establishment at Botany Bay, in January, 1788, of the first penal settlement on the Australasian continent. Thither the religious persecutions in Ireland and the political disturbances there sent many unfortunate representatives of the race. Thousands of these prisoners, transported from Ireland for political or religious offenses, were exiled without any intimation of the duration of the sentences passed on them by drumhead courts-martial. Hence, under the date of 12 November, 1796, there is record of Governor Hunter writing back from the colony to the authorities of the Home Office in England that the "Irish Defenders were threatening to resist all orders because of the indeterminate term of their sentences, "as they may otherwise be kept longer than is just in servitude". In May, 1802, Governor King also wrote, praying the home government not to send any more Irishmen there, and as "few as possible of those convicted of sedition and republican practices, otherwise in a very short time the whole colony would be imbued with the same seditious spirit." But their protests had no effect whatever, and the number of exiles constantly increased until in a short time it amounted to more than a thousand. Confessors of the Faith, as most of them were in their native land, they had to face in bondage even more savage persecution under rules framed to compel them to join in Protestant religious services. Deprived of priest, sacraments, and religious instruction, they saw the Government attempting to rob their children of their Faith. Remonstrance to the home authorities was long useless. Among the early Irish political felons transported to Botany Bay were three priests who had been sentenced for alleged complicity in the political troubles of 1798 in Ireland. These priests were Father James Harold, pastor of Rathcoole, Dublin; Father James Dixon, a native of Castlebridge, County Wexford; and Father Peter O'Neill, pastor of Ballymacoda, County Cork, a grand-uncle of the Fenian leader, Peter O'Neill Crowley, who was killed in the rising of 1867. Father O'Neill was not only sentenced on a trumped-up charge of sedition, but was most barbarously flogged before he left Ireland. The frequent remonstrances to the home authorities against the injustice of denying them the ministrations of their Faith had at last lead to the issue of instructions to the Governor in 1802 to allow one of these transported ecclesiastics to exercise his spiritual functions. Governor King accordingly designated, on 19 April, 1803, Father Dixon to take charge of the Catholic congregation, and under this government supervision the first Mass was said by him in Sydney, on Sunday, 15 May, 1803. The chalice was made of tin by one of the convicts; the vestments were fashioned out of some old damask curtains. For a time there was no altar-stone, and the sacred oils had to be brought in from Rio de Janiero. The Holy See, in 1804, made Father Dixon Prefect Apostolic of this new territory, called then New Holland, the first ecclesiastical appointment for the new church. Fathers O'Neill and Harold also received faculties from Rome. The former was allowed to return to Ireland, 15 January, 1803, and the latter was sent to Tasmania, but there is no record that he was allowed to officiate there. This period of toleration did not last long, for, on the persistently circulated reports of bigoted fanatics that the congregations at the Masses were gatherings of traitors and mere subterfuges of the Irish convicts to mature plans for another rebellion, the Governor, before the close of 1804, revoked the permission for the celebration of Mass, and under penalty of twenty-five lashes for the first, and fifty for the second absence, all the colonists without distinction were ordered to attend the Church of England service. Worn out by his long labour and hardships, Father Dixon returned, in 1808, to Ireland, where he died, 4 January, 1840, in his eighty-second year, pastor of Crossabeg in the Diocese of Ferns. In the archives of Propaganda at Rome, there is a memorandum presented to the congregation, 28 August, 1816, by Rev. Richard Hayes, O. S. F., which begins: "The undersigned certifies that neither in the Colony of Sydney Cove, where there are several thousand Irish Catholics, nor in any part of New Holland, is there at present any priest or Catholic Missionary." Father Hayes' brother, Michael, a native of Wexford, was there as one of those United Irishmen transported after the rebellion of 1798, and had sent word to Rome, where Father Hayes was residing at St. Isodore's convent, of their spiritual destitution. The appeal for help was answered by a Cistercian Father, Jeremiah F. Flynn, who was then in Rome, after labouring for three years in the mission in the West Indies, part of the time under the direction of Archbishop Carroll of Baltimore. He volunteered to go to Australia was secularized and made Prefect Apostolic of New Holland, with faculties to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation. After some delay in getting enough funds for his outfit and making a vain application to the Governor for an official sanction for his project, he set out without this permission and landed at Sydney, 14 November, 1817. Governor Macquire, on whom he called the next day for permission to exercise his ministry, bluntly announced his determination not to allow any Popish missionary to intrude on this Protestant colony, and ordered him to depart on the ship that brought him. On the pretext, therefore, that he had come to the colony without sanction of the British authorities, Father Flynn was arrested and deported back to England. Previous to this he had remained concealed for several weeks in the house of an Irishman, William Davis, who had been transported for making pikes for the insurgents of 1798, venturing forth only at night to minister to the faithful. He said Mass in the house, reserving the Blessed Sacrament in a cedar press, guarded faithfully by the pious Davis family and their friends for more than two years, until the next priest arrived in the country. Davis later gave the house, and the garden about it, as a site on which to build St. Patrick's church. He was flogged twice and then imprisoned for refusing to attend the Protestant services. At his death, 17 August 1843, he was 78 years old. The great Bishop John England, of Charleston, U. S. A., who was then a pastor and a leader in the struggle for Catholic Emancipation in Ireland, was among those who interested themselves in bringing the persecution of the Australian Catholics to the attention of the authorities in England, and so great was the indignation aroused that the Government was forced to make provision for two Catholic Chaplains to be sent to New South Wales. Fathers Philip Connolly, a native of Kildare, and John Joseph Thery, a native of Cork, at once volunteered and landed at Sydney, 4 May, 1820. Father Thery remained at Sydney and Father Connolly soon proceeded to Hobart, Tasmania, where he arrived in March, 1821, and dedicated his first humble chapel to the Irish Saint Virgilius. At Sydney Father Thery remained in charge until 1838 when he was transferred by Bishop Polding to be his representative and vicar-general in Tasmania. In 1832 there were from 16,000 to 18,000 Catholics in the colony of New South Wales, nearly all of them Irish of birth or descent. Dr. Ullathorne in a pamphlet, "The Catholic Mission in Australia", published in London in 1837, set down the number of transported persons then in the colonies at 53,000. He was largely instrumental in brining about a reform of the abuses of transportation and the prison system in the colonies, and during a visit to Ireland in 1839, secured several priests for the Australian mission. In the work he did for the reform of the abuses in the penal colonies he says his great helper was an Irish priest, Father John McEneroe, one of the most notable men of the pioneer times, and for thirty-six years a leading figure in New South Wales. Born in Ardsalla, County Tipperary, 26 December, 1795, he was ordained at Maynooth in 1820 and held for a short time a professorship at the Meath Diocesan Seminary. Then at the invitation of Bishop England of Charleston, U. S. A., he went to America and laboured on the South Carolina missions with great zeal for seven years. Ill health forced him to return to Ireland in 1829. But the woes of the Catholics of Australia appealed so forcefully to him that he accepted the appointment of chaplain to the penal colony and arrived in Sydney in 1832. Until his death in August, 1868, he was without question one of the most influential promoters of the progress of the Church in Australasia. From the first his main energy was bent on the establishment of an Australian hierarchy. He sent a letter direct to the pope. "As in all new colonies", he tells the Holy Father, "so in this few subjects can be found for the priesthood for many years to come; a few priests may be procured from the Catholic countries of Europe, but it is from Ireland that they should naturally be provided for this mission, as ninety-five of every one hundred Catholics in all these colonies are Irish or of Irish descent." Several years later the idea was carried out in part. In a visit of Bishop Goold to Rome in 1873, the question of nationality once more came up. "As regard the objection", he replied, "that the bishops of Australia are all Irish it appears to me to have no solid foundation to rest upon; on the contrary, any other course would be ridiculous. As a matter of fact the Catholic Europeans who form our congregations are, with very few exceptions, Irish. . . . It must be added that the purport of the aforesaid objection is to introduce English instead of Irish bishops to the Australian church, and hence the expediency of appointing Irish prelates becomes all the more apparent, for everyone is aware of the special antipathy of the Irish toward England" (Moran, "History of the Catholic Church in Australasia", 786, 787). Bishop Goold was born in Cork, 4 November, 1812, joined the Augustinians, and after his ordination in Italy, volunteered for the Australian mission. The list of the prelates of the Church in Australia shows the pope and his advisors in the main followed the lines indicated in what was said by Bishop Goold and Father MacEneroe. Bishop Goold, from Irish foundations, introduced into the country the Jesuits, the Christian Brothers, the Sisters of Mercy, the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, and the Presentation Nuns. At his invitation Fathers William Kelly and Joseph Lentaigne of the Irish Province had begun a foundation in Melbourne, 21 September, 1865. The Sisters of Charity of the Irish Congregation were the first to volunteer to serve the settlements in Botany Bay, and the community sent there by Mother Mary Aikenhead arrived at Port Jackson 31 December, 1838; one of this band was a novice, Mary Xavier Williams, born in Kilkenny, 12 July, 1800. She made her vows in Sydney in 1838, and was the first religious to have that privilege on Australian soil. She lived to be ninety-two, dying at Hobart, 8 March, 1892, the sole survivor of the pioneer community. The Sisters of Mercy, from Baggot Street, Dublin, next arrived, 7 January, 1846. Mention has been made of the location of the Reverend Philip Connolly as the first priest in Tasmania, in March, 1821. Three years later, on 7 May, 1824, the Reverend Samuel Coote arrived from Dublin on a ship chartered by Roderick O'Connor, a brother of the Chartist leader Fergus O'Connor, to carry his family and a few other settlers to Van Dieman's Land. O'Connor was not then a Catholic but became one later, and was the donor of £10,000 to the Hobart cathedral building fund. It was here that Thomas Francis Meagher and the other political exiles of 1848 took up their residence. Father Connolly died 3 August, 1839. His old friend Father Thery, transferred from Sydney, carried on the work until after the appointment of Bishop Wilson to the see in 1842, when he retired. Bishop Wilson died on 30 June, 1866, and his successor was Bishop (later Archbishop) Daniel Murphy, a native of Cork, who presided in Rome at the funeral of the liberator, Daniel O'Connell, and lived to be a centenarian. In South Australia the tone of public opinion in the early days was anti-Irish and anti-Catholic, and the growth of the Church was slow. The first bishop was the Reverend Francis Murphy, a native of the County Meath, who reached Adelaide in September, 1844. Thomas Mooney, an Irishman, was the first Catholic settler in Western Australia; but it was not until 1843 that Father John Brady, an Irish priest born at Cavan, and who for twelve years had laboured as a missionary in the Mauritius, was appointed to take charge of the district. In 1845 he was consecrated Bishop of Perth. For years he lived a life of apostolic poverty, tireless in his zeal as a missionary, and died in France, 3 December, 1871. Father Thery was the first priest to visit the Queensland section, and the roll of his successors is an almost continuous list of Irish names. The Emigration Society in the early sixties of the last century directed many Irish families to Queensland. A Franciscan from Dublin, Reverend Patrick Bonaventure Geoghehan, was the first pastor in Victoria and celebrated the first Mass in Melbourne on 19 May, 1839. In May, 1841, the number of Catholics there was 2073, and on St. Patrick's Day, 1843, the St. Patrick's Society had a parade of 150 members. An Irishman, Thomas Poynton, was the first Catholic settler of New Zealand, where he took charge of a store and sawing station in Hokianga, in 1828. He had married at Sydney the daughter of a Wexford Irishman, Thomas Kennedy. In the course of time a daughter was born to them, and the mother took the child to Sydney to be baptized, a distance of 1000 miles. The next child was a boy who was also taken to Sydney for baptism, but this time the ship went round by Hobart, and the distance was 2000 miles. Mr. Poynton himself made three visits to Sydney to try to get missionaries to devote themselves to the care of the New Zealand Catholics, and when the Marists and Bishop Pompalier finally did arrive there he was of much assistance to them. Among the settlers they ministered to was an Irishman named Cassidy who had married the daughter of a Maori chief. In all this it can be seen how large a part Irishmen had in laying a foundation for the Church in Australia. The details of their association with secular affairs are equally prominent and honourable. They contributed their share and more than their share in building up responsible governments in the first four eastern States, and in the culminating federation of the great Commonwealth on 1 January 1901. In the development and solution of the important public issues of education, the tariff, vote by ballot, adult suffrage, the selection of land, agrarian legislation, the labour movement of 1873, Irish energy, executive ability, and political acumen contributed a large part. It is only necessary to mention as types such men as Sir Charles Gavan-Duffy, Sir John O'Shannessey, Nicholas Fitzgerald, Augustus Leo Kenny, James Coughlin, M. O'Grady, Daniel Brophy, Sir Patrick Buckley, John Curnin, and Morgan S. Grace (see also lists in the article Australia). In the delegates to the three great Australasian Catholic Conferences (the first at Sydney in September, 1900, the second at Melbourne in 1904, and the third at Sydney in September, 1909), the numerical strength and influence of the Irish in Australia was amply evidenced. The million Catholics that the estimates give for 1910 show without question that the early proportion of the Irish element is well maintained. Nor have they ever been forgetful of the land of their birth and their ancestors. In the famine years of the last century, contributions were sent back to help the sufferers. The Hibernian Australasian Catholic Benefit Society, founded in 1871, has many thousands of members, and has spread to every state of the Commonwealth and to New Zealand (see Australia). III. IN CANADA The parish registers show that the Irish race was fairly well represented in New France, even in the early years of this colony. O'Farrell, in his "Irish Families in Ancient Quebec Records" (Montreal, 1872; 1908) asserts that of the 2600 families that made up the population of lower Canada at the close of the seventeenth century, wellnigh one hundred families were native of Ireland, and in about thirty other cases the husband or wife was of Irish birth. But these numbers would seem to be exaggerated. A careful study of Mgr Tanguay's "Dictionnaire généalogique" (7 volumes, Montreal, 1871), between 1625 and 1700, reveals thirty or forty names like Kelly, Casey, Murphy, Leahy, and others equally Celtic in sound. Mary Kerwin, the daughter of an Irish family who fled to France to preserve the Faith, came to Canada in 1643, and died a nun in the Hôtel-Dieu, Quebec, in 1687. Tanguay makes special mention of an Irishman, Teigue Cornelius O'Brennan, who married a French wife, Jeanne Chartier, at Quebec, in 1670. These two are the ancestors of the Aubrys and other families still prominent in the Province of Quebec. The conflict on American soil between the armies of France and England, in the eighteenth century, brought many Irish soldiers to Canada. Some had been enlisted in the service of France; others had been taken prisoner by the French; others were deserters from the English ranks. The President of the Navy Board, at Paris, in a letter to the Canadian Intendants, de la Galissonnière and Hocquart, in 1748, wrote: "If the Irish Catholics, taken prisoners to Canada, ask to remain, the King of France sees no difficulty in their being allowed to do so. The manner in which the English treat their nation ought not to cause them to regret such a change." Desertion was a very common practice in the eighteenth century among the Irish soldiers who were pressed into the English armies, or whose misery at home obliged them to enlist. The author of "The Irish Brigades in the Service of France" gives instances of such desertions to the famous corps of their countrymen in France, where they might enjoy the exercise of their religion then interdicted in the British army, and, further, "that they might obtain in battle some of the vengeance then due for the many oppressions and insults so long inflicted on their creed and race." The Protestant Lord Primate of Ireland, in a letter from Dublin in 1730, to the Duke of Newcastle, wrote: "All recruits raised here are generally considered as persons who may, some time or other, pay a visit to this country as enemies. That those who are enlisted here . . . hope and wish to do so, there is no doubt." This spirit of retaliation will help to explain the presence of so many Irish deserters in Canada in the eighteenth century. They were so numerous, in fact, that they became a menace to British military efficiency in America. It was to the desertion of "Irish papists" that Sir William Johnson, Agent General of Indian Affairs, attributed the uneasiness existing among the Mohawks and other more westerly tribes who had remained loyal to the British. In a letter to the Lords of Trade, in London (28 May, 1756), he asked to be empowered to reward any Indians who would deliver up Irish soldiers who were living amongst them. Letters exist in the archives of the Marine, in Paris, giving Irish soldiers permission to remain in Canada, or to return to France, where they might join their countrymen in the Clare regiment. Many of them, however preferred to remain and settle in New France, where they would be safe from the law enforced by Britain, after the victory of Fontenoy, which stipulated that "Irish officers and soldiers, who had been in the service of France . . . should be disabled from holding any real or personal property, and the real or personal property should belong to the first Protestant discoverer". The presence of a battalion of the Irish Brigade in Canada between 1755 and 1760 has always been a moot topic. In his "Documentary History", O'Calaghan gives a letter of Doreil, the French Commissary General, to Count D'Argeson, Minister of War, wherein he says that "agreeable to the wish of the Marquis de Vaudreuil, Governor of New France, several battalions of reinforcements should be sent to Canada and among them one Irish battalion", the reason given being that the Irish should be recruited from their fellow-countrymen already in Canada, or from deserters from the enemy. O'Farrell asserts that this battalion landed in Quebec on 26 June, 1755; but this is evidently an erroneous statement, for Doreil's appointment as Commissary General was dated only two months prior to the departure of the fleet, which he and de Vaudreuil accompanied to Canada. Three years later "a battalion of foreign volunteers" -- possibly the Irish battalion suggested by Doreil -- landed at Louisburg, where they met officers in the French service with such names as Admiral Macnamara, Captain de Carty, M. de Haggerty, and others, who were then operating on the Isle Royale. If, however, Irish soldiers were incorporated in the Béarn Regiment, as O'Callaghan supposes, they saw active service on four historic occasions: (1) on 8 September, 1755, under the leadership of the impetuous Dieskau, when the battalion suffered defeat in the attack on Fort Edward, but when Sir William Johnson, commanding three thousand men, did not dare follow up his victory; (2) in the capture of Fort Oswego from the English, August, 1756, by General de Montcalm, where, according to Houtenac, a French deserter to the English side, "the red faced with green", was conspicuous enough for special mention; (3) in August, 1757, in the surrender of Fort William Henry on Lake George, where de Levis defeated Munroe; (4) in the brilliant defeat of the British, 8 July, 1758, at Ticonderoga, on Lake Champlain, in the important engagement known as the battle of Carillon. In this encounter the French troops, of which the Béarn Regiment formed a part, attacked Abercrombie's army of sixteen thousand, repelled seven successive charges, and killed or wounded four thousand of the enemy, with a loss to themselves of of only thirty officers and three hundred and forty men. No documents, however, have come to light so far to prove the presence of an autonomous Irish corps in this campaign. The correspondence of de Vaudreuil shows that he did not take kindly to the employment of Irish prisoners taken from the English; he even sent a whole company back to France in 1757 to be incorporated ion one of the brigades there. But there were certainly Irish soldiers to be found in the French ranks fighting against the historic enemy; the names of several Irish officers wounded at Carillon such as McCarthy, Floyd, Carlan etc., were sent by Montcalm to the governor after the victory had been gained. Carillon recalls the Celtic heroism displayed at Fontenoy, and this fact, together with the suggestion contained in the letter of the Commissary General, has led chroniclers to surmise the presence at Carillon of a battalion of the famous Irish brigade. At the close of the war, many disbanded soldiers returned to Europe, while the rest settled in Canada. "The rest of the troops", writes de Levis, "having formed connections in the colony, resolved to remain there." Their long years of service among the French had made the Irish familiar with the language and customs of this people, and the gallicizing of their names, as we find them in the parish registers in the Province of Quebec, shielded the bearers from British retaliation. That retaliation was evidently intended was shown by the persistency with which General Jeffery Amherst, in 1760, refused to grant the articles of the capitulation dealing with the subjects of the King of England taken prisoner while in arms against him. However, owing to the precautions take by the Irish soldiers to identify themselves with the French Canadian peasantry, there is no record of reprisals. The Irish settled down in the Province of Quebec, and while retaining their names, or French variations of them, they were in a few years absorbed by the ambient race. The case of Dr. Timothy O'Sullivan is typical. He was the son of a lieutenant general in the army of James II, and had during sixteen years served as captain of dragoons among the Irish in Spain. In 1716 he started for Ireland to raise recruits for his regiment. During his voyage he was seized by pirates who landed him in New England. He escaped to Canada, settled down, and began to practice the profession of a surgeon. In 1720 he married the widow of M. Dufrost la Jemerais, whose eldest daughter, Madame d'Youville, became in after years the foundress of the Grey Nuns of Canada. O'Sullivan's French Canadian descendants are still to be found under the name of Sylvain. Other instances of assimilation of French and Irish in Canada are preserved for us in the archives of the Marine, in Paris. In 1714, an English ship, bound for Virginia with a score or two of young Irishwomen on board was seized on the Atlantic by a French vessel, "L'Heureux". The passengers were brought to Quebec and distributed among different private families, where their racial identity was soon lost, as nothing more is heard of them. The pathetic case is cited in the same documents of Cullen, or Collins, an Irish soldier who, after the fall of Oswego, in 1756, was seen with his wife and children drifting in an open boat over Lake Ontario on his way to some French settlement. Historic facts like these go to prove that a larger percentage of Irish blood flowed in the veins of the French Canadian population at the end of the eighteenth century than is generally suspected. There are few traces of systematized Irish immigration to Canada until the beginning of the nineteenth century. The supremacy of the King of England in matters ecclesiastical, so persistently insisted upon during the first years of the English domination, and the evident desire to crush out the Catholic Church, shown so plainly in the "Royal Instruction to Governors" were not of a nature to encourage immigration of Catholics, especially of Irish Catholics, who had suffered so long under unjust laws in their own land. These "Instructions" forbade under severe penalties all appeals to, or correspondence with, any foreign ecclesiastical jurisdiction "of whatever nature or kind whatsoever". No episcopal or vicarial power could be exercised by any person professing the religion of the Church of Rome, but only such as was essentially and indispensable necessary to the free exercise of the Romish religion. A parish priest could not be appointed in a place where Protestants were in the majority. In such parishes the Protestant incumbent should have all the tithes, but the Catholics might have use of the church. In places were Catholics were in a majority, a parish priest might be appointed, but the tithes of the Protestants should be held in reserve for the support of the Protestant clergy. Section 8 of article 43 of the Instructions shows the sentiments which animated the British government in those years. "All ecclesiasticks as may think fit to enter into the holy state of matrimony shall be released from all penalties to which they might have been subjected in such cases by any authority of the See of Rome." Naturally the Irish would shun a colony where such laws were in force, and where even the French Catholic colonists did not know what their destiny was to be; but one of the first British governors, Sir Guy Carleton -- a humane and tactful Irishman, born in Tyrone, who declared later that if lower Canada had been preserved to Great Britain, it was owing to the Catholic clergy -- did much in his correspondence with the home Government to mitigate the rigour of the obnoxious "Instructions" and to reconcile the Canadians to their new masters. It was the same Carleton, afterwards Lord Dorchester, who, in 1775, successfully defended Quebec, during the American siege, during which General Montgomery, also an Irishman, lost his life. Succeeding governors of Canada, especially Haldiman and Craig, were less accommodating to Catholics than Carleton, and it was not till the diplomatic and uncompromising Bishop Plessis, one of the illustrious figures in Canadian history, took up the struggle for the liberties of the Church that Catholics began to breathe freely. This prelate succeeded in having the rights of the Church recognized, and left the way open for the immigration to Canada of Catholics of every nationality. When he visited the Upper St. Lawrence, on a pastoral tour, in 1816, he found seventy-five Catholic families in the neighbourhood of Kingston, among them twenty Scotch and Irish, and others as far west as Niagara. Ferland tells us that during the summer of 1820 over thirty families arrived at Quebec from Ireland. They had hoped to better their condition by emigrating, but owing to the unsettled condition of the country and the stagnation of business, they failed miserably. These poor exiles were in the direst poverty, and as winter was approaching, the noble-hearted Bishop Plessis wrote a touching letter to his parish priests in their favour. Meanwhile groups of Irish colonists had begun to arrive and settle in Upper Canada and in the Maritime provinces. In 1803 a Talbot of Malahide, moved by the desire to control the "Paradise of the Hurons" he had read about in Charlevoix, secured six hundred and eighty thousand acres in Western Ontario and gradually opened up this vast district to settlement. Talbot was one of the first to draw his countrymen to that province. In 1825 Peter Robinson began to work on similar lines north of Lake Ontario. He brought two thousand colonists and located them along the banks of the Otanabee, in the neighbourhood of Peterboro. Other groups continued to arrive from time to time to strengthen the Irish element; between 1830 and 1860 two hundred thousand settled in Ontario; and in several counties the Irish still predominate. The Nova Scotia Archives show that Irish settlers were numerous in this province, many of whom were undoubtedly disbanded soldiers of the Cornwallis Regiment. Shortly after the treaty of 1763, Irish Presbyterians settled in Windsor, Truro, Londonderry, and other inland points, where their descendants may still be found. Although the intolerant laws of England were still in force against Catholics, the provincial governors showed themselves more or less conciliatory to the proscribed religion, and Irish Catholic colonists continued to increase in numbers. The appointment of a Vicar Apostolic for Nova Scotia, in 1818, proves that they were already numerous enough to require episcopal care. Bishop Plessis has left us some edifying pages in his "Journal" on the Catholicity of the Irish colony in Halifax in 1815, and the warm reception he met with from the Irish during his tour along the coast of Nova Scotia. New Brunswick was separated from Nova Scotia in 1784, when the United Empire Loyalists, among whom were a few Protestant Irish, began to arrive. The records of this Province reveal the presence of Irish Catholics even in the early years of the nineteenth century. The Bishop of Quebec found about twenty families at St. John in 1815, and he named St. Malachy as titulary of the small church they were completing there. Immigration to New Brunswick did not start in earnest until after 1830, when the Irish began to carve out homes for themselves along the beautiful St. John River and the shores of the Bay of Fundy, where their descendants are now prosperous. Prince Edward Island, or Isle St-Jean, as it was originally called, was ceded to Great Britain and made a separate province in 1769. It was first settled by the French, but in 1772 MacDonald of Glenaladale brought his hardy Scottish Highlanders over and they took up large tracts of land there. A few Irish, from Ireland and Newfoundland, also settled in Charlottetown during the closing years of that century. According to the Abbé de Calonne, a French missionary working among them, they had neither social nor political influence. This was natural and yet, were it not for the veto of the British authorities, the first Governor, Patterson, would have changed the name of the Island from Isle St-Jean to New Ireland. Irish Catholics continued to arrive every year in groups and singly, and settled on farms and in the growing centres of population. Some of the most distinguished names in the history of Prince Edward Island are found among the descendants of those early Irish settlers. Manitoba and Northwest Territories were then, and for many years later, an unknown land as far as the Irish were concerned. Emigration from Ireland to Canada continued in earnest from 1820 to 1850. Davin asserts that in the two years following 1832 over eighty thousand Irish landed on Canadian soil, and proportionate numbers continued to arrive every season in sailing vessels, wooden tubs most of them that had been used in the Canadian lumber trade. According to the report of the Agents for Emigrants, in the ten years ending in 1836, 164,338 Irish landed in Quebec, "a convenient stopping-place on the way to the Far West". Thousands, however, made their homes in Lower Canada. A writer in the "Dublin Review" (Oct., 1837), asserts that even then the Irish were an influential body in Quebec and Montreal, and that in the troubles leading up to the Insurrection of 1837 they threw their influence with the French Canadians and the House of Assembly against the oligarchy that were trying to withhold responsible government. The cholera epidemic of 1832 wrought havoc among the Irish as well as the French, but the year 1847 will always stand out in the history of the race in Canada. In the summer of that year, 100,000 men, women, and children, fleeing from famine and death in Ireland, "were stricken with fever and were lying helpless in the riverports and seaports of Canada". Thousands of these unhappy people died and found only graves where they had hoped to find peace and plenty. Rarely in the annals of a civilized nation have such scenes been witnessed as those enacted, during the eventful summer of 1847, among the fever-stricken Irish in all the quarantine stations along the St. Lawrence and in other points in Canada. Numerous heroic priests and nuns faced death to bring the consolation of religion to these affected people who, conscious of past wrongs, and forced to abandoned their beloved homeland, were yet confident of success in their fight for existence, if only the chance were given them, but who found themselves, on the threshold of their new home, facing a struggle with disease and death. The official figures tell us that in 1847 four thousand one hundred and ninety-two died at sea, four thousand five hundred and seventy-nine on Grosse Isle, seven hundred and twelve at Quebec, five thousand three hundred and thirty at Montreal, seventy-one at St. John, N. B., one hundred and thirty at Lacine, eight hundred and sixty three in Toronto, three hundred and forty-eight at other places in Ontario; but, owing to the circumstances of the time, and the difficulty in getting accurate statistics, these figures are hardly reliable. Other and more trustworthy reports declare the number dead and buried on Grosse Isle alone exceeding ten thousand, while Dr. Douglas, a medical superintendent at the time, estimated that at least eight thousand had been buried at sea. The survivors of the famine years -- the few who still survive -- recall with tears the memory of those score witnessed in their early childhood; and yet what seemed an irreparable disaster only proved, as in so many other instances in the history of the Irish race, to be a triumph of their Faith, and history has not failed to record it. The Irish, in 1847, brought their traditions with them across the Atlantic, and in those moments of direst sorrow and misery it was their religion which buoyed them up. It will forever be to their glory that, far from yielding to despair at the sacrifices demanded, they accepted their sad fate with sublime resignation, and went to their death blessing the Hand that smote them. A Celtic cross, fitting symbol of Erin and her undying faith, was raised during the summer of 1909, on Grosse Isle, by the Ancient Order of Hibernians, to recall the fever years and the heroism of those that assisted them. The holocaust of 1847 threw thousands of Irish children on the charity of the public. Those of them who were without friends and relatives were adopted by French Canadians, and were, with all tenderness and sympathy, reared to manhood and womanhood. They learned the language of their foster parents, and, as their forebears, the Irish soldiers of the eighteenth century had done, they married into French families and became identified with the French, very often revealing their origin only in their Celtic names. Their Celtic blood, however, with its concomitant gifts of mind and heart, generously infused into the dominant French race, proved a rare asset to this older people living along the banks of the St. Lawrence, and was the noblest requital the Irish could make for the whole-heated hospitality given to them in 1847. However, accidents of ethnic absorption, such as occurred in Canada among the French and Irish in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, were the results of exceptional conditions and are not likely to occur again. The Irish in Canada have grown in numbers and in influence in the last half-century, and will be able to shoulder their future burdens alone. The following figures furnished by the Dominion Census Bureau are official, and show the trend of the Irish element, Catholic and non-Catholic, in Canada between the years 1871 and 1901, when the last census was taken. The fluctuation of population showed in several of the provinces was not confined to the Irish alone, and was the indirect result of commercial stagnation consequent on the Confederation Act of 1867. These figures show an increase in thirty years of 142,307. In 1871 there were still 219, 451 persons who had been born in Ireland; in 1901 there were only 101, 629, marking a decrease, owing to death or emigration from Canada, of 117,822, in the foreign-born Irish population. As the emigration from Ireland in those thirty years was inappreciable, the approximate figures of the native-born Irish Canadian population between 1871 and 1901 was 142, 307 + 117,822 = 260,129. This shows that what the Irish element lost on Quebec and in the Maritime provinces during the period named, it gained in Ontario and the West. Owing to the strides which Canada is making in development, the census of 1911 will undoubtedly show an increase in the Irish population far greater than that of 1901. British Columbia: 1871: ? -- 1901: 20,658 Manitoba: 1871: ? -- 1901: 47,418 New Brunswick: 1871: 100,643 -- 1901: 83,384 Nova Scotia: 1871: 62,851 -- 1901: 54,710 Ontario: 1871: 559,442 -- 1901: 624,332 Prince Edward Island: 1871: ? -- 1901: 21,992 Quebec: 1871: 123,478 -- 1901: 114,842 North-West Territories: 1871: ? -- 1901: 18,797 Unorganized Territory: 1871: ? -- 1901: 2,588 Total: 1871: 846,414 -- 1901: 988,721 The Irish Catholics in Canada, who now number about three-quarters of a million, are fully organized both socially and religiously. They have their churches, schools, convents, colleges, orphanages, etc., many of them imposing-looking institutions. They have their bishops, priests, and their charity and teaching orders of both sexes. They have their fraternal societies of all kinds. They have their writers and their ably edited newspapers. They are represented in every avenue of public life. In commerce and industry they are contributing their share to the wealth of the Canadian nation. Some of the most eminent members of the legal and medical profession in Canada, during the last fifty years, have been, and still are, Irish Catholics; several of them have been knighted for eminence in their respective callings. The Irish have had their governors of provinces, cabinet ministers, senators, members of both Federal and Provincial Parliaments, and they are still well-represented in these functions in the government of the country. Thomas d'Arcy McGee asserted forty years ago that, since 1792, lower Canada was never without an Irishman in its legislative councils. This tradition is kept up not merely in old Quebec, but in the sister provinces, and in the Federal Parliament at Ottawa. An Irish Catholic is (1910) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and Deputy Governor-General of the Dominion. IV. IN GREAT BRITAIN England and Wales Mr. Joseph Cowen has called the Ireland of the sixth century the "Christian Greece". Irish monks from Iona repeated in England their work in Alba. Irish soldiers helped Athalstan to victory in 937. Early in the eleventh century Irish merchants were trading with Bristol. There, in 1247, died O'Murray, Bishop of Kilmacdaugh. In the same year Irish students resided at Oxford, where, said Newman, "there was from the earliest times, even a street called 'Irishman's Street'". Later a Bishop of Meath died at Oxford. A native of Dundalk, Fits-Ralph, was Chancellor of Oxford in 1333. While the Gaelic-Irish followed the fortunes of Wallace and of Bruce, the Norman-Irish fought for the English against Scotland. Thence for four hundred years the Irish helped England in her continental wars. Up to the middle of the sixteenth century there was no Irish colony in great Britain. Leland, in 1545, wrote of Liverpool: "Irish merchants come much thither as to a good haven . . . Good merchants at Lyrpole and moch Yrish yarn, that Manchester men do buy there." Irish music had also found favour in England. The Earl of Worcester, writing in 1602, to the Earl of Shrewsbury, said: "Irish tunes are this time most pleasing". Pistol's "Callino custore me" (Henry V, Act IV, sc. 4) has been explained as Colleen oge astore (young girl, my treasure). From some dialect in the plays of this period, Knight things that the costermongers were largely Irish. Among the martyrs of Elizabeth's reign were some Irish-born. James I severely penalized in Ireland his mother's religion. A Catholic landowner was prohibited from appointing a guardian for his heir, who, through the Court of Wards, was brought up by Protestant noblemen. Early in his reign there were three hundred of such children in the Tower of London, and at Lamberth schools. After the Act of Settlement two-thirds of the fertile land passed into Protestant hands. In 1651, Hewson, Governor of Dublin, reported that, "in Dublin, which formerly swarmed with Papists, he knew there now but one, a surgeon and a sensible man". Referring to 1699, Lord Clare (speech on the Union) declared: "so that the whole of your island has been confiscated, with the exception of the estates of five or six families." -- "Such of the Roman Catholic gentry as had retained their estates were stripped or all political and many civil rights, and were left virtually at the mercy of a Protestant enemy" (Bryce). To provide for the education of emigrating sons consequent to this state of things, Irish colleges were founded in several parts of the continent. Thence they joined the armies and political life of the nations in which they wee educated, some reaching high positions as officers and statesmen. Thus the idea of emigration was created. In Charles I's reign ambassadors of foreign powers only were allowed in England to have Catholic chapels. It was in this way that around the Sardinian Chapel in Lincoln's Inn Fields gathered the first considerable Irish colony in London. By 1666, the year of the great fire, a considerable importation of cattle from Ireland to England was going on. To relieve the distress in London a gift of 15,000 bullocks was sent over from Ireland. Ludovic Barry, the first Irish dramatist to write in English, Sir James Ware, the antiquarian McFerbis, the last of the Irish annalists, Denham, Roscommon, and Flecknoe, poets, Cherry, actor and poet, Arthur Murphy, lawyer, dramatists, and editor, and Barry, the painter, were Catholics among the many Irishmen, eminent in science, art, and literature, living in England during the eighteenth century. The comparative fewness of Catholics is explained by the fact that penal laws made learning a crime. "the avowed policy of the [English] Cabinet was to discourage the teaching of the Irish 'better orders' in Ireland. . . . They passed out of the country's ken and became aliens" (Bridges). The difficulty of recruiting sufficient men for the British Army and Navy; the investment abroad of money by Irish Catholics (it being illegal to invest it in Irish land), money which Protestant land owners could have profitably used, the success of the American War of Independence, and possibly ideas of liberty and toleration caught from the French Revolution, made for some relaxation of the penal code. The first Relief Bill came to England in 1778 when there were about 60,000 Catholics there, of whom from 6000 to 8000 were Irish, mostly resident in London. An Irish Relief Bill did not follow until 1793. During the eighteenth century there was a considerable trade between Whithaven and Ulster. The Catholic mission to St. Begh, Whithaven, dates from 1706. Hawkers and traders at this time were frequently passing through London for the Kent hop-pickings. At Croiden Assize, 1767, an Irish priest, Moloney, was condemned to perpetual imprisonment for exercising his functions. At St. Mary's Old Chapel, Lumber St., Liverpool, an Irish priest, Anthony Carroll, served from 1759 to 1766. Another Irish priest, Fr. P. O'Brien, was there from 1760 to 1770. The mission of St. George's Cathedral, Southwark, dates from 1766, when an Irish priest, Father T. Walsh, hired a room in which to say Mass. In condemning the Gordon riots (1780), Burke "supposed" there were not less than 4000 Catholics in London. Manning gave the Catholic population of England in 1788 at 69,000. The famous Irishman, Father Arthur O'Leary, founded St. Patrick's, Soho, in 1792. Froude, writing in 1798, said "Half the sailors and petty officers in the service were Catholics" and inferred that they were mostly Irish. Consequent upon the removal of the seat of government at the Union, there was less inducement for men of political instincts, social ambitions, or intellectual activities, to remain in Ireland. Before the County and District Councils of 1898 there were neither local or national self-government to attract the first; the absenteeism of richer men baffled the second; dearth of general higher education and learned distinction was felt by the third. Ireland lost the creative power of a native aristocracy, intellectual, financial, or social. Hence her gentry were induced, more and more, to ally themselves to England. But this exile was not of the nobility only. In 1803 a report of a secret Commission of the House of Commons described London and other large English towns as honeycombed with secret societies in communication with the disaffected elements in Ireland. This closing of avenues of distinction; the restriction of industry and trade arising from the Penal Laws, the famines of 1817 and 1822, impelled an increasing immigration, which the famine of 1846-48. the "Black 47", made a permanent factor in national life. Emigration from May, 1851, to 31 December, 1908, drained away 4,126,310 souls or half the national population. In 1846, with only 65 miles of railways, Ireland had a population of 300 to the square mile. "Nearly half as many again as the purely agricultural districts of England support at the present time (1908) and twice as many as Denmark, the model farming country of Europe." In 1901 there were 141 per square mile. The bulk of the Irish emigrants were, naturally, poor. Those who came to the nearest lands, England and Scotland, were the poorest of the poor, being those who had not the means to reach far Australia, or nearer America, or Canada. For years, therefore, they could not make any impression, social or political, on their adopted countries. The influence was simply that of example in fidelity to their religion. Untouched by the spirit of irreligion or indifference rife on the Continent, this example was particularly vivid. Mayhew in his "London Labour" praises the virtue of the London-Irish coster girls and lads. Illicit connections were, he says, the exception rather than the rule among them. Partly from these immigrants, partly for them, a large body of Irish priesthood accumulated in both countries, who, with signal self-sacrifice, devoted themselves to the humblest and most trying duties of their ministry. Educated men, in many cases highly gifted, lived outwardly inglorious lives in surroundings of the squalor, ignorance, and vice that seems inevitable in cities of our civilization. The examples of strenuous faith, of fearless Catholicism, of active piety, which this large body of men must have impressed upon their English and Scots coreligionists, unquestionably deepened and widened the hold and growth of Catholicism in these islands. They were, it has been well said, the most successful missionaries of the Catholic church in the nineteenth century. Railway development, the rise of manufacturing towns and of commercial cities, were powerful attractions to the Irish poor. Curiously enough, scarcely any of these immigrants from an agricultural country settled in agricultural districts. Politically, the Irish in England scarcely emerged, from non-recognition under O'Connell's appeal to moral force in his agitation for Repeal. Their political awakening was not even complete under the call of Young Ireland to a more active force. Signs of life were visible upon a return to the methods of the United Irish of 1898, attempted by the Irish Revolutionary Brotherhood (Fenianism) of 1859 -- open physical force cemented by an oath of secrecy. A large number of the labouring Irish were pronouncedly in favour of this. They and their middle-class fellow countrymen grew to political importance when they reverted to the idea of moral force only, advanced by Isaac Butt in his home rule scheme of 1870 -- an idea broadly, but less pacifically, followed by Parnell. It is significant of this increase of political power of the Irish in England that it was the Liverpool convention of the Home Rule Confederation that superseded Butt with Parnell. Concurrent with it was the Irish National Land League originated by Michael Davitt, who, as a former worker in the cotton miles of Lancashire, was very popular with the Irish workers in England. In the United Irish League in Great Britain, the two facets of the Irish party have a most powerful organization, with ramifications everywhere. From its situation Liverpool would have a large poor Irish population. From 1788-89 there were 260 Catholic baptisms out of 2332, i.e., 111/4 percent. Approximately, the Catholic population of Liverpool in 1788 was 6916; in 1811, 21,359; in 1829, 50,000. (In 1804 there were only 12,000 to 15,000 Catholics in London.) In 1841, the Irish-born in Great Britain numbered 419, 256; in 1851, there were 519,595, of whom 213,907 were in Scotland. It has been claimed that "the outward sign of the great impetus given to Catholicism in Great Britain by the immigration from Ireland was the restoration of the Catholic hierarchy in England". It was therefore appropriate that the first head of the restored hierarchy should be a son of Irish parents. The present Archbishop of Westminster is of Irish descent, as is also his bishop auxiliary and vicar-general and one of his canons. In 1853 Irish Vincentians took charge of the parish of St. Vincent, Sheffield. Later they had a training college at Hammersmith. At present the Irish province has two houses in England. In this year there were 41,400 Catholics, mostly Irish, in the British Army, and a quarter of the Navy was estimated as Irish Catholics. In 1862 the Irish Sisters of Charity were working in Hereford. In 1881 the census of the Parliament Burough of Manchester gives 83/8 percent of its population as Irish (32,750 out of 393,580). In 1908 the Catholic population of Great Britain was 2,130,100, of which 400,000 was in Scotland. In 1909 the Catholic population of England had increased to 1,671,000, with one of its bishops Irish-born and two others of Irish descent. Irish Sisters of Charity are in the Diocese of Westminster and of Shrewsbury, and Irish Christian Brothers are at Bristol. Confessions are officially announced as heard in Irish in the Diocese of Westminster (2 churches), Clifton and Salford (4 churches). Of the 1717 churches, chapels, and stations in England, 48 (23/4 percent) are dedicated to Irish saints, of which 42 are under St. Patrick. Though the impress of the early Catholic Irish settlers on the social, political, and artistic life of England was absolutely nil, the influence of the Irish-born or Irish descendants of today is important. Of such in the Church are one archbishops and four bishops (and titulars), two abbots, a prior, two rectors of colleges, two provincials, an administrator of a cathedral, the preacher of the "Papal Sermon" at the Vatican Council, several domestic prelates and numerous canons. In the State: a Groom, and also a Lord, in waiting to the king, Somerset Herald, twenty-four army officers, five M. P.'s, three in the Civil Service, two County-Court judges, seven J. P.'s, four Aldermen, two superintendents of Scotland Yard. Referring only to those admitted position, there are, in science, three; in art, a portrait painter, two other artists; one musician, five actors and actresses; two singers in opera. In medicine, a king's physician, and thirteen eminent practitioners. In letters, the founder and first editor of "The Windsor Magazine"; editors of five other newspapers, etc.; forty-four writers, novelists, authors; nine journalists; and many members of educational, and of county, councils. Assuming the bulk of Irish residents in England are Catholic, the following statistics have interest. (The latest census returns are made up to 1901.) Irish-born inhabitants of England and Wales: 426,565, or 13.1 per 1000 of the whole population of England and Wales and 96 per 1000 of the population of Ireland; a decrease of 7 percent in England and Wales since 1891. The distribution of 348,685 (or 82 per cent) of the Irish-born inhabitants of England and Wales in 1901 was: Lancaster, Cheshire 163,569 a decrease of 11.3 per cent since 1891 London 60,211 almost no change since 1891 Surrey, Kent, Middlesex, Essex 33,850 almost no change since 1891 Yorkshire 39,145 decrease of 3953 since 1891 Northumb, Durham, Cumberland 38,480 decrease of more than 9000 since 1891 Hampshire 13,430 increase in 1582 since 1891 348,685 Outside of the metropolis the Irish-born population exceeds 5000 in no one town except the five following (Manchester and Salford being counted as one): Liverpool 45,673 6.7 per cent increase of population against 9.1 percent in 1891 Manchester, Salford 28,194 against 32,270 in 1897 Leeds 6443 Bootle 5857 Birkenhead 5306 The following table shows the number of Irish-born persons per 100,000 of total population in each of the counties of England. It will be seen that the population falls below 4 per cent in counties where agriculture most predominates: Beds 386 Middlesex (Ex. Metr.) 954 Berks 637 Mon 1047 Bucks 353 Norfolk 240 Cambridges 239 Northants 296 Cheshire 2241 Northumb 1593 Cornwall 538 Notts 420 Cumberland 2387 Oxford 387 Derbyshire 626 Ruts 502 Devon 1135 Salop 489 Dorset 907 Somerset 454 Durham 1895 Staffs 604 Essex (Ex. Metr.) 760 Suffolk 265 Glouc. 623 Surrey (Ex. Metr.) 1071 Hants. 1684 Sussex 752 Hereford 470 Warwick 717 Herts 431 Westmoreland 459 Hunts 251 Wilts 374 Kent (Ex. Metr.) 1148 Worcs 451 Lancs. 3297 Yorks 1092 London 1327 The percentages of Irish-born to the whole population of England and Wales were 2.9 in 1851; 2.1 in 1861; 2.5 in 1871; 2.15 in 1881; 1.8 in 1891; 1.3 in 1901. Scotland The earliest authentic record of emigration from Ireland to Scotland is to Argyle, about the year 258 -- fighting men who helped kindred tribes in Alba against Roman invaders. The See of the Isles is said to have been founded by St. Patrick about 447. Irish missionaries followed. In 503 Prince Fergus left Ireland to help the Scots of Alba against the Picts. His colony became the basis of a kingdom. In 565 St. Columba of Donegal passed into Scotland, labouring in Iona for thirty-five years. His celebrated declaration against Scots paying tribute to Irish kings practically established the Scottish nation. The Scots of former times recognized their debt by frequent use of the baptismal name Malcolm, i.e., "Servant of Columba". By the ninth century, the Scots were politically a distinct people, though the hierarchy of Northern Ireland kept an ecclesiastical protectorate over Iona as late as 1203. Intercourse between Ireland and Scotland in the thirteenth century is seen in the election of Donnel Oge to chieftainship (1258); who, having lived in Scotland, spoke in Albanian Gaelic. In 1498 Hugh Roe O'Donnell visited James VI in Scotland, concluding with him an offensive and defensive covenant. Through harpers and pipers Irish music penetrated into Scotland. Hardiman says: "The air, as well as the words of Maggy Laidir . . . is Irish." Robin Adair is the Irish "Aileen Aroon"; "John Anderson, my Jo" is at least an echo of "Cruiskeen Lawn". The General Assembly of 1608 proposed to James "that the sons of noblemen professing popery should be committed to the custody of their friends as are sound in religion", which was effectively done. In 1785 "Irish fishermen were brought from Ireland to teach the natives of Uist the manufacture of kelp from seaweed. Others were brought to the Shetlands because of their dexterity in fishing. . . . The inhabitants of Barra learned fishing from the Irish fishermen." When Betoun, the last archbishop of the ancient Scottish hierarchy went into exile (1560), English archpriests had jurisdiction over Scotland. On his death, in 1603, the hierarchy came to an end. In 1623 Gregory XV established a prefect of missions for Scotland. In 1631 the Irish Bishop of Down and Conor, Magennis, was put over the Scottish mission by Urban VIII. The second in succession from him was an Irish Franciscan, Patrick Hogarty (1640). In 1651, two Irish Vincentians, Fathers Dugan and White, went as missionaries to Scotland. The former worked for six years in the Hebrides, being very successful in Uist and Barra. In this latter place legends still exist of the curious miracles said to have been worked by him. Father White gave seventeen years to the Eastern highlands. In 1718 there were about forty Catholics in Glasgow. In 1779 Scotland had one bishop and some 17,000 Catholics. In 1793 the first Relief Bill for Catholics was passed. In 1800 there were three bishops, forty priests, twelve churches, and about thirty thousand Catholics. In 1804 the Scotch had the free exercise of their religion. St. Mary's Cathedral, Edinburgh, dates from 1814; St. Andrew's Glasgow, from 1816. Glasgow, the city of St. Mungow (the Irish St. Kentigurn), ground hallowed by the footsteps of St. Columba, in the early part of this century doubled its population in twenty years, largely caused by immigration from Ireland, a Scottish writer says. In 1829 there were 70,000 Catholics in Scotland, of whom 20,000 were in Glasgow. In 1851 Glasgow had 80,000 Catholics, of whom 62,925 were Irish. In the same year, 11.34 per cent of the population of Paisley were Irish. In 1854, an Irish Vincentian, Father J. Meyers, had charge of St. Mary's Lanark. Five years later the Irish province established a house at Lanark. They have still a house in Scotland. In 1860, the Irish Catholics of Glasgow, with their priests, were much dissatisfied with the manner in which ecclesiastical patronage was distributed. Much antagonism between the Irish and Scotch Catholics ensued. The vicar of the Western District, Murdock, carried the matter to Rome, and after an energetic struggle, won; shortly after he died (1866), and his successor, Grey, received an Irish Vincentian, Fr. J. Lynch, as coadjutor. Schism threatening, Grey resigned, and Lynch was transferred to Limerick. Mgr. Eyre, promoted Apostolic delegate, succeeded to the Western Vicariate, and at last secured peace. It was during this turmoil that the Irish party first raised a cry for the restoration of the hierarchy, which had been suppressed in 1603. In 1864 Cardinal Wiseman advised Propaganda in favour of this restoration. Among other reasons he stated that the overwhelming majority of Catholics in the great commercial and manufacturing towns were poor Irish. In four years, ending in 1835, the number of Catholics in Edinburgh had risen from 700 to 8000, and in Glasgow, from 50 to 24,000. Nothing came of it until 1877, when the question was examined. In the following March (1978), Leo XIII, by the Bull "Ex Supreme", restored the hierarchy in Scotland. In 1874 there were 360,000 Irish in Scotland. Today there are 518,969, of whom 380,000 are in Glasgow. Macintosh, a non-Catholic authority, says "The Roman Catholics have in recent years relatively increased more than any other denomination." Of the 398 Catholic churches, chapels, and stations in Scotland, 36, or 9.7 per cent, are dedicated to Irish saints. Of these, 12 are under the name of St. Patrick. Of the 13 priests ordained in Scotland in 1909 there were three Irish-born and one Irish descent. One of Scotland's two archbishops is of Irish descent. The Irish political movements noted in England apply, mutatis mutandis, to Scotland; but the social and artistic impress of Irishmen is less marked there than in England. By a papal decree of 15 December, 1909, the Ancient Order of Hibernians in Scotland is now tolerated. Assuming that the majority of Catholics in Scotland are Irish, the following tables are of interest. In 1901 the total Irish-born population of Scotland was 205,064, being 4.585 per cent of the population. Of the town population, 5.438 per cent; of the country population 2.980 per cent, and distributed as follows: Shetland 27 Dumbarton 9,862 Orkney 38 Argyle 907 Caithness 44 Bute 475 Sutherland 55 Rendrew 25,349 Ross and Crowmarty 97 Ayr 10,632 Inverness 384 Lanark 121,185 Nairn 37 Linlithgow 4,503 Elgin 134 Edinburgh 11,985 Banff 104 Haddington 909 Aberdeen 829 Berwick 173 Kincardine 99 Peebles 298 Forfar 5,802 Selkirk 254 Perth 1,341 Roxburgh 372 Fife 2,062 Dunfries 719 Kinross 40 Kircudbright 409 Clackmannan 359 Wigtown 971 Sterling 4,639 V. IN SOUTH AFRICA The Catholics of South Africa are for the most part Irish or of Irish descent. They do not form a large proportion of the general population, for the tide of Irish emigration has set chiefly toward America and Australia. Leaving out of account the mission stations founded for work among the native population, it may be said that the distribution of the Catholic churches throughout South Africa roughly indicates the chief centres where Irishmen are found, and the growth of Catholic organization in South African colonies has run on parallel lines with the increase of the Irish Catholic population. When Bishop Ullathorne touched at Cape Town in 1832 on way to Australia, he found there "but one priest for the whole of South Africa". The statistics for 1909 show that for that year there were 298 priests and 1929 religious, men and women. Repeated attempts to gain a footing for Catholicism in South Africa had ended in a dismal failure. But in 1837 a new era began when the Holy See separated the South African colonies from the Vicariate Apostolic of the Maritius and sent as Vicar Apostolic to Cape Town an Irish Dominican, the Rt. Rev. Patrick. R. Griffith. Bishop Griffith's successors in Cape Town to the present day have all been Irishmen (Thomas Grimley, consecrated 1861; John Leonard, 1872; and John Rooney, 1886), and most of the churches in Cape Colony have been founded by Irish priests. Irishmen form about 90 per cent of the Catholic population of the colony. In 1847 Pius IX divided South Africa into the Western Vicariate (Cape Town and district) and the Eastern Vicariate (Eastern Cape Colony, Natal, etc.). Natal was erected into a separate vicariate three years later. After the rush to the diamond fields had brought many Irish Catholics into the district, Kimberley was erected into a vicariate in 1886 and now includes the Orange River Colony. There were very few Catholics in the Transvaal until the opening out of the Rand gold field brought a rush of Irish immigrants to what is now Johannesburg. Until 1885 the handful of Catholics in the Republic were attached to the Natal vicariate. The Transvaal was then made a prefecture Apostolic. It was erected into a separate vicariate in 1904, when an Irish prelate, the Rt. Rev. W. Miller, O. M. I., was consecrated as its first bishop. Rhodesia is a prefecture Apostolic which has grown out of the Zambesi mission, founded by the Jesuits before the coming of the pioneers of the South African Company brought with it an influx of white settlers. Basutoland is another prefecture, but there is a very limited white population, the Basutos having preserved a semi-independence under the supervision of a British "Resident". The Vicariate Apostolic of the Orange River, erected in 1901, is another district which has a scattered white population, living in a thinly peopled country, where the mission stations have mainly to do the work for the natives. It includes the north-west and part of the centre of Cape Colony, its northern boundary being the lower course of the Orange River. It is interesting to note that the Church obtained its first foothold in this district in 1873, when the Cape Government handed over to Catholic missionaries a mission station in Namaqualand, which had been abandoned by the Protestant Rhenish Society during the Bushman insurrection. The census of Cape Colony, 1904, states the total population as 2,409,804, of whom 549,741 were whites. The religious census gives the total Catholic population as 37,000 of whom 28,480 were whites. This latter figure includes Catholic soldiers in garrison. Taking 90 per cent as the proportion of Irish Catholics, the total for the two Vicariates (Eastern and Western) would be about 25,000. A large proportion of the priests and religious are Irish, and it has already been mentioned that the Vicar Apostolic of Cape Town is an Irish prelate. So is the Vicar Apostolic of the Eastern District at Port Elizabeth, the Rt. Rev. Hugh McSherry, who was consecrated at Dundalk, in 1896, by Cardinal Logue, primate of all Ireland. The chief centres of Irish population in the colony are Cape Town and the adjacent townships, and Port Elizabeth, East London, and the adjoining districts. Very few Irish Catholics are resident outside these towns or engaged in farming. There are more than thirty convents in the colony, each the centre of various active good works. The oldest of these convents in South Africa is that of Our Lady of Good Hope, Grahamstown, founded by Irish nuns in 1849. Another instance of Irish pioneer work may be noted -- the oldest Church in Grahamstown, St. Patrick's, opened in 1844, was largely built by the voluntary labour of Irish soldiers. There are convents of the Sisters of Nazareth at Cape Town, supported by the offerings of men of all religious denominations. There is a special mission to the leper colony, isolated on Robben Island. Other institutions and charitable works are orphanages, deaf and dumb institutions, and nursing homes. The chief organizations among the Irish Catholics are confraternities established in most of the churches. The St. Vincent de Paul Society is almost exclusively officered by Irishmen. Many of the Catholic schools of the colony receive government aid. The high schools, the most important of which is the Jesuit college at Grahamstown, send up their pupils for the degrees of the University of Cape Town, which is an examining, not a teaching, body. There are about three hundred conversions annually among the white non-Catholic population. The Natal Vicariate includes Natal, Zululand, and the Transkei district of Cape Colony. The priests are mostly French missionaries (Oblates of Mary), but there are some Irish members of the Order, and about one-third of the nuns are Irish. There is a large coloured Catholic population (Africans and Tamil immigrants from India), some 20,000 in all. The ecclesiastical returns up to mid-summer, 1909, fix the white Catholic population at 7458. This includes troops in garrison. The permanent Irish Catholic population (colonists) is estimated at about 3000. They are found chiefly in Durban, Pietermaritzburg, Ladysmith, and the Transkei. Catholic organization is on the same general lines as in Cape Colony. The parochial elementary schools and some of the secondary schools receive government aid. The Kimberley Vicariate, with its centre in the Diamond City, includes the Orange River Colony, Bechuanaland, and the greater part of Griqualand, an extent of about 200,000 square miles. The Catholics do not number quite 5000. There are some 1500 in Kimberley; about 95 per cent of them are Irish by birth or descent. Scattered in small groups through Bechuanaland and Griqualand there are about 360, nearly all of Irish blood. There are some 2000 in the Orange River Colony, of whom about 80 percent are Irish. The total Irish Catholic population may be taken at between three and four thousand. The vicar Apostolic, the Rt. Rev. Matthew Gaughren, is an Irishman, as was his predecessor. There are only nineteen priests to serve this huge district. Eight are Irish. There are nearly a hundred nuns, of whom half are Irish women. The Sisters of Nazareth have a house at Kimberley and other orders conduct schools for girls at Kimberley, Bloemfontein, Vryburg, Beaconsfield, Kroonstad, and Mafeking. "Our Catholic schools" writes the vicar Apostolic, "are absolutely independent of the Government school system. They are not subject to inspection and they receive no grants. The public school system finds no place for denominational schools, but there is no actual hostility against them. In the Transvaal vicariate there are some 12,000 Irish Catholics under an Irish Archbishop, the Rt. Rev. William Miller, O. M. I. They are chiefly found in and about Johannesburg. Many of them are Irish Americans, some of whom hold prominent positions in the gold-mining industry. There are also churches in Pretoria and thirteen other centres. Five of the twenty-six priests and about half of the nuns and Christian brothers (167) are Irish. The nuns are mostly engaged in teaching. The Sisters of Nazareth have a house in Johannesburg. In the scattered mission districts of the Orange River Vicariate there are very few Irish Catholics. There are perhaps twenty of them in the small white populations of Basutoland. In Rhodesia there are about seven hundred. One hears of them from time to time in the narratives of the Jesuit missionaries published in the "Zambesi Mission Record". In the remote regions of the mission in its earliest days the Jesuits often came upon and were gladly helped by an Irish mining prospector or a trooper of the mounted police. When William Woodbyrne was pioneering and prospecting in Mashonaland, his wagon was often for weeks at a time the centre of operations of a Jesuit missionary. Among notable Irish Catholics in South Africa may be mentioned Michael Gallwey, a lawyer of marked ability and for many years Chief Justice of Natal; the Hon. A. Wilmot, K. S. G., who is Irish on the mother's side; Mr. Justice Shell, one of the judges of Cape Colony; Sir William St. John Carr of Johannesburg; the Hon. John Daverin, M. L. C., and Mr. Beauclerk Uppington, M. L. A. The Catholic episcopate has from the outset been mainly Irish. Though many Irish Catholics are connected with colonial journalism in South Africa, the Catholics have not yet any newspaper of their own. The "Catholic Magazine" published monthly at Cape Town, is their chief literary organ. Some of the missionaries issue regular reports, the most important of which is the "Zambesi Mission Record" (monthly). The leading colleges and convent boarding-schools have their school magazines. The "Catholic Directory for British South Africa", issued annually from the Salesian Press, Cape Town, since 1904, forms a valuable record of progress. VI. SOUTH AMERICA In the records of the Latin republics of South America there is ample record of the traditional genius of the sons of St. Patrick to assimilate themselves with whatever people their lot may be presently cast. A number of them took a leading part in the establishment of the independence of several of these governments, and their names are enshrined among their titular heroes of these nations. In Paraguay, in 1555, there was a revolution headed by one Nicholas Colman. He is reputed to have been a Celt, but the records are not definite. Remembering how intimate, from a remote period, were the social and commercial relations between Ireland and Spain, the parent of most of the South American countries, it is not to be wondered at, perhaps, that even in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries so many Irish soldiers of fortune, and missionaries, and adventurers found their way across the ocean to the banks of the Amazon and the Plate. Ignoring Colman's claim as the pioneer, the first Irishman whose name appears without contradiction in South American history is the Jesuit Father Thomas Field, who was born in Limerick in 1549, and spent ten years in Brazil and forty in the famous missions in Paraguay of which, with Father de Ortega, he was the founder. At one time he was the only missionary in all Paraguay, and he lived there longer than any other member of his order. Father Thomas Field's parents were William Field, a physician, and his wife Janet Creah. He took a classical course at Paris, studied philosophy for three years at Louvain, and then entered the Society of Jesus at Rome, 6 October, 1574. After six months in the novitiate he showed such progress and solidity of virtue that he was allowed to volunteer for the mission in Brazil. Leaving Rome on 28 April, 1575, he begged his way on foot to St. James of Compostella in Spain and thence to Lisbon, where he remained for two years, mainly at Coimbra. He arrived in Brazil in 1577, and thenceforward his name is usually found transformed into "Filde". Here, under the guidance of the venerable Father Joseph Anchieta, "the Apostle and Thaumaturgus of Brazil", he was trained in the apostolic life and by him was selected to go to evangelize Tucumán and Paraguay. Father Anchieta, in his annual letter to his superiors for the year 1591, says: "There are three fathers in Paraguay whom its appears have been sent from Brazil . . . they traverse many and vast regions and have brought many thousands of barbarians to the fold of Christ, a work in which they are much helped by their knowledge of the Guaraní language." And the "Letters" for 1592 and 1594 say "Father Solanio sent Fathers de Ortega and Filde to the Guaraní, and it is known that they converted more than two thousand of them." "Father Thomas Filde and Father de Ortega were sent into the province of Guayrá, which lies between Paraguay and Brazil. They have a residence established in Villa Rica, and from thence they go in missions to give spiritual help to innumerable peoples." Among those converted by them were the Ibiragaras, a nation of ten thousand cannibals. The two missionaries remained in Guayrá for eight years and then proceeded to Asunción. In the early part of 1605, Father Filde was the only Jesuit left in all of Tucumán and Paraguay. During the thirteen years he toiled in these missions it is estimated Father Filde and his companions baptized 150,000 Indians. It was at the village of Parapo that, on 2 July, 1610, 200 of these converts were gathered and formed by Father Macheto Cataldino into "Loreto", the first of the historic "Reductions", and the model for all the subsequent communities that made up the "Christian Republic of Misiones". In 1615 Father Filde was made the teacher of Guaraní and other Indian languages to the young Jesuits who were being trained for the missions. In the catalogue of Irish Jesuits for 1617, Father "Thomas Field" is set down as being in Paraguay. He died at Asunción in 1626, retaining an extraordinary physical vigour to the end, in spite of heroic mortifications and zeal for souls. With this illustrious soul, the record, honourable in all its details, of the Irish element in the Latin American countries begins. Its ramifications are as extended as they are curious and unexpected. At the period preceding the wars of independence, the remarkable fact is presented of Irish-born viceroys governing Mexico, Peru, and Chile for Spain. There were eight Irish regiments in the Spanish service at the opening of the eighteenth century. At its close the Napoleonic Wars brought Spain as an ally of France under the harrow of many English schemes for the spoilation of her South American treasure house and the emancipation from her rule of the several colonies there. In the invading as well as in the colonial armies Irish soldiers were conspicuous. It was then that the foundations of the chief Irish colony, that of the Argentine Republic, were laid. In 1765 a Captain McNamara with two privateering ships attempted to take Colonia (in front of Buenos Aires) from the Spaniards. His ship caught fire and he, and all but 78 of his crew of 262, were lost. The saved were in large part Irish who settled down in the country and became the progenitors of many families with Celtic patronymies still to be found in the Argentine rural provinces. On 24 June, 1906, General William Carr Beresford, an illegitimate son of the Marquess of Waterford, at the head of another English expedition, which had in its ranks hundreds of Irish soldiers, captured the city of Buenos Aires and held it for nearly two months, only surrendering then to overwhelming odds. Again these soldiers contributed numbers of Irish settlers to the country. On 27 June 1907, a third English expedition under General Whitelocks arrived off Buenos Aires. One of its regiments was the 88th, the famous "Connaught Rangers". It also ended disastrously, but left its Irish addition to the local population. Following we come to the period, 1810-1824, when Buenos Aires was the revolutionary centre of the various efforts that led to the separation from Spain of her south American colonies, and in most of these Irishmen and their sons were prominent. In Buenos Aires there is no name more honoured in the list of Argentina's patriots than that of Admiral William Brown (q. v.). He had as companions in arms Dillons, O'Gormans, O'Farrells, Sheridans, Butlers, and others. Peter Sheridan, who arrived from Cavan early in the eighteenth century, and Thomas Armstrong from King's County were among the founders of Argentina's great wool industry. Sheridan's brother, Dr. Hugh Sheridan, served under Admiral Brown, and his son, who died at Buenos Aires in 1861, was a famous painter of South American landscapes. The interests of religion in the little Irish colony were first looked after by a friar named Burke, and when he died, Archbishop Murray of Dublin sent out by request Father Patrick Moran, who arrived at Buenos Aires 11 February, 1829. He died there the following May, and was succeeded, October, 1831, by Father Patrick O'Gorman, also from Dublin, who was chaplain until his death, 3 March, 1847, his flock greatly increasing. In the great Irish exodus following the famine years Argentina received a substantial part of the exile throng. Their counsellor and friend was the Dominican, Fr. Anthony D. Fahy. Born at Loughres, County Gallway, in 1804, he made his ecclesiastical studies at St. Clement's, Rome. Then he spent two years on the missions in the United States, in Ohio and Kentucky, after which he was sent to Buenos Aires, where he arrived in 1843. For more than a quarter of a century, until his death from yellow fever, caught while attending a poor Italian, in 1871, his name is intimately identified with the progress and welfare, spiritual and temporal, of the large Irish community in Buenos Aires. In 1856 he brought out a community of Sisters of Mercy under Mother Mary Evangelist Fitzpatrick from Dublin, and built a spacious convent for them. To this have since been added a hospital, a boarding school for girls, and a home for immigrants. In 1873 a branch convent was established as Mercedes about sixty miles distant. In April, 1881, the irreligious sentiment rife in Buenos Aires drove the whole community of eighteen sisters to Australia. In the meantime the real Catholics of Buenos Aires had become ashamed of the cowardice that had allowed the Sisters of Mercy to be forced out of the city by the anti-clerical faction. Petitions were addressed to the Sisters, to the Bishop of Adelaide, and to Rome, asking that the community be sent back. In 1890, six of the Sisters from the Mount Gambier convent, Adelaide, were permitted to return. Their old convent at Rio Bamba was restored to them; their schools reopened; a house for immigrant girls established and within a year $20,000 subscribed to put their orphanage on a secure footing. Father Fahy, moreover, had priests specially trained for this mission at All Hallows College, Dublin, and established libraries, reading rooms, schools, and other means for improving the life of the colony. An Irish Passionist, Father Martin Byrne, prepared the way for a foundation of his congregation, the pioneers of which, Fathers Timothy Pacetti and Clement Finnegan, arrived at Buenos Aires from the United States, 14 December, 1880. In 1881 Father Fidelis (James Kent Stone), became the superior of their community, which in a short period was increased to fifteen priests and six novices, mostly Irish Americans. Their fine monastery of the Holy Cross was dedicated on 10 January, 1886, and the splendid church attached to it in 1897. In 1897 Father Fidelis established another house of the Passionists near Valparaiso, Chile, and built and had dedicated on 19 March, 1898, the church attached to the monastery of St. Paul of the Cross at Sarmiento. For many years the Irish colony at Buenos Aires included the famous statistician Michael G. Mullhall (q. v.). In the same field was William Bulfin, editor of a Catholic weekly "The Southern Cross". Born near Birr, King's County, in 1862, he arrived in Buenos Aires in 1884, and spent several years in ranch and commercial life, during which, over the pen-name "Che Buono" he contributed "Tales of the Pampas" and "Sketches of Buenos Aires" to various magazines and publications. In 1892 he joined forces with Michael Dineen, and became a member of the staff of "The Southern Cross", which had been established in 1874, and finally its proprietor and chief editor, in which capacity, he was a leader of thought and progress of the Irish Argentine community. He died in Ireland during a visit there, 2 February, 1910. Another weekly paper circulating in this section is the "Hiberno-Argentine Review". It is estimated that the Irish form about one per cent of the population of Argentina. As the official statistics record them in the tables as natives of Great Britain, positive figures from that source are unavailable. The unmistakable names show, however, that they are well represented in all the walks of political, commercial, professional, and social life. Chile and Peru revere the memory of a famous Irishman, Ambrose O'Higgins (q. v.), the "Great Viceroy (1720-1801) and his son, Bernard (q. v.), the dictator of Chile (1776-1842). In more recent years, Peru and Chile owed much to the enterprise of another Irishman, William R. Grace (q. v.). In 1851 he began his extensive business at Callao, Peru, with his partner, John Bryce. General John McKenna, born 20 October, 1771, at Cloger, Co. Tyrone, Ireland, was sent, when a boy, to his uncle, Count O'Reilly, at Madrid, and graduated from the military academy at Barcelona, in 1878. In 1796, he went to Peru, where he became one of the leading governmental functionaries. He was on a public work in Chile when the revolution against Spain broke out in September, 1810, and espoused the patriot cause, in which, under Bernard O'Higgins, he did remarkable service. He was killed in a duel on 21 November, 1814. Vicuna McKenna, the statesman and historian of later years, was his grandson, Other Irishmen notable in South American history are Generals John Thurmond O'Brian, Daniel Florence O'Leary, and John Devereux. O'Brian was born in the south of Ireland in 1790 and reached Buenos Aires in 1816. He was with San Martin's army during the campaigns of Chile and Peru, and at the conclusion of the war, in 1821, turned his attention to mining, at which he essayed some remarkable engineering feats. He visited Europe in 1847 as a diplomatic agent and tried to direct Irish emigration to South America. He died at Lisbon in May, 1861. In January, 1819, General John Devereux, who is styled the "Lafayette of South America", because he had offered his sword and fortune to Simón Bolivar, the Liberator of Bolivia, was commissioned by the latter to go to Ireland and enlist an Irish legion for the aid of the revolution. He landed nearly 2000 men in South America in January, 1820. The legion won the decisive battle of Carabobo on 24 June, 1821. Among its officers was Colonel (afterwards General) Daniel Florence O'Leary (b. at Cork, 14 Feb., 1801; d. at Rome in 1868), often employed by Bolivar on important diplomatic missions. His memoirs, letters, and documents, compiled by his son, were published by the Venezuelan Government. General John O'Connor, who claimed to be a descendant of the last King of Ireland, raised a regiment of volunteers and brought them to Peru at his own expense, and fought all through the campaigns of Venezuela and New Granada. After the end of hostilities he was made minister of War in Bolivia and died in 1870 at an advanced age. Among other Irish soldiers of note in these wars might be mentioned Major Thomas Craig, Major John King, Colonel Charles O'Carroll, Lieut. Colonel Moran, Captain Charles Murphy, and Lieutenant Maurice O'Connell. All through these Latin republics there are hundreds of families, the grandchildren of these men, who bear these and other Irish names, but who are as Spanish in language and character as any of their compatriots of pure Spanish descent. In Argentina this condition is especially notable. I. IN THE UNITED STATES: Pendergast, The Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland (New York, 1868); D'Arcy McGee, A History of the Irish Settlers in North America (Boston, 1852); Harrison, The Scot in Ulster (Edinburgh, 1888); D'Arcy McGee, A Popular History of Ireland (Glasgow); Walpole, A Short History of the Kingdom of Ireland (New York, 1882); O'Kane Murray, Popular History of the Catholic Church in the United States (New York, 1876); De Courcy, History of the Catholic Church in America, ed. by J. G. Shea (New York, New York, 1857); Bagenal, The American Irish (Boston, 1882); Maguire, The Irish in America (New York, 1868); Immigration into the United States, U. S. Bureau of Statistics, Monograph (Washington, 1903); Thébaud, Ireland, Past and Present (New York, 1901); Stephenson Gregg, Irish History for English Readers (New York, 1886); Kapp, Immigration and the Commissioners of Emigration of the State of New York (New York, 1870); Conyngham, The Irish Brigade and Its Campaigns (New York, 1867); Young, Tour in Ireland (1776-1779) (reprint) (London, 1892); Treacy, Old Catholic Maryland and its early Jesuit Missionaries (1889); O'Donoghue, The Geographical Distribution of Irish Ability (Dublin, 1906); O'Rourke, History of the Great Irish Famine of 1847 (Dublin, 1902); The Original Lists of Persons of Quality; emigrants; religious exiles; political rebels; serving men sold for a term of years; apprentices; children stolen; maidens pressed; and others who went from Great Britain to the American Plantations -- 1600-1700, edited from manuscripts preserved etc. by John Camden Hotten (New York, 1874); A. M. Sullivan, New Ireland (Philadelphia, 1878); Lester, The Glory and Shame of England (New York, 1866); O'Connor, The Parnell Movement (London, 1887); O'Neill Daunt, Ireland and Her Agitators (Dublin, 1867); Annals of the Sisters of Mercy (New York, 1889); Spading, The Religious Mission of the Irish People, etc. (New York, 1880); Hanna, The Scotch-Irish, or the Scot in North Britain, North Ireland, and North America (New York, 1802); Abstract of the 12th Census (1900); and other Census and Emigration Reports (Washington); files of the Boston Pilot and other Irish and Catholic newspapers; American Catholic Historical Society Publications (Boston, 1898-1906); American Catholic Historical Researches (Philadelphia, 1884-1910); Cullen, The Story of the Irish in Boston (Boston, 1889); Campbell, History of the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick (Philadelphia, 1892). II. IN AUSTRALIA: Files of the Freeman's Journal (Sydney); New Zealand Tablet (Dunedin); Advocate, Tribune (Melbourne); The Age (Adelaide); Southern Cross (Perth); Duffy, Life in the Two Hemispheres (London, 1903); and the bibliography given with the article Australia. III. IN CANADA: Davin, The Irishman in Canada (London, 1877); O'Callaghan, Documentary History of the State of New York, X (Albany, 1858); O'Callaghan, The Irish Brigades in the Service of France (New York, 1874); MacGuire, The Irish in America (London, 1877); Reports of the Canadian Archives (Ottawa, 1905); MacMillan, The Early History of Prince Edward Island (Quebec, 1905); The Canada Yearbook (Ottawa, 1908); Vie de Madame d'Youville (Ville Marie, 1852); Ferland, Biographical Notice of Joseph Octave Plessis, Bishop of Quebec (Quebec, 1864); Têtu, Journal des visits pastorales de Mgr Plessis (Quebec, 1903); Alexis, L'Eglise Catholique au Canada (Quebec, 1909); Morice, History of the Cath. Church in Western Canada (Toronto, 1910); Laut, The Conquest of the Great Northwest (2 vols, Toronto, 1909). IV. IN GREAT BRITAIN: Bellerheim, Hist. of Cath. Ch. in Scotland, IV (Edinburgh, 1890); MacCaffrey, Hist. of Cath. Ch. in the Nineteenth Century II (Dublin, 1909); O'Brien, Two Centuries of Irish History, 1691-1870 (London, 1907); Gern, The Making of Ireland and Its Undoing (London, 1908); Denvir, The Irish in Britain (London, 1892); Boyle, St. Vincent de Paul and the Vincentians in Ireland, Scotland, and England (London, 1909); Census for England and Wales (London, 1901); Census for Scotland (London, 1901); Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland (Dublin, 1899-1908); Catholic Directory for England (London, 1910); Catholic directory for Scotland (Glasgow, 1910); Statesman's Yearbook (London, 1910); The Catholic Who's Who (London, 1910). V. IN SOUTH AFRICA: The above article is based on the official census returns and on detailed communications kindly supplied to the writer by the Vicars Apostolic of the Eastern vicariate of Cape Colony, Kimberley, and Natal. VI. IN SOUTH AMERICA: Southey, History of Brazil (London, 1810; Sp. tr. Rio de Janiero, 1862); Gay, Historia fisica y politica de Chile (Santiago, 1844-65); Simon B. O'Leary, Memorias del General O'Leary (Caracas, 1879); Dawson, South American Republics (London, 1903); Markham, History of Peru (Chicago, 1893); Arana, Historia General de Chile (Santiago, 1884-85); Marion McM. Mullhall, Explorers in the New World (London, 1909); Fitzgerald, Ireland and Her People (Chicago, 1909-1910); Webb, Compendium of Irish Biography (London, 1878); Hogan, Distinguished Irishmen of the Sixteenth Century (London, 1894); Dict. Nat. Biog., s. vv.; The Standard, The Southern Cross (Buenos Aires, files). Also the bibliographies for the articles on the several Latin American counties. PETER CONDON THOMAS F. MEEHAN E.J. DEVINE D. MONTCRIEFF O'CONNOR A. HILLIARD ATTERIDGE THOMAS F. MEEHAN Irish College, in Rome Irish College, in Rome Towards the close of the sixteenth century, Gregory XIII had sanctioned the foundation of an Irish college in Rome, and had assigned a large sum of money as the nucleus of an endowment. But the pressing needs of the Irish chieftains made him think that, under the circumstances, the money might as well be used for religion by supplying the Irish Catholics with the sinews of war in Ireland as by founding a college for them at Rome. The project was revived in 1625 by the Irish bishops, in an address to Urban VIII. Cardinal Ludovisi, who was Cardinal Protector of Ireland, resolved to realize at his own expense, as a useful and lasting memorial of his protectorate, the desire expressed to the pope by the Irish bishops. A house was rented opposite Sant' Isodoro and six students went into residence 1 January, 1628. Eugene Callanan, archdeacon of Cashel, was the first rector, Father Luke Wadding being a sort of supervisor. Cardinal Ludovisi died in 1632; he was of a princely family with a large patrimony, and he made provision in his will for the college; it was to have an income of one thousand crowns a year; a house was to be purchased for it; and he left a vineyard as Castel Gandolfo where the students might pass their villeggiatura. To the surprise of his heirs no less than of Father Wadding, the cardinal's will directed that the college should be placed under the charge of the Jesuits. Both the heirs and Wadding suspected that provision and disputed it; a protracted lawsuit was finally decided in 1635 in favour of the Jesuits. On 8 Feb., 1635, they took charge of the college, and governed it until 1772. A permanent residence was secured, which became the home of the Irish students until 1798, and is still the property of the college; it has given its name to the street in which it stands. The Jesuits found eight students before them; one of these, Philip Cleary, after a brilliant academic course, left for the mission in Ireland in 1640, and suffered death for the Faith ten years later. The first Jesuit rector became general of the Society; he was succeeded by Father James Forde who was succeeded in 1637 by Father William Malone, a successful combatant in controversy with Archbishop Usher. In 1650 Monsignor Scarampo of the Oratory, on return from his embassy to the Kilkenny Confederation, brought with him two students to the Irish College; one was Peter Walsh, who became a distinguished Oratorian; the other was Oliver Plunkett, who was kept in Rome as professor at Propaganda until his appointment to the see of Armaugh in 1670, whence he was promoted to a martyr's crown at Tyburn. Philip Cleary's name is amongst those who cause is before the Congregation of Rites; and the cause of Oliver Plinkett is so far advanced that his Alma Mater hopes ere long to venerate him on the altar of its chapel. In the archives of the college is preserved an autograph of Oliver Plunkett, written by him when he was about to leave. John Brennan, one of his contemporaries, also became a professor at Propaganda; whence he was appointed Bishop of Waterford, and then Archbishop of Cashel. Soon after came several remarkable students -- Ronin Maginn; James Kusack, Bishop of Meath; Peter Creagh, successively Bishop of Cork and Cloyne, and Archbishop of Dublin. In the earliest part of the eighteenth century, one of the students, Roch MacMahon, made his name in Irish history as Bishop of Cloger; another, Hugh MacMahon, Archbishop of Armaugh, asserted the precedence of that see to Dublin in a work of great learning, "Jus Primatiale Armacanum". Richard Reynolds at the end of his course was kept in Rome at tutor to the children of the Pretender; James Gallagher became Bishop of Kildare. When we consider that the college had never more than eight students at a time, and had often so few as five, if it had produced no other distinguished alumni than those named, it would have well deserved these words written by the Irish primate, Hugh MacMahon, to the rector: "If the college on account of its slender resources cannot furnish many soldiers, it provides brave and skilled captains." It was then known as the "Seminarium Episcoporum" or nursery of bishops. In other ways, however, the college had its trials and changes. It came into financial difficulties. The villa at Castel Gandolfo was sold to the Jesuit novitiate in 1667, and yet the difficulties did not disappear. It was thought, moreover, that too large a proportion of the able students found a vocation in the Society of Jesus, in spite of the purpose of the college, which trained them for the mission in Ireland. Complaints as to administration were also made, and a Pontifical Commission was deputed to make an official inquiry. It report was not favourable to the Jesuits, and in September, 1772, the college was withdrawn from their control. The present writer thinks that the Jesuits were not without some plausible pleas to justify their management of the college; and it would be strange if a close inquiry into a rectorate of 137 years did not reveal some instances of mismanagement. The college now passed from the care of the Jesuits, and an Italian priest, Abbate Luigi Cuccagni, was made rector. He was a man of acknowledged ability. Hurter says that he was the ablest of the controversialists who wrote against the form of Jansenism which was patronized by Joseph II, supported by the synod of Pistoia, and had its citadel in the University of Pavia. He is the author of several works which were in high repute in those days; and from the Irish College he edited the "Giornale Ecclesiastico di Roma", then the leading Catholic periodical in Rome. The first prefect of studies appointed under his rectorate was the famous Pietro Tamburini, who afterwards became the leader of Jansenism at Pavia. During his prefectship he delivered his lectures on the Fathers which were afterwards published at Pavia. He had to leave the college after four years; and although some very brilliant students were there in his time, it does not appear that he tried to leave, or if he tried, that he succeeded in leaving, any unorthodox influence on their minds. The rectorate of Cuccagni came to an end in 1798, when the college was closed by order of Napoleon; and thus we come to the close of another period in its history. During those twenty-six years it quite equalled its previous prestige. For, although its number of students was sometimes as low as three, it sent forth Dr. Lanigan the historian, who promoted directly from being a student of the Irish college to the chair of Scripture at Pavia; Dr. Charles O'Connor, author of "Scriptores Rerum Hibernicarum" and several others works; James R. Clerigh, who never became a priest, but was a well-known Catholic leader in Ireland a century ago; Dr. Ryan, Bishop of Ferns; Dr. McCarthy, Coadjutor Bishop of Cork; Dr. Blake, Bishop of Dromore. Dr. Blake, who was the last student to leave the college at its dissolution in 1798, returned a quarter of a century later to arrange for its revival, which was effected by a brief of Leo XII, dated 18 Feb., 1826. He became the first rector of the restored college, and among the first students who sought admission was Francis Mahoney of Cork, known to the literary world as Father Prout. Having set the college well to work, Dr. Blake returned to Ireland, and was succeeded by Dr. Boylan, of Maynooth, who soon resigned and died in 1830. He was succeeded by a young priest who had just completed a singularly brilliant course at Propaganda, and who governed it with great success until 1849, when he became Archbishop of Armaugh, and then Archbishop of Dublin, and finally Cardinal Cullen. Within two years of his rectorate he had forty students in the college; and to provide proper accommodations for the increasing numbers who sought admission, the present building with the Church of St. Agatha was given to the college in 1835 by Gregory XVI. Two years later Dr. Cullen purchased a fine country villa as a summer home, amid the olive groves which cover the slopes of the Sabine hills near Trivolli. Amongst the distinguished students who passed through the college during Dr. Cullen's rectorate were: Rev. C. P. Meehan; Dr. Edmund O'Reilly, S. J.; Bishop Croke; Cardinal Moran; Archbishop Dunne of Brisbane. Dr. Cullen was succeeded by Dr. Kirby, well known for his holiness of life. He governed the college for more than forty years. His successor was Michael Kelly, the present coadjutor to the Archbishop of Sydney. The college has received several privileges of various kinds from popes. Before 1870 the students had the privilege of carrying the baldacchino part of the way during the procession on the feast of Corpus Christi, on which occasion the pope carried the Blessed Sacrament. Gregory XVI paid a visit to the college in 1837; and on St. Patrick's Day, 1860, Pius IX assisted at Mass in the college church, after which he held a reception at the college. A similar gift was made to the college during this present year (1909) by Pius X, in memory of his jubilee. The heart of Daniel O'Connell is buried in the college church. Archives of the Irish College, Rome; La Relazione del Cardinale Marefoschi; Hurter, Nomenclator; Giornale Ecclesiastico di Roma (1780-1798). M. O'RIORDAN Irish Colleges on the Continent Irish Colleges, on the Continent The religious persecution under Elizabeth and James I lead to the suppression of the monastic schools in Ireland in which the clergy for the most part received their education. It became necessary, therefore, to seek education abroad, and many colleges for the training of the secular clergy were founded on the Continent, at Rome, in Spain and Portugal, in Belgium, and in France. The history of the Irish college and of the other Irish establishments in Rome is dealt with in special articles (see Irish College, The, in Rome, etc.). That of the other Irish colleges on the continent may, for the sake of order. be given in separate sections, according to the countries in which they existed. IN SPAIN AND PORTUGAL Salamanca The most famous of the Irish colleges in Spain was that of Salamanca, founded, at the petition of Father Thomas White, S. J., by a decree of Philip III, dated 1592, and opened in 1593 with the title: El Real Colegio de Nobles Irlandeses. The support of the students was provided for by a royal endowment. The discipline and management of the college was entrusted to the Jesuit fathers at Salamanca, an Irish father holding the office of vice-rector. The Jesuits continued to govern the college until the order was expelled from Spain in 1767. Since that date the rectors of the college have been selected from amongst the Irish secular clergy, presented by the bishops of Ireland and confirmed by the King of Spain. Dr. Birmingham was the first rector after the departure of the Jesuits. Dr. Curtis, subsequently Bishop of Armaugh, held office from 1781 to 1812, and rendered valuable service to the Duke of Wellington during the Peninsular War. In more recent years,. Dr. William McDonald, of the Diocese of Armaugh, Father Cowan, of Dromore, Father Bernard Maguire, of Cloghger have been rectors. That office is presently held by the Very Rev. Michael O'Doherty, D. D., a priest from the Diocese of Achinry. The Irish college at Salamanca was open to students from all the provinces of Ireland, but in the seventeenth century, the majority of them came from the southern and eastern provinces. It was made cause of complaint that Father White, S. J., was unwilling to receive students from Ulster and Connaught, and the exiled Irish chiefs, O'Neil and O'Donnell, presented a remonstrance on the subject to the King of Spain. The students attended lectures in the famous University of Salamanca, and the college was the nursing mother of many eminent Irish ecclesiastics. Dr. Curtis of Armaugh, Dr. Murray of Dublin, Dr. Kelley of Tuam, Dr. Laffam, and Dr. Everard of Cashel were all alumni of Salamanca, the last four being fellow-students. At present the Irish students at Salamanca number about thirty, and attend lectures at the diocesan seminary which has taken the place of the theology faculty of the ancient university. The college is supported chiefly by ancient endowments, which are subject to the control of the Spanish Government. Seville About 1612 a college for Irish students was established at Seville, and managed by secular priests, one of whom was Theobald Stapleton, who afterwards died a martyr in Ireland, being stabbed while administering Holy Communion. In 1619, Father Richard Conrad, S. J., was appointed rector. When he entered upon office, the personnel of the college -- superiors, students, and servants -- numbered eighteen. They suffered much from poverty. Their condition moved many to compassion. The fishermen at Seville obtained an indult from Pope Paul V, permitting them to fish on six Sundays and holidays each year in order that they might gave the profits of their labour for the support of the Irish students. For the same purpose Irish merchants at Seville granted to the college a percentage on every cask of wine they sold. Soldiers in the Irish Brigade of the Spanish service gave a portion of their pay. With such aid the college continued to exist and was able to send every year two priests to the Irish mission. One of the students of the college, Dominic Lynch, became president in the University of Seville. In 1769, the Irish college at Seville, with all its goods, rents, and rights, was, by royal authority, amalgamated with that of Salamanca. Madrid In 1629 a college for Irishmen was founded by Father Theobald Stapleton, who has already been mentioned in connection with the college at Seville. The number of students varied from ten to twenty, supported by the charity of benefactors. The college served as a hospice for those Irish ecclesiastics who, having completed their studies, came to the capital to claim the bounty of £10 which the King of Spain had granted to Irish students in the peninsula, to enable them to return to Ireland. In 1677, Dr. James Lynch, Archbishop of Tuam, resided for some time at Madrid and succeeded in restoring the college to greater prosperity. but eventually it was closed, and its property lost to the Church in Ireland. Alcalá In Alcalá, anciently Complutum, famous for its university, and for its polyglot edition of the Bible, an Irish college was founded in 1590, by a Portuguese nobleman named George Sylveira, a descendant, though his mother, of the Macdonnells of Ulster. He bestowed on the college an endowment of the value of £2000, and, at a cost of £1000, built a chapel to his patron, St. George. At Alcalá there were four masters, twenty students, and eight students. The ancient college has long since ceased to exist. Santiago de Compostela In 1605 a college for Irish ecclesiastics was founded at Compostela. Philip III bestowed upon it an endowment of £100 a year. It was under the direction of the Jesuits. In 1671 there were six students. At the conclusion of the philosophy course all went to Salamanca for their theological studies. In 1769 the property of the college at Santiago de Compostela was amalgamated with that of the college at Salamanca. Lisbon Besides the college in Spain there existed also an Irish establishment in Portugal. The college was founded by Royal Charter in 1593, under the title: Collegio de Estudiantes Irlandeses sub invocaçaon de San Patricio en Lisboa. Like the other Irish colleges in the peninsula it was placed under the management of the Jesuits. The celebrated Stephan White, S. J., was one of its earliest pupils. During the great earthquake which almost destroyed the city of Lisbon in 1755, the Irish college and its inmates suffered no injury. Not long after it suffered from the malice of men. In 1769 it was closed and confiscated by Pombal, under the pretext that it was a Jesuit establishment. But in 1782, an Irish secular priest, Dr. Michael Brady, succeeded in having the college restored to the Irish. Dr. Brady was succeeded in the office of rector by Dr. Bartholomew Crotty, subsequently president of Maynooth, and Bishop of Cloyne. Dr. Crotty held the office of rector from 1801 to 1811. During his tenure of office, an invitation was addressed by Dr. John Baptist Walsh, rector of the Irish college to Paris, to the students in Lisbon, to come to his college at Paris, an invitation of which the bishops of Ireland expressed their disapproval. The number of students in the Irish college as Lisbon during the eighteenth century was from twelve to fourteen. During the French Revolution it increased to thirty or forty, to fall again to fourteen after 1815. Dr. Burke, Archbishop of Tuam, Dr. Talbot, Dr. Russell, and Dr. Carpenter, Archbishop of Dublin; Dr. Verdun, Bishop of Ferns, and Dr. Kelly, Bishop of Waterford, were Lisbon students. During the civil wars in Lisbon, during the nineteenth century, the college was closed, and has not since been reopened. Besides the colleges for education of secular clergy at Lisbon there was also a convent of Irish Dominican Fathers, and a convent of Irish Dominican nuns, both of which exist at the present day, the former at Corpo Santo, Lisbon, and the latter at Belem in the vicinity. IN BELGIUM Louvain While the colleges in the Peninsula were doing good services for the preservation of the Faith in Ireland, other colleges for the same purpose were established in Flanders. In 1624, a college for the education of priests, with the title "Collegium Pastorale", was founded at Louvain, in virtue of a charter granted by the Holy See, at the instance of the Most Rev. Eugene Macmahon, Archbishop of Dublin. Urban VIII gave a donation for the support of the college, and the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda bestowed on it an allowance of 240 scudi. Burses were also founded by various benefactors, the aggregate value of which amounted to 73, 217 flourins. The first rector of the college was Nicholas Aylmer. The students at the first commencement were six in number. In 1643 there were four priests, and six students in philosophy. At the close of the eighteenth century the number had increased to forty. Many distinguished Irish ecclesiastics were students of the pastoral college at Louvain. One of its rectors, Thomas Stapleton, held also the office of rector of the university for seven terms. Besides the secular colleges, convents for the Irish regular clergy were established at Louvain. Of these the most ancient and the most celebrated was the Franciscan College of St. Anthony of Padua, founded in 1606 at the request of Florence Conry, Archbishop of Tuam. The number of Irish friars at St. Anthony's in the seventeenth century was about forty. In this convent lived John Cogan, the celebrated Irish hagiologist, author of the "Trias Thaumaturga" and of "Lives of the Irish Saints." Here, too, lived Hugh Ward, Father Mooney, Brendan O'Connor, and Bonaventure O'Doherty, who so ably assisted Michael O'Cleary in collecting materials for the great work known as the "Annals of the Four Masters". The Franciscans of St. Anthony's did great work to the cause of religion by printing books of instruction in the Irish tongue. At Louvain were printed the Irish catechism of Bonaventure O'Hussey (1608), "The Mirror of Penance" by Hugh MacCaughwell (1618), "The Mirror of Religion" by Florence Conry (1626), O'Cleary's vocabulary (1643), "The Paradise of the Soul" by Anthony Gernon (1645), and a moral treatise in English and Irish by Richard MacGiollacuddy (Arsdekin) (1667). It has been truly said of the convent of St. Anthony of Padua at Louvain, "No Franciscan college has maintained with more zeal than this, the character of the order as expressed in their motto, Doctrina et Scientia." At the close of the eighteenth century, the number of friars at St. Anthony's was seventeen. In 1796 the convent was closed to the Irish, and sold. There existed also at Louvain a convent of Irish Dominicans, founded in 1608, known as the convent of the Holy Cross. A letter of the nuncio at Brussels, in 1675, gave the names of thirty-three Dominicans, who had gone from Holy Cross to labour in the mission in Ireland. The Irish Dominican convent in Louvain was closed in 1797. A convent of Irish Benedictine nuns was established at Ypres in 1682, where for more than two centuries Irish women aspiring to religious perfection found a home. This convent has survived to the present day (1910). The colleges, secular and regular, at Louvain during two centuries of their existence gave to the Church in Ireland 32 bishops and about 300 priests, at least 200 of which were graduates in arts at the University of Louvain. Antwerp In 1629 a pastoral college was founded at Antwerp by the Rev. Laurence Selgrave, a Leinster priest, who, together with his nephew, the Rev. James Talbot, expended 13,220 flourins on the establishment of a college and became its first rector, as his nephew became its second. After their time the college suffered much from poverty and was on the point of being closed and sold to meet the claims of creditors. But during the rectorate of John Egan, prothonotary Apostolic, it received a fresh impulse. Donations were received, and creditors satisfied. Through the pro-nuncio at Brussels, the Holy See sent subventions from time to time. The number of students, usually about twelve, increased eventually to thirty. They attended lectures at the Jesuit college at Antwerp, where their distinguished countryman, Fr. Richard Archdeacon (Arsdekin), S. J., died in 1690. The pastoral colleges at Louvain and at Antwerp continued to flourish until 1795, when they were closed due to the occupation of Belgium by the French. At various times the bishops of Ireland made representations to the Belgian Government with a view to obtain the transfer of the burses to Ireland, and they have been so far successful that at the present time the annual revenue of the burses is paid through the medium of the British Foreign Office for the education of students at Maynooth College. Tournai An Irish college was founded at Tournai by Christopher Cusack. In 1689 there were eight ecclesiastics at Tournai, with an income of 200 scudi. Choiseul, Bishop of Tournai, in a letter to Innocent X, speaks thus of the Irish college: "We have here a College or Seminary of Irish youth where some poor students are supported, receive a Christian education, and are taught the Humanities. They attend the classes at the Jesuits, and are generally the first in merit." The Tournai college, like those at Louvain and Antwerp, was closed in 1795. In 1833, at the insistence of the Most Rev. Dr. O'Higgins, Bishop of Ardagh, the Belgian Government consented to transfer to the Irish college in Rome the sum of 4000 francs from the funds of the old Irish college at Tournai, IN FRANCE The colleges in the Peninsula and in Flanders rendered greats service to the Church in Ireland. but the most important of all the Irish colleges on the continent were those established in France. Douai The most ancient among these was the college at Douai, founded about 1577 by Reverend Ralph Cusack. Douai was then included in the Flemish territory subject to Spain, and in about 1604 Philip III conferred on the Irish college in that town an endowment of 5000 flourins. In 1667 Douai was taken by Louis XIV, and the Irish college there became subject to French authority. For some years the means of subsistence were scanty and precarious, but in 1750 the college recovered its prosperity. It was subject to a board of provisors who nominated the rector from a list of three candidates provided by the superiors of the Irish college in Paris. The students, about thirty in number, attended lectures at the University of Douai. In 1793 the college was closed, and in 1795 the buildings, valued at 60,000 francs, were alienated by the French Government. Lille An Irish college was founded at Lille by Ralph Cusack in virtue of letters patents granted in 1610 by Archduke Albert, and Isabella, Infanta of Spain, the Governors of the Netherlands. Foundations were made for the education of students from the Province of Leinster, more particularly for those from Meath. The right of nominating the rector was vested in the superior of the Irish Capuchins at Bar-su-Aube. The college suffered much from poverty. Its means of support were derived partly from collections made at church doors, and partly from fees received for the services the students rendered by carrying the dead at funerals. The study and use of the Irish language was encouraged, and no one unacquainted to that tongue was eligible to the office of rector. The students numbered from eight to ten, exclusively from Leinster. The college, which was valued at 20,000 francs, was confiscated and sold in 1793. Bordeaux In 1603 the Rev. Dermit MacCarthy, a priest of the Diocese of Cork, made his way to Bordeaux with about forty companions. These Irish exiles were hospitably received by Cardinal de Surdis, Archbishop of Bordeaux, who gave them a house and place them in charge of the church of St. Eutropius. The rules of the Irish community were approved by the Archbishop in 1603, and again in 1609, and were finally ratified by Paul V, in the Bull "In supremo apostolicæ dignitatus", 26 April, 1618. The Irish students at Bordeaux, like those from Lille, derived their support from alms collected at the doors of churches in the city, and from fees received from their services at funerals. In 1653, at the conclusion of the War of the Fronde, about 5000 Irish troops, previously in the service of Spain, at the suggestion of Father Cornelius O'Scanlan, rector of the college at Bordeaux, elected to take service under the flag of France. In acknowledgement of the zeal of Father O'Scanlan for the interests of France, the queen regent, Anne of Austria, bestowed on the college an endowment of 1200 livres in support of twelve priests and ten clerics, and conferred on the students the right of naturalization to enable them to receive gifts and possess benefices in the kingdom. On the same occasion the title of "Sainte-Anne-la-Royale" was given to the college. Besides the endowment of Anne of Austria, various bequests were made by benefactors; yet in 1766 the total annual revenue of the college amounted to only 2531 francs. From twenty in the seventeenth century the number of students increased, in the eighteenth, to thirty, and eventually to forty. They attended classes at the Jesuit college in the city. There were also little colonies of Irish students at Toulouse, Auch, Agen, Cahors, Condom, and Périguaux, all subject to the authority of the rector of the Irish college at Bordeaux. The rector of the college was chosen by the votes of the students, and confirmed by the archbishop for a period of three years. The system of appointment by election led to frequent disputes and was eventually abolished. Dr. Robert Barry, Bishop of Cloyne, Dr. Patrick Comerford, Bishop of Waterford, Dr. Cornelius O'Keefe and Dr. Robert Lacy, Bishops of Limerick, Dr. Dominic Bellew, Bishop of Killala, and Dr. Boetius Egan, Bishop of Tuam, were some time students at Bordeaux. Here, too, Geoffrey Keating is said to have been a student. The Abbé Edgeworth and Dr. Richard O'Reilly, subsequently Archbishop of Armaugh, studied for a short time at Bordeaux, whence the former proceeded to Paris, and the latter to Rome. The last superior of the college was the Rev. Martin Glynn, D. D., a native of the diocese of Tuam, who suffered death by sentence of the Revolutionary tribunal, at Bordeaux, 19 July, 1794. The vice-rector of the college, Dr. Everard, escaped. The students were thrown into prison, but were eventually liberated and put on board a vessel bound for Ireland. The college church, valued at 21,000 francs, was confiscated in 1793. The college was also seized but was saved from confiscation by the vigilance of an Irish priest named James Burke. After the revolution, all that remained of the property of the college at Bordeaux was placed by decree of the first consul under the control of the board of administrators of the Irish college in Paris. In 1885 the property at Bordeaux was sold for 285,635 francs and the price invested in French securities in the name of the "Foundation Catholiques Irlandaises en France". Toulouse From the commencement of the seventeenth century, there existed at Toulouse a little colony of Irish ecclesiastical students. The Irish college in that town owes its origin to Anne of Austria, who bestowed upon it, at the same time as upon the college at Bordeaux, the title of "Sainte-Anne-la-Royale", with an endowment of 1200 livres a year for the support of twelve priests. The endowment was confirmed by Louis XIV in 1659. At Toulouse the number of students never exceeded ten or twelve, chiefly natives of the province of Munster. Small though the number was, the system of appointing the rector by the votes of the students led to division, and it was judged expedient to submit the rules of discipline to Benedict XIV, who approved them by a letter addressed to the Archbishop of Toulouse on 31 August, 1753. The course of studies extended over a period of eight years, after which the students returned to the mission in Ireland. When the French Revolution broke out, the college possessed an annual revenue of 10,000 francs. In 1793, the college building and furniture, valued at 36,700 francs, were confiscated, and sold by the French Government. Nantes Nantes, on the coast of Brittany, was also the seat of an Irish college founded about 1680. In 1728 a new and more commodious college was constructed, and in 1765, by royal letters patent, the priory of St-Crispin was united with it. The number of students, at first about thirty-six, increased to sixty in 1765, and by 1792 it had reached eighty. The college was subject to the University of Nantes, but it had its own professors -- two for philosophy and two for theology -- who were obliged each term to report to the university the name of their students and the treatises they were to explain. The last rector of the college was Dr. Patrick Byrne, subsequently president of Maynooth College. In 1793 the students of the college were cast into prison and then put on board a vessel which brought them in safety to Cork. The college was not reopened in the nineteenth century. The buildings which escaped alienation were placed under the control of the administration of the Irish college in Paris. They were sold, with the sanction of the Minister of Public Instruction, in 1857, and the proceeds of the sale (100,000 francs) invested in the name of the "Foundation Catholiques Irlandaises" Poitiers A college of the Irish Jesuits was founded at Poitiers, in virtue of letters patent granted by Louis XIV, in April, 1674. Five burses for the education of students for the secular priesthood were founded here, two in 1738 by Mrs. John Maher, an Irish lady resident at Barcelona, and three by Jeremy Crowley, at Cork, in 1735. On the suppression of the Jesuits in France, the five burses were transferred to Paris. The college buildings, valued at about 10,500 francs, were alienated by the French Government. The Abbé Thomas Gould was a student at this college; known as the missionary of Poitou he preached with great success in French, and published several works in that language. The Irish Franciscans had convents in provincial France, at Bar-su-Aube, at Sedan, and at Charleville, and for some years a convent at Paris. Paris The most important of all the Irish establishments in France, and on the Continent, was the Irish college in Paris. That venerable institution, which has preserved its existence to the present day, owe its origin the Reverend John Lee, an Irish priest who came to Paris, in 1578, with six companions, and entered the Collège Montaigu. Having completed his studies he became attached to the Church of St. Severin, and made the acquaintance of a French nobleman, John de l'Escalopier, President of the Parliament of Paris. That charitable man placed at the disposal of the Irish students in Paris a house, which served them as a college, of which Father Lee became the first rector about 1605. By letters patent dated 1623, Louis XIII conferred upon the Irish priests and scholars in Paris the right to receive and possess property. The Irish college was recognized as a seminary by the University of Paris in 1624, and at that time it had already sent a large number of priests to the mission in Ireland. But the college founded by Father Lee was not spacious enough to receive the numerous Irish students who came to Paris. Some of them continued to find a home in the Collège Montaigu, others in the Collège de Boncour, while some, who were in affluent circumstances, resided in the Collège de Navarre. This state of things attracted the attention of St. Vincent de Paul and others, who sought to provide them with a more commodious residence. Later still, in 1672, it engaged the attention of the bishops of Ireland, who deputed Dr. John O'Mollony, Bishop of Killaloe, to treat with Colbert as to the establishment of a new college. What the bishops desired was eventually obtained, through the influence of two Irish priests resident in Paris: Dr. Patrick Maginn, formerly first chaplain to Queen Catherine, wife of Charles II of England, and Dr. Malachy Kelly, one of the chaplains of Louis XIV. These two ecclesiastics obtained from Louis XIV authorization to enter on possession of the Collège des Lombards, a college of the University of Paris founded for Italian students in 1333. They rebuilt the college, then in ruins, at their own expense, and became its first superiors. The acquisition of the college was confirmed by letters patent dated 1677 and 1681. Some years later the buildings were extended by Dr. John Farely, and all the Irish ecclesiastical students in Paris found a home in the Collège des Lombards. The number of students went on increasing until, in 1764, it reached one hundred and sixty. It was therefore found necessary to build a second college. The building was commenced in 1769 in rue du Cheval Vert, now rue du Irlandais, and the junior section of the students was transferred to the new college in 1776. The Irish college in Paris was open to all the counties and provinces in Ireland. The students were divided into two categories, one, the more numerous, consisting of priests already ordained in Ireland, the other of juniors aspiring to orders. Both sections attended the university classes, either at the Collège de Plessis, or at that of Navarre, or at the Sorbonne. The course of study extended over six years, of which two were given to philosophy, three to theology, and one to special preparation for pastoral work. The more talented students remained two years longer to qualify for degrees in theology, or in canon law. In virtue of the Bull of Urban VIII, "Piis Christi fidelium", dated 10 July, 1626, and granted in favour of all Irish colleges already established or to be established in France, Spain, Flanders, or elsewhere, the junior students were promoted to orders ad titulum missionis in Hiberniâ, even extra tempora, and without dimissorial letters, on the representation of the rector of the college -- a privilege withdrawn, as regards dimissorial letters, by Gregory XVI in 1835, and now entirely abrogated by transfer of Ireland to the jurisdiction of the Consistorial Congregation in 1908. The students in priestly orders were able to support themselves to a large extent by their Mass stipends. Many burses, too, were founded for the education of students at the Lombard college. Among the founders were nine Irish bishops, thirty-two Irish priests, four medical doctors, some laymen engaged in civil or military pursuits, and a few pious ladies. The college was governed in the eighteenth century by four Irish priests called provisors, one from each province of Ireland. They were elected by the votes of the students, and confirmed by the Archbishop of Paris, who, as superior major, nominated one of them to the office of principal. In 1788, the system of government by provisors was abolished, and one rector appointed. In 1792 the two Irish colleges in Paris, namely the Collège des Lombards, and the junior college, rue du Cheval Vert, were closed, as were all the other Irish college in France. The closing of the colleges on the Continent deprived the bishops of Ireland of the means of educating their clergy. They therefore petitioned the British Government for authorization to establish an ecclesiastical college at home. The petition was granted, and Maynooth College was founded in 1795. In support of their petition the bishops submitted a statement of the number of Irish ecclesiastics receiving education on the Continent when the French revolution began. From this statement is appears that out of a total of 478 Irish ecclesiastics receiving education on the Continent, 348 were resident in France, and of these, 180 were students in the Irish colleges in Paris. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, forty students of the Irish college in Paris were raised to the episcopal bench. At the same period Irishmen held an honourable place at the University of Paris. Between 1660 and 1730 more than sixty Irishmen held the office of procurator of the German nation -- one of the four sections of the faculty of arts in the ancient university. Dr. Michael Moore, an Irish priest, long held the office of principal of the Collège de Navarre, and was twice elected rector of the university. Many Irishmen held chairs in the university. Dr. Sleyne was professor at the Sorbonne. Dr. Power was professor of the college at Lisieux; Dr. O'Lonergan at the college of Reims. Dr. John Plunkett, Dr. Patrick J. Plunkett, and Dr. Flood, superiors or provisors of the Irish college, were in succession royal professors of theology at the Collège de Navarre. The students of the Irish college in Paris were pronounced opponents of Jansenism. When they returned to their native land, they, like the students of Rome, Salamanca, and Louvain, brought with them "the manners and feelings of cultivated gentlemen and a high sense of clerical decorum". After the French revolution, the Irish college in Paris was re-established by a decree of the first consul, and placed under the control of a board appointed by the French Government. To it were united the remnants of the property of the other Irish colleges in France which had escaped destruction. The college in Paris lost two-thirds of its endowments owing to the depreciation of French state funds, which had been reduced to one-third consolidated. The total loss sustained by all the Irish foundations in France amounted to 2,416,410 francs, or about $438,000. After the Restoration, the French Government placed at the disposal of the British government three million and a half sterling, to indemnify British subjects in France for the losses they had sustained in the Revolution. In 1816 a claim for indemnity was presented on behalf of the Irish college. That claim was rejected by the privy council in 1825 on the grounds that the college was a French establishment. In 1832 the claim was renewed by Dr. M'Sweeny, director of the college, with the same result. Another attempt to obtain compensation was made by the Rev. Thomas McNamara in 1870. On 9 May in that year a motion was made in the House of Lords for copies of the awards in the case of the Irish college in 1825 and 1832. This step was followed up by a motion in the House of Commons for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the claims of the college to compensation for losses sustained during the French Revolution. The motion was introduced on 30 April, 1875, by Isaac Butt, M. P. for Limerick, and, after a prolonged discussion, it was negatived by 116 to 54 votes. After 1805 the administration of the college was subject to a "Bureau de Surveillance" which gave much trouble until it was dissolved by Charles X, in 1824. After that date, the superior, appointed on presentation of the four archbishops of Ireland, became official administrator of the foundations, subject to the minister of the interior, and at a later period to the minister of public instruction. The students no longer frequented the university. The professors were Irish priests appointed by the French Government on the presentation of the Irish episcopate. In 1858, with the sanction of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda, and with the consent of the French Government, the bishops of Ireland placed the management of college in the hands of the Irish Vincentian Fathers. In recent years the number of students has been between sixty and seventy. They are admitted on nomination of the bishops, and, after a course of two years in philosophy and four years in theology, they are ordained and returned to Ireland. In the nineteenth century the college gave to the Church a long array of good priests and bishops, including Dr. Fitz Patrick, Abbott of Melleray; Dr. Maginn, Coadjutor Bishop of Derry; Dr. Keane, of Cloyne; Dr. O'Hea and Dr. Fitz Gerald of Ross; Dr. Gillooly of Elphin, and Dr. Croke of Cashel. Dr. Kelly, the present Bishop of Ross, and Dr. McSherry, vicar Apostolic at Port Elizabeth, South Africa, are also alumni of the college. The present occupant of the see of St. Patrick, H. E. Cardinal Logue, held the chair of dogmatic theology from 1866 to 1874. In the three hundred years of its existence, the college has not been without a share in the ecclesiastical literature of Ireland. Among the rectors of the college have been Thomas Messingham, prothonotary Apostolic, author of the "Florilegium Insulæ Sanctorum" (Paris, 1624); Dr. Andrew Donlevy, author of an "Anglo-Irish Catechism" (Paris, 1742); Dr. Miley, author of "A History of the Papal States" (Dublin, 1852); Dr. Thomas McNamara, author of "Programmes of Sermons" (Dublin, 1880), "Encheiridion Clericorum" (1882), and several other similar works. Abbé Mageoghegan, Sylvester O'Hallaran, Martin Haverty, and probably Geoffrey Keating, all eminent Irish historians, were students of the college. Dean Kinane, a student and then a professor in the college, is widely known for his "Dove of the Tabernacle" and numerous other devotional works. More recently, the Rev. John MacGuinness, C. M., vice-rector, has published a full course of dogmatic theology. Amongst the rectors of the college, Dr. John Farley and Dr. John Baptist Walsh, in the eighteenth century, and Dr. MacSweeney and the Rev. Thomas MacNamara, in the nineteenth, have been administrators of marked ability. Since 1873 the administration of the property of the college has been invested in a board created by a decree of the Conseil d'Etat. On that board the Archbishop of Paris was represented by a delegate, and he was also the official medium of communication between the Irish episcopate and the French Government. In December, 1906, the law of separation of Church and State in France came into operation. In the January following, the French government notified the British Government of its intention to reorganize the Irish Catholic foundations in France so as to bring them into harmony with the recent legislation regarding the Church. It was further stated that the purpose of the Government was to close the Irish college, to sell its immovable property, and to invest the proceeds of the sale, to be applied together with the existing burses for the benefit of Irish students who shall be admitted, on the presentation to the British Ambassador to France, either to the state schools or to the schools of theology which have taken the place of the diocesan seminaries. A plea for the preservation of the college has been presented on behalf of the bishops of Ireland, through the British Foreign office. The question is still undecided. The history of the Irish colleges on the Continent is a manifest proof of the tenacity with which Ireland has clung to the Catholic faith. Without the succession of priests prepared in these colleges, the preservation of the faith in Ireland in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries would have been impossible. At the present day the colleges in Ireland are sufficient to supply the needs of the Church in Ireland, but the colleges on the Continent are still useful a s a witness of the past, and they serve to bring a large section of the clergy of Ireland into contact with the life and thought and work of the Church in the ancient Catholic nations on the Continent. For the Peninsula, Irish Colleges since the Reformation in Eccl. Hist., VIII, 307, 465; Healy, Maynooth College centenary History (Dublin, 1895). -- For Belgium, Spellam, Ir. Eccl. Rec., 3rd ser., VIII, 350, 437, 641; Meehan, The Rise and Fall of the Franciscan Monasteries (Dublin, 1877); de Berck, L'Archéologie Irlandaise au couvent de Sainte-Antoine du Padoue à Louvain (Paris, 1869); Tourneur, Esquisee d'une histoire des études celtiques (Liège, 1905). -- For France, Boyle, The Irish College in Paris (1578-1905) with a brief sketch of the other Irish colleges in France (London and Dublin, 1905); Idem. in Ir. Eccl. Rec., 4th ser., X, 385; XI, 193, 432; XII, 233; XIV, 24, 289; XV, 48; XVIII, 431; XXI, 285; XXII, 127; XXII, 454; Hurley in Dublin Rev., CX, 45, 353; Bellescheim, Geschichte der katholische Kirche in Irland, II, III (Mainz, 1890-91); Bertrand, Histoire des séminaires de Bordeaux et de Bazas (Bordeaux, 1894); Dançoise, Histoire des établissements religieux fondés à Douai avant a Révolution Française (Douai, 1880); Jourdain, Histoire de l'Université de Paris (Paris, 1888); Pagny, Mémoires historiques et chronologiques sur les séminaires établis dans la ville de Toulouse (Toulouse, 1852). PATRICK BOYLE Irish Confessors and Martyrs Irish Confessors and Martyrs The period covered by this article embraces that between the years 1540 and (approximately) 1713. Religious persecution in Ireland began under Henry VIII, when the local Parliament adopted acts establishing the king's ecclesiastical supremacy, abolishing the pope's jurisdiction, and suppressing religious houses. The act against the pope came into operation 1 November, 1537. Its penalties were sufficiently terrible, but the licence of those enforcing it was still more terrible. When they had been at work little over a year the Bishop of Derry wrote to Pope Paul III that the King of England's deputy and his adherents, refusing to acknowledge the pope, were burning houses, destroying churches, ravishing maids, robbing and killing unoffending persons. They kill, he said, all priests who pray for the pope or refuse to erase his name from the canon of the Mass, and they torture preachers who do not repudiate his authority. It would fill a book to detail their cruelty. Intolerable as these evils seemed, they were aggravated beyond measure, three years later, when the general suppression of religious houses was superadded. Then ensued the persecution which the Four Masters likened to that of the early Church under the pagan emperors, declaring that it was exceeded by no other, and could be described only by eyewitnesses. The extirpation was so thorough that even remembrance of the victims was effaced. In the published catalogue of Irish martyrs submitted recently to the Congregation of Rites, there are but two cases belonging to Henry's reign. The absence of records for this period is easily explained. The destruction of all kinds of ecclesiastical property, and documents especially, accounts for much, since few but churchmen could make such records; but it is perhaps a more probable explanation that scarcely any were made, as it was neither sage nor practicable to have or transmit what reflected upon government under Tudor despotism. Few memorials could be committed to paper before places of refuge had been secured in foreign countries. Then they were taken down from the lips of aged refugees, and as might be expected they exhibit the vagueness and confusion of dates and incidents to which personal reminiscences are subject when spread over long and unsettled periods. For the time of the suppression there is a partial narrative in the recital of an old Trinitarian friar, written down by one of his brethren, Father Richard Goldie or Goold (Goldæus), an Irish professor at the University of Alcalá. According to this account, on the first announcement of the king's design, Theobald (Burke?), provincial of the order, came to Dublin with eight other doctors to maintain the pope's supremacy. They were cast into prison; Theobald's heart was torn from his living body; Philip, a writer, was scourged, put into boots filled with oil and salt, roasted till the flesh came away from the bone, and then beheaded; the rest were hanged or beheaded; Cornelius, Bishop of Limerick, was beheaded there; Cormac was shot and stoned to death at Galway; Maurice and Thomas, brothers-german, hanged on their way to Dublin; Stephen, stabbed near Wexford; Peter of Limerick and Geoffrey, beheaded; John Macabrigus, lay brother, drowned; Raymond, ex-superior, dragged at a horse's tail in Dublin; Tadhg O'Brien of Thomond, torn to pieces in the viceroy's presence at Bombriste bridge between Limerick and Kilmallock; the Dublin community, about fifty, put to various deaths; those of Adare, cut down, stabbed, or hanged; those of Galway, twenty, burned to death in their convent or, by another account, six were thrown into a lime-kiln, the rest weighted with stones and cast into the sea; those of Drogheda, forty, slain, hanged, or thrown into a pit; at Limerick, over fifty butchered in choir or thrown with weights into the Shannon; at Cork and Kilmallock, over ninety slain by the sword or dismembered, including William Burke, John O'Hogan, Michael, Richard, and Giollabrighde. This is the earliest narrative as regards period. It deals only with the Trinitarians. It had the misfortune to be worked up by Lopez, a fanciful Spanish writer, and consequently has incurred perhaps more discredit than it deserves. The promoters of the cause of the Irish martyrs have not extracted any names from it. Nevertheless, the version given by O'Sullevan Bearr in his "Patriciana Decas", despite many apparent inaccuracies and exaggerations, contains in its main statements a not improbable picture of the experiences of this single order when the agents of rapine and malignity were let loose upon the members. It is as a cry from the torture chamber, expressing the agony of a victim who loses the power to detail accurately the extent of his sufferings or the manner of their infliction. The first general catalogue is that of Father John Houling, S.J., compiled in Portugal between 1588 and 1599. It is styled a very brief abstract of certain cases and is directed towards canonization of the eleven bishops, eleven priests, and forty-four lay persons whom it commemorates as sufferers for the Faith by death, chains, or exile under Elizabeth. Cornelius O'Devany, the martyred Bishop of Down and Connor, took up the record about the point where Houling broke off, and he continued it until his own imprisonment in 1611. Shortly before that time he forwarded a copy to Father Holywood, S.J., desiring him to take steps to have the lives of those noted therein illustrated at length and preserved from oblivion. O'Devany's catalogue was in David Rothe's hands while he was preparing the "Processus Martyrialis", published, in 1619, as the third part of his "Analecta", which still remains a most important contribution to the subject. During the next forty years Copinger (1620), O'Sullevan Bearr (1621 and 1629), Molanus (1629), Morison (1659), and others sent forth from the press works devoted either wholly or in part to advancing the claims of Irish martyrs to recognition and veneration. In 1669 Antony Bruodin, O.S.F., published at Prague a thick octavo volume of about 800 pages, entitled "Propugnaculum Catholicæ Veritatis", a catalogue of Irish martyrs under Henry VIII, Edward VI, Elizabeth, and James, containing notices of about 200 martyrs, with an index of 164 persons whose Christian names come first as in a martyrology. Bruodin based his work on Rothe's "Analecta", but he made large additions from other writers, as Good, Bourchier, Gonzaga, Baressus, Sanders, Wadding, Alegambe, and Nadasi, and in particular from a manuscript ascribed to Matthew Creagh, Vicar-General of Killaloe, which had been brought to the Irish Franciscans of Prague in 1660. Practically nothing was done for about two centuries after Bruodin's publication. A proposal to take up the cause of Primate Oliver Plunket within a few years of his martyrdom was discountenanced by the Holy See, lest at that critical juncture such action should become an occasion of political trouble in England. After the English Revolution and the commencement of the new era of oppression that succeeded the capitulation of Limerick, it was manifest that any movement towards canonization of the victims of laws still in force would result in merciless reprisals on the part of the ascendancy. At length, in 1829, the last political hindrances were removed by Catholic Emancipation, but over thirty years were allowed to pass unmarked by any action, either because more immediate demands pressed upon the energies of the Catholic community or because, during the long period for which the matter had been laid aside, the sources of trustworthy information had become so inaccessible or forgotten that the task of accumulating evidence seemed too formidable to undertake. In 1861 Dr. Moran, then Vice-Rector of the Irish College, Rome, and subsequently in succession Bishop of Ossory and Cardinal Archbishop of Sydney, reopened the question by his life of Oliver Plunket, the first of a series of important historical publications, in which he covered the whole period of Irish persecutions from Henry VIII to Charles II. All these publications were effectively, if not professedly, directed towards hastening the Church's solemn recognition of the martyrs. The first of these writings (1861) expressed the hope that the day was not far distant when the long afflicted Church of Ireland would be consoled by the canonization of Oliver Plunket. In 1884, when the last of them, a reissue of Rothe's "Analecta", was published, the intermediate advance had been so great that the editor, then Rothe's successor in Ossory, noted the expression of a wish both in Ireland and abroad "that, although our whole people might justly be regarded as a nation of martyrs, yet some few names, at least, among the most remarkable for constancy and heroism would be laid before the Sacred Congregation of Rites and, if found worthy, be enrolled among the privileged martyrs of Holy Church." While Dr. Moran was thus engaged, Major Myles O'Reilly also entered the long neglected field, and in 1868 he published a collection of memorials in which he brought together, from all the original sources his great industry could reach, biographies of those who suffered for the Faith in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries. This collection was made with both zeal and discrimination; it was the first general compilation since Bruodin's, and, coming down to a later date, it contained twice the number of notices in the former one. As a result, in great measure, of these several publications, the case was brought to such a point, about ten years after the reissue of Rothe's "Analecta", that the ecclesiastical authorities were in a position to make preparations for holding the processus ordinarius informativus, the diocesan inquiry which is a preliminary in the process of canonization. The work of collecting evidence, greatly facilitated by the previous labours of Moran and O'Reilly, was entrusted to Father Denis Murphy, S.J. He, unhappily, did not live to submit his testimony; but before his death he had reduced to order a great mass of materials extracted from a larger number of writers than had been used by O'Reilly. The number of individual notices is, however, much less, since Father Murphy excluded, with one or two exceptions, all those whose trials did not culminate in death. His materials were published in 1896, under the title of "Our Martyrs", and the record begun by Father Houling was thus, after three hundred years, completed by his brother Jesuit in form to be submitted in a regular process of canonization. The usual practice of conducting the preliminary process in the diocese where the martyrs suffered would have entailed the erecting of a tribunal in every diocese in Ireland, a course attended with no advantages. The Archbishop of Dublin, therefore, at the united request of all the Irish bishops, accepted the responsibility of conducting a general investigation for the whole country. But, before further progress could be made, certain unforeseen causes of delay arose which were not removed until the end of the year 1903. In December of that year the vice-postulator issued his requests for the attendance of witnesses in the February following. The initial session was opened by the Archbishop of Dublin, 15 February, 1904. Between that date and 3 August, when the taking of evidence in Ireland was completed, sixty sessions had been held. The testimony of Cardinal Moran was taken by commission in Sydney. When it arrived in Ireland meetings were resumed, 23 October, and continued for some twenty further sessions to complete the return, a transcript of the evidence with exhibits of books and documents. This work was brought to a conclusion at Christmas, and on 5 February, 1905, the full return of the inquiry was delivered to the Congregation of Rites. The number of sessions held was about eighty, in all of which the Archbishop of Dublin presided. Evidence was taken in respect of about three hundred and forty persons, with a view to establish the existence of a traditional belief among learned and pious Catholics that many persons suffered death for the Catholic Faith in Ireland under the penal laws; that these persons did, in fact, suffer martyrdom in defense of the Catholic Faith and of the pope's spiritual authority as Vicar of Christ; and that there is a sincere desire among Irish Catholics, in Ireland and elsewhere, to see these martyrs solemnly recognized by the Church. The chief portion of the evidence was necessarily that derived from records, printed or written. In addition, witnesses testified to the public repute of martyrdom, and traditions to that effect preserved in families, religious orders, various localities, and the country at large, with a particular statement in every case as to the source of the information furnished by the witness. Subsequent to this inquiry the further minor process (processiculus), to collect writings attributed to some of the martyrs, was held January-March, 1907. The investigation of the claims to the title of martyr made for those who suffered under the Irish penal enactments since 1537, is attended by difficulties that do not arise in the case of their fellow-sufferers in England, difficulties due to the historical situation and to the character of the available evidence. Not more than one-third of Ireland was subject to the rule of Henry VIII when he undertook to detach the island from the Catholic Church. The remainder was governed by hereditary lords under native institutions. The king's deputy at times obtained acknowledgment of the over-lordship supposed to be conferred by the Bull Laudabiliter; but the acknowledgment was so little valued that the population was commonly classified as the king's subjects and the Irish enemies, not, as yet, the Irish rebels. The Church, however, was the Church of Ireland, not the Church of the English Pale, and the claim to Supreme Headship of the Church entailed the effective reduction of the whole island to civil obedience, which, as then understood, required acceptance of the whole English system of laws and manners. Hence, it is not always easy to discern how far the fate of an individual resulted from his fidelity to religion, and how far from defense of ancestral institutions. Again, the evidence is not always satisfactory, for reasons already mentioned. The public records are very defective, as in a country that has experienced two violent revolutions, but the loss so caused might possibly be over-estimated. No large proportion of those put to death had been brought before a regular court. There was a general immunity from consequences which encouraged captains of roving bands and stationary garrisons, provost-martials, and all that class, to carry out the intention of the law without its forms. In such cases there are no records. During the year of the Armada a Spanish ship made prize of a Dublin vessel bound for France. A Cistercian monk and a Franciscan friar were found on board. They said they were the sole survivors of two large monasteries in the North of Ireland which had been burned with the rest of the inmates. There seems to be no other mention of this atrocity. The list which follows (p. signifying priest; l. layman) includes the names of those persons only in respect of whom evidence was taken at the inquiry held in Dublin. The case of Primate Oliver Plunket has already been conducted successfully through the Apostolic Process by Cardinal Logue, his successor. (1) Under King Henry VIII + 1540: The guardian and friars, Franciscan Convent, Monaghan -- beheaded. + 1541: Robert and other Cistercian monks, St. Mary's Abbey, Dublin -- imprisoned and put to death; as the Cistercians of Dublin surrendered their house and its possessions peaceably, there is possibly confusion as to this instance. (2) Under Queen Elizabeth + 1565: Conacius Macuarta (Conn McCourt) and Roger MacCongaill (McConnell), Franciscans -- flogged to death, Armagh, 16 December, for refusing to acknowledge the queen's supremacy. + 1575: John Lochran, Donagh O'Rorke, and Edmund Fitzsimon, Franciscans -- hanged, 21 January, Downpatrick; + 1575: Fergall Ward, Franciscan guardian, Armagh -- hanged, 28 April, with his own girdle. + 1577: Thomas Courcy, vicar-general at Kinsale -- hanged, 30 March; + 1577: William Walsh, Cistercian, Bishop of Meath -- died, 4 January, in exile at Alcalá. + 1578: Patrick O'Hely (q.v.), Bishop of Mayo, and Cornelius O'Rorke, p., Franciscans -- tortured and hanged, 22 August, Kilmallock; + 1578: David Hurley, dean of Emly -- died in prison; + 1578: Thomas Moeran, dean of Cork -- taken in the exercise of his functions and executed. + 1579: Thaddæus Daly and his companion, O.S.F. -- hanged, drawn, and quartered at Limerick, 1 January. The bystanders reported that his head when cut off distinctly uttered the words: "Lord, show me Thy ways." + 1579: Edmund Tanner (q.v.), S.J., Bishop of Cork -- died, 4 June, in prison at Dublin; + 1579: John O'Dowd, p., O.S.F. -- refused to reveal a confession, put to death at Elphin by having his skull compressed with a twisted cord; + 1579: Thomas O'Herlahy (q.v.), Bishop of Ross. + 1580: Edmund MacDonnell (q.v.), p., S.J. -- 16 March, Cork (but the year should be 1575 and the name perhaps O'Donnell); + 1580: Laurence O'Moore, p., Oliver Plunkett, gentleman, and William Walsh or Willick, an Englishman -- tortured and hanged, 11 November, after the surrender of Dun-an-oir in Kerry; + 1580: Daniel O'Neilan p., O.S.F. -- fastened round the waist with a rope and thrown with weights tied to his feet from one of town-gates at Youghal, finally fastened to a mill-wheel and torn to pieces, 28 March. He is obviously the person whom Mooney commemorates under the name O'Duillian, assigning the date, 22 April, 1569, from hearsay; + 1580: Daniel Hanrichan, Maurice O'Scanlan, and Philip O'Shee (O'Lee), priests, O.S.F. -- beaten with sticks and slain, 6 April, before the altar of Lislachtin monastery, Co. Kerry; + 1580: the prior at the Cistercian monastery of Graeg, and his companions. Murphy, quoting O'Sullevan, says the monastery was Graiguenamanagh; O'Sullevan names the place Seripons, Jerpoint. + 1581: Nicholas Nugent, chief justice, David Sutton, John Sutton, Thomas Eustace, John Eustace, William Wogan, Robert Sherlock, John Clinch, Thomas Netherfield, or Netterville, Robert Fitzgerald, gentleman of the Pale, and Walter Lakin (Layrmus) -- executed on a charge of complicity in rebellion with Lord Baltinglass; + 1581: Matthew Lamport, described as a parish priest (pastor) of Dublin Diocese, but more probably a baker (pistor) of Wexford -- executed for harbouring Baltinglass and Father Rochford, S.J. + 1581: Robert Meyler, Edward Cheevers, John O'Lahy, and Patrick Canavan, sailors of Wexford -- hanged, drawn, and quartered, 5 July, for conveying priests, a Jesuit, and laymen out of Ireland; + 1581: Patrick Hayes, shipowner of Wexford, charged with aiding bishops, priests, and others -- died in prison; + 1581: Richard French, p., Ferns Diocese -- died in prison; + 1581: Nicholas Fitzgerald, Cistercian -- hanged, drawn, and quartered, September, at Dublin. + 1582: Phelim O'Hara and Henry Delahoyde, O.S.F., of Moyne, Co. Mayo -- hanged and quartered, 1 May; + 1582: Thaddæus O'Meran, or O'Morachue, O.S.F., guardian of Enniscorthy; + 1582: Phelim O'Corra (apparently Phelim O'Hara, above); + 1582: Æneas Penny, parish priest of Killatra (Killasser, Co. Mayo) -- slain by soldiers while saying Mass, 4 May; + 1582: Roger O'Donnellan, Cahill McGoran, Peter McQuillan, Patrick O'Kenna, James Pillan, priests, and Roger O'Hanlon (more correctly McHenlea, in Curry), lay brother, O.S.F. -- died, 13 February, Dublin Castle, but the date can scarcely be correct for all; + 1582: Henry O'Fremlamhaidh (anglicized Frawley); + 1582: John Wallis, priest -- died, 20 January, in prison at Worcester; + 1582: Donagh O'Reddy, parish priest of Coleraine -- hanged and transfixed with swords, 12 June, at the altar of his church. + 1584: Dermot O'Hurley, Archbishop of Cashel; + 1584: Gelasius O'Cullenan, O.Cist., Abbot of Boyle, and his companion, variously named Eugene Cronius and Hugh or John Mulcheran (? Eoghan O'Maoilchiarain), either Abbot of Trinity Island, Co. Roscommon, or a secular priest -- hanged, 21 November, at Dublin; + 1584: John O'Daly, p., O.S.F. -- trampled to death by cavalry; + 1584: Eleanor Birmingham, widow of Bartholomew Ball -- denounced by her son, Walter Ball, Mayor of Dublin, died in prison; + 1584: Thaddæus Clancy, 15 September, near Listowel. + 1585: Richard Creagh (q.v.), Archbishop of Armagh -- poisoned, 14 October, in the Tower of London. He is included amongst the 242 Prætermissi in the article ENGLISH CONFESSORS AND MARTYRS; + 1585: Maurice Kenraghty (q.v.), p.; Patrick O'Connor and Malachy O'Kelly, O.Cist. -- hanged and quartered, 19 May, at Boyle. + 1586: Maurice, or Murtagh, O'Brien, Bishop of Emly -- died in prison at Dublin; + Donagh O'Murheely (O'Murthuile, wrongly identified with O'Hurley) and a companion, O.S.F. -- stoned and tortured to death at Muckross, Killarney. + 1587: John Cornelius, O.S.F., of Askeaton; another John Cornelius, S.J., surnamed O'Mahony, born in England of Irish parents from Kinelmeky, Co. Cork, is included among the venerabiles of the English list; + 1587: Walter Farrell, O.S.F., Askeaton -- hanged with his own girdle. + 1588: Dermot O'Mulrony, p., O.S.F., Brother Thomas, and another Franciscan of Galbally, Co. Limerick -- put to death there 21 March; + 1588: Maurice Eustace (q.v.), Jesuit novice -- hanged and quartered, 9 June, Dublin; + 1588: John O'Molloy, Cornelius O'Dogherty, and Geoffrey Farrell, Franciscan priests -- hanged, drawn, and quartered, 15 December, at Abbeyleix; + 1588: Patrick Plunkett, knight -- hanged and quartered, 6 May, Dublin; + 1588: Peter Miller, B.D., Diocese of Ferns -- tortured, hanged, and quartered, 4 October, 1588; + 1588: Peter (or Patrick) Meyler -- executed at Galway; notwithstanding the different places of martyrdom assigned, these two names may be those of the same person, a native of Wexford executed at Galway; + 1588: Patrick O'Brady, O.S.F., prior at Monaghan -- Murphy, on slender grounds, supposes him to be the guardian put to death in 1540, but Copinger and after him Curry, in his "Civil Wars in Ireland", state that six friars were slain in the monastery of Moynihan (Monaghan) under Elizabeth, Thaddæus O'Boyle, guardian of Donegal, slain there, 13 April, by soldiers. + 1590: Matthew O'Leyn, p., O.S.F. -- 6 March, Kilcrea; + 1590: Christopher Roche, l. -- died, 13 December, under torture, Newgate, London. + 1591: Terence Magennis, Magnus O'Fredliney or O'Todhry, Loughlin og Mac O'Cadha (? Mac Eochadha, Keogh), Franciscans of Multifarnham -- died in prison. + 1594: Andrew Strich, p., Limerick -- died in Dublin Castle. + 1597: John Stephens, p., Dublin province, apparently chaplain to the O'Byrnes of Wicklow -- hanged and quartered, 4 September, for saying Mass; + 1597: Walter Fernan, p. -- torn on the rack, 12 March, at Dublin. + 1599: George Power, Vicar-General of Ossory -- died in prison. + 1600: John Walsh, Vicar-General of Dublin -- died in prison at Chester; + 1600: Patrick O'Hea, l. -- charged with harbouring priests, died in prison, 4 December, Dublin--probably the Patrick Hayes of 1581 (supra); + 1600: James Dudall (Dowdall) -- died either 20 November or 13 August, Exeter; + 1600: Nicholas Young, p., died, Dublin Castle. + 1601: Redmond O'Gallagher, Bishop of Derry -- slain by soldiers, 15 March, near Dungiven; + 1601: Daniel, or Donagh, O'Mollony, Vicar-General of Killaloe -- died of torture, 24 April, Dublin Castle; + 1601: John O'Kelly, p. -- died, 15 May, in prison; + 1601: Donagh O'Cronin, clerk -- hanged and disembowelled, Cork; + 1601: Bernard Moriarty, dean of Ardagh and Vicar-General of Dublin -- having his thighs broken by soldiers, died in prison, Dublin. + 1602: Dominic Collins, lay brother, S.J. -- hanged, drawn, and quartered, 31 October, Youghal. + 1602: To this year seems to belong the death of Eugene MacEgan, styled Bishop-designate of Ross, of which he was vicar Apostolic, mortally wounded while officiating in the Catholic army. There was no Catholic army on foot in 1606, at which date his name appears in the official list. He was buried at Timoleague. + The following Dominicans suffered under Elizabeth (1558-1603), but the dates are uncertain: Father MacFerge, prior, and twenty-four friars of Coleraine, thirty-two members of the community of Derry, slain there the same night, two priests and seven novices of Limerick and Kilmallock, assembled in 1602 with forty Benedictine, Cistercian, and other monks, at Scattery Island in the Shannon to be deported under safe conduct in a man-of-war, were cast overboard at sea. (3) Under James I and Charles I (1604-1648) + 1606: Bernard O'Carolan, p. -- executed by martial law, Good Friday; + 1606: Eugene O'Gallagher, abbot, and Bernard O'Trevir, prior, of the Cistercians of Assaroe, Ballyshannon -- slain there by soldiers; + 1606: Sir John Burke of Brittas, County Limerick -- for rescuing and defending with arms a priest seized by soldiers, executed at Limerick, 20 Dec., 1606. The date is accurately known from contemporary letters printed in Hogan's "Ibernia Ignatiana". + 1607: Niall O'Boyle, O.S.F. -- beheaded or hanged, 15 Jan., Co. Tyrone; + 1607: John O'Luin, O.P. -- hanged at Derry; + 1607: Patrick O'Derry, p., O.S.F. -- hanged, drawn, and quartered at Lifford (but according to Bruodin, 6 January, 1618); + 1607: Francis Helam or Helan, p., O.S.F. -- apprehended saying Mass in Drogheda, and imprisoned; + 1607: Dermot Bruodin, O.S.F., tortured at Limerick -- released at the intervention of the Earl of Thomond, he died of years and labours at Ennis (9 August, 1617, according to Bruodin). + 1608: Donagh (in religion, William) O'Luin, O.P., prior of Derry -- hanged and quartered there. + 1610: John Lune, p., Ferns Diocese -- hanged and quartered, 12 November, Dublin. + 1612: Cornelius O'Devany (q.v.), O.S.F., Bishop of Down and Connor -- executed with Patrick O'Lochran, p., Cork Diocese, 1 February, Dublin. + 1614: William McGillacunny (MacGiolla Coinigh), O.P. -- executed at Coleraine. + 1617: Thomas Fitzgerald, p., O.S.F. -- died in prison, 12 July, Dublin. + 1618: John Honan, p., O.S.F. -- tortured, hanged, and quartered, 14 October, Dublin. + 1621: Francis Tailler, alderman, Dublin -- died a prisoner in the Castle, 30 January; + 1621: James Eustace, O.Cist. -- hanged and quartered, 6 September. + 1628: Edmund Dungan, Bishop of Down and Connor -- died, 2 November, Dublin Castle. + 1631: Paul (Patrick) Fleming, p., O.S.F. -- put to death by heretics, 13 November, at Benesabe, Bohemia, with his companion, Matthew Hore. + 1633: Arthur MacGeoghegan, p., O.P. -- hanged, drawn, and quartered, 27 November, Tyburn. + 1639: John Meagh, p., S.J. -- shot, 31 May, by the Swedish army near Guttenberg, Bohemia. + 1641: Peter O'Higgin, O.P., prior at Naas -- hanged, 24 March, Dublin. + 1642: Philip Clery, p.; + 1642: Hilary Conroy, p., O.S.F. -- but most probably this is the Hilary Conroy, O.S.F., chaplain to Ormond's regiment, hanged at Gowran in 1650 by the Cromwellians; + 1642: Fergal Ward, O.S.F., and Cornelius O'Brien -- hanged on board ship in the Shannon, by parliamentarians, October; + 1642: Francis O'Mahony, O.S.F., guardian at Cork -- tortured and hanged, regaining consciousness, he was again hanged with his girdle; + 1642: Thomas Aquinas of Jesus, p., O.D.C., hanged, 6 July, Drogheda; + 1642: Angelus of St. Joseph, O.D.C.; Robert (in religion, Malachy) O'Shiel, p., O.Cist. -- hanged, 4 May, Newry; + 1642: Edmund Hore and John Clancy, priests, Waterford Diocese -- put to death, March, at Dungarvan; + 1642: Raymund Keogh, p., O.P., Stephen Petit, O.P., prior at Mullingar -- shot while hearing confessions on the battlefield; + 1642: Cormac Egan, lay brother, O.P. + 1643: Peter of the Mother of God, lay brother, O.D.C. + 1644: Cornelius O'Connor and Eugene O'Daly, O.SS.T. -- drowned at sea by a Parliamentarian commander, 11 January; + 1644: Christopher Ultan or Donlevy, p., O.S.F., died in Newgate, London. + 1645: Hugh MacMahon, l., and Conor Maguire, Baron of Enniskillen -- executed for complicity in the outbreak of the Confederate War; + 1645: Henry White, p. -- hanged at Rathconnell, Co. Meath (but before this year, if by Sir C. Coote, as stated); + 1645: Edmund Mulligan, p., O.Cist., in July, near Clones, slain by Parliamentarians; + 1645: Malachy O'Queely (q.v.), Archbishop of Tuam; + 1645: Thaddæus O'Connell, p., O.S.A. -- executed by Parliamentarians after the battle of Sligo; + 1645: John Flaverty, p., O.P. + 1647: At the storming of the Rock of Cashel by Inchiquin, 15 September, Richard Barry, p., O.P., William Boyton, p., S.J., Richard Butler, p., O.S.F., James Saul, lay brother, O.S.F., Elizabeth Carney, Sister Margaret, a Dominican tertiary, Theobald Stapleton, p., Edward Stapleton, p., Thomas Morrissey and many others, priests and women, were slain in the church. + 1648: Gerald FitzGibbon, cleric, and David Fox, lay brother at Kilmallock, Dominic O'Neaghten, lay brother, Roscommon, Peter Costello, p., sub-prior, Straid, Co. Mayo, all Dominicans; Andrew Hickey, p., O.S.F. -- hanged near Adare. (4) Commonwealth (1649-1659) + 1649: Robert Netterville, p., S.J. -- died at Drogheda, 19 June, of a severe beating with sticks; + 1649: John Vath, p., S.J., and his brother Thomas, secular priest, Dominic Dillon, O.P., prior at Urlar, Richard Oveton, O.P., prior at Athy, Peter Taaffe, O.S.A., prior at Drogheda -- slain in Drogheda massacre; + 1649: Bernard Horumley (? Gormley), p., O.S.F. -- hanged, Drogheda; + 1649: Raymund Stafford, p., Paul Synnott, p., John Esmond, p., Peter Stafford, p., Didacus Cheevers and Joseph Rochford, lay brothers, Franciscans -- slain in Wexford massacre; + 1649: James O'Reilly, p., O.P. -- slain near Clonmel; + 1649: William Lynch, p., O.P. -- hanged. + 1650: Boetius Egan, O.S.F., Bishop of Ross, celebrated for exhorting the garrison of Carrigadrehid Castle to maintain their post against Broghill -- dismembered and hanged; + 1650: Miler Magrath (Father Michael of the Rosary), p., O.P. -- hanged, Clonmel; + 1650: Francis Fitzgerald, p., O.S.F. -- hanged, Cork; + 1650: Walter de Wallis, p., O.S.F., and Antony Musæus (? Hussey), p., O.S.F. -- hanged, Mullingar; + 1650: John Dormer, O.S.F. -- died in prison, Dublin; + 1650: Nicholas Ugan, or Ulagan, O.S.F. -- hanged with his girdle; + 1650: Thomas Plunkett and twelve other Franciscans, Eugene O'Teman, O.S.F. -- flogged and cut to pieces by soldiers. + 1651: Franciscans: Denis O'Neilan, p., hanged, Inchicronan, Co. Clare; Thaddæus O'Carrighy, p., hanged near Ennis; Hugh McKeon, p., died in prison, Athlone; Roger de Mara (MacNamara), p., shot and hanged, Clare Castle; Daniel Clanchy and Jeremiah O'Nerehiny (Nerny), lay brothers, Quin, hanged; Philip Flasberry, hanged near Dublin; Francis Sullivan, p., shot in a cave, Co. Kerry, December; William Hickey, p., hanged; + 1651: Dominicans: Terence Albert O'Brien (q.v.), O.P., Bishop of Emly; John Wolfe, p., hanged, Limerick; John O'Cuilin (Collins), p., beheaded; William O'Connor, prior at Clonmel, beheaded, and Thomas O'Higgin, p., hanged, Clonmel; Bernard O'Ferrall, p., slain, his brother Laurence, p., hanged, Longford; Vincent Gerald Dillon, chaplain to Irish troops in England, died in prison, York; Ambrose Æneas O'Cahill, p., cut to pieces by cavalry, Cork; Donagh Dubh (Black) and James Moran, lay brothers; laymen: Louis O'Farrall, died in prison, Athlone; Charles O'Dowd, hanged; Donagh O'Brien, burned alive; Sir Patrick Purcell, Sir Geoffrey Galway, Thomas Strich, mayor, Dominic Fanning, ex-mayor, Daniel O'Higgin, hanged after surrender of Limerick; Henry O'Neill, Theobald de Burgo. + 1652: Secular priests: Roger Ormilius (? Gormley) and Hugh Garrighy -- hanged, Co. Clare; + 1652:Cornelius MacCarthy, Co. Kerry; + 1652: Bernard Fitzpatrick, Ossory Diocese; + 1652: Franciscans hanged: Eugene O'Cahan, guardian at Ennis, Sliabh Luachra, Anthony Broder, deacon, near Tuam, Bonaventure de Burgo, Nielan Locheran, p., Derry. + 1652: Anthony O'Ferrall, p., Tulsk, John O'Ferrall; Edmund O'Bern, p., O.P. -- beheaded after torture, Jamestown; + 1652: Laymen hanged: Thaddæus O'Connor Sligo, Boyle; John O'Conor Kerry, Tralee; Thaddæus O'Conor of Bealnamelly in Connaught; Bernard McBriody; Edmund Butler, Dublin; Brigid D'Arcy, wife of Florence Fitzpatrick; Conn O'Rorke -- slain after quarter given. + 1653: Dominicans: Thaddæus Moriarty, prior at Tralee, hanged, Killarney; Bernard O'Kelly, p. or lay brother, Galway; David Roche, p., sold into slavery, St. Kitts; Honoria Burke and her maid, Honoria Magan, tertiaries, Burrishoole; Daniel Delany, P.P., Arklow, hanged, Gorey. + 1654: Bernard Conney, O.S.F., died in Galway jail; Mary Roche, Viscountess Fermoy, Cork; William Tirry, p., Augustinian hermit, probably in Co. Cork. + 1655: Daniel O'Brien, dean of Ferns, Luke Bergin, O.Cist., and James Murchu -- hanged, 14 April. The Restoration Onwards + 1665: Raymund O'Moore, p., O.P., Dublin; + 1679: Felix O'Conor, p., O.P., Sligo; + 1691: Gerald Fitzgibbon, p., O.P., Listowel; + 1695: John O'Murrough, p., O.P., Cork; + 1704: Clement O'Colgan, p., O.P., Derry; + 1707: Daniel McDonnell, p., O.P., Galway; + 1707: Felix McDowell, p., O.P., Dublin; + 1711 (or thereabouts): James O'Hegarty, p., Derry Diocese; + 1713: Dominic McEgan, p., O.P., Dublin. Uncertain Dates + Forty Cistercians of Monasternenagh, Co. Limerick may be the monks mentioned at 1602, though the manner of death is stated differently; + Daniel O'Hanan, l., died in prison; + Donagh O'Kennedy, Donagh Serenan, Fulgentius Jordan, Raymund O'Malley, John Tullis, and Thomas Deir, Augustinians, Cork, 1654; + James Chevers, O.S.F., + James Roche, O.S.F., + John Mocleus (? Mockler), O.S.F., + John O'Loughlin, O.P., two Dominican fathers, Kilmallock. + Apparently the lay brothers Fitzgibbon and Fox, 1648; Michael Fitzsimon, l., Conn O'Kiennan, hanged, drawn, and quartered, 1615; + Daniel O'Boyle, O.S.F.; + Dermot MacCarrha (MacCarthy), p.; + Donchus O'Falvey, p., perhaps the Daniel Falvey, friar, remanded at Kerry Lent Assizes, 1703; + John MacConnan, p., possibly the John Oonan (Conan) of Copinger, executed by martial law, Dublin, 1618, and the John Honan, O.S.F., 1617 (the correct date is 1618--see above); + John O'Grady, p.; + Thomas Fleming, l,; + Lewis O'Laverty, p., hanged, drawn, and quartered, 1615. O'REILLY, Memorials of those who suffered for the Catholic Faith in Ireland (London, 1868); MURPHY, Our Martyrs (Dublin, 1896); Irish Ecclesiastical Record, XIII (1903), 421; MORAN, Historical Sketch of the Persecutions suffered by the Catholics of Ireland under Cromwell and the Puritans (Dublin, 1884); IDEM, History of the Catholic Archbishops of Dublin (Dublin, 1864); Spicilegium Ossoriense, I (Dublin, 1873), III (Dublin, 1884); ROTHE, Analecta Nove et Mira, ed. MORAN (Dublin, 1884); O'SULLEVAN BEARR, Patriciana Decas (Madrid, 1629); BRUODIN, Propugnaculum Catholicæ Veritatis (Prague, 1669). CHARLES MCNEILL Irnerius Irnerius (GARNERIUS) An Italian jurist and founder of the School of Glossators, b. at Bologna about 1050; d. there about 1130. Though he was one of the most famous jurists of the Middle Ages, very little is known concerning his life and works, and it is only during the last twenty years that he has received the attention which his influence on the history and development of medieval jurisprudence demands. He was probably little over twenty years of age when he already taught didactics and rhetoric at Bologna. At the instance of Countess Matilda of Tuscany he began to devote himself to the study of jurisprudence, taking the Justinian code as a guide. Up to his time the study of jurisprudence had been much neglected in the empire, and he had to depend to a great extent on private studies, though it is probable that for a time he frequented a law school in Rome. After teaching jurisprudence for a short while in Rome he returned to Bologna, where he founded a new school of jurisprudence in 1084. It appears that some jurisprudence had been taught at Bologna, before Irnerius founded his school, by a certain Pepo and a few others; but the great impulse which juridical studies received at Bologna at this time, and from there began to spread throughout Europe, was entirely due to the school of Irnerius. He introduced the custom of explaining the Roman law by means of glosses, which originally were meagre interlinear elucidations of the text. But since the glosses were often too extensive to be inserted between the lines of the text, he began to write them on the margin of the page, thus being the first to introduce the marginal glosses which afterwards came into general use. After the death of Pope Paschal II, he defended the rights of Emperor Henry V in the papal election and upheld the legality of the election of the imperial antipope, Gregory VIII. Irnerius is the author of numerous juridical works, but most of them have either been lost, or their genuineness is not sufficiently established. His chief work is "Summa Codicis", which is of a special historical value, because it is the first medieval system of Roman jurisprudence. It was recently edited with a critical introduction by Fitting, "Summa Codicis des Irnerius, mit einer Einleitung" (Berlin, 1894). Another important work generally ascribed to Irnerius is "Quaestiones de juris subtilitatibus". It was also edited by Fitting, "Quaestiones de juris subtilitatibus des Irnerius, mit einer Einleitung" (Festschrift zum 200jährigern Jubiläum der Universitat Halle-Wittenberg, 1894). The other juridical works and glosses that are ascribed to Irnerius are extant only in fragments, or their authorship is still too uncertain. BESTA, L'opera d'Irnerio, contributo alla storia del diritto Romano (2 vols., Turin, 1896); FITTING, Die Anfanfge der Rechtsschule zu Bologna (Berlin, 1888); SAVIGNY, Geschichte des romischen Rechtes in Mittelatter, IV (Heidelberg, 1834-51), 9--67, 447-70; SCHUPPER, La scuola di Roma e la questione Irneriana in Atti accadem, Lincei (Rome, 1898), 3-168; PESCATORE, Die Glossen des Irnerius (Greifwald, 1890); PATETTA, La Summa Codicis e le Questiones falsamente attribuite ad Irnerio (Turin, 1897), Die Summa Codicis und die Questiones des falamente attribuite ad Irnerio (Turin, 1897); Die Summa Codicis und die Quaestiones des Irnerius in Zeitschrtft fur Rechtsgeschichte, XVII (Rome, 1896), 1- 96; Irnerio secondo la nuova critica storica in Rivista Storica Italiana, XI (Turin, 1894), 607-628. MICHAEL OTT Iroquois Iroquois A noted confederacy of five, and afterwards six, cognate tribes of Iroquoian stock, and closely cognate languages, formerly occupying central New York, and claiming right of conquest over nearly all the tribes from Hudson Bay to Tennessee River, and westward to Lake Michigan and Illinois River. The name by which they are commonly known is a French derivative of disputed origin and meaning, but may possibly come from the Algonquin Irinakhow (real snakes), snake being the term by which the Algonquin tribes denoted hostile tribes of alien stock. To the English they were known as the "Five", and afterward the "Six Nations". They called themselves "Ongwanonsionni" (We of the extended house), or "Hodinonsyonni", frequently written and translated "Konoshioni" and "Hodenosanee" (People of the long house). The five original tribes, from east to west, were the "Ganienge-haga" (Flint place people), "Oneniote-aga" (Standing stone people), "Onondage-ga" (Mountain place people), "Goioguen-aga" (Locusts-coming-out-of-place people), and "Tsonontowaga", (Big mountain people, known to the French as "Agnie-ronon", "Onneioute", "Onontague", "Goyogouen", and "Tsonnontouan", and to the English as Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca. To these were added the cognate Tuscarora (Hemp gatherers) from North Carolina, after the war of 1711-12. Each tribe also had one or more figurative names used commonly in the confederate council, the term "Long house" itself being a figurative designation for the confederacy, of which the Mohawk were considered to guard the eastern door, as the Seneca did the western, while the Onondaga watched the sacred council fire in the centre. The numerous broken tribes "adopted" or taken under protection were never accounted equal members of the confederacy, and full political equality was granted to the Tuscarora only after long years of probation as "infants", "boys", and "observers". Other tribes of Iroquoian stock were the Wyandot, or Huron; Tionontati, or Tobacco nation; and the Neutral Nation of Ontario; the Erie and Conestoga (Andaste, Susquehanna), in Ohio and Pennsylvania and the Nottoway, Tuscarora, and Cherokee, of Virginia and Carolina. Of these only the Wyandot and Cherokee survive. Wherever found, the tribes of this stock showed a marked and recognized intellectual superiority. No other native Indian government north of Mexico has been the subject of so much study as the confederacy or league of the Iroquois, and probably no other was so complex and exact in detail and so wisely adapted to permit the fullest measure of freedom to each component tribe, while securing united action in all that concerned the whole. In general plan, it might be compared to our own system of independent state and federal jurisdiction, and in fact the Iroquois themselves, at the outbreak of the Revolution, recommended their system as a model for imitation by the American patriots. As in most of the eastern tribes, it was based upon the clan system (see INDIANS, AMERICAN), with descent in the female line, the number of clans varying from three with the Mohawk and Oneida to eight in the others of the original five, the dominant clans being the Bear, Wolf and Turtle. Each tribe had its women's council, chosen from the mothers of the tribe, and taking the initiative in all matters of public importance, including the nomination of members of the chief's council, made up in each tribe, of a certain number of hereditary chiefs (i.e. hereditary to the clan), the same number of alternates, and an additional number chosen for special fitness but without heredity in office. The hereditary chiefs of the first class, fifty in all for the five tribes, acting together, constituted the league council. As in civilized aristocracies and religious orders, each league councillor at his formal installation, assumed an official hereditary name, by which he was henceforth known in his official capacity, in preference to his ordinary personal name, the official name being that borne by his direct predecessor at the original formation of the league. All nominations to hereditary chiefships, while originating with the women's council, had to be ratified by the tribal and league councils. Elaborate installation or condolence ceremonies signalized the inauguration or the death of a member of the league council, but no official notice was taken of the passing of a lesser chief. No alien could become a member of the tribe except by formal adoption into a clan, and as the right of adoption rested solely with the women as mothers of the clan, the fate of captives for life or death depended upon the will of the women. As the cultivators of the ground, the women also held jurisdiction of the territorial domain, and again, as mothers of the warriors, they decided questions of war and peace. Except for the veto power of the league council, it might be said that the mothers of the confederated tribes constituted the legislative body while the warriors were the executive. The Iroquois dwelling was the so-called "long house", from 50 to 100 feet in length and from 15 to 20 feet in width, the frame of stout posts set upright in the ground, kept in place with cross-pieces, and covered and roofed with bark. The interior was divided into compartments of equal size along each side, opening upon a central passageway along the whole length of the building. Each compartment, excepting those at the end for storage or guest purposes, sheltered one family, so that as many as twenty families might live under one roof. Fire places were arranged along the passageway, so disposed that one fire accommodated four families. All the occupants of a house were usually closely related by clan kinship, thus constituting a larger family. In the principal towns, frequently designated as "castles", the houses were compactly and regularly arranged, and inclosed within strong palisades. In less important settlements the houses were scattered about in a straggling fashion. Surrounding the villages were cornfields and orchards so extensive as to be a constant theme of wonder to both French and later American invaders.. Besides corn the cultivated squashes, beans, and tobacco, in addition to which their woods and waters furnished abundant supplies of game and fish. Famine, so common in some tribes, was unknown among the Iroquois. They dressed in smoke-tanned buckskin, and their women were potters and basket makers, but not weavers. Their ordinary weapons were the bow, knife, and stone or wooden club, afterward superseded by the steel hatchet or tomahawk of civilized manufacture, but they sometimes in ancient times used also the stone-headed lance, the shield of rawhide or wicker work, and a rude form of body armour. Learning to their sorrow the power of firearms, in their first encounter with Champlain, they made eager efforts to buy guns from contraband Dutch traders with such success that by 1640 a large proportion of their warriors were well equipped and expert gunmen, enabling them to start upon a career of conquest which made the Iroquois name a terror for a thousand miles. Even among savages they were noted for their cruelty, cannibal feasts and sickening torture of captives being the sequel of every successful war expedition, while time after time the fullest measure of their awful savagery was visited upon the devoted missionary.. In Iroquois cosmogony, the central figure is Tharonyawagon, the "Sky Holder", dwelling above the firmament, whose pregnant wife, cast down to the earth in a fit of jealousy, bears a daughter, who, marrying a turtle in human form-the turtle being symbolic of power over earth and water-becomes in turn the mother of twin boys. These, as they grow up, are thenceforth in perpetual conflict, the one, the god of winter and death, forever destroying what his brother, the god of springtime and life, constantly restores. Their mythology and ceremonial are rich and well preserved, almost the whole of their ancient ritual forms being still kept up on the Ontario reserve. Among the principal ceremonies may be noted the Green Corn Dance, a thanksgiving for the new crops, and the "Burning of the White Dog", a solemn sacrifice. Another, in ancient times, was the Feast of the Dead, when the bones of all who had been dead for a term of years were gathered from their temporary resting places and deposited in a common sepulchre. The temporary disposal was by scaffold burial. The athletic ball play, lacrosse, was their principal ceremonial game. Unlike most eastern Indians, the Iroquois were monogamists, but divorce was easy and frequent, the children remaining always with the mother. The Iroquois languages have been the subject of much study by missionaries and others, and have an abundant literature, philologic, religious, and general. Principal in the first class are Bruyas"s "Radices verborum Iroquaeorum", and Cuoq's "Lexique de la langue Iroquoise", besides an extensive Iroquois-French grammar and dictionary, still in manuscript by Father Marcoux. According to Iroquois tradition, as interpreted by Hewitt, our best living authority, the league was established through the effort of Hiawatha (River Maker), probably of the Mohawk tribe, about the year 1570, or about forty years before the appearance of the French and Dutch in their country. At this time they numbered altogether probably less than 6000 souls, with powerful and aggressive enemies all around them, chief among these being the Algonquin of Canada. The unfortunate mistake of Champlain in 1609, in allying himself with this tribe in an invasion of the Iroquois country and winning the victory for the Algonquins by the help of the French firearms, was never forgotten or forgiven by the Iroquois, who became from that day the constant and unrelenting enemy of the French, and to this fact was largely due the final fall of Canada. Through contraband trade with the Dutch of Albany, after 1615, the Iroquois quickly supplied themselves with guns, and at once inaugurated a systematic war of conquest or extermination against all the surrounding tribes, particularly those in the French interest. In 1642 the heroic Jesuit missionary Jogues, while on his way to the Hurons, was taken by a Mohawk war party and cruelly tortured until rescued by the Dutch. The same capture and torture, and the same kindly rescue, befell the Jesuit Bresani, in 1644. In 1646, on the conclusion of an uncertain peace with the savages, Father Jogues again offered himself for the Mohawk mission, but shortly after his arrival was condemned and tortured to death on the charge of being the cause of a pestilence and a plague upon the crops. In the meantime the Iroquois were making constant raids upon the Huron missions about Georgian Bay, as also upon the partly missionized tribes of the lower St. Lawrence. In 1648, a grand army of invasion of at least 1500 Iroquois warriors, largely armed with guns, swept over the Huron country, and within a few months had practically destroyed the tribe, burning the towns and missions, slaughtering hundreds upon hundreds of their people, carrying off 700 captives in one body and whole town populations later, and killing the missionaries, Daniel, Garnier, Lallemant, and the great Brebeuf. Between then and 1675 they wiped out in the same way the Tionontati (1650), Neutrals (1651), Erie (1655), and at last after a long and hard conflict the Conestoga (1675), all of their own kindred stock, those left alive being incorporated into the Iroquois towns. At the same time they were carrying on almost equally desolating warfare with the Mohican on the east, the Algonquin and Ottawa in the North, the Illinois in the far distant West, and the Cherokee, Tutelo and Catawba in the South, while keeping the whole French colony of Canada under a constant terror. They were careful, however, to maintain friendship with the Dutch and the later English, from whom they obtained their war supplies. A careful estimate by Greenhalgh in 1677 gave them then about 2150 warriors-perhaps 8000 souls-of whom, according to Jesuit authorities, nearly one-half were incorporated captives. In 1656, during a brief truce with Canada, a Jesuit mission colony was established among the Onondaga at their own request, with Father Le Mercier as superior, but two years later, upon the discovery of an intended massacre and general descent upon Canada, the mission was secretly abandoned. Another truce, consequent upon a successful expedition by De Tracy, gave brief opportunity for re-establishment, and in 1668 there were three missions in the Iroquois country. Notwithstanding the hostile attitude of the league, a large number in each tribe, including the incorporated captives from the old missions, was now Christian and disposed to friendship with the French. Accordingly it was decided to attempt to draw out these Christians from the tribes and colonize them into mission towns in the neighbourhood of the French, to be a nucleus of conversion and an additional strength against the Iroquois enemy. One reason for this conclusion was the hostile attitude assumed toward the French missionaries by the new English government of New York. As a consequence of the colonizing policy, mission settlements of Christian Iroquois were established at Quinté Bay, Ontario (Sulpician, 1668; Recollect, 1678-c.1687; Laprarie, near Montreal, alias St. Francois Xavier des Près (Jesuit, 1669); removed to Sault St. Louis and renamed St. Francois Xavier du Sault, 1676, now Caughnawaga); the Mountain, near Montreal (Sulpician, 1676; transferred to Sault au Recollet, c. 1704, and to lake of Two Mountains alias Oka 1720). In 1687 the French governor, Denonville, invaded the western Iroquois territory with an army of nearly 1800 French and 600 Indians, including a detachment of the mission warriors, destroying towns and cornfields, but without bringing the enemy to an important engagement. In 1689 the Iroquois retaliated by landing 1500 warriors at Montreal, ravaging the whole country and butchering 200 men, women and children, carrying off over a hundred more to be tortured in their towns. In the subsequent King William's War, they joined forces with the English against the French, suffering such losses that in 1698 the league numbered only 1230 warriors, not counting those now permanently identified with the French interest. Largely through the effort of Sir William Johnson, the resident British superintendent, they, as a nation held to the English interest throughout the French and Indian Wars of 1744-48 and 1754-63. Within this period was established the Sulpician mission of the Presentation at Oswegatachi, now Ogdensburg, N.Y., by Father Francis Picquet, which flourished until the transfer of dominion to England. About 1755 the present mission settlement of St. Regis (St. Francis Regis), now bisected by the international boundary line, was established by emigrants from Caughnawaga. Under Johnson's encouragement Episcopalian missionaries worked with success among the Mohawk, for whom the "Book of Common Prayer" was translated into their language. Unsuccessful efforts were also made by the Moravians, but later work by Congregationalists and Methodists has had more result. On the breaking out of the Revolution, about one half of the New York Iroquois fled to Canada, where they enlisted in the British service. The hostiles who remained behind, particularly the Seneca, were humbled by an expedition under command of General John Sullivan, in 1779. The refugees were subsequently assigned lands by the British Government, near Brantford, Ontario, on which they still reside, keeping up their old tribal forms and to a considerable extent, their old native religion. Those remaining in New York, now largely Protestant, have gradually reduced their territorial holdings by successive treaty cessions. About 1845 the larger part of the Oneida removed to Wisconsin. The whole body of the Iroquois in 1908 was distributed as follows: United States-New York, 5455; Wisconsin (Oneida), 2204; Oklahoma (Seneca), 389; Pennsylvania (Seneca), 120; Canada-Ontario, Six Nations on Grand River, 4286; Mohawk of Quinte, 1327; Oneida of the Thames, 777; Iroquois of Givson, about 140; Quebec, Caughnawaga, 2175; St. Regis (Canadian portion), 1449; Lake of Two Mountains, 403. Total about 18,725. CHARLEVOIX, "Histoire et description general de la Nouvelle France", tr. SHEA (New York, 1886-72); COLDEN, "History of the Five Indian Nations", ed. SHEA (New York, 1866); "Annual Reports of Commissioner of Indian Affairs" (Washington,); COOK, "Journals of the Military Expedition of Major-General John Sullivan" (Albany, 1887); DONALDSON, "The Six Nations of New York"; "Extra Census Bulletin" (Washington, 1982); HEWITT, "Iroquois Cosmogony" in "Twenty-first Report Bureau Am. Ethnology" (Washington, 1903); IDEM, "Cosmogonic Gods of the Iroquois" in "Prac. Am. Asn. Adv. Science", XLIV (Salem, 1896); MORGAN, "League of the Hodenosaunee or Iroquois" (Rochester, 1851); "Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York", ed. O'Callaghan, 1st series (11 vols., Albany, 1856-61); PARKMAN, "The Jesuits in North America" (Boston, 1867); IDEM, "The Old Regime in Canada" (Boston, 1874); IDEM, "Count Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV" (Boston, 1878); IDEM, "Montcalm and Wolfe" (2 vols., Boston, 1884); PILLING, "Bibliography of the Iroquoian Languages"; "Bull. Bur. Am. Ethn." (Washington, 1888); SHEA, "Hist. Of the Catholic Missions among the Indian Tribes of the United States", (New York, 1855); STONE, "Life and Times of sir William Johnson", Bart. (2 vols., Albany, 1865); "The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents", ed. THWAITE (73 vols., Cleveland, 1896-1901), volumes on "Iroquois: Hurons" etc. JAMES MOONEY Irregularity Irregularity (Lat. in, not, and regula, rule, i. e. not according to rule) A canonical impediment directly impeding the reception of tonsure and Holy orders or preventing the exercise of orders already received. It is called a canonical impediment because introduced by ecclesiastical law, for the canons prescribe certain requisites for the licit reception of orders, e.g. moral probity, proper age, legitimate birth, knowledge proportionate to each order, integrity of body, mind, will, and faith. A defect in these qualities prescribed by church regulations is rightly called an irregularity. The direct effect of an irregularity is twofold: first, it prohibits the reception of orders and, second, prevents an order received from being licitly used. Indirectly it impedes one who has become irregular from obtaining an ecclesiastical benefice. TOTAL OR PARTIAL Irregu1arity is total when it prohibits the reception of any order and the exercise of every order already received. Such, for example, is the irregularity arising from voluntary homicide. If partial, it interferes with some exercise of an order or prevents only the ascent to a higher order. Thus, the absence of the left eye would not prevent one from ministering as a deacon, but he could not receive the priesthood, and a priest who lost his thumb would become irregular for sacrificing at the altar, but not for hearing confessions. PERPETUAL OR TEMPORAL The former irregularity is of its nature enduring; the latter, existent only for a certain period, as a defect of age. EX DELICTO OR EX DEFECTU The main division of irregularities is into those which are the consequence of crime (ex delicto) and those which arise from defect (ex defectu), according as they have been imposed by law on account of crimes by reason of which a person becomes unworthy of the reception of orders or their exercise or have been imposed on account of certain defects which would be indecorous in a sacred minister. It is not to be supposed however that irregularity ex delicto has been directly and proximately imposed as a punishment; for when the Church declares one irregular on account of crime, she does not primarily intend the punishment of the guilty one, but rather desires to shield the sanctuary from profanation. As a consequence, irregularity ex delicto resolves itself logically into irrregularity ex defectu. The distinction, however, must be retained in practice, both on account of the laws of dispensation and because irregularity ex delicto is a result of wrongdoing. This distinction has been taken by canonists from a decree of Pope Innocent III (cap. "Accedens", xiv, X, "De purg. canon."). (1) Irregularities ex Delicto or on Account of Crime In the primitive Church those who had performed public penance for a crime, whether notorious or secret, were not allowed to receive orders; and if already ordained were not admitted to higher orders. This was the first form of irregularity in the legislation of the Church, if we except certain prescriptions which appear in the New Testament (I Tim., iii, 2; v, 22; Titus, i, 6). After public penance had fallen into desuetude all faults were atoned for by private penance, and then began the distinction found in the "Corpus Juris Canonici" (c. xxxii, § 3, d. l) between public and private crimes, to the effect that the former produced irregularity, while the latter did not. This was the second form that irregularity assumed. At present, however, a different rule obtains, namely, that only those crimes which are expressly mentioned in law, whether they be public or private, can produce irregularity ex delicto; though it must be noted that crimes to which irregularity is attached on account of infamy do not make a person irregular if they remain secret, while the other crimes mentioned in law do produce irregularity, whether they be public or occult. For the incurring of irregularity ex delicto the act must be external, consummated, and of mortal gravity. Hence, if, on account of circumstances, the act be not a mortal sin, no irregularity is incurred; for while it is true that irregularity is not constituted precisely on account of crime, yet, as a matter of fact, it is never imputed unless there be a crime of mortal gravity. The exception to this rule is homicide, which may sometimes make a person irregular when the fault is only venial. It is to be noted that penance cannot prevent the incurring of an irregularity. Suppose there be question of a doubtful crime. If the doubt be one concerning the law (dubium juris), viz, whether there really exists a canonical irregularity on account of a particular crime, then an irregularity is not incurred. If the doubt concern the fact (dubium facti), viz, whether the crime was actually committed or, if so, whether the act was of mortal gravity, canonists reply with a distinction: if the doubtful fact concerns homicide, then it is probable that irregularity was contracted, on account of the peculiar incongruity of homicide with the clerical state; but if the doubt concerns any other fact, then it is probable that the irregularity has not been incurred, for the accused has the benefit of the doubt. Homicide and Mutilation (a) Voluntary homicide, even if occult, is a perpetual irregularity both for the reception of Sacred orders and for the obtaining of any ecclesiastical benefice or office. The same holds for procuring the actual abortion of a living foetus. The penitential practice of the Church, however, presumes that the male foetus is animated only after forty days, and the female after eighty days. All those who concur in the homicide as instigators or counsellors also incur irregularity, unless they retracted before the deed was committed and so that their retraction could have been known to the actual perpetrators. As for co-operators in a homicide, if several conspire together, or if in a public brawl all joined in the attack and it can not be known who inflicted the fatal wound, all become irregular, at least in the external forum. Those who are in justice bound to prevent a homicide and neglect their duty also incur irregularity. Homicide for the necessary and just defence of one's own life, when no other means would ward off the danger, is free from irregularity; but this is not the case if the killing was unnecessary or if the act was perpetrated in defence of goods or even of the life of another. Accidental homicide or that performed by a person who is irresponsible produces no irregularity. When a person performs a licit act, but omits to use all proper diligence or is not sufficiently skilled, and a death follows, he becomes irregular if he could have foreseen the consequence of his act. It is on this account that Benedict XIV declares that physicians wishing to receive Sacred orders should obtain a conditional dispensation. (b) Mutilation, in the canonical sense, is the separation from the body of one of its principal members or of some part of the body having a distinct office, as a hand or a foot or an eye. He, therefore, who cuts off a finger is not a mutilator, unless it be the index finger or thumb, which, for a priest, are accounted principal members. Those who mutilate themselves or procure mutilation without just cause incur irregularity. In practice, these two points are to be observed concerning homicide and mutilation: first, in doubt as to the fault where the fact is certain, a conditional dispensation must be obtained; and second, in every case of homicide, even accidental, a priest must abstain from the altar until the case be passed on by proper authority. Abuse of Baptism This is an irregularity contracted by those who unconditionally reiterate baptism knowingly and openly. In such a case the persons baptizing, receiving baptism, and those co-operating in it all become irregular. Some authors hold that the same irregularity is contracted by those who confer conditional baptism where there is no prudent doubt that the first baptism was valid. Other canonists deny this and their opinion seems preferable. A person who allows himself to be baptized without necessity by a declared heretic falls also under this impediment. It is evident, however, that this does not affect infants baptized by heretics. Violation of Censure Irregularity is incurred under this head by those who presume to exercise orders while under censure, i. e. while excommunicated or suspended. It applies equally to all clerics whether in major or minor orders and to the excommunicate vitandi and tolerandi. But to incur it, the incriminating act must be one of order, not jurisdiction, and it must be performed ex officio, with full knowledge and temerity. Abuse of Ordination Those who in bad faith receive Sacred orders from bishops who are under censure become irregular and incur suspension from the order received. If the defect be principally in the one ordained, however, he is suspended, but probably does not incur an irregularity. Heresy, Apostasy, and Schism Heretics in general are irregular, whether they were born in heresy or lapsed into it from the Catholic Faith. This irregularity also includes the children of heretics to the second degree in the paternal line, and to the first degree in the maternal. If the parents embrace the Catholic Faith, their offspring is no longer irregular. Those born of Jews and pagans are not comprehended under this irregularity. Children are held irregular if born after their parents have fallen into heresy, and if the parents die in heresy. Some older canonists held that in countries where Catholics and non-Catholics live mixed together this irregularity was not contracted. A decree of the Holy Office (9 July, 1884), however, declares that the children of those who die in heresy are irregular, even in countries where heresy is rampant and unchecked. A schismatic is not irregular, unless he be at the same time a heretic. Such schismatics, however, where heresy is conjoined, even after restoration to the unity of the Church, remain irregular, as do also heretics after abjuration and apostates after penance. Defect of Fame, or Infamy This is defined by canonists as a state of lowered dignity, or a privation or diminution of the esteem of men. It is called infamia juris when the law declares one to be infamous either ipso facto or after judicial sentence. To the first class of infames belong those who are guilty of marriage with a prostitute, who attack cardinals, commit rape, engage in duels, embrace heresy. Children of those who commit high treason or lay hands on a cardinal are also infamous. If civil laws intend to brand a guilty person with infamy he is held as infamous by Canon law. To the second class, or those who are held infamous only after judicial sentence, belong all convicted of certain crimes expressed in law or who have been condemned to very degrading punishment. Defect of fame is called infamia facti when one perpetrates any crime which forfeits the good opinion of the community. When one's good name is lost only through a widespread suspicion this is deemed sufficient to impede the reception of Sacred orders. In ancient times certain classes of people, such as hangmen, actors, and others, were considered infamous by their very employment, but at present the actual opinion of the community must be consulted. (2) Irregularities ex Defectu or on Account of Defect Proper Age The Church has prescribed a certain age at which the various ecclesiastical orders may be licitly received (see ORDERS, HOLY). Defect of Birth In primitive times illegitimacy was no bar to ordination. In 655 the Ninth Council of Toledo decreed that illegitimate Sons of clerics in major orders should be held as serfs of the Church and not be admitted to Holy orders unless first manumitted by the bishop. In the ninth and tenth centuries those born of violated virgins or of incest began to be held as irregular. Various canons were also formed concerning different details of illegitimacy, until finally a general prohibition against all spurious children being admitted to orders was enacted, on the ground that the stain of birth would be a stain on the sacred ministry. At present, therefore, all illegitimate persons are irregular unless they have been legitimated by the subsequent marriage of their parents or by profession in a religious order or by papal rescript. Foundlings of unknown parentage should receive conditional dispensation. Those also are held to be irregular who, though sprung from valid marriage, were born while their parents were bound by solemn vow or after the reception of Sacred orders. Defect of Liberty Slaves are irregular unless liberated by their masters. The same irregularity affects those who are responsible to the civil government for the administration of certain offices or duties, as judges, magistrates, guardians, administrators, soldiers. These are not to be ordained until they have freed themselves from their civil duties and dispelled any suspicion of fraudulent dealings. Those, however, who administer charitable funds or have the care of the poor or orphans are not included. Owing to defect of liberty a husband cannot receive orders during the lifetime of his wife, unless she enter religion or make a vow of chastity. Defect of Matrimony, or Bigamy In canonical phraseology, bigamy may be of three kinds. It is called true bigamy when a man has contracted a second marriage after the death of his first wife. Such a person is considered irregular for Sacred orders, because according to Innocent III a second marriage does not signify the union of Christ with His Church in the same manner as does a first marriage. Hence this irregularity is technically called defectus sacramenti (i. e. matrimonii). The impediment is not contracted, however, if either the first or second marriage had not been consummated. Bigamy is called interpretative, when, by fiction of law, a person is accounted as having had two wives, when in reality he had but one. This is the condition of a man who marries a widow or one corrupted by another. Similitudinary bigamy is contracted by a person who, bound by solemn religious vows or by Sacred orders, enters into a so-called marriage. Such a one is considered to have contracted two marriages, the one valid and spiritual with Christ, the other carnal and invalid with his guilty partner. Defect of Mildness This impediment, termed in Latin defectus lenitatis, makes those persons irregular who voluntarily, actively, and proximately take part with sanction of public authority in the lawful killing or mutilating of another. The reason of this irregularity is that since Christ was the gentlest of men, and priests are His representatives, they should likewise be models of mildness. This irregularity may be contracted in war. Canonists hold generally that in an unjust war all those soldiers who take part in it fall under this impediment if any of the enemy be killed or mutilated. In a just offensive war, both clerics and laics who personally kill or mutilate others become irregular, but not those who exhort others to action, without taking part in the fighting themselves. In a just defensive war, some canonists say that no one contracts irregularity, not even a cleric who personally serves in the ranks and slays others when laymen are not in sufficient numbers to repel the enemy. Other canonists, however, hold that such a cleric would incur irregularity, and this opinion seems more in accordance with Roman decrees (S. C. C., 13 Jan., 1703; 17 Feb., 1816). Irregularity is not, however, contracted by the mere fact of a person's entering military service. Defect of mildness also constitutes an irregularity for those concerned in legal capital punishment, as judges pronouncing sentences of death, witnesses, accusers, clerks writing out the sentence, and those who carry it into actual execution. As jurymen with us are really judges, they would seem to contract this irregularity likewise. The law is so strict that a judge who decrees a death sentence which was not carried out remains irregular for the reception of Sacred orders. Clerics who prosecute a layman before a court for injuries done to themselves must protest, according to Boniface VIII, that they do not desire sentence of capital punishment, if they wish to keep clear of irregularity. Similar protestation must be made by the ordinary who allows a corpse to be disinterred from the cemetery with a view to proving that some one had committed murder. Those who only remotely concur in a death sentence, as legislators, chaplains, and the like, are not included in this irregularity. As to clerics who practice surgery there is divided opinion among canonists, and while some hold that they contract this irregularity, others deny it, unless they can be shown to have incurred the impediment of homicide or mutilation. Mere disobedience of the Church's laws as to the practice of surgery by a cleric may be a sin, without necessarily being an irregularity. Bodily Defects These constitute an impediment to Sacred orders, either because they render a person unfit for the ministry or because his deformity would make him an object of horror and derision. The following are, therefore, irregular: mutilated persons, those having an artificial limb or who are unable to use their hand or thumb or index finger; the blind and those whose vision is too dim to allow them to read the Missal. Some authors, e. g. Noldin, think that, owing to the present ingenious construction of artificial limbs, this defect is no longer an irregularity, as it has ceased to be a deformity. The absence of an eye, even the left eye, may not constitute an impediment if the person can read the Mass without deformity. In case of doubt the bishop is judge, and, when the defect exists, he makes his declaration to Rome, but in practice the Sacred Congregation generally inclines to the severer view. Total deafness, dumbness, and stammering to such an extent as to make it impossible to pronounce complete words are likewise impediments. Paralytics, the lame who cannot properly perform the ceremonies, those who cannot drink wine without vomiting, lepers, those afflicted with the falling sickness, and in general all whose deformity is very notable are irregular. Defect of Reason This irregularity includes the insane, energumens, and simpletons. Defect of Knowledge Those who have not acquired the knowledge prescribed by the Council of Trent for the various grades of Holy orders cannot be licitly promoted to them. This defect is one that cannot be dispensed in, say canonists, because it falls under the natural law. When its cause, ignorance, disappears, however, the irregularity disappears without any dispensation. Defect of Confirmation in Faith This irregularity embraces neophytes recently converted and those who have not received the Sacrament of Confirmation. CESSATION OF IRREGULARITIES Many of the irregularities ex defectu cease without dispensation when their cause is removed. Such are the defects of age, liberty, knowledge. The same is to be said of infamy if it is infamia facti. If it be infamia juris, however, there must be a formal restitution of fame. If the infamy was contracted owing to some civil law it ceases in the ecclesiastical forum at the same time as it does in the civil forum. If a person was accounted irregular on account of some occupation in life, the dismissal of such occupation or condition will remove the impediment without any dispensation. All other irregularities need formal dispensation. In this matter the pope has absolute jurisdiction. A limited power of dispensation is conceded to bishops either by law or special faculties. By canon law a bishop can dispense from irregularities arising from similitudinary bigamy; likewise from illegitimacy, but only for minor orders. The Council of Trent declares that bishops may also dispense in all irregularities and suspensions arising from secret crimes, except voluntary homicide and those concerning which proceedings have been instituted before legal tribunals. The bishop can use his dispensing power, however, only for his own diocesan subjects. In voluntary homicide which is public or notorious the pope himself rarely dispenses. In homicide committed for one's own defence as well as secret accidental manslaughter, the bishop can dispense. If the latter deed be public the ordinary's powers extend only to minor orders. Heresy, schism, and apostasy are reserved to the pope, and for them the bishops need special faculties. Bodily defects are to be passed on by the local bishop, but the dispensation must come from the pope. Illegitimacy as an impediment to Sacred orders is reserved to the pope, but it is also removed by a solemn religious profession. Faults committed before baptism do not produce any irregularity. From this sketch it will be seen that Irregularities have been constituted by the Church to preserve the dignity and sanctity of the sacred ministry. TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906), s. v.; AICHNER, Compendium Juris Ecclesiastici (Brixen, 1895); FERRARIS, Bibliotheca Prompta, IV (Rome, 1888), s. v.; LAURENTIUS, Institutiones Juris Ecclesiastici (Freiburg im Br., 1908), 49-69; BOENNINGHAUSEN, De Irregularitatibus (Münster, 1863-66); RICHERT, Die Anfänge der Irregularitäten (Freiburg im Br., 1901). WILLIAM H. W. FANNING. Irremovability Irremovability (Lat. in, not, and removere, to remove) A quality of certain ecclesiastical offices and dignities. It implies that the incumbent's appointment is, under certain conditions, a perpetual one, or for the term of his natural life. This quality of irremovability, or perpetuity, is attached to the principal ecclesiastical offices, such as those of pope, cardinal, bishop, parish priest etc. A pope can resign his dignity; cardinals, bishops, and parish priests can either resign or be removed only for cause. It is of the removability of the latter especially that this article treats. According to the principal canonists the constitution of the canonical parish includes among its requisite conditions that its rector be irremovable. However, this does not mean that no exception is permitted, for occasionally the rectors of such canonical parishes may have only a vicarious charge for another who is the true parish priest. In some countries the bishop seems to be the parish priest of all or most of the parishes in his diocese, and the actual incumbents are simply his vicars. Thus in France after the Revolution the custom obtained that some thirty thousand succursal parish priests (desservants) were created without canonical institution and without the right of perpetuity, so that they could be removed and transferred by the bishops. The attitude of the Holy See towards this state of things has been one of passivity and toleration, not of approbation. In many missionary countries, as in the United States and England, a similar condition of affairs has obtained. According to the general law of the Church, however, a canonical parish priest is appointed for life and he can be removed from his benefice or office only for grave crimes expressed in law and after a canonical trial, either formal and solemn or, at least summary, in those countries to which the decree on that subject (1880) of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars has been extended. Irremovable Rectors in the United States Up to a comparatively recent date all the rectors having cure of souls in this country were removable at the will of the bishop (ad nutum episcopi). As we have said above, however, this was not in accord with the general law of the Church. Pope Innocent III, in the Fourth General Council of the Lateran (cap. "Extirpandæ", xxx, § "Vero de præb.", iii, 5), and Pope Boniface VIII (cap. "Unic. de capell. mon." in VIº), iii, 18) insist that rectors having cure of souls should be irremovable. This is also inculcated by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, cap. xiii, "De ref."). According to the secretary of the Sacred Congregation of the Council (1846), the latter tribunal, which is the legitimate interpreter of the Council of Trent, has always declared its wish that rectors having cure of souls be irremovable, and this notwithstanding any custom to the contrary. Indeed, in the early ages of the Church, as soon as priests were appointed to definite curacies (tituli), their appointment seems to have been in perpetuity. The reason for this irremovability of one having cure of souls is found in the fact that he is required to be the pastor and shepherd of his flock, to whom his sheep are known. It is, moreover, to the benefit of a parish that its administrator realize that he is secure in his office, as it will inspire him with greater zeal for the spiritual and temporal improvement of his charge. In order to extend these benefits to the United States, it was proposed by the Congregation of the Propaganda in 1883 that rectors having cure of souls in that country should be made canonical parish priests and as such irremovable. The American bishops, however, did not think the time ripe as yet for such development, and finally it was determined that irremovable rectors, who would not, however, have all the rights of canonical parish priests, should be constituted instead. The Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, held in 1884, decreed that in three years from the promulgation of the council each bishop was to select, with the advice of the diocesan consultors, a certain number of the curacies in his diocese and erect them into quasi-parishes, whose rectors would be irremovable. These quasi-parishes were to constitute at least one in ten of all the curacies or missions in the diocese. The first irremovable rectors might be appointed by the ordinary, with the advice of his consultors, without the formality of an examination, or concursus, but after that only when the prescribed examination had been undergone. An exception to the latter rule is made for certain priests whose learning and ability have been already abundantly proved. To obtain the right of making the concursus for an irremovable rectorship, the candidate must have already exercised the sacred ministry in a worthy manner for ten years in the diocese, and demonstrated his capacity for spiritual and temporal administration as a removable rector or in some equivalent office. The examiners having approved all the candidates whom they find worthy of the position, it devolves upon the bishop to designate one from among them who is to be made irremovable rector. Such rectors have quasi-parochial rights and join with the diocesan consultors in recommending candidates for the bishopric when it becomes vacant. In large dioceses, where distance or other causes would make a special concursus for every irremovable rectorship very inconvenient, it is allowed to hold a general examination once a year, and those approved for their learning at that time are qualified for appointment to any irremovable rectorship which falls vacant within the next six years, though the other requisite qualifications for such office are to be passed on each time there is question of an appointment. Irremovable rectors in the United States may be dismissed from their parishes only for very grave crimes, as dismissal is a very grave punishment. The nature of these crimes must also be expressly designated by ecclesiastical law. Dismissal is inflicted either ipso facto, in which case, however, a declaratory sentence is as a rule necessary, or after a condemnatory sentence following on a trial. The common law of the Church distinguishes those crimes which entail ipso facto dismissal from office from those which require a condemnatory sentence after canonical trial. The former are: heresy, falsification of papal documents, assassination, bodily attack on cardinal or bishop, procuring abortion, unnatural vice, simony, duelling, usurpation of church property, alienation of the possessions of the parish, irregular ordination or neglecting to receive Sacred orders within a year after appointment to a parish. The latter are: neglect of the prescribed clerical costume, non-residence in the parish, usury, inebriety, murder, gambling, perjury, theft and the like, remaining obdurately under censure for a year, incurring certain irregularities, concubinage. To these crimes the Third Council of Baltimore (1884) added other causes for the dismissal of irremovable rectors in the United States: disobedience to the ordinary in matters of grave moment, open neglect of the bishop's mandates concerning parochial schools, repeated incurring of debts without permission of the ordinary and manifest disobedience in payment of debts, collusion with lay trustees in issuing false notes in the name of the parish for the benefit of the rector, fraudulent deception of the ordinary in making the annual parochial statement concerning matters of grave import, public and persistent charges against the morals of the incumbent involving great harm to the parish. The council adds that if an irremovable rector be found incapable of administering his parish, he is to be asked to resign his charge. If he refuse, and it be not possible to appoint a vicar with sufficient revenue for support, the bishop can dismiss the irremovable rector, but in that case he must provide a proper pension for him. As to removable rectors in the United States, they are not left absolutely to the arbitrary will of the ordinary, but are to be dismissed only for cause, which, however, need not be one expressed in law nor necessarily as grave as such. The form of trial to be used in all cases in the United States is prescribed in the instruction "Cum Magnopere" (1884). Missionary Rectors in England These incumbents correspond to irremovable rectors in the United States. They have been appointed since 1852 in virtue of a decree of the Propaganda. Their office is perpetual and they have quasi-parochial rights, and they may not be removed except for canonical cause and after judicial investigation. The First Council of Westminster declares (decree xxv, 12) that an assistant priest acquires no right to a permanent appointment to the cure of souls owing to his service, but that such appointment to a missionary rectorship is a right reserved. SMITH, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, I (New York, 1895); TAUNTON, The Law of the Church (London, 1906), s. v. Irremoveable Rector; AICHNER, Compendium Juris Ecclesiastici (Brixen, 1895); SMITH, The New Procedure (New York, 1898). WiLLIAM H. W. FANNING. Irvingites Irvingites A religious sect called after Edward Irving (1792-1834), a deposed Presbyterian minister. They themselves repudiate this name, saying Irving was not their founder but only their "forerunner"; and claim to be the "Catholic Apostolic Church". The sect arose from certain extraordinary "manifestations of the spirit" -- tongues, prophecies, healings, even raising of the dead -- which were said to have taken place during Irving's ministry in London, after his deposition. These lead some of his followers to band themselves together for the purpose of forming a religious body modeled exactly on the lines of the primitive Apostolic Church, as they conceived it. The specialty of their religious belief consists in this: They hold apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors (Ephesians, iv, 11-14) to be abiding ministries in the Church, and that these ministries, together with the power and gifts of the Holy Ghost, dispensed and distributed among her members, are necessary for preparing and perfecting the Church for the Second Advent of the Lord; and that the supreme rule in the Church ought to be exercised, as at first, by twelve apostles, not elected and ordained by men, but called and sent forth immediately by God. They are not separated from the Church of the country in which they live. They worship apart, indeed, because they believe that they have a special call to do so. They accept the Apostles' Creed, and the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. It is their form of church government and liturgy which are peculiar to them. During Irving's lifetime six apostles were "separated" for the work of the ministry. After his death six others were added. These twelve apostles were to ordain twelve "prophets", twelve "evangelists" and twelve "pastors". Seven "deacons" were to be chosen for the management of the temporal affairs of the body. This number of central officials has not in fact been adhered to. Each congregation has at its head an "angel", or bishop, who ranks as a "pastor", and who has under him twenty-four priests and seven deacons. The ritual is exceedingly elaborate, resembling in many ways the most splendid functions of the Catholic Church. At Matins and Vespers they have "Proposition" (Exposition) of the Sacrament. On Sundays and holidays they have solemn celebration of the Eucharist with lights, incense, and vestments. They use oil and water in their ritual observances. Their two principal churches are at Albury (Surrey, England), and at Gordon Square, London (England). It should be stated that the so-called lrvingites owe much more to Henry Drummond (1786-1860) than to Irving. At his seat, Albury Park, the earliest meetings of the sect were held, and his wealth was at its disposal. He was one of its office-bearers, and wrote numerous works in its defence. The last of the "apostles" died in 1901, and none has since been appointed. No official statistics are published, but there are known to be congregations not only in England, but also in America, Germany, France, and Switzerland. In 1900 there were 80 churches altogether. Baxter, Irvingism, in its rise, Progress, and Present State (London, 1836); OLIPHANT, Life of Edward Irving (London, 1862); BLUNT, Dictionary of Sects (London 1874); DAVENPORT, Edward Irving and the Catholic Apostolic Church; HOOK, Church Dictionary (London 1887); R. Story, Life of Story (London, 1863). T.B. SCANNELL Isaac Isaac The son of Abraham and Sara. The incidents of his life are told in Genesis 15-35, in a narrative the principal parts of which are traced back by many scholars to three several documents (J, E, P) utilized in the composition of the Book of Genesis (see ABRAHAM). According to Genesis 17:17; 18:12; 21:6, his name means: "he laughs". He was circumcised eight days after his birth, weaned in due time, and proclaimed the sole legal ancestor of the chosen people (21:1-12). His early years were spent in Bersabee, whence he was taken by his father to Mount Moria to be offered up in sacrifice, and whither he returned after his life had been miraculously spared (21:33; 22:19). His mother died when he was thirty-six years of age (cf. Genesis 17:17; 23:1). A few years later, he married Rebecca, Bathuel's daughter, whom one of his father's servants had, according to Abraham's directions, brought from Mesopotamia (24). The union took place in "the south country", where Isaac then lived, and continued to live after he had joined with Ismael in committing the body of Abraham to burial in the cave of Machpelah (24:62, 67; 25:7-11). Many years elapsed before Isaac's longing entreaty to God for children was actually heard. Of the twins to whom she then gave birth, Esau was beloved by Isaac, while Jacob was Rebecca's favourite (25:21-28). Drought and famine made it necessary for Isaac to take the road down to Egypt, but, at Yahweh's bidding, he stopped on his way thither and sojourned in Gerara, where an incident similar to that of Abraham's disavowal of Sara is recorded of him (26:1-11). We are told next how, through envy of Isaac's prosperity as a husbandman and a herdsman, the Philistines among whom he dwelt began petty persecutions, which the Hebrew patriarch bore patiently, but on account of which he finally withdrew to Bersabee. There he was favoured with a new vision from Yahweh, and entered a solemn covenant with Abimelech, King of Gerara (26:12-33). During the last years of Isaac's career, there occurred the well-known incident of his conferring upon Jacob the Divine blessing, which he had always intended for Esau (27), followed by Isaac's concern to protect Jacob from his brother's resentment and to secure for him a wife from his mother's kindred in Mesopotamia (28:1-5). After Jacob's return, Isaac died at the age of one hundred and eighty, and was buried by his sons in the cave of Machpelah (35:27-29; 49:31). As delineated in Genesis, the figure of Isaac is much less striking than that of Abraham, his father. Yet, by his manner of life, always quiet, gentle, guileless, faithful to God's guidance, he ever was the worthy heir and transmitter of the glorious promises made to Abraham. He was pre-eminently a man of peace, the fitting type of the Prince of Peace, whose great sacrifice on Mount Calvary was foreshadowed by Isaac's obedience unto death on Mount Moria. The New Testament contains few, but significant references to Isaac (cf. Matthew 8:11; Luke 12:28; 20:37; Romans 9:7; Galatians 4:28; Hebrews 11:17 sqq.; James 2:21). The legends and various details concerning Isaac which are found in the Talmud and in Rabbinical writings are of no historical value. FRANCIS E. GIGOT Isaac of Armenia Isaac of Armenia (SAHAK) Catholicos or Patriarch of Armenia (338-439), otherwise known as ISAAC THE GREAT and sometimes as PARTHEV owing to his Parthian origin. He was son of St. Narses and descended from the family of St. Grergory the Illuminator. Left an orphan at a very early age, he received in Constantinople an excellent literary education, particularly in the Eastern languages. After his election as patriarch he devoted himself to the religious and scientific training of his people. Armenia was then passing through a grave crisis. In 387 it had lost its independence and been divided between the Byzantine Empire and Persia; each division had at its head an Armenian but feudatory king. In the Byzantine territory, however, the Armenians were forbidden the use of the Syriac language, until then exclusively used in Divine worship: for this the Greek language was to be substituted, and the country gradually hellenized in the Persian districts, on the contrary, Greek was absolutely prohibited, while Syriac was greatly favoured in this way the ancient culture of the Armenians was in danger of disappearing and national unity was seriously compromised. To save both Isaac invented with the aid of St. Mesrop, the Armenian alphabet and began to translate the Bible; their translation from the Syriac Peshito was revised by means of the Septuagint, and even, it seems, from the Hebrew text (between 410 and 430). The liturgy also, hitherto Syrian was translated into Armenian, drawing at the same time on the Liturgy of St. Basil of Caesarea, so as to obtain for the new service a national colour. Isaac had already established schools for higher education with the aid of disciples whom he had sent to study at Edessa, Melitene, Byzantium, and elsewhere. Through them he now had the principal masterpieces of Greek and Syrian Christian literature translated, e.g. the writings of Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil, the two Gregorys (of Nazianzus and of Nyssa), John Chrysostom, Ephrem, etc. Armenian literature in its golden age was, therefore, mainly a borrowed literature. Through Isaac's efforts the churches and monasteries destroyed by the Persians were rebuilt, education was cared for in a generous way, the pagan worship of Ormuzd which Shah Yezdigerd tried to set up was cast out, and three councils held to re-establish ecclesiastical discipline. Isaac is said to have been the author of liturgical hymns. Two letters, written by him to Theodosius II and to Atticus of Constantinople, have been preserved. A third letter addressed to St. Proclus of Constantinople was not written by him, but dates from the tenth century. Neither did he have any share, as was wrongly ascribed to him, in the Council of Ephesus (431), though, in consequence of disputes which arose in Armenia between the followers of Nestorius and the disciples of Acacius of Melitene and Rabulas, Isaac and his church did appeal to Constantinople and through St. Proclus obtained the desired explanations. A man of enlightened piety and of very austere life, Isaac owed his deposition by the king in 426 to his great independence of character in 430 he was allowed to resume his patriarchal throne. In his extreme old age he seems to have withdrawn into solitude, dying at the age of 110. Neither the exact year nor the precise month of his death is known, but it seems to have occurred between 439 and 441. Several days are consecrated to his memory in the Armenian Church. NEUMANN, Versuch einer Gesch. der armen. Literatur, 28-30; MOSES DE CHRENE, in LANGLOIS, Collections des historiens anciens et modernes de l' Armenie, II (Paris, 1869), 159-73; LEQUIEN, Oriens Christianus, I, 1375-7; BARDENHEWER, Patrologie, 549; TER-MI-KELlAN, Die armenische Kirche (Leipzig, 1892), 33-9, FINCK, in Gesch. der. Christl. litteraturen des Orients (Leipzig, 1907), 82-5; Smith, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geography, III, 290. S. VAILHÉ Isaac of Nineveh Isaac of Nineveh A Nestorian bishop of that city in the latter half of the seventh century, being consecrated by the Nestorian Patriarch George (660-80). Originally a monk of the monastery of Bethabe in Kurdistan, he abdicated for unknown reasons after an episcopate of but five months, and retired to the monastery of Rabban Shapur, where he died at an advanced age, blind through study and austerity. Towards the end of his life he passed under a cloud as his Nestorian orthodoxy became suspected. He was author of three theses, which found but little acceptance amongst Nestorians. Daniel Bar Tubanita, Bishop of Beth Garmai (some 100 miles south-east of Mossul), took umbrage at his teaching and became his ardent opponent. The precise contents of these theses are not known, but they were of too Catholic a character to be compatible with Nestorian heresy. From an extant prayer of his, addressed to Christ it is certainly difficult to realize that its author was a Nestorian. Eager to claim so great a writer, the monophysites falsified his biography, placing his life at the beginning of the seventh century, making him a monk of the Jacobite monastery of Mar Mattai, and stating that he retired to the desert of Scete in Egypt. Since the discovery of Ishodenah's "Book of Chastity" by Chabot in 1895 the above details of Isaac's life are beyond doubt, and all earlier accounts must be corrected accordingly. Isaac was a fruitful ascetical writer and his works were for centuries the main food of Syrian piety. Only very little of the original Syriac has been published--two chapters on "Grades of Knowledge" and the "Essential Qualities of Virtues" by Zingerle ("Monum. Syriaca", I, 1869, pp. 97-101), and three dialogues by Chabot at the end of his treatise "De Isaaci vita" (see below). A German translation of some six chapters was made directly from the Syriac by Bickell ("Biblioth. der Kirchenvat.", Kempten, 1874). A complete list of Isaac's works is given by Chabot in "De Isaaci vita" and "Notes sur la litt. Syr." in the "Revue Semitique" (1896), p. 254. Isaac's works were early translated in Arabic, Ethiopic, and Greek. The Greek translation was made by two monks of St. Saba, Patrick and Abraham, and published by Nicephorus Theodoces under the title Tou hosiou patros memon Isaak . . . ta eurethenta asketika (Leipzig, 1870). This publication, however, does not represent any precise work of Isaac, but is rather a corpus asceticum, containing treatises, letters, colloquies, all in one. Two Latin recensions thereof have been published: the one entitled "Sermones beati Isaaci de Syria" (Venice, 1506) and the other in the "Max. biblioth. vet. Patrum", XIII (Lyons, 1677). This latter recension is reprinted an Gallandi, XII, and again in Migne, P.G., LXXXVI, 1, 811-86, and bears the title "De Contemptu Mundi". It is erroneously ascribed to Isaac of Antioch, with whom Isaac of Nineveh is often confounded. The Latin gives but half the contents of the Greek, which itself has undergone a number of manipulations. The long letter to Simeon of Caesarea published in Mai's "Nov. Patr. Biblioth.", VIII, 3, forms the last chapter of Theodorus's Greek. Marius Besson published apophthegmata of lsaac's in Greek in "Oriens Christ.", I (1901), 46-60. The Arabic translation of this corpus asceticum is much fuller than the Greek, and divided into four books. Isaac's writings possess passages of singular beauty and elevation, and remind the reader of Thomas à Kempis. CHABOT, De Isaaci Ninivitiae vita, etc. (Paris and Louvain, 1892); DUVAL, Anc. Litteratures chret. Lit. Syriaque (Paris, 1907); WRIGHT, Short History of Syriac Literature (2nd, ed., London, 1894); BARDENHEWER, Hist. of Ancient Church Literature (tr., Baltimore, 1908). J.P. ARENDZEN Isaac of Seleucia Isaac of Seleucia Patriarch of the Persian Church, d. 410. Isaac is celebrated among the patriarchs of the Persian Church for having reorganized it after the terrible persecution that overwhelmed it under Sapor (Shapûr) II. We know little or nothing definite of his early days. According to the most probable tradition he was enabled through the influence he had with King Yazdgerd I, to restore the Catholicate of Seleucia, which had been vacant for twenty-two years. Another account says he was chosen to replace a certain Qayom, who had been deposed by his fellow-bishops for incapacity. Isaac's great work was the organizing of the Council of Seleucia, the equivalent for the Eastern Syrian Church of the Council of Nicaea. The Persian bishops met under the express orders of the monarch at the capital of the Sassanide kingdom. Isaac presided, in concert with Maruthas of Martyropolis, whom the "Western Fathers", i.e., the bishops of the Syrian Province of Antioch, had delegated to assist in the reorganization of the Christian religion in Persia. Two Persian nobles and the Grand Vizier, who represented the king at this important assembly, promulgated a decree authorizing the Christians to practice their religion and to construct churches. They recognized Isaac, the Catholicos of Seleucia, as the sole official head of the Persian Christians, and declared that the secular arm would repress all who were insubordinate to him. Shortly after this great success, which assured the unification and the stability of the Persian Church, Isaac died. CHABOT, Synodicon orientale (Paris, 1902), BRAUN, Das Buch Synhados (Stuttgart, 1900); De sancta nicaena synodo (Munster, 1898), LABOURET, Le christianisme dans l'Empire perse (Paris, 1904). J. LABOURT Isabella I Isabella I ("LA CATÓLICA" = "THE CATHOLIC") Queen of Castile; born in the town of Madrigal de las Altas Torres, 22 April, 1451; died a little before noon, 26 November, 1504, in the castle of La Mota, which still stands at Medina del Campo (Valladolid). She was the daughter of John II, King of Castile, by his second wife, Isabella of Portugal. Being only a little more than three years of age when her father died (1454), she was brought up carefully and piously by her mother, at Arevalo, until her thirteenth year. Her brother, King Henry IV, then took her, together with her other brother, Alfonso, to his court, on the pretext of completing her education, but in reality, as Flórez tells us, to prevent the two royal children from serving as a standard to which the discontented nobles might rally. The Castilian nobles had been constantly increasing in power during the repeated long minorities through which the crown had passed, and had taken advantage of the weakness of kings like Henry II and John II. At this period they had reached the point of completely stripping the throne of its authority. They availed themselves of Henry IV's incredible imbecility and of the scandalous relations between Joan of Portugal, his second wife, and his favourite, Beltran de la Cueva. Defeated at Olmedo, and deprived of their leader, the Infante Alfonso, who died -- by poison, as was believed -- on 5 July, 1468, they sought to obtain the crown for the Infanta Isabella, rejecting the king's presumptive daughter, Joan, who was called "La Beltraneja" on the supposition that Don Beltran was her real father. On this occasion Isabella gave one of the earliest proofs of her great qualities, refusing the usurped crown offered to her, and declaring that never while her brother lived would she accept the title of queen. The king, on his part, committed the astounding folly of recognizing Isabella as his immediate heiress, to the exclusion of Joan. Historians have generally been willing to interpret this act of Henry IV as an implicit acknowledgment of his own dishonour. To be strictly just, however, it was not so, for even if Joan was his daughter in fact, as she was by juridical presumption, he might have yielded to the violence of the nobles, who sought to give the crown to Isabella immediately, and compromised with them by making her his heir, as he did in "the Inn of the Bulls" of Guisando (la Venta de los Toros), 19 September, 1468. For a year before this, Isabella had been living at Segovia, apart from the court, which resided at Toledo; after the conclusion of the pact she was at odds with her brother, the king on account of his plan for her marriage. In 1460 Henry had already offered the hand of Isabella to Don Carlos, Prince of Viana, the eldest son of John II of Aragon, and heir, at the same time, to the Kingdom of Navarre. This Henry did in spite of the opposition of the King of Aragon, who wished to obtain the hand of Isabella (which carried with it the crown of Castile) for his younger son, Ferdinand. Negotiations were protracted until the unhappy death of the Prince of Viana. In 1465 an attempt was made to arrange the marriage between Isabella and Alfonso V of Portugal, but the princess had already chosen Ferdinand of Aragon for a husband and was therefore opposed to this alliance. For the same reason she subsequently refused to marry Don Pedro Girón, Master of Calatrava, a member of the powerful Pacheco family, whom the king sought to win over by this means. Other aspirants for Isabella'a hand were Richard, Duke of Gloucester, brother of Edward IV of England, and the Duke of Guienne, brother of Louis XI of France. The Cortes was assembled at Ocaña in 1469 to ratify the Pact of Guisando, when an embassy arrived from Portugal to renew the suit of Alfonso V for the hand of Isabella. When she declined this alliance, the king went so far as to threaten her with imprisonment in the Alcazar of Madrid, and although fear of the Infanta's partisans prevented him from carrying out this threat, he exacted of his sister a promise not to enter into any matrimonial negotiations during his absence in Andalusia, whither he was on the point of setting out. But Isabella, as soon as she was left alone, removed with the aid of the Archbishop of Toledo and the Admiral of Castile, Don Fadrique Enríquez, to Madrigal and thence to Valladolid, and from there sent Gutierre de Cárdenas and Alfonso de Palencia in search of Ferdinand, who had been proclaimed King of Sicily and heir of the Aragonese monarchy. Ferdinand, after a journey the story of which reads like a novel, for its perils and its dramatic interest, was married to Isabella in the palace of Juan de Vivero, in 1469. On the death of Henry IV, Isabella, who was then at Segovia, was proclaimed Queen of Castile. But La Beltraneja had been betrothed to Alfonso V of Portugal, and Henry, revoking the Pact of Guisando, had caused her to be proclaimed heiress of his dominions. The Archbishop of Toledo, the Marqués de Villena, the Master of Calatrava, and other nobles, who in her father's lifetime had denied La Beltraneja's legitimacy, now defended her claims. And thus was begun a war between Spain and Portugal which lasted five years, ending with the peace of 1479, when a double alliance was arranged. La Beltraneja, however, abandoned her claims, taking the veil in the monastery of Santa Clara of Coimbra (1480), and with that event the right of Isabella to the throne of Castile became unquestioned. Ferdinand had meanwhile succeeded to the throne of Aragon, and thus the definitive unity of the Spanish nation was accomplished in the two monarchs to whom a Spanish pope, Alexander VI, gave the title of "Catholic" which the Kings of Spain still bear. Isabella displayed her prudence and gentleness -- qualities which she possessed in a degree seldom equalled -- in the agreement she made with Ferdinand as to the government of their dominions: they were to hold equal authority, a principle expressed in the device or motto, " Tanto monta, monta tanto -- Isabel como Fernando (As much as the one is worth so much is the other -- Isabella as Fernando)". The harmonious union of the peoples and the crowns being thus realized, it was necessary to reduce the power of the nobles, who had acquired a position almost independent of the crown and rendered good government difficult. Towards this object the Catholic sovereigns directed their efforts; among the means which they took should be mentioned chiefly: (1) the establishment of the Santa Hermandad (Holy Brotherhood), a kind of permanent military force, very completely organized, supported by the municipal councils, and intended for the protection of persons and property against the violence of the nobles; (2) an improved and properly ordered administration of justice with a wise organization of the tribunals, the establishment of the Chancery at Valladolid, and the promulgation of the royal edicts generally called "Edicts of Montalvo" after the jurisconsult who drew them up; (3) the abolition of the right of coining money, which certain individuals held, and the regulation of the currency laws so as to facilitate commerce; (4) the revocation of extravagant grants made to certain nobles during the reigns of the late monarchs, the demolition of their castles, which constituted a menace to public peace, and the vesting in the crown of the masterships of military orders. To preserve the purity of the Faith and religious unity, against the intrigues of the Jews, who were employing the influence of their wealth and their usurious dealings to pervert Christians, the Catholic sovereigns solicited of Pope Sixtus IV the establishment of the Inquisition. Their government thus strengthened at home, the sovereigns proceeded to bring to a completion, by the conquest of Granada, the great work of reconquest which had been virtually at a standstill since the time of Alfonso XI. The taking of Zahara, of which the Moors possessed themselves by surprise, afforded an occasion for the war; which opened happily with the conquest of Alhama (March, 1482). The Christians were favoured by the internal troubles of Granada, which were due to the party of the Emir Muley Hassan and his son Boabdil, and, after the death of the former, to the supporters of his uncle Abdallah el Zagal. The sovereigns kept up the war in spite of the serious defeats sustained by them at Ajarquia and Loja, and possessed themselves successively of Coin, Guadix, Almería, Loja, Vélez, Malaga, and Baza. Isabella took a prominent part in this war; not only did she attend to the government of the kingdom, and provide for the support of the army while Ferdinand did battle at its head, but she repeatedly visited the camp to animate the troops by her presence. This was the case at the siege of Malaga, and at that of Baza, where the stern usages of war did not hinder the Moorish leader, Cid Hiaya, from displaying his chivalry towards the queen. She was in danger of being assassinated by a Mohammedan fanatic before the walls of Malaga, and of perishing in the conflagration of the besieging camp at Granada. In consequence of this conflagration the city of Santa Fe was built, to put an end to the vain hopes of the people of Granada, that the Catholic sovereigns would abandon their enterprise. Granada surrendered 2 January, 1492, and the territorial unity of the Spanish monarchy was established. To protect its normal unity, an edict was issued three months later (31 March) expelling from Spain the Jews (170,000 to 180,000 souls), whose cities had admitted the Mussulman invaders in the eighth century, and who constituted a perpetual danger to the independence and security of the nation. While they were carrying on the war against Granada Christopher Columbus presented himself to the Catholic sovereigns, and to Queen Isabella fell the honour of appreciating the genius who had not been understood at Genoa, at Venice, or in Portugal. Protected first of all by the Spanish friars, he was presented to the queen by her confessor, Padre Hernando Talavera, and Cardinal Mendoza (el Cardenal de España); and with the means which the king and queen procured for him he fitted out the three famous caravels which placed America in communication with the Old World. Sailing, 3 August, 1492, from the port of Palos, he discovered on 12 October -- the day on which the feast of Our Lady of the Pillar is observed in Spain -- the first of the Bahama Islands. Not only did Isabella the Catholic always show herself the protectress of Columbus, but she was also the protectess of the American aborigines against the ill-usage of the colonists and adventurers. In 1503, she organized the Secretariate of Indian Affairs, which was the origin of the Supreme Council of the Indies. Isabella was no less the patroness of the great Cisneros in the reformation of the monasteries of Spain, a work which he accomplished under the authority of Alexander VI given by the Brief of March, 1493, and which anticipated the reform afterwards executed throughout the whole Church. The good government of the Catholic sovereigns brought the prosperity of Spain to its apogee, and inaugurated that country's Golden Age. The manufacture of cloths and silks developed at Segovia, Medina, Granada, Valencia, and Toledo, as also that of glass and of steel weapons, of leather and silverware. Agriculture prospered, while navigation and commerce rose to an unprecedented height in consequence of the great discoveries of that epoch. Queen Isabella by her example led the way in fostering the love of study, and in many respects her Court recalls that of Charlemagne. When she was already a grown woman she devoted herself to the study of Latin, and became an eager collector of books, of which she possessed a great number. Her Castilian has been ranked as a standard of the language by the Spanish Royal Academy. She was extremely solicitous for the education of her five children (Isabella, John, Joan, Maria, and Catherine), and in order to educate Prince John with ten other boys, she formed in her palace a school similar to the Palatine School of the Carlovingians. Her daughters, too, attained to a degree of education higher than was usual at that epoch, and they so combined with their learning the industries peculiarly appropriate to their sex, that Ferdinand the Catholic could imitate Charlemagne in using no article of clothing that had not been spun or sewn by his consort and his daughters. This example of the queen, a model of virtue, piety, and domestic economy, who mended one doublet for her husband the king as often as seven times, exercised a great moral influence on the nobility in discouraging inordinate luxury and vain pastimes. It also fostered learning not only in the universities and among the nobles, but also among women. Some of the latter distinguished themselves by their intellectual attainments -- e.g. Beatriz Galinda, called la Latina, Lucia Medrano, and Francisca Nebrija, the Princess Joan and the Princess Catherine (who afterwards became Queen of England), Isabella Vergara, and others who reached great proficiency in philosophy, Latin, and mathematics, and became qualified to fill professional chairs in the universities of Alcalá and Salamanca. Isabella the Catholic was extremely unhappy in her children. Prince John died in youth, full of the most brilliant promise; Catherine was eventually repudiated by her husband Henry VIII; Joan, heiress to the kingdom, lost her reason. Not the least notable trait in the life of Isabella was the making of that last will and testament, immortalized in Rosales's picture in the Madrid Museum. Her heart was filled with sympathy for the fate of the American Indians, she charged her successors to protect them and to regard them as they regarded their other subjects, and she pointed out Spain's mission in Africa -- a mission which the Moroccan question has tardily enough brought to the world's knowledge. Clemencín, Elogio de la Reyna Católica Da. Isabel in Mem. Acad. de la Historia (Madrid, 1821); FernÁndez y GonzÁlez, Da. Isabel la Católica (Madrid, 18-); MartÍnez de Velasco, Isabel la Católica (Madrid, 1883); Rada y Delgado, Retratos de Isabel la Católica in Boletín Acad. de la Historia (Madrid, 1885); Mariana, Lafuente, and other writers in the history of Spain. RAMÓN RUIZ AMADO St. Isabel of France St. Isabel of France Daughter of Louis VIII and of his wife, Blanche of Castille, born in March, 1225; died at Longchamp, 23 February, 1270. St. Louis IX, King of France (1226-70), was her brother. When still a child at court, Isabel, or Elizabeth, showed an extraordinary devotion to exercises of piety, modesty, and other virtues. By Bull of 26 May, 1254, Innocent IV allowed her to retain some Franciscan fathers as her special confessors. She was even more devoted to the Franciscan Order than her royal brother. She not only broke off her engagement with a count, but moreover refused the hand of Conrad, son of the German Emperor Frederick II, although pressed to accept him by everyone, even by Pope Innocent IV, who however did not hesitate subsequently (1254) to praise her fixed determination to remain a virgin. As Isabel wished to found a convent of the Order of St. Clare, Louis IX began in 1255 to acquire the necessary land in the Forest of Rouvray, not far from the Seine and in the neighbourhood of Paris. On 10 June, 1256, the first stone of the convent church was laid. The building appears to have been completed about the beginning of 1259, because Alexander IV gave his sanction on 2 February, 1259, to the new rule which Isabel had had compiled by the Franciscan Mansuetus on the basis of the Rule of the Order of St. Clare. These rules were drawn up solely for this convent, which was named the Monastery of the Humility of the Blessed Virgin (Monasterium Humilitatis B. Mariæ Virginis). The sisters were called in the rule the "Sorores Ordinis humilium ancillarum Beatissimf Marif Virginis". The fast was not so strict as in the Rule of St. Clare; the community was allowed to hold property, and the sisters were subject to the Minorites. The first sisters came from the convent of the Poor Clares at Reims. Isabel herself never entered the cloister, but from 1260 (or 1263) she followed the rules in her own home near by. Isabel was not altogether satisfied with the first rule drawn up, and therefore submitted through the agency of her brother Louis IX, who had also secured the confirmation of the first rule, a revised rule to Urban IV. Urban approved this new constitution on 27 July, 1263. The difference between the two rules consisted for the most part in outward observances and minor alterations. This new rule was also adopted by other French and Italian convents of the Order of St. Clare, but one can by no means say that a distinct congregation was formed on the basis Isabella's rule. In the new rule Urban IV gives the nuns of Longchamp the official title of "Sorores Minores inclusæ, which was doubtlessly intended to emphasize closer union with the Order of Friars Minor. After a life of mortification and virtue, Isabella died in her house at Longchamp on 23 February, 1270, and was buried in the convent church. After nine days her body was exhumed, when it showed no signs of decay, and many miracles were wrought at her grave. In 1521 Leo X allowed the Abbey of Longchamp to celebrate her feast with a special Office. On 4 June, 1637, a second exhumation took place. On 25 January, 1688, the nuns obtained permission to celebrate her feast with an octave, and in 1696 the celebration of the feast on 31 August was permitted to the whole Franciscan Order. They now keep it on 1 September. The history of the Abbey of Longchamp had many vicissitudes. The Revolution closed it, and in 1794 the empty and dilapidated building was offered for sale, but as no one wished to purchase it, it was destroyed. In 1857 the walls were pulled down except one tower, and the grounds were added to the Bois de Boulogne. AGNES D'HARCOURT, third Prioress of Longchamp (1263-70), wrote the saint's life, Vie de Madame Isabelle, which may be found in the Archives Nationales L. 1021 MSS. (Paris). A Latin translation of this book is given in Acta SS., VII, Aug., 798-808; cf. ibid., 787-98. See also ROULLIARD, La sainte mère, ou vie de Madame Saincte Isabel (Paris, 1619); ANDRÉ, Histoire de Ste Isabelle (Carpentras, 1885); DANIÉLO, Vie de Madame Ste Isabelle (Paris, 1840); BERGUIN, La Bienheureuse Isabelle de France (Grenoble, 1899); DUCHESNE, Histoire de l'abbaye royale de Longchamp, 1255-1789 (2nd ed., Paris, 1904); SBARA-LEA, Bull. Franc., III (Rome, 1765), 64-9; II (1761). 477-86. MICHAEL BIHL Isaias Isaias Among the writers whom the Hebrew Bible styles the "Latter Prophets" foremost stands "Isaias, the holy prophet . . . the great prophet, and faithful in the sight of God" (Ecclus., xlviii, 23-25). I. LIFE The name Isaias signifies "Yahweh is salvation". It assumes two different forms in the Hebrew Bible: for in the text of the Book of Isaias and in the historical writings of the Old Testament, for example in IV Kings, xix, 2; II Par., xxvi, 22; xxxii, 20, 32, it is read Yeshá`yahu, whereas the collection of the Prophet's utterances is entitled Yeshá`yah, in Greek `Esaías, and in Latin usually Isaias, but sometimes Esaias. Four other persons of the same name are mentioned in the Old Testament (I Esd., viii, 7; viii, 19; II Esd., xi, 7; I Par., xxvi, 25); while the names Jesaia (I Par., xxv, 15), Jeseias (I Par., iii, 21; xxv, 3) may be regarded as mere variants. From the Prophet himself (i, 1; ii, 1) we learn that he was the son of Amos. Owing to the similarity between Latin and Greek forms of this name and that of the Shepherd-Prophet of Thecue, some Fathers mistook the Prophet Amos for the father of Isaias. St. Jerome in the preface to his "Commentary on Amos" (P.L., XXV, 989) points out this error. Of Isaias's ancestry we know nothing; but several passages of his prophecies (iii, 1-17, 24; iv, 1; viii, 2; xxxi, 16) lead us to believe that he belonged to one of the best families of Jerusalem. A Jewish tradition recorded in the Talmud (Tr. Megilla, 10b.) held him to be a nephew of King Amasias. As to the exact time of the Prophet's birth we lack definite data; yet he is believed to have been about twenty years of age when he began his public ministry. He was a citizen, perhaps a native, of Jerusalem. His writings give unmistakable signs of high culture. From his prophecies (vii and viii) we learn that he married a woman whom he styles "the prophetess" and that he had two sons, She`arYashub and Mahershalalhashbaz. Nothing whatever indicates that he was twice married as some fancy on the gratuitous and indefensible supposition that the `almah of vii, 14, was his wife. The prophetical ministry of Isaias lasted wellnigh half a century, from the closing year of Ozias, King of Juda, possibly up to that of Manasses. This period was one of great prophetical activity. Israel and Juda indeed were in sore need of guidance. After the death of Jeroboam II revolution followed upon revolution and the northern kingdom had sunk rapidly into an abject vassalage to the Assyrians. The petty nations of the West, however, recovering from the severe blows received in the beginning of the eighth century, were again manifesting aspirations of independence. Soon Theglathphalasar III marched his armies towards Syria; heavy tributes were levied and utter ruin threatened on those who would show any hesitation to pay. In 725 Osee, the last King of Samaria, fell miserably under the onslaught of Salmanasar IV, and three years later Samaria succumbed to the hands of the Assyrians. In the meantime the Kingdom of Juda hardly fared better. A long period of peace had enervated characters, and the young, inexperienced, and unprincipled Achaz was no match for the SyroIsraelite coalition which confronted him. Panicstricken he, in spite of the remonstrances of Isaias, resolved to appeal to Theglathphalasar. The help of Assyria was secured, but the independence of Juda was thereby practically forfeited. In order to explain clearly the political situation to which so many allusions are made in Isaias's writings there is here subjoined a brief chronological sketch of the period: 745, Theglathphalasar III, king of Assyria; Azarias (A. V. Uzziah), of Juda; Manahem (A. V. Menahem) of Samaria; and Sua of Egypt; 740, death of Azarias; Joatham (A. V. Jotham), king of Juda; capture of Arphad (A. V. Arpad) by Theglathphalasar III (Is., x, 9); 738, campaign of Theglathphalasar against Syria; capture of Calano (A. V. Calno) and Emath (A. V. Hamath); heavy tribute imposed upon Manahem (IV Kings, xv, 19-20); victorious wars of Joatham against the Ammonites (II Par., xxvii, 4-6); 736, Manahem succeeded by Phaceia (A. V. Pekahiah); 735, Joatham succeeded by Achaz (IV Kings, xvi, 1); Phaceia replaced by Phacee (A. V. Pekah), son of Remelia (A. V. Remaliah), one of his captains; Jerusalem besieged by Phacee in alliance with Rasin (A. V. Rezin), king of Syria (IV Kings xvi, 5; Is., vii, 1, 2); 734, Theglathphalasar, replying to Achaz' request for aid, marches against Syria and Israel, takes several cities of North and East Israel (IV Kings, xv, 29), and banishes their inhabitants; the Assyrian allies devastate part of the territory of Juda and Jerusalem; Phacee slain during a revolution in Samaria and succeeded by Osee (A. V. Hoshea); 733, unsuccessful expeditions of Achaz against Edom (II Par., xxviii, 17) and the Philistines (20); 732, campaign of Theglathphalasar against Damascus; Rasin besieged in his capital, captured, and slain; Achaz goes to Damascus to pay homage to the Assyrian ruler (IV Kings, xvi, 10-19); 727, death of Achaz; accession of Ezechias (IV Kings, xviii, 1); in Assyria Salmanasar IV succeeds Theglathphalasar III, 726, campaign of Salmanasar against Osee (IV Kings, xvii, 3); 725, Osee makes alliance with Sua, king of Egypt (IV Kings, xvii, 4); second campaign of Salmanasar IV, resulting in the capture and deportation of Osee (IV Kings, xvii, 4); beginning of the siege of Samaria; 722, Sargon succeeds Salmanasar IV in Assyria; capture of Samaria by Sargon; 720, defeat of Egyptian army at Raphia by Sargon; 717, Charcamis, the Hittite stronghold on the Euphrates, falls into the hands of Sargon (Is, x, 8); 713, sickness of Ezechias (IV Kings, xx, 1-11; Is, xxxviii); embassy from Merodach Baladan to Ezechias (IV Kings, xx, 12-13; Is., xxxix); 711, invasion of Western Palestine by Sargon; siege and capture of Azotus (A. V. Ashdod; Is., xx); 709, Sargon defeats Merodach Baladan, seizes Babylon, and assumes title of king of Babylon; 705, death of Sargon; accession of Sennacherib; 701, expedition of Sennacherib against Egypt; defeat of latter at Elteqeh; capture of Accaron (A. V. Ekron); siege of Lachis; Ezechias's embasy; the conditions laid down by Sennacherib being found too hard the king of Juda prepares to resist the Assyrians; destruction of part of the Assyrian army; hurried retreat of the rest (IV Kings, xviii; Is., xxxvi, xxxvii); 698, Ezechias is succeeded by his son Manasses. The wars of the ninth century and the peaceful security following them produced their effects in the latter part of the next century. Cities sprang up; new pursuits, although affording opportunities of easy wealth, brought about also an increase of poverty. The contrast between class and class became daily more marked, and the poor were oppressed by the rich with the connivance of the judges. A social state founded on iniquity is doomed. But as Israel's social corruption was greater than Juda's, Israel was expected to succumb first. Greater likewise was her religious corruption. Not only did idolatrous worship prevail there to the end, but we know from Osee what gross abuses and shameful practices obtained in Samaria and throughout the kingdom, whereas the religion of the people of Juda on the whole seems to have been a little better. We know, however, as regards these, that at the very time of Isaias certain forms of idolatrous worship, like that of Nohestan and of Moloch, probably that also of Tammur and of the "host of heaven", were going on in the open or in secret. Commentators are at variance as to when Isaias was called to the prophetical office. Some think that previous to the vision related in vi, 1, he had received communications from heaven. St. Jerome in his commentary on the passage holds that chapters i-v ought to be attributed to the last years of King Ozias, then ch. vi would commence a new series begun in the year of the death of that prince (740 b.c.; P.L., XXIV, 91; cf. St. Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. ix; P.G., XXXV, 820). It is more commonly held, however, that ch. vi refers to the first calling of the Prophet; St. Jerome himself, in a letter to Pope Damasus seems to adopt this view (P. L., XXII, 371; cf. Hesychius "In Is.", P.G. XCIII, 1372), and St. John Chrysostom, commenting upon Is., vi, 5, very aptly contrasts the promptness of the Prophet with the tergiversations of Moses and Jeremias. On the other hand, since no prophecies appear to be later than 701 b.c., it is doubtful if Isaias saw the reign of Manasses at all; still a very old and widespread tradition, echoed by the Mishna (Tr. Yebamoth, 49b; cf. Sanhedr., 103b), has it that the Prophet survived Ezechias and was slain in the persecution of Manasses (IV Kings, xxi, 16). This prince had him convicted of blasphemy, because he had dared say: "I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne" (vi, 1), a pretension in conflict with God's own assertion in Exod., xxxiii, 20: "Man shall not see me and live". He was accused, moreover, of having predicted the ruin of Jerusalem and called the holy city and the people of Juda by the accursed names of Sodom and Gomorrah. According to the "Ascension of Isaias", the Prophet's martyrdom consisted in being sawed asunder. Tradition shows this to have been unhesitatingly believed. The Targum on IV Kings, xxi, 6, admits it; it is preserved in two treatises of the Talmud (Yebamoth, 49b; Sanhedr., 103b); St. Justin (Dial. c. Tryph., cxx), and many of the Fathers adopted it, taking as unmistakable allusions to Isaias those words of the Heb., xi, 37, "they (the ancients) were cut asunder" (cf. Tertullian, "De patient.", xiv; P.L., I, 1270; Orig., "In Is., Hom." I, 5, P.G., XIII, 223; "In Matt.", x, 18, P.G., XIII, 882; "In Matt.", Ser. 28, P.G., XIII, 1637; "Epist. ad Jul. Afr.", ix, P.G., XI, 65; St. Jerome, "In Is.", lvii, 1, P.L., XXIV, 546-548; etc.). However, little trust should be put in the strange details mentioned in the "De Vit. Prophet." of pseudoEpiphanius (P.G., XLIII, 397, 419). The date of the Prophet's demise is not known. The Roman Martyrology commemorates Isaias on 6 July. His tomb is believed to have been in Paneas in Northern Palestine, whence his relics were taken to Constantinople in a.d. 442. The literary activity of Isaias is attested by the canonical book which bears his name; moreover allusion is made in II Par., xxvi, 22, to "Acts of Ozias first and last . . . written by Isaias, the son of Amos, the prophet". Another passage of the same book informs us that "the rest of the acts of Ezechias and his mercies, are written in the Vision of Isaias, son of Amos, the prophet", in the Book of the Kings of Juda and Israel. Such at least is the reading of the Massoretic Bible, but its text here, if we may judge from the variants of the Greek and St. Jerome, is somewhat corrupt. Most commentators who believe the passage to be authentic think that the writer refers to Is., xxxvi-xxxix. We must finally mention the "Ascension of Isaias", at one time attributed to the Prophet, but never admitted into the Canon. II. THE BOOK OF ISAIAS The canonical Book of Isaias is made up of two distinct collections of discourses, the one (chapters 1-35) called sometimes the "First Isaias"; the other (chapters 40-66) styled by many modern critics the "Deutero- (or Second) Isaias"; between these two comes a stretch of historical narrative; some authors, as Michaelis and Hengstenberg, holding with St. Jerome that the prophecies are placed in chronological order; others, like Vitringa and Jahn, in a logical order; others finally, like Gesenius, Delitzsch, Keil, think the actual order is partly logical and partly chronological. No less disagreement prevails on the question of the collector. Those who believe that Isaias is the author of all the prophecies contained in the book generally fix upon the Prophet himself. But for the critics who question the genuineness of some of the parts, the compilation is by a late and unknown collector. It would be well, however, before suggesting a solution to analyse cursorily the contents. First Isaias In the first collection (cc. i-xxxv) there seems to be a grouping of the discourses according to their subjectmatter: (1) cc. i-xii, oracles dealing with Juda and Israel; (2) cc. xiii-xxiii, prophecies concerning (chiefly) foreign nations; (3) cc. xxiv-xxvii, an apocalypse; (4) cc. xxviii-xxxiii, discourses on the relations of Juda to Assyria; (5) cc. xxxiv-xxxv, future of Edom and Israel. First section In the first group (i-xii) we may distinguish separate oracles. Ch. i arraigns Jerusalem for her ingratitude and unfaithfulness; severe chastisements have proved unavailing; yet forgiveness can be secured by a true change of life. The ravaging of Juda points to either the time of the SyroEphraimite coalition (735) or the Assyrian invasion (701). Ch. ii threatens judgment upon pride and seems to be one of the earliest of the Prophet's utterances. It is followed (iii-iv) by a severe arraignment of the nation's rulers for their injustice and a lampoon against the women of Sion for their wanton luxury. The beautiful apologue of the vineyard serves as a preface to the announcement of the punishment due to the chief social disorders. These seem to point to the last days of Joatham, or the very beginning of the reign of Achaz (from 736-735 b.c.). The next chapter (vi), dated in the year of the death of Ozias (740), narrates the calling of the Prophet. With vii opens a series of utterances not inappropriately called "the Book of Emmanuel"; it is made up of prophecies bearing on the SyroEphraimite war, and ends in a glowing description (an independent oracle?) of what the country will be under a future sovereign (ix, 1-6). Ch. ix, 7-x, 4, in five strophes announces that Israel is foredoomed to utter ruin; the allusion to rivalries between Ephraim and Manasses possibly has to do with the revolutions which followed the death of Jeroboam II; in this case the prophecy might date some time between 743-734. Much later is the prophecy against Assur (x, 5-34), later than the capture of Arshad (740), Calano (738), or Charcamis (717). The historical situation therein described suggests the time of Sennacherib's invasion (about 702 or 701 b.c.). Ch. xi depicts the happy reign to be of the ideal king, and a hymn of thanksgiving and praise (xii) closes this first division. Second section The first "burden" is aimed at Babylon (viii, 1-xiv, 23). The situation presupposed by the Prophet is that of the Exile; a fact that inclines some to date it shortly before 549, against others who hold it was written on the death of Sargon (705). Ch. xiv, 24-27, foretelling the overthrow of the Assyrian army on the mountains of Juda, and regarded by some as a misplaced part of the prophecy against Assur (x, 5-34), belongs no doubt to the period of Sennacherib's campaign. The next passage (xiv, 28-32) was occasioned by the death of some foe of the Philistines: the names of Achaz (728), Theglathphalasar III (727), and Sargon (705) have been suggested, the last appearing more probable. Chapters xv-xvi, "the burden of Moab", is regarded by many as referring to the reign of Jeroboam II, King of Israel (787-746); its date is conjectural. The ensuing "burden of Damascus" (xvii, 1-11), directed against the Kingdom of Israel as well, should be assigned to about 735 b.c. Here follows a short utterance on Ethiopia (prob. 702 or 701). Next comes the remarkable prophecy about Egypt (xix), the interest of which cannot but be enhanced by the recent discoveries at Elephantine (vv. 18, 19). The date presents a difficulty, the time ranging, according to diverse opinions, from 720 to 672 b.c.. The oracle following (xx), against Egypt and Ethiopia, is ascribed to the year in which Ashdod was besieged by the Assyrians (711). Just what capture of Babylon is alluded to in "the burden of the desert of the sea" (xxi, 1-10) is not easy to determine, for during the lifetime of Isaias Babylon was thrice besieged and taken (710, 703, 696 b.c.). Independent critics seem inclined to see here a description of the taking of Babylon in 528 b.c., the same description being the work of an author living towards the close of the Babylonian Captivity. The two short prophecies, one on Edom (Duma; xxi, 11-12) and one on Arabia (xxi, 13-17), give no clue as to when they were uttered. Ch. xxii, 1-14, is a rebuke addressed to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. In the rest of the chapter Sobna (Shebna) is the object of the Prophet's reproaches and threats (about 701 b.c.). The section closes with the announcement of the ruin and the restoration of Tyre (xxiii). Third section The third section of the first collection includes chapters xxiv-xxviii, sometimes called "the Apocalypse of Isaias". In the first part (xxiv-xxvi, 29) the Prophet announces for an undetermined future the judgment which shall precede the kingdom of God (xxiv); then in symbolic terms he describes the happiness of the good and the punishment of the wicked (xxv). This is followed by the hymn of the elect (xxvi, 1-19). In the second part (xxvi, 20-xxvii) the Prophet depicts the judgment hanging over Israel and its neighbours. The date is most unsettled among modern critics, certain pasages being attributed to 107 b.c., others even to a date lower than 79 b.c.. Let it be remarked, however, that both the ideas and the language of these four chapters support the tradition attributing this apocalypse to Isaias. The fourth division opens with a pronouncement of woe against Ephraim (and perhaps Juda; xxviii, 1-8), written prior to 722 b.c.; the historical situation implied in xxviii, 9-29, is a strong indication that this passage was written about 702 b.c. To the same date belong xxix-xxxii, prophecies concerned with the campaign of Sennacherib. This series fittingly concludes with a triumphant hymn (xxxiii), the Prophet rejoicing in the deliverance of Jerusalem (701). Chapters xxxi-xxxv, the last division, announce the devastation of Edom, and the enjoyment of bountiful blessings by ransomed Israel. These two chapters are thought by several modern critics to have been written during the captivity in the sixth century. The foregoing analysis does not enable us to assert indubitably that this first collection as such is the work of Isaias; yet as the genuineness of almost all these prophecies cannot be seriously questioned, the collection as a whole might still possibly be attributed to the last years of the Prophet's life or shortly afterwards. If there really be passages reflecting a later epoch, they found their way into the book in the course of time on account of some analogy to the genuine writings of Isaias. Little need be said of xxxvii-xxxix. The first two chapters narrate the demand made by Sennacherib-the surrender of Jerusalem, and the fulfillment of Isaias's predictions of its deliverance; xxxviii tells of Ezechias's illness, cure, and song of thanksgiving; lastly xxxix tells of the embassy sent by Merodach Baladan and the Prophet's reproof of Ezechias. Second Isaias The second collection (xl-lvi) deals throughout with Israel's restoration from the Babylonian exile. The main lines of the division as proposed by the Jesuit Condamine are as follows: a first section is concerned with the mission and work of Cyrus; it is made up of five pieces: (a) xl-xli: calling of Cyrus to be Yahweh's instrument in the restoration of Israel; (b) xlii, 8-xliv, 5: Israel's deliverance from exile; (c) xliv, 6-xlvi, 12: Cyrus shall free Israel and allow Jerusalem to be built; (d) xlvii: ruin of Babylon; (e) xlviii: past dealings of God with his people are an earnest for the future. Next to be taken up is another group of utterances, styled by German scholars "EbedJahwehLieder"; it is made up of xlix-lv (to which xlii, 1-7, should be joined) together with lx-lxii. In this section we hear of the calling of Yahweh's servant (xlix, 1-li, 16); then of Israel's glorious homecoming (li, 17-lii, 12); afterwards is described the servant of Yahweh ransoming his people by his sufferings and death (xlii, 1-7; lii, 13-15; liii, 1-12); then follows a glowing vision of the new Jerusalem (liv, 1-lv, 13, and lx, 1-lxii, 12). Ch. lvi, 1-8, develops this idea, that all the upright of heart, no matter what their former legal status, will be admitted to Yahweh's new people. In lvi, 9-lvii, the Prophet inveighs against the idolatry and immorality so rife among the Jews; the sham piety with which their fasts were observed (lvii). In lix the Prophet represents the people confessing their chief sins; this humble acknowledgment of their guilt prompts Yahweh to stoop to those who have "turned from rebellion". A dramatic description of God's vengeance (lxiii, 1-7) is followed by a prayer for mercy (lxiii, 7-lxiv, 11), and the book closes upon the picture of the punishment of the wicked and the happines of the good. Many perplexing questions are raised by the exegesis of the "Second Isaias". The "EbedJahwehLieder", in particular, suggest many difficulties. Who is this "servant of Yahweh"? Does the title apply to the same person throughout the ten chapters? Had the writer in view some historical personage of past ages, or one belonging to his own time, or the Messias to come, or even some ideal person? Most commentators see in the "servant of Yahweh" an individual. But is that individual one of the great historical figures of Israel? No satisfactory answer has been given. The names of Moses, David, Ozias, Ezechias, Isaias, Jeremias, Josias, Zorobabel, Jechonias, and Eleazar have all been suggested as being the person. Catholic exegesis has always pointed out the fact that all the features of the "servant of Yahweh" found their complete realization in the person of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He therefore should be regarded as the one individual described by the Prophet. The "Second Isaias" gives rise to other more critical and less important problems. With the exception of one or two passages, the point of view throughout this section is that of the Babylonian Captivity; there is an unmistakable difference between the style of these twentyseven chapters and that of the "First Isaias"; moreover, the theological ideas of xl-lxvi show a decided advance on those found in the first thirtynine chapters. If this be true, does it not follow that xl-lxvi are not by the same author as the prophecies of the first collection, and may there not be good grounds for attributing the authorship of these chapters to a "second Isaias" living towards the close of the Babylonian Captivity? Such is the contention of most of the modern nonCatholic scholars. This is hardly the place for a discussion of so intricate a question. We therefore limit ourselves to stating the position of Catholic scholarship on this point. This is clearly set out in the decision issued by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, 28 June, 1908. (1) Admitting the existence of true prophecy; (2) There is no reason why "Isaias and the other Prophets should utter prophecies concerning only those things which were about to take place immediately or after a short space of time" and not "things that should be fulfilled after many ages". (3) Nor does anything postulate that the Prophets should "always address as their hearers, not those who belonged to the future, but only those who were present and contemporary, so that they could be understood by them". Therefore it cannot be asserted that "the second part of the Book of Isaias (xl-lxvi), in which the Prophet addresses as one living amongst them, not the Jews who were the contemporaries of Isaias, but the Jews mourning in the Exile of Babylon, cannot have for its author Isaias himself, who was dead long before, but must be attributed to some unknown Prophet living among the exiles". In other words, although the author of Isaias xl-lxvi does speak from the point of view of the Babylonian Captivity, yet this is no proof that he must have lived and written in those times. (4) "The philological argument from language and style against the identity of the author of the Book of Isaias is not to be considered weighty enough to compel a man of judgment, familiar with Hebrew and criticism, to acknowledge in the same book a plurality of authors". Differences of language and style between the parts of the book are neither denied nor underrated; it is asserted only that such as they appear, they do not compel one to admit the plurality of authors. (5) "There are no solid arguments to the fore, even taken cumulatively, to prove that the book of Isaias is to be attributed not to Isaias himself alone, but to two or rather to many authors". III. APPRECIATION OF THE WORK OF ISAIAS It may not be useless shortly to set forth the prominent features of the great Prophet, doubtless one of the most striking personalities in Hebrew history. Without holding any official position, it fell to the lot of Isaias to take an active part during well nigh forty troublesome years in controlling the policy of his country. His advice and rebukes were sometimes unheeded, but experience finally taught the rulers of Juda that to part from the Prophet's views meant always a setback for the political situation of Juda. In order to understand the trend of his policy it is necessary to remember by what principle it was animated. This principle he derived from his unshaken faith in God governing the world, and particularly His own people and the nations coming in contact with the latter. The people of Juda, forgetful of their God, given to idolatrous practices and social disorders of many kinds, had paid little heed to former warnings. One thing only alarmed them, namely that hostile nations were threatening Juda on all sides; but were they not the chosen people of God? Certainly He would not allow His own nation to be destroyed, even as others had been. In the meantime prudence dictated that the best possible means be taken to save themselves from present dangers. Syria and Israel were plotting against Juda and her king; Juda and her king would appeal to the mighty nation of the North, and later to the King of Egypt. Isaias would not hear aught of this shortsighted policy, grounded only on human prudence, or a false religious confidence, and refusing to look beyond the moment. Juda was in terrible straits; God alone could save her; but the first condition laid down for the manifestation of His power was moral and social reformation. Syrians, Ephraimites, Assyrians, and all the rest were but the instruments of the judgment of God, the purpose of which is the overthrow of sinners. Certainly Yahweh will not allow His people to be utterly destroyed; His covenant He will keep; but it is vain to hope that welldeserved chastisement may be escaped. From this view of the designs of God never did the faith of Isaias waver. He first proclaimed this message at the beginning of the reign of Achaz. The king and his counsellors saw no salvation for Juda except in an alliance with, that is an acknowledgment of vassalage to, Assyria. This the Prophet opposed with all his might. With his keen foresight he had clearly perceived that the real danger to Juda was not from Ephraim and Syria, and that the intervention of Assyria in the affairs of Palestine involved a complete overthrow of the balance of power along the Mediterranean coast. Moreover, the Prophet entertained no doubt but that sooner or later a conflict between the rival empires of the Euphrates and the Nile must arise, and then their hosts would swarm over the land of Juda. To him it was clear that the course proposed by Juda's selfconceited politicians was like the mad flight of "silly doves", throwing themselves headlong into the net. Isaias's advice was not followed and one by one the consequences he had foretold were realized. However, he continued to proclaim his prophetical views of the current events. Every new event of importance is by him turned into a lesson not only to Juda but to all the neighbouring nations. Damascus has fallen; so will the drunkards and revellers of Samaria see the ruin of their city. Tyre boasts of her wealth and impregnable position; her doom is no less decreed, and her fall will all the more astound the world. Assyria herself, fattened with the spoils of all nations, Assyria "the rod of God's vengeance", when she will have accomplished her providential destiny, shall meet with her fate. God has thus decreed the doom of all nations for the accomplishment of His purposes and the establishment of a new Israel cleansed from all past defilements. Judean politicians towards the end of the reign of Ezechias had planned an alliance with the King of Egypt against Assyria and carefully concealed their purpose from the Prophet. When the latter came to know the preparations for rebellion, it was already too late to undo what had been done. But he could at least give vent to his anger (see Is., xxx), and we know both from the Bible and Sennacherib's own account of the campaign of 701 how the Assyrian army routed the Egyptians at Altaku (Elteqeh of Jos., xix, 44), captured Accaron, and sent a detachment to ravage Juda; Jerusalem, closely invested, was saved only by the payment of an enormous ransom. The vindication of Isaias's policy, however, was not yet complete. The Assyrian army withdrew; but Sennacherib, apparently thinking it unsafe to leave in his wake a fortified city like Jerusalem, demanded the immediate surrender of Ezechias's capital. At the command of Ezechias, no answer was given to the message; but the king humbly bade Isaias to intercede for the city. The Prophet had for the king a reassuring message. But the respite in the Judean capital was short. Soon a new Assyrian embassy arrived with a letter from the king containing an ultimatum. In the panic-stricken city there was a man of whom Sennacherib had taken no account; it was by him that the answer was to be given to the ultimatum of the proud Assyrians: "The virgin, the daughter of Sion hath despised thee and laughed thee to scorn; . . . He shall not come into this city, nor shoot an arrow into it. . . . By the way that he came, he shall return, and into this city he shall not come, saith the Lord" (xxxvii, 22, 33). We know in reality how a sudden catastrophe overtook the Assyrian army and God's promise was fulfilled. This crowning vindication of the Divinely inspired policy of Isaias prepared the hearts of the Jews for the religious reformation brought about by Ezechias, no doubt along lines laid down by the Prophet. In reviewing the political side of Isaias's public life, we have already seen something of his religious and social ideas; all these view-points were indeed most intimately connected in his teaching. It may be well now to dwell a little more fully on this part of the Prophet's message. Isaias's description of the religious condition of Juda in the latter part of the eighth century is anything but flattering. Jerusalem is compared to Sodom and Gomorrah; apparently the bulk of the people were superstitious rather than religious. Sacrifices were offered out of routine; withcraft and divination were in honour; nay more, foreign deities were openly invoked side by side with the true God, and in secret the immoral worship of some of these idols was widely indulged in, the higher-class and the Court itself giving in this regard an abominable example. Throughout the kingdom there was corruption of higher officials, ever-increasing luxury among the wealthy, wanton haughtiness of women, ostentation among the middle-class people, shameful partiality of the judges, unscrupulous greed of the owners of large estates, and oppression of the poor and lowly. The Assyrian suzerainty did not change anything in this woeful state of affairs. In the eyes of Isaias this order of things was intolerable; and he never tired repeating it could not last. The first condition of social reformation was the downfall of the unjust and corrupt rulers; the Assyrians were the means appointed by God to level their pride and tyranny with the dust. With their mistaken ideas about God, the nation imagined He did not concern Himself about the dispositions of His worshippers. But God loathes sacrifices offered by ". . . hands full of blood. Wash yourselves, be clean, . . . relieve the oppressed, judge for the fatherless, defend the widow. . . . But if you will not, . . . the sword shall devour you" (i, 15-20). God here appears as the avenger of disregarded human justice as much as of His Divine rights. He cannot and will not let injustice, crime, and idolatry go unpunished. The destruction of sinners will inaugurate an era of regeneration, and a little circle of men faithful to God will be the first-fruits of a new Israel free from past defilements and ruled by a scion of David's House. With the reign of Ezechias began a period of religious revival. Just how far the reform extended we are not able to state; local sanctuaries around which heathenish abuses had gathered were suppressed, and many `asherîm and masseboth were destroyed. It is true the times were not ripe for a radical change, and there was little response to the appeal of the Prophet for moral amendment and redress of social abuses. The Fathers of the Church, echoing the eulogy of Jesus, son of Sirach (Ecclus., xlviii, 25-28), agree that Isaias was the greatest of the literary Prophets (Euseb., "Præp. Evang.", v, 4, P.G., XXII, 370; "Synops. Script. S.", among the works of St. Athan., P.G., XXXVIII, 363; St. Cyril of Jerusalem, "In Is., Prooem.", P.G., LXX, 14; St. Isidore of Pelus., "Epist.", i, 42, P.G., LXXVIII, 208; Theodoret., "In Is. Argum.", P.G., LXXXI, 216; St. Jerome, "Prol. in Is.", P.L., XXIV, 18; "Præf. ad Paul. et Eustoch.", P.L., XXXII, 769; "De civ. Dei", XVIII, xxix, 1, P. L., XLI, 585, etc.). Isaias's poetical genius was in every respect worthy of his lofty position as a Prophet. He is unsurpassed in poetry, descriptive, lyric, or elegiac. There is in his compositions an uncommon elevation and majesty of conception, and an unparalleled wealth of imagery, never departing, however, from the utmost propriety, elegance, and dignity. He possessed an extraordinary power of adapting his language both to occasions and audiences; sometimes he displays most exquisite tenderness, and at other times austere severity; he successively assumes a mother's pleading and irresistible tone, and the stern manner of an implacable judge, now making use of delicate irony to bring home to his hearers what he would have them understand, and then pitilessly shattering their fondest illusions or wielding threats which strike like mighty thunderbolts. His rebukes are neither impetuous like those of Osee nor blustering like those of Amos; he never allows the conviction of his mind or the warmth of his heart to overdraw any feature or to overstep the limits assigned by the most exquisite taste. Exquisite taste indeed is one of the leading features of the Prophet's style. This style is rapid, energetic, full of life and colour, and withal always chaste and dignified. It moreover manifests a wonderful command of language. It has been justly said that no Prophet ever had the same command of noble throughts; it may be as justly added that never perhaps did any man utter lofty thoughts in more beautiful language. St. Jerome rejected the idea that Isaias's prophecies were true poetry in the full sense of the word (Præf. in Is., P.L., XXVIII, 772). Nevertheless the authority of the illustrious Robert Lowth, in his "Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews" (1753), esteemed "the whole book of Isaiah to be poetical, a few passages excepted, which if brought together, would not at most exceed the bulk of five or six chapters". This opinion of Lowth, at first scarcely noticed, became more and more general in the latter part of the nineteenth century, and is now common among Biblical scholars. In addition to general and special commentaries consult: Cheyne, Book of Isaiah chronologically arranged (London, 1870); Idem, Prophecies of Isaiah (London, 1880); Idem, Introd. to the Book of Isaiah (London, 1895); Driver, Isaiah: his life and times and the writings which bear his name (London, 1888); Lowth, Isaiah, translation, dissert. and notes (London, 1778); Skinner, Isaiah (Cambridge, 1896); G. A. Smith, Book of Isaiah (Expositor's Bible, 1888-1890); W. R. Smith, The Prophets of Israel and their place in history (London, 1882); Knabenbauer, Comment. in Isaiam prophetam (Paris, 1887); Condamine, Livre d'Isaie, trad. critique avec notes et comment. (Paris, 1905; a volume of introduction to the same is forthcoming); Le Hir, Les trois grandes prophètes, Isaïe, Jérémie, Ezéchiel (Paris, 1877); Idem, Etudes Bibliques (Paris, 1878); Delitzsch, Commentar über das Buch Jesaja; tr. (Edinburgh, 1890); Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia (Gottingen, 1892); Gesenius, Der Prophet Jesaja (Leipzig, 1820-1821); Ewald, Die Propheten des Alten Bundes (Tübingen, 1840-1841); tr. by F. Smith, (London, 1876-); Hitzig, Der Prophet Jesaja übers. und ausgelegt (Heidelberg, 1833); Kittel, Der Prophet Jesaia, 6th ed. of Dillmann's work of the same title (Leipzig, 1898); Knabenbauer, Erklärung des Proph. Isaias (Freiburg, 1881); Marti, Das Buch Jesaja (Tübingen, 1900). CHARLES L. SOUVAY Isaura Isaura Titular see in the Province of Lycaonia, suffragan of Iconium. Isaura, the capital of the Isaurian tribes, an energetic and pillaging people, existed even before the expedition of Alexander. In order not to fall into the power of the Greek generals, Perdiccas and Philip, its inhabitants after a desperate resistance, buried themselves beneath the ruins of their city (Diodorus Siculus, XVIII, 22). Afterwards rebuilt, Isaura was a second time destroyed by P. Servilius, and then ceded to Amyntas, the last King of Galatia, who attempted to rebuild it and make it his capital (25 B.C.). Strabo, who gives these particulars, speaks of two cities, Isaura Palæa, and Isaura Nova, which existed in his time, and the information is correct. In the year 266 of our era Trebullian, one of the thirty tyrants, made Isaura his capital, but he was slain the next year. Ammianus Marcellinus (XIV, 7) in the fourth century speaks of the city as ruined. Isaura Nova is now Dorla in the sanjak and vilayet of Koniah. Ramsay discovered there recently more than fifty Greek inscriptions, the greater number Christian, as well as magnificent tombs. These monuments date from the third, fourth, and fifth centuries of our era. Epitaphs have been found of three bishops, Theophilus, Sisamoas, and Mamas, who lived between the years 250 and 400. Three other bishops are also known, Hilary, 381; Callistratus, somewhat later; Aetius, 451 Lequien, "Oriens christ.", I, 1085). The last named bishop bears the title of Isauropolis, the name of a city which also figures in the "Hieroclis Synecdemus" (ed. Parthey, 675, 12). As no "Notitiæ episcopatuum" makes mention of Isaura, or Isauropolis, Ramsay supposes that the Diocese of Isaura Nova was early joined with that of Leontopolis, the more recent name of Isaura Palæa which is mentioned in all the "Notitiæ". The site of Isaura Palæa has been discovered at Oloubounar in the vilayet of Koniah, where splendid ruins are still to be seen. Ramsay, Studies in the History and Art of the Eastern Provinces of the Roman Empire (Aberdeen, 1906), 25-58; Smith, Dict. Greek and Roman Geog., II, 65; Texier, Asie Mineure (Paris, 1862), 654-60; Bulletin de correspondance hellénique (1883), 315; (1887), 767-70. S. VAILHÉ Ischia Ischia Diocese of Ischia (Isclana). Ischia, suffragan to Naples, has for its territory the island of Ischia, in the Mediterranean Sea, which, geologically, forms a continuation of the volcanic district of Naples. Monte Epomeo, the highest point of the island (about 2570 feet), has been an extinct crater since 1302. The island has frequently been visited by earthquakes; one of the most disastrous was that of Casamicciola, a small village, in 1883. The island is very fertile and rich in mineral springs, which, owing to the pleasant situation and mild climate, attract many visitors. The two most important hot springs are Fontana d'Ischia and Formello. The capital of the island is Ischia, situated on a rock of basalt, crowned by a castle, which to-day serves as a prison. It was called Pithecusæ by the Greeks and Ænaria by the Romans. It was colonized by the Euboeans. In 474 B.C. it was taken by Hiero I, King of Syracuse, and in 326 by the Romans. The Emperor Augustus gave it to Naples, in exchange for Capri. In the Middle Ages it was often devastated (in 813 by the Saracens; in 1135 by the Pisans). In 1496 it was a refuge for Ferdinand II of Naples, fleeing before Charles VIII of France. In 1807 it was occupied by the British and Sicilians, and was used as a point of defence against the French. In 1179 the first Bishop of Ischia was appointed, Pietro, present at the Third Lateran Council. Other bishops were Fra Bartolomeo Borsolari (1359), an Augustinian, brother of Blessed Giacomo Borsolari, the Dominican, who is buried in the church of S. Domenico; the learned Spanish Cistercian, Michele Cosal (1453); Girolamo Rocca (1672), who restored the cathedral and bishop's residence; Michele Cotignola (1692), who also embellished the cathedral. Ischia has 14 parishes with 32,000 souls. Cappelletti, Le Chiese d'Italia, XIX (Venice, 1857); Ginocchi, Ischia (Rome, 1884). U. BENIGNI Isernia and Venafro Isernia and Venafro (Diocese of Isernia and Venafro). Isernia is a city in the province of Campobasso in Molise (Southern Italy), situated on an eminence between Monte Matese and Monte Azzo, in a fertile region not far from Volturno. In the Middle Ages it was noted for the manufacture of parchment, which is carried on there even to-day. It was anciently called Æsernia, and was one of the principal cities of the Samnites. In 295 B.C. it was conquered by the Romans. In the Punic Wars, and, later, in the Social War, it was faithful to the Romans, though in 90 B.C. it was compelled to surrender, after a long resistance, to Vettius Cato, the general of the Samnites. As it was falling into decay, Cæsar Augustus and Nero sent colonies there. Of ancient monuments there are a Roman bridge, the remains of an aqueduct, and especially the lower part of the high walls, formed of massive polygonal blocks, a pre-Roman work. After the Lombardic invasion it was the seat of a countship, founded by the Duke of Benevento. It was destroyed by the Saracens in the ninth century, and in 1199 was sacked by Marcolvaldo, the vicar of the deceased Henry VI. In 1805 it was visited by a severe earthquake, which ruined the ancient cathedral. A very distinguished native of Isernia was the jurisconsult, Andrea d'Isernia (Rampini), professor at the University of Naples (1230-1316); St. Peter Celestine also was of Isernia. According to tradition the Faith was preached at Isernia by St. Photinus, a disciple of St. Peter. More trustworthy is the account of the martyrdom of Sts. Nicandrus and Marcianus under Diocletian. The epoch of the saintly Bishop Benedict is doubtful, though the existence of the episcopal see in the fifth century is certain. In 1032 the Diocese of Venafro (formerly the seat of Roman country residences), which had its own bishops from the fifth century, was united to Isernia, and in 1230 it was again separated. Pius VII united the Churches in 1818. The united dioceses are suffragans of Capua, have 39 parishes, with 58,000 souls, 1 Capuchin convent, 2 religious houses of women, and 1 educational institution for boys. Cappelletti, Le Chiese d'Italia, XX (Venice, 1857). U. BENIGNI St. Isidore of Pelusium St. Isidore of Pelusium Born at Alexandria in the latter half of the fourth century; d. not later than 449-50. He is occasionally designated through mistake as Isidore of Damietta. Leaving his family and possessions, Isidore retired to a mountain near the city of Pelusium, the name of which was henceforth connected with his own, and embraced the religious life in the monastery of Lychnos, where he soon became remarkable for his exactitude in the observance of the rule and for his austerities. A passage in his voluminous correspondence affords reason to believe that he held the office of abbot. He is spoken of as a priest by Facundus and Suidas, although neither of these writers informs us concerning the church to which he belonged; it may be that he had no clerical charge, but was only a priest of the monastery. His correspondence gives us an idea of his activity. It shows him fighting against unworthy clerics whose elevation to the priesthood and diaconate was a serious peril and scandal to the faithful. He complains that many laymen were ceasing to approach the sacraments so as to avoid contact with these discreditable men. His veneration for St. John Chrysostom led him to introduce St. Cyril of Alexandria to render full justice to the memory of the great doctor. He opposed the Nestorians, and during the conflict which arose at the end of the Council of Ephesus between St. Cyril and John of Antioch, he believed there was too much obstinacy on St. Cyril's side. He therefore wrote to the latter in urgent terms imploring him, as his father arid as his son, to put an end to this division and not to make a private grievance the pretext for an eternal rupture. St. Isidore was still alive when the heresy of Eutyches began to spread in Egypt; many of his letters depict him as opposing the assertion of only one nature in Jesus Christ. It seems as though his life was scarcely prolonged beyond the year 449, because there is no mention in letters of the Robber Council of Ephesus (August, 449) nor of the Council of Chalcedon (451). According to Evagrius, St. Isidore was the author of a great number of writings, but this historian tells us nothing further, save that one of these was addressed to Cyril, even leaving us ignorant whether this person was the celebrated Bishop of Alexandria or a namesake. Isidore himself tells incidentally that he composed a treatise "Adversus Gentiles" but it has been lost. Another work "De Fato", which, the author tells us, met with a certain degree of success, has also been lost. The only extant works of St. Isidore are a considerable correspondence, comprising more than 2000 letters. Even this number appears to fall far short of the amount actually written, since Nicephorus speaks of 10,000. Of these we possess 2182, divided into five books which contain respectively 590, 380, 413, 230, and 569 letters. These letters of St. Isidore may be divided into three classes according to the subjects treated: those dealing with dogma and Scripture, with ecclesiastical and monastic discipline, and with practical morality for the guidance of laymen of all classes and conditions. Many of these letters, as is natural, have but a secondary importance, many are mere notes. In this article attention can be drawn only to the principal ones. Among these is the letter to Theologius against the Nestorians, in which Isidore points out that there is this difference between the mother of the gods in fable and the Mother of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, of that the former, as acknowledged by the pagans themselves, conceived and brought forth the fruits of debauchery, whereas the latter conceived without having had intercourse with any man, as is acknowledged says he, by all the nations of the world. His letter to Hierax defends the legitimacy of the veneration of relics; that to Tuba shows that it was considered unbecoming for a soldier to carry a sword in the city in time of peace and to appear in public with arms and military uniform. His letters addressed to persons following the religious life afford many important clues which enable us to form a fairly exact idea of the intellectual standard then existing in Egyptian monastic centres. Isidore reproaches the monk Thalelæeus with being interested in reading pagan historians and pagan poets which were full of fables, lies, and obscenities capable of opening wounds that had healed and of recalling the spirit of uncleanness to the house from which it had been ejected. His advice with regard to those who were embracing the monastic state was that they should not at first be made to feel all the austerities of the rule lest they should be repelled, nor should they be left idle and exempt from ordinary tasks lest they should acquire habits of laziness, but they should led step by step to what is most perfect. Great abstinences serve no purpose unless they are accompanied by the mortification of the senses. In a great number of St. Isidore's letters concerning the monastic state it may be remarked that he holds it to consist mainly in retirement and obedience; that retirement includes forgetfulness of the things one has abandoned and the renunciation of old habits, while obedience is attended with mortification of the flesh. A monk's habit should if possible be of skins, and his food consist of herbs, unless bodily weakness require something more, in which case he should be guided by the judgment of his superior, for he must not be governed by his own will, but according to the will of those who have grown old in the practice of the religious life. Although for the most part very brief, the majority of St. Isidore's letters contain much instruction, which is often set forth with elegance, occasionally with a certain literary art. The style is natural, unaffected, and yet not without refinement. The correspondence is characterized by an imperturbable equability of temperament; whether he is engaged at explaining or reprimanding, at disputing or praising, there is always the same moderation, the same sentiments of sincerity, the same sober taste. In the explanation of the Scripture the saint does not conceal his preference for the moral and spiritual sense which he judges most useful for those who consult him. Everywhere he is seen to put in practice the maxims he teaches to others, namely that the life should correspond with the words, that one should practice what one teaches, and that it is not sufficient to indicate what should be done, if one does not translate one's maxims into action. BOBER, De rate hermeneuticá s, Isidori Pelusiotæ (Cracow, 1878); Bouvy De s. Isidoro pelusiot libri tres (Nîmes, 1885); HEUMANN, Disserlatio de Isidoro Pelusiotâ ejusque epistolis quas maximam partem fictitias esse demonstrator (Göttingen, 1737); LUNDSTRÖM, De Isidori Pelustæ epistolis recensendis prælusiones in Eranos, II (1897), 68-80; NIEMEYFR, De Isidori Pelusiotæ vitâ, scriptis et doctrinâ, commentatio historico-theologica (Halle, 1825); GLÜCK, Isidori Pelusiotæ Summa doctrinæ moralis (Würzburg, I848). His Letters have been edited by DE BILLY in 3 vols. (Paris, 1585), by RITTERSHAUSEN(Heidelberg, 1609), by SCHOTT(Antwerp, 1623), and in P.G., LXXVIII. H. LECLERCQ St. Isidore of Seville St. Isidore of Seville Born at Cartagena, Spain, about 560; died 4 April, 636. Isidore was the son of Severianus and Theodora. His elder brother Leander was his immediate predecessor in the Metropolitan See of Seville; whilst a younger brother St. Fulgentius presided over the Bishopric of Astigi. His sister Florentina was a nun, and is said to have ruled over forty convents and one thousand religious. Isidore received his elementary education in the Cathedral school of Seville. In this institution, which was the first of its kind in Spain, the trivium and quadrivium were taught by a body of learned men, among whom was the archbishop, Leander. With such diligence did he apply himself to study that in a remarkably short time mastered Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. Whether Isidore ever embraced monastic life or not is still an open question, but though he himself may never have been affiliated with any of the religious orders, he esteemed them highly. On his elevation to the episcopate he immediately constituted himself protector of the monks. In 619 he pronounced anathema against any ecclesiastic who should in any way molest the monasteries. On the death of Leander, Isidore succeeded to the See of Seville. His long incumbency to this office was spent in a period of disintegration and transition. The ancient institutions and classic learning of the Roman Empire were fast disappearing. In Spain a new civilization was beginning to evolve itself from the blending racial elements that made up its population. For almost two centuries the Goths had been in full control of Spain, and their barbarous manners and contempt of learning threatened greatly to put back her progress in civilization. Realizing that the spiritual as well as the material well-being of the nation depended on the full assimilation of the foreign elements, St. Isidore set himself to the task of welding into a homogeneous nation the various peoples who made up the Hispano-Gothic kingdom. To this end he availed himself of all the resources of religion and education. His efforts were attended with complete success. Arianism, which had taken deep root among the Visigoths, was eradicated, and the new heresy of Acephales was completely stifled at the very outset; religious discipline was everywhere strengthened. Like Leander, he took a most prominent part in the Councils of Toledo and Seville. In all justice it may be said that it was in a great measure due to the enlightened statecraft of these two illustrious brothers the Visigothic legislation, which emanated from these councils, is regarded by modern historians as exercising a most important influence on the beginnings of representative government. Isidore presided over the Second Council of Seville, begun 13 November, 619, in the reign of Sisebut. But it was the Fourth National Council of Toledo that afforded him the opportunity of being of the greatest service to his county. At this council, begun 5 December, 633, all the bishops of Spain were in attendance. St. Isidore, though far advanced in years, presided over its deliberations, and was the originator of most of its enactments. It was at this council and through his influence that a decree was promulgated commanding all bishops to establish seminaries in their Cathedral Cities, along the lines of the school already existing at Seville. Within his own jurisdiction he had availed himself of the resources of education to counteract the growing influence of Gothic barbarism. His was the quickening spirit that animated the educational movement of which Seville was the centre. The study of Greek and Hebrew as well as the liberal arts, was prescribed. Interest in law and medicine was also encouraged. Through the authority of the fourth council this policy of education was made obligatory upon all the bishops of the kingdom. Long before the Arabs had awakened to an appreciation of Greek Philosophy, he had introduced Aristotle to his countrymen. He was the first Christian writer to essay the task of compiling for his co-religionists a summa of universal knowledge. This encyclopedia epitomized all learning, ancient as well as modern. In it many fragments of classical learning are preserved which otherwise had been hopelessly lost. The fame of this work imparted a new impetus to encyclopedic writing, which bore abundant fruit in the subsequent centuries of the Middle Ages. His style, though simple and lucid, cannot be said to be classical. It discloses most of the imperfections peculiar to all ages of transition. It particularly reveals a growing Visigothic influence. Arevalo counts in all Isidore's writing 1640 Spanish words. Isidore was the last of the ancient Christian Philosophers, as he was the last of the great Latin Fathers. He was undoubtedly the most learned man of his age and exercised a far-reaching and immeasurable influence on the educational life of the Middle Ages. His contemporary and friend, Braulio, Bishop of Saragossa, regarded him as a man raised up by God to save the Spanish people from the tidal wave of barbarism that threatened to inundate the ancient civilization of Spain, The Eighth Council of Toledo (653) recorded its admiration of his character in these glowing terms: "The extraordinary doctor, the latest ornament of the Catholic Church, the most learned man of the latter ages, always to be named with reverence, Isidore". This tribute was endorsed by the Fifteenth Council of Toledo, held in 688. WORKS As a writer, Isidore was prolific and versatile to an extraordinary degree. His voluminous writings may be truly said to constitute the first chapter of Spanish literature. It is not, however, in the capacity of an original and independent writer, but as an indefatigable compiler of all existing knowledge, that literature is most deeply indebted to him. The most important and by far the best-known of all his writings is the "Etymologiae", or "Origines", as it is sometimes called. This work takes its name from the subject-matter of one of its constituent books. It was written shortly before his death, in the full maturity of his wonderful scholarship, at the request. of his friend Braulio, Bishop of Saragossa. It is a vast storehouse in which is gathered, systematized, and condensed, all the learning possessed by his time. Throughout the greater part of the Middle Ages it was the textbook most in use in educational institutions. So highly was it regarded as a depository of classical learning that in a great measure, it superseded the use of the individual works of the classics themselves. Not even the Renaissance seemed to diminish the high esteem in which it was held, and according to Arevalo, it was printed ten times between 1470 and 1529. Besides these numerous reprints, the popularity of the "Etymologiae" gave rise to many inferior imitations. It furnishes, abundant evidence that the writer possessed a most intimate knowledge of the Greek and Latin poets. In all, he quotes from one hundred and fifty-four authors, Christian and pagan. Many of these he had read in the originals and the others he consulted in current compilations. In style this encyclopedic work is concise and clear and in order, admirable. Braulio, to whom Isidore sent it for correction, and to whom he dedicated it, divided it into twenty books. + The first three of these books are taken up with the trivium and quadrivium. The entire first book is devoted to grammar, including metre. Imitating the example of Cassiodorus and Boethius he preserves the logical tradition of the schools by reserving the second book for rhetoric and dialectic. + Book four, treats of medicine and libraries; + book five, of law and chronology; + book six, of ecclesiastical books and offices; + book seven, of God and of the heavenly and earthly hierarchies; + book eight, of the Church and of the sects, of which latter he numbers no less than sixty-eight; + book nine, of languages, peoples, kingdoms, and official titles; + book ten, of etymology: + book eleven, of man; + book twelve, of beasts and birds; + book thirteen, of the world and its parts; + book fourteen, of physical geography; + book fifteen, of public buildings and roadmaking; + book sixteen, of stones and metals; + book seventeen, of agriculture; + book eighteen, of the terminology of war, of jurisprudence, and public games; + book nineteen, of ships, houses, and clothes; + book twenty, of victuals, domestic and agricultural tools, and furniture. In the second book, dealing with dialectic and rhetoric, Isidore is heavily indebted to translations from the Greek by Boethius. Caelius Aurelianus contributes generously to that part of the fourth book which deals with medicine. Lactantius is the author most extensively quoted in the eleventh book, concerning man. The twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth books are largely based on the writings of Pliny and Solinus; whilst the lost "Prata" of Suetonius seems to have inspired the general plan of the "Etymologiae", as well as many of its details. Similar in its general character to the "Etymologiae" is a work entitled "Libri duo differentiarum". The two books of which it is composed are entitled respectively, "De differentiis verborum" and "De differentiis rerum". The former is a dictionary of synonyms, treating of the differences of words with considerable erudition, and not a little ingenuity; the latter an exposition of theological and ascetical ideas, dealing in particular with the, Trinity and with the Divine and human nature of Christ. It suggests, and probably was inspired by, a similar work of Cato's, It is supplementary to the first two books of the "Etymologiae". The "Synonyma", or, as it is sometimes called on account of its peculiar treatment, "Liber lamentationum", is in a manner illustrative of the first book of the "Differentiae". It is cast in the form of a dialogue between Man and Reason. The general burden of the dialogue is that Man mourns the condition to which he has been reduced through sin, and Reason comforts him with the knowledge of how he may still realize eternal happiness. The second part of this work consists of a dissertation on vice and virtue. The "De natura rerum" a manual of elementary physics, was composed at the request of King Sisebut, to whom it is dedicated. It treats of astronomy, geography, and miscellanea. It is one of Isidore's best known books and enjoyed a wide popularity during the Middle Ages. The authenticity of "De ordine creaturarum" has been questioned by some critics, though apparently without good reason. Arevalo unhesitatingly attributes it to Isidore. It deals with various spiritual and physical questions, such as the Trinity, the consequences of sin, eternity, the ocean, the heavens, and the celestial bodies. The subjects of history and biography are represented by three important works. Of these the first, "Chronicon", is a universal chronicle. In its preface Isidore acknowledges, his indebtedness to Julius Africanus; to St. Jerome's rendering of Eusebius; and to Victor of Tunnuna. The "Historia de regibus Gothorum, Wandalorum, et Suevorum" concerns itself chiefly with the Gothic kings whose conquests and government deeply influenced the civilization of Spain. The history of the Vandals and the Suevi is treated in two short appendixes. This work is regarded as the chief authority on Gothic history in the West. It contains the interesting statement that the Goths descended from Gog and Magog. Like the other Historical writings of Isidore, it is largely based on earlier works of history, of which it is a compendium- It has come down to us in two recensions, one of which ends at the death of Sisebut (621), and the other continues to the fifth year of the reign of Swintila, his successor. "De viris illustribus" is a work of Christian biography and constitutes a most interesting chapter in the literature of patrology. To the number of illustrious writers mentioned therein Braulio added the name of Isidore himself. A short appendix containing a list of Spanish theologians was added by Braulio's disciple, Ildephonsus of Toledo. It is the continuation of the work of Gennadius, a Semipelagian priest of Marseilles, who wrote between 467 and 480. This work of Gennadius was in turn, but the continuation of the work of St. Jerome. Among the scriptural and theological works of St. Isidore the following are especially worthy of note: + "De ortu et obitu patrum qui in Scriptura laudibus efferuntur" is a work that treats of the more notable Scriptural characters. It contains more than one passage that, in the light of modern scholarship, is naive or fantastic. The question of authenticity has been raised, though quite unreasonably, concerning it. + "Allegoriae quaedam Sacrae Scripturae" treats of the allegorical significance that attaches to the more conspicuous characters of Scripture. In all some two hundred and fifty personalities of the Old and New Testament are thus treated. + "Liber numerorum qui in Sanctis Scripturis occurrunt" is a curious dissertation on the mystical significance of Scriptural numbers. + "In libros Veteris et Novi Testamenti prooemia", as its name implies, is a general introduction to the Scriptures, with special introductions for particular books in the Old and New Testament. + "De Veteri et Novo Testamento quastiones" consists of a series of questions concerning the Scriptures. + "Secretorum expositiones sacramentorum, seu quaestiones in Vetus Testamentum" is a mystical rendering of the Old Testament books, of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Kings, Esdras, and Machabees. It is based on the writings of the early Fathers of the Church. + "De fide catholica ex Veteri et Novo Testamento, contra Judaeos" is one of the best known and most meritorious of Isidore's works. It is of an apologetico-polemical character and is dedicated to Florentina, his sister, at whose request it is said to have been written. Its popularity was unbounded in the Middle Ages, and it was translated into many of the vernaculars of the period. It treats of the Messianic prophecies, the passing of the Old Law, and of the Christian Dispensation. The first part deals with the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, and His return for the final judgment. The second part is taken up with the unbelief of the Jews, the calling of the Gentiles, and the passing of the Sabbath. In all, it is an appeal to the Jews to accept Christianity. + "Sententiarum libri tres" is a compendium of moral and dogmatic theology. Gregory the Great and St. Augustine are the most generous contributors to its contents. The Divine attributes, creation, evil, and miscellanea are the subjects treated in the first book. The second is of a miscellaneous character; whilst the third deals with ecclesiastical orders, the judgment and the chastisement of God. It is believed that this work greatly influenced Peter Lombard in his famous "Book of Sentences", + "De ecclesiasticis officiis" is divided into two books, "De origine officiorum" and "De origine ministrorum". In the first Isidore treats of Divine worship and particularly the old Spanish Liturgy. It also Contains a lucid explanation of the Holy, Eucharist. The second treats of the hierarchy of the Church and the various states of life. In it much interesting information is to be found concerning the development of music in general and its adaptation to the needs of the Ritual. + "Regula monachorum" is a manner of life prescribed for monks, and also deals in a general way with the monastic state. The writer furnishes abundant proof of the true Christian democracy of the religious life by providing for the admission of men of every rank and station of life. Not even slaves were debarred. "God", he said, "has made no difference between the soul of the slave and that of the freedman." He insists that in the monastery all are equal in the sight of God and of the Church. The first edition of the works of Isidore was published in folio by Michael Somnius (Paris, 1580). Another edition that is quite complete is based upon the manuscripts of Gomez, with notes by Perez and Grial (Madrid, 1599). Based largely upon the Madrid edition is that published by Du Breul (Paris, 1601; Cologne, 1617). The last edition of all the works of Isidore, which is also regarded as the best, is that of Arevalo (7 vols., Rome, 1797-1803). It is found in P. L., LXXXI-LXXXIV. The "De natura rerum was edited by G. Becker (Berlin, 1857). Th. Mommsen edited the historical writings of St. Isidore ("Mon. Germ. Hist.: Auct. antiquiss.", Berlin, 1894). Coste produced a German translation of the "Historia de regibus Gothorum, Wandalorum et Suevorum" (Leipzig, 1887). JOHN B. O'CONNOR Isidore of Thessalonica Isidore of Thessalonica Cardinal and sometime Metropolitan of Kiev or Moscow, b. at Thessalonica (Saloniki) towards the end of the fourteenth century; d. at Rome, 27 April, 1463. He was one of the chief Eastern defenders of reunion at the time of the Council of Florence. The date of his birth is unknown, nor is his nationality certain. He has been variously described as a Bulgar and a Greek. In any case all his education was Greek. He arrived at Constantinople, became a monk, and was there made hegumenos of the monastery of St. Demetrius. He had evidently received an unusually complete education: he knew Latin well, and had considerable fame as a theologian. He was also an accomplished orator; he seems from the beginning to have been eager for reunion with the West. It was the time when the Court of Constantinople, on the eve of its final destruction by the Turks, was considering the chance of rescue from the Western princes as a result of reuniting with Rome. In 1434 Isidore was sent to Basle by Emperor John VIII (1425-48) as part of an embassy to open negotiations with the Council of Basle. Here he made a mellifluous speech about the splendour of the Roman Empire at Constantinople. On his return he continued to take part in all the preparations for reunion among his own people. In 1437 he was sent by the Byzantine patriarch (Joseph II, 1416-39, a conspicuous friend of reunion, who died a Catholic at Florence) to be Metropolitan of Moscow (or was his title Kiev? He is constantly called Bishop of Kiev, though he certainly went to Moscow and stayed there. They were two separate sees. Kiev was the old metropolis of Russia. Moscow was made so about this time). As soon as he arrived he began to arrange a Russian legation for the council about to be held at Ferrara. The Russian tsar, Vasili II (1425-62), made difficulties about this, and let him go eventually only after he had promised to come back with "the rights of Divine law and the constitution of the holy Church" uninjured. Syropulus and other Greek writers charge Isidore with perjury because in spite of this he accepted the union. Isidore set out with a great following on 8 Sept., 1437, travelled by Riga and Luebeck, and arrived at Ferrara on 15, August, 1438. On the way he offended his suite by his friendly conduct towards the Latins. At Ferrara and at Florence, whither the council moved in January, 1439, Isidore was one of the six chief speakers on the Byzantine side. Together with Bessarion he steadfastly worked for the union, and never swerved afterwards in his acceptance of it. After the council, the pope (Eugene IV, 1431-47) made him his legate for all Russia and Lithuania. On his way back news reached Isidore, at Benevento, that he had been made Cardinal-Priest of the Title of St. Peter and St. Marcellinus. This is one of the few cases in which a person not of the Latin Rite has been made a cardinal. From Budapest in March, 1440, he published an encyclical calling on all Russian bishops to accept the union. But when he at last arrived in Moscow (Easter, 1441), and proclaimed the union in the Kremlin church, he found that the tsar and most of the bishops and people would have none of it. Then, at the tsar's command, six Russian bishops met in a synod, deposed Isidore, and shut him up in prison. He escaped, fled to Rome, and was graciously received by the pope in 1443. Nicholas V (1447-55) sent him as legate to Constantinople to arrange the reunion there in 1452, and gave him two hundred soldiers to help the defence of the city. On 12 December of that year he was able to unite three hundred of the Byzantine clergy in a celebration of the short-lived reunion. He saw the taking of the city by the Turks on 29 May, 1453, and only escaped the massacre by dressing up a dead body in his cardinal's robes. While the Turks were cutting off its head and parading it through the streets, the real cardinal was shipped off to Asia Minor with a number of insignificant prisoners, as a slave. Afterwards he wrote an account of the horrors of the siege in a letter to Nicholas V (P.G., CLIX, 953). He escaped from captivity, or bought himself free, and came back to Rome. Here he was made Bishop of Sabina, presumably adopting the Latin Rite. Pius II (1458-64) later gave him two titles successively, those of Patriarch of Constantinople and Archbishop of Cyprus, neither of which he could convert into real jurisdiction. He died at Rome on 27 April, 1463. All histories of the Council of Florence describe the adventures of Cardinal Isidore. See especially PASTOR, Geshichte der Paepste, I (3rd and 4th ed., Freiburg im Br., 1901), 585, etc., and his references. The Monumenta Hungariae historica, XXI, 1, contain two versions of the letter to Nicholas V (pp. 665-95, 696-702); see KRUMBACHER, Byzantinische Litteraturgeschichte (Munich, 1897), 311. Consult also STRAHL, Geschichte der russischen Kirche, I (Halle, 1830), 444; FROMMANN, Kritische Beitraege zur Geschichte der Florentiner Kircheneinigung (Halle, 1872), 138 seq.; HEFELE, Conciliengeschichte, VII (Freiburg im Br., 1886), passim. ADRIAN FORTESCUE St. Isidore the Labourer St. Isidore the Labourer A Spanish daylabourer; b. near Madrid, about the year 1070; d. 15 May, 1130, at the same place. He was in the service of a certain Juan de Vargas on a farm in the vicinity of Madrid. Every morning before going to work he was accustomed to hear a Mass at one of the churches in Madrid. One day his fellow-labourers complained to their master that Isidore was always late for work in the morning. Upon investigation, so runs the legend, the master found Isidore at prayer, while an angel was doing the ploughing for him. On another occasion his master saw an angel ploughing on either side of him, so that Isidore's work was equal to that of three of his fellow-labourers. Isidore is also said to have brought back to life the deceased daughter of his master and to have caused a fountain of fresh water to burst from the dry earth in order to quench the thirst of his master. He was married to Maria Torribia, a canonized saint, who is venerated in Spain as Maria della Cabeza, from the fact that her head (Spanish, cabeza) is often carried in procession especially in time of drought. They had one son, who died in his youth. On one occasion this son fell into a deep well and at the prayers of his parents the water of the well is said to have risen miraculously to the level of the ground, bringing the child with it, alive and well. Hereupon the parents made a vow of continence and lived in separate houses. Forty years after Isidore's death, his body was transferred from the cemetery to the church of St. Andrew. He is said to have appeared to Alfonso of Castile, and to have shown him the hidden path by which he surprised the Moors and gained the victory of Las Nevas de Tolosa, in 1212. When King Philip III of Spain was cured of a deadly disease by touching the relics of the saint, the king replaced the old reliquary by a costly silver one. He was canonized by Gregory XV, along with Sts. Ignatius, Francis Xavier, Teresa, and Philip Neri, on 12 March, 1622. St. Isidore is widely venerated as the patron of peasants and day-labourers. The cities of Madrid, Leon, Saragossa, and Seville also, honour him as their patron. His feast is celebrated on 15 May. His Life, as first written in 1265 by John, a deacon of the church of St. Andrew, at Madrid, and supplemented by him in 1275, is printed in Acta S.S., May, III, 515-23. It served as the basis for LOPE DE VEGA's religious poem San Isidro (1599). Acta SS., loc. cit., 512-559; BUTLER, Lives of the Saints, 10 May; BARING-GOUID, Lives of the saints, 10 May; TAMAYO Martyrologium Hispanicum, III (Lyons, 1655), 191-98; QUARTINO, Vita di, S. Isidoro agricola (Turin, 1882). MICHAEL OTT Isionda Isionda A titular see in the province of Pamphylia Secunda; it was a suffragan of Perge. Artemidorus, mentioned by Strabo (XII, vii, 2; XIII, iv, 15), places this city in Pisidia, and Strabo himself (XIII, iv, 17) locates it, under the name of Isinda, in the region of Termessos. Polybius (Excerta de leg., 31), Ptolemy (V, 5), and Stephen of Byzantium call it Isionda, Isindos, Pisinda, Sinda; it is similarly refered to in the "Notitiae episcopatuum." Lequien (Oriens Christ., I, 1033) gives the names of five bisihops who assisted at the OEcumenical Councils of Nicaea, Ephesus, Chalcedon and Constantinople (553), and at the Photian synod in 878. The probable location of this town, which has no history, is at Istanoz or Stanos, a nahié of the sanjak of Adalia, in the vilayet of Koniah. S. VAILHÉ Jose Francisco de Isla José Francisco de Isla Spanish preacher and satirist, b. at Villavidantes (Kingdom of Leon), 24 March, 1703; d. at Bologna, 2 November, 1782. Isla's life was far more eventful that that usually led by members of a religious order. Having broken off a premature betrothal, he entered the Society of Jesus at the age of sixteen, and, on the termination of his two years' novitiate, was sent to the renown University of Salamanca. Here he studied philosophy for two years and theology for four, and was then appointed forthwith to the chair of exegesis and later to that of philosophy. He continued his professional activities at various colleges until 1747, winning at the same time the reputation of a popular preacher. At the same time he did not neglect his talent for poetry and his taste for literature, and gave proof of a waggish, satirical vein. But this talent was to cause him not a few troubles. The first of these resulted in an assignment to pastoral duties at San Sebastian, where fortunately he was kept for but a short time. In 1750 the formidable satirist was sent to the residence of the professed fathers at Valladolid to preach. While this appointment was a new recognition of his ability as a preacher, the attempt of Queen Maria Barbara to secure him as her confessor indicates his piety. By well-put objections Isla escaped the office, but another suggestion from the court, where Isla's eminent literary gifts had already attracted notice, that the talented writer should devote himself entirely to literary work, was received with favour by his spiritual superiors. In consequence Isla, in 1752, was assigned exclusively to literary work, varied only by occasional summons to the pulpit, which he regarded as interruptions to his literary activity. The years 1758 and 1759 deprived him of his three greatest patrons -- Pope Benedict XIV, Queen Maria Barbara, and King Ferdinand VI -- and ushered in for him a period of bitter trials. As early as 1758 the persecution of his order in Portugal began, and the earliest symptoms of a similar storm soon made their appearance in Spain. Sent to Galicia in 1760, Isla devoted himself with great spiritual fruits to giving public missions and the exercises of St. Ignatius. The royal decree, which two years later forbade any Jesuit to publish a new book, paralyzed his literary activity, and, after various preparatory decrees of a like nature, the Jesuits were finally banished from every part of Spain in 1767. Isla, moreover, was visited by a personal affliction, an apoplectic stroke causing a temporary paralysis of the mouth and tongue. The painful journey into exile -- first to Corsica for a residence of fourteen dreary months, and then to the Papal States -- his grief at the suppression of his order, the eight succeeding years of stress pending his delivery by death, are described by Isla himself with his usual imperturbable good-humor in his letters to his sister. The concluding years of his life were made somewhat more pleasant, thanks to the noble hospitality extended to him by Count Tedeschi at Bologna. He died in the seventy-ninth year of his age. Isla's fame rests much less on his activities as a preacher and his pastoral labours than on his humorous and satirical writings. His earliest literary experiment was the "Juventud triunfante" (the "Triumph of Youth") a description of a festival in which Isla gives a skillfully exaggerated account of the already excessively elaborate preparations made by the University of Salamanca to celebrate the canonization of Stanislaus Kostka and Aloysius Gonzaga (1727). His second publication may be described as a pure satire on the singular methods of the surgery of his day. For his next subject he was again to choose a national festival, celebrating for little Navarre the accession of Ferdinand VI. This work he entitled: "Triunfo del Amor ye de la Lealtad: Dia grande de Navarre." ("The triumph of Love and Loyalty" or "The Great Day of Navarre"); it was not intended to be a formal satire on the exaggerated national consciousness of the Navarese, but the bombastic extravagance of the language renders it rather a masterly travesty than a serious eulogy. The work, however, which keeps Isla's name still living in the pages of literature, is his romance on pulpit oratory, the "Historia del Famoso predicador Frey gerundio de Compazas" (History of the celebrated preacher, Frey Gerundio de Compazas, alias Zotes), whom he himself called "a preaching Don Quixote". It is a clever satire, in which he exposes the complete decay of pulpit oratory in Spain. In the form of a broadly-sketched biography, this clever romance, in spite of the condemnation of the Inquisition, circulated throughout Europe in numerous editions and translations. The latest critical edition appeared at Leipzig in 1885 (prepared by Professor Eduard Lidforss). The work was first translated into English by Baretti (London, 1772); there are three translations in German, and many in French. One modern critic (Zarnckes, "Lit. Centralblat für Deut., 1886) sets Isla's romance above Don Quixote. Another work of Isla's written in the last years of his life, long engaged the attention of critics, namely his adaptation of "Gil Blas", which appeared posthumously under the title "Adventures de Gil Blas de Santillane, robadas á España, adoptadas en Francia por Mons. Le Sage, restituidas á su patria y a su lengua nativa, por un Español zeloso, que no sufre que se burlen de su nación" (Adventures of Gil Blas of Santillana, stolen from Spain and appropriated in France by M. Le Sage, restored to their country and their native tongue by a jealous Spaniard, who will not suffer his country to be made sport of). Isla's sermons were published in six volumes at Madrid in 1792 and 1793, but no new edition has been issued, nor have they been translated into other languages. They are, however, highly esteemed in Spain, and occupy an important place in the history of the development of pulpit oratory in that country. Of his many translations from other tongues, that of P. Croiset's "Année chrétienne", unfortunately not completed, is the most important. His three apologetic works for his order could not be printed at that period; one of them has been lost, a second has been recently published. Among his literary remains was discovered a translation of the Italian burlesque epic "Il Cicerone," by Abbot Gian Carlo Passaroni, a picture of contemporary Italian life in society and literary circles. Isla's intimate correspondence with his sister was published in four volumes in 1785-86, a new edition being issued fifteen years later with two additional volumes. Monlau has inserted this correspondence with forty-four further letters in the "Select Works of Isla" (1850; new ed., 1870). The second centenary of Isla's birth was celebrated with great festivity in many towns in Spain on 24 March, 1903, clearly indicating that his name still lives in the memory of his countrymen. There are five more or less complete Biographies of Isla: by de Salan (Madrid, 1803); Von Murr, Journal (Nuremburg, 1783), II; Monlau in Selected Works of Isla (Madrid, 1850); Godeau, Les Précheurs burlesques in Espagne au XVIIIe siècle. Etude sur le P. Isla (Paris, 1891); Baumgartner in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach (1905), 82-92, 182-205, 299-315. NICHOLAS SCHEID Islam (Concept) Islam (Concept) Islam, an Arabic word which, since Mohammed's time, has acquired a religious and technical significance denoting the religion of Mohammed and of the Koran, just as Christianity denotes that of Jesus and of the Gospels, or Judaism that of Moses, the Prophets, and of the Old Testament. Grammatically, the word Islam is the infinitive of the so-called fourth verbal form of the regular intransitive stem salima, "to be safe", "to be secure", etc. In its second verbal form (sallama) it means "to make some one safe" and "to free", "to make secure", etc. In its third form (salama), it signifies "to make peace", or "to become at peace", i.e. to be reconciled". In its fourth form (aslama), the infinitive of which is islam, it acquires the sense of "to resign", "to submit oneself" or "to surrender". Hence Islam, in its ethico-religious significance, means the "entire surrender of the will to God", and its professors are called Muslimun (sing. Muslim), which is the participial form, that is "those who have surrendered themselves", or "believers", as opposed to the "rejectors" of the Divine message, who are called Kafirs, Mushriks (that is those who associate various gods with the Deity), or pagans. Historically, of course, to become a Muslim was to become a follower of Mohammed and of his religion; and it is very doubtful whether the earliest Muslims or followers of Mohammed, had any clear notion of the ethico-religious significance of the term, although its later theological development is entirely consistent and logical. According to the Shafiites (one of the four great Mohammedan schools of theology), Islam, as a principle of the law of God, is "the manifesting of humility or submission, and outward conforming with the law of God, and the taking upon oneself to do or to say as the Prophet has done or said"; and if this outward manifestation of religion is coupled with "a firm and internal belief of the heart", i.e. faith, then it is called Iman. Hence the Mohammedan theological axiom "Islam is with the tongue, and Iman is with the heart." According to the Hanafites (another of the four above-mentioned schools), however, no distinction is to be made between the two terms, as Iman, according to them, is essentially included in Islam. Islam is sometimes divided under two heads of "Faith", or "Iman", and "Practical Religion", or "Din". Faith (Iman) includes a belief in one God, omnipotent, omniscient, all-merciful, the author of all good, and in Mohammed as His prophet, expressed in the formula: "There is no God but God, and Mohammed is the Prophet of God." It includes also, belief in the authority and sufficiency of the Koran, in angels, genii, and the devil, in the immortality of the soul, the resurrection, the day of judgment, and in the God's absolute decree for good and evil. Practical religion (Din), on the other hand, consists of five observances, viz.: recital of the formula of belief, prayer with ablution, fasting, almsgiving, and the pilgrimage to Mecca. For further details see KORAN and MOHAMMEDANISM. GABRIEL OUSSANI Isleta Pueblo Isleta Pueblo The name of two pueblos of the ancient Tigua tribe, of remote Shoshoncan stock. The older and principal is on the west bank of the Rio Grande about twelve miles below Albuquerque, New Mexico. The other, an offshoot from the first and sometimes distinguished as Isleta del Sur (Isleta of the South), is on the Texas side of the Rio Grande, a few miles below El Paso. The original Isleta (i.e. islet) was so named by the Spaniards from its position on a tongue of land projecting into the stream; the native name, Shiewhibak, seems to refer to a knife used in connection with a certain ceremonial foot race. It was first entered by the Spanish commander, Coronado in 1540, and again in 1582-3 by Espejo (q.v.) while trying to ascertain the fate of Father Rodriguez and two other Franciscan missionaries who had been murdered by Indians in the vicinity a year earlier. Before 1629 it had become the seat of the Franciscan mission of San Antonio. At a later period it received many refugees from outlying pueblos abandoned in consequence of Apache raids, until at the outbreak of the great Pueblo revolt in 1680 it may have numbered 2000 souls. Owing to the large number of Spaniards in the pueblo at the time they were not molested in the general massacre, but the natives, after having made submission to Governor Otermin the following year, secretly withdrew to join the enemy, in consequence of which Otermin burned the pueblo, carrying all the remaining Indians, 400 in all, to El Paso where he colonized them in the new town of Isleta del Sur, re-establishing at the same time the mission of San Antonio. In 1692-3 Vargas reconquered the Pueblo country and mission work was soon after resumed. About the year 1710, or a few years later, the original Isleta was reoccupied by the Tigua, and a new mission established there under the name of San Agustin. With the growth of the Spanish population the importance of the Indian missions correspondingly decreased. In 1780-1 one-third of the whole Pueblo population was swept away by smallpox, in consequence of which most of the missions were abandoned, but that at Isleta continued to exist under Spanish and Mexican rule for fifty years longer, when it became virtually a secular church. The pueblo now has a population of about 1100, rating third among the Pueblo towns, and has both a government and a Catholic day-school. In culture, social organization and ceremonial forms the inhabitants resemble the Pueblo generally. In Isleta del Sur the few remaining inhabitants, although very much Mexicanized still keep up some Indian forms and retain their native language. BANCROFT, Hist. Arizona and New Mexico; BANDELIER, Arch. Inst. papers; Commissioner Ind. Affs. Annual Repts., etc., for which see under Indians, American. JAMES MOONEY Simon Islip Simon Islip An Archbishop of Canterbury, b. at Islip, near Oxford; d. at Mayfield, Sussex, 26 April, 1366. He was educated at Oxford, where he proceeded doctor in canon, and civil law, being elected Fellow of Merton in 1307. His talents and learning as ecclesiastical lawyer soon won for him many benefices and preferments. Having for a time been rector of Easton, near Stamford, he exchanged this place in 1332 for the archdeaconry of Stow, which he only held for one year. He also held the rectory of Horncastle. Bishop Burghersh of Lincoln, then treasurer and Chancellor of England, made him a prebendary of Lincoln Cathedral in 1327, and he held successively the prebends of Welton Brinkhall, Aylesbury, and Welton Beckhall, while in 1337 he became vicar-general for the diocese. At this time he was much in London where he entered the king's service as one of the royal chaplains. Edward III trusted him also in diplomatic and political affairs, appointed him a member of the council and in 1346 gave Islip extensive powers during his own absence in France. In 1343 he had been made archdeacon of Canterbury and subsequently he was made dean of arches. He also held the prebend of Mora in St. Paul's Cathedral and a stall at Lichfield. John Stratford, the Archbishop of Canterbury, died in 1348 while the Black Death was raging. His two successors, John Ufford and Thomas Bradwardine, died of the plague within a few weeks of each other, the former before consecration. On 20 Sept. 1349, Simon Islip was elected archbishop, but within three weeks the pope conferred the see on him by provision. He was consecrated just before Christmas and received the pallium at the following Easter. The archdiocese had suffered from the pestilence and there was a dearth of clergy, so that the first work Islip was called on to undertake was a visitation, during which he laboured with energy to restore ecclesiastical discipline. At this time, and after the renewed outbreak of the Black Death in 1362, he took particular pains to regulate the stipends of the unbeneficed clergy, who were induced by the greatly diminished number of priests to exact higher remuneration for their services than formerly. He next succeeded in terminating the ancient dispute between the archbishops of canterbury and York, as to the right of the latter to bear his cross in the province of the former. The final arrangement, suggested by the king, agreed to by both archbishops, and confirmed by the pope, was that the Archbishop of York might carry his cross in the province of Canterbury on condition that each archbishop should within two months of his confirmation present to the shrine of St. Thomas a golden image of an archbishop. Though he was a favourite of the king, he did not hesitate to resist royal exactions, and he addressed a vigorous remonstrance on the subject to Edward III. This being supported by the action of a synod over which the archbishop presided, and which refused the king's demand for a tenth of ecclesiastical income for six years, proved effectual to check the corrupt system of purveyance. Copies of this remonstrance, the " Speculum Regis Edwardi", are in the Bodleian library (MS. 624) and the British Museum (Harl. MS. 2399; Cotton MSS., Cleopatra D. IX and Faustina B. i.). Islip was a munificent benefactor of Oxford University, and founded a college which he intended should afford special facilities for monks to obtain the advantages of a university course, but the difficulties proved insurmountable, and after his death his foundation continued as a dependence on Christ Church, Canterbury, until it was absorbed by Cardinal Wolsey, in his foundation of Christ Church, Oxford. During his lifetime he had the reputation of being a sparing and niggardly administrator of the temporalities of his see, but this seems to be explained partly by the nature of the times, which called for economy and the wise husbandry of resources, and partly by his own temperament, which was frugal and averse to display. Both his enthronement and his funeral at Canterbury were by his own desire marked by the utmost simplicity, but his generous bequests to the monks of Canterbury show that this was not due to lack of interest in his cathedral church. In 1363 the archbishop suffered a paralytic stroke which he survived for three years, although by depriving him of the power of speech, it practically closed his career. Literae Cantuarienses, ed. SHEPPARD, R. S. II (London, 1887-88); WALSINGHAM, Historica Anglicana, ed., RILEY, R. S. (London, 1863-4); WOOD, History and Antiquities of Oxford (Oxford, 1786); WHARTON, Anglia Sacra (London, 1691); HOOK, Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury, IV (London, 1860-84); MOISANT, De Speculo regis Edwardi III, seu tractatu quem de mala regni administratione conscripsit Simon Islip (Paris, 1891); TOUT in Dict.Nat. Biog., s. v. EDWIN BURTON Ismael (Ishmael) Ismael (Sept. 'Ismaél; Vulg. Ismahel, in I Par., i, 28, 20, 31). The son of Abraham and Agar, the Egyptian. His history is contained in parts of Gen., xvi-xxv, wherein three strata of Hebrew tradition (J, E, P) are usually distinguished by contemporary scholars. The name "Ismael", which occurs also in early Babylonian and in Minæan, was given to the child before its birth (Gen., xvi, 11), and means: "may God hear". As Sarai, Abram's wife, was barren, she gave him, in accordance with the custom of the time, her handmaid, Agar, as concubine, in order to obtain children through her. Agar's conception of a child soon led to her flight into the wilderness, where the angel of Yahweh appeared to her, bade her to return to her mistress, and fixed the name and character of her future son. After her return to Bersabee, she brought forth Ismael to Abram, who was then eighty-six years old (xvi). Ismael was very dear to the aged patriarch, as is shown by his entreaty of God in Ismael's behalf, when the Almighty promised him a son through Sara. In answer to this earnest entreaty, God disclosed to Abraham the glorious future which awaited Ismael: "As for Ismael, I have also heard thee. Behold, I will bless him, and increase, and multiply him exceedingly: he shall beget twelve chiefs, and I will make him a great nation." Ismael was not the destined heir of the covenant; yet, as he belonged to Abraham's family, he was submitted to the rite of circumcision when the patriarch circumcised all the male members of his household. He was then a lad of thirteen (xvii). Abraham's tender love towards Ismael manifested itself on another occasion. He resented Sara's complaint to him, when, on the great festival given at the weaning of Isaac, she requested Agar's and Ismael's summary dismissal because she "had seen the son of Agar the Egyptian playing with [ or mocking] Isaac her son". Ismael was Abraham's own "son", and indeed his first- born. At this juncture, God directed Abraham to accede to Sara's request, comforting him with the repeated assurance of future national greatness for Ismael. Whereupon the patriarch dismissed Agar and Ismael with a modicum of provision for their journey. As their scanty provision of water was soon exhausted, Ismael would have certainly perished in the wilderness, had not God shown to Agar a well of water which enabled her to revive the dying lad. According to God's repeated promise of future greatness for Agar's son, Ismael grew up, lived in the wilderness of Paran, became famous as an archer, and married an Egyptian wife (xxi, 8-21). He became the father of twelve chiefs, whose names and general quarters are given in Gen., xxv, 12-16. Only one daughter of Ismael is mentioned in Holy Writ, where she is spoken of as one of Esau's wives (cf. Gen., xxviii, 9; xxxvi, 3). The last incident known of Ismael's career is connected with Abraham's burial, in which he appears associated with Isaac (xxv, 9). Ismael died at the age of one hundred and thirty-seven, "and was gathered unto his people" (xxv, 17). In his Epistle to the Galatians (iv, 21, sqq.) St. Paul expands allegorically the narrative of Ismael and Isaac, urging upon his readers the duty of not giving up their Christian freedom from the bondage of the Law. Of course, in so arguing, the Apostle of the Gentiles did not intend to detract in any way from the historical character of the narrative in Genesis. With regard to the various difficulties, literary and historical, suggested by a close study of the Biblical account of Ismael's life, suffice it to say that each and all will never cause a careful and unbiased scholar to regard that account otherwise than as portraying an ancient historical character, will never induce him to treat otherwise than as hypercritical every attempt, by whomsoever made, to resolve Ismael into a conjectural personality of the founder of a group of Arabic tribes. And this view of the matter will appear most certain to any one who compares the Biblical narrative with the legends concerning Ismael which are embodied in the Talmud, the Targum, and the other rabbinical works; while the latter are plainly the result of puerile imagination, the former is decidedly the description of an ancient historical figure. See bibliography to Isaac, to which may be added, Driver in Hastings, Dict. of the Bible, s. v. Ishmael; Seligsohn in The Jewish Encyclopedia, s. v. Ishmael. FRANCIS E. GIGOT Ispahan Ispahan A Catholic Armenian Latin see. Under the name of Aspandana it was once one of the principal towns of Media. Christianity must have penetrated into the land at an early period, for in 424 we meet the name of its bishop, Aphraat. Several other bishops of this see are historically known: Abraham in 497, another Abraham in 554, Ahron in 576 (Chabot, "Synodicon orientale", Paris, 1902,674), two others in 987 and 1111 (Lequien, "Oriens Christianus", II, 1305). Ispahan owes its prosperity to a shah of the Sofis dynasty, Abbas I, who made it his capital at the end of the sixteenth century; he drew thither from all parts merchants, artists, artisans, agriculturists, embellished the town with many fine buildings, and enlarged it to such an extent that it was about six miles in circumference, had nearly 600,000 inhabitants and was looked upon as one of the finest and richest towns in the world. Djulfa, the Armenian quarter, created by the shah himself, was, and is still, separated from Ispahan by the Zender Roud river. About 1600 Abbas I, desirous of an alliance with Christian European States in order to destroy the Ottoman power, entered into relations with Clement VIII and the King of Spain, and both promised him missionaries. The first to come were Portuguese Augustinians from Goa (1602). In 1604 the pope, who did not know the arrival of the Augustinians, entrusted the Persian mission to the Discalced Carmelites, of whom a few settled in Ispahan in December 1607. Then came French Capuchin missionaries in 1628, French Jesuits in 1645, and Dominicans a little later. Although the shahs did not make the Catholic missionaries welcome, they nevertheless allowed them in the course of the seventeenth century to continue their ministry to the Armenians and Chaldeans, to erect churches and schools, and even to convert a few Moslems. When the celebrated Jesuit Father Alexander de Rhodes, died, he was given magnificent obsequies. During the entire eighteenth century persecutions were so serious as to cause the departure of the European missionaries, and even the Catholic natives left the town. The Latin Diocese of Ispahan were created in 1629; in 1638 a second one was created, known as Babylon, and until 1693 both were under one administrator. The bishop generally resided at Ispahan and was still there in 1699, as well as the five religious communities mentioned above, when the Bishop of Ancyra was sent by the pope as ambassador to the shah. The taking of Ispahan by the Afghans in 1722 necessitated the closing of these Catholic establishments. In 1838, when Eugene Boré visited Ispahan, there were but few Catholics left. Propaganda re-established the mission in 1840, and it was placed in care of the Lazarists. Their superior became Apostolic prefect; a school had already been established at Ispahan. In 1852 liberty of conscience was granted. In 1874, when Rome created the Persian Apostolic Delegation for the Orientals, the Latin Diocese of Ispahan was removed from the jurisdiction of the See of Babylon, of which it had become a suffragan in 1848. Today this diocese directly depends on the Holy See; Mgr Lesné, its administrator, who is titular Archbishop of Philippopolis and Apostolic delegate, resides at Ourmiah. There are about 350 Catholics of the Latin Rite in Persia, out of a total population of over eight millions; they are under the care of fifteen Lazarist fathers. The Catholic Armenian Diocese of Ispahan, erected on 30 April, 1850, is under the jurisdiction of Monsignor Paolo Pietro Sabbaghian, the Armenian Patriarch of Cilicia, and contains about 7700 Catholic Armenians, with eleven secular priests, four churches, and one convent. The faithful in Ispahan proper number 560, out of a population of 80,000 inhabitants; and there are still many in the region of Durmiah. The Gregorian Armenians, about 50,000 in Persia, are quite numerous at Djulfa, a suburb of Ispahan, and have a bishop of that title. LEQUIEN, Oriens Christianus, I, 1425; III, 1389-1392; SHIRLEY, Relations of his travels into Persia (London, 1613); Brièves relations des progrès de l'Evangile au royaume des Perses (Liège, 1610); Relation du voyage de Perse, faict par le R. P. Pacifique de Provins (Paris, 1631); BERTHOLD-IGNACE, Histoire de l'establissement de la Mission de Perse (Paris, 1835); SCHEFER, Estat de la Perse en 1660 par le P. Raphael du Mans (Paris, 1890); with abundant bibliography; PIOLET, Les missions catholiques françaises au XIX siècle, I (Paris, 19_), 185-222; Missiones catholicæ (Rome, 1907), 177, 179, 756; Annales de la Congrégation de la Mission (Paris), passim; MALCOLM, Sketches of Persia (Philadelphia, 1828). S. VAILHÉ Israel Israelites The word designates the descendants of the Patriarch Jacob, or Israel. It corresponds to the Hebrew appellation "children of Israel", a name by which -- together with the simple form "Israel" -- the chosen people usually called themselves in Old-Testament times. Foreigners and Israelites speaking of themselves to foreigners used the term "Hebrews", commonly explained as denoting those who have come from "the other side" of the river (the Euphrates). Another synonym for Israelites is the term Jews (Ioudaioi), especially used by classical authors, but also often found in Josephus and in the New-Testament writings. The object of the present article is distinctly geographical and ethnographical, leaving, as far as possible, the other topics connected with the Israelites to be dealt with in the article on JEWS AND JUDAISM, or in particular articles on the leading personages or events in Israel's history. SEMITIC RELATIONSHIP The Israelites belong to the group of ancient peoples who are designated under the general name of Semites, and whose countries extended from the Mediterranean Sea to the other side of the Euphrates and Tigris, and from the mountains of Armenia to the southern coast of Arabia. According to the Biblical classification of the descendants of Noe (Gen., x), it is clear that the semitic group included the Arabs, Babylonians, Assyrians, Arameans, and Hebrews, to which peoples modern ethnographers add, chiefly on linguistic grounds, the Phoenicians and Chanaaneans. It thus appears that the Israelites of old claimed actual kinship with some of the most powerful nations of the East, although the nearness or remoteness of this kinship cannot be determined at the present day. As might be expected, their ethnic relation to the Semitic tribes who, together with the Israelites, make up the sub-group of the Terabites, is more definitely known. The Moabites, the Ammonites, the Edomites, and the Israelites were tribes of kindred origin, a fact which is readily acknowledged by contemporary scholars. It shows no less plainly that the children of Israel were also conscious of a close relationship with both the Arameans (Syrians) to the north-east and the Sinaitic nomads to the south of Palestine; and there is no doubt that, despite the rejection of Israel's kinship with Aram by some recent critics, both the Aramean and the Arabian relationships of Israel should be admitted. In the abstract, these relationships are not exclusive of each other, for there is no reason to suppose that ancient Israel was more homogeneous than any other migratory and conquering people; and in the concrete, both the relationships in question are equally borne witness to in the earliest historical records (cf. Gen., xxiv, 4, 10; xxvii, 43; xxix, 4, etc., in favour of Israel's relationship with Aram). EARLY MIGRATION The history of the Israelites begins with the migration of the kindred tribes mentioned in the above table, in the person of their ancestor, Thare, from Babylonia. The starting-point of this memorable migration was, according to Gen., xi, 28, 31, "Ur of the Chaldees ", which has recently been identified with Mugheir (Muqayyar; Accadian Uriwa, an important city in ancient days, some six miles (distant from the right bank of the Euphrates, and about 125 miles north-west of the Persian Gulf. Its actual goal, according to Gen., xi, 31, was "the land of Chanaan". The movement thus generally described is in distinct harmony with the well-ascertained fact that at an early date Babylonian enterprise had penetrated to Palestine and thereby opened up to the Semitic element of Chaldea a track towards the region which at the present day is often regarded as the original centre of the dispersion of the Semites, viz. Northern Arabia. The course taken was by way of Haran (in Aram), a city some 600 miles north-west of Ur, and its rival in the worship of the Moon-god, Sin. Not in worship alone, but also in culture, laws, and customs, Haran closely resembled Ur, and the call of Abraham -- God's command bidding him to seek a new country (Gen., xii, l) -- was doubtless welcome to one whose purer conception of the Deity made him dissatisfied with his heathen surroundings (cf. Jos., xxiv, 2 sq.). There is also reason to think that at this time Northern Babylonia was greatly disturbed by invading Kassites, a mountain race related to the Elamites. While, then, Thare's second son, Nachor, remained in Haran, where he originated the Aramaic settlement, Abraham and Lot went forth, passed Damascus, and reached the goal of their journey. The settlements which Holy Writ connects with Abraham and Lot need only to be mentioned here. The tribes directly related to Lot were those of Moab and Ammon, of which the former established itself east of the Dead Sea, and the latter settled on the eastern side of the Amorrhite kingdom which extended between the Arnom and the Jeboc. Of the tribes more immediately related to Abraham, the Ismaelites and the Madianites seem to have lived in the Peninsula of Sinai; the Edornites took possession of Mount Seir, the hilly tract of land lying south of the Dead Sea and east of the Arabah; and the Israelites settled in the country west of the Jordan, the districts with which they are more particularly connected in the Book of Genesis being those of Sichem, Bethel, Hebron, and Bersabee. The history of the Israelites in these early times is chiefly associated with the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Israel), all of whom kept a distinct remembrance of their close kinship with the Semitic settlement in Aram (cf. Gen., xxiv; xxviii), and the first of whom appears to have reached Chanaan about 2300 B.C., when he came into passing contact with Egypt (Gen., xii) and Elam (Gen., xiv) (see BABYLONIA). III. SOJOURN IN EGYPT The intercourse of Abraham with Egypt, just referred to, gave place eventually to one of much longer duration on the part of his descendants, when the Israelites went down to Egypt under the pressure of famine, and settled peaceably in the district of Gessen, east of the Delta. The fact of this later migration of Israel fits in well with the general data afforded by Egyptian history. About 2100 B.C. Lower Egypt had been invaded and conquered by a body of Asiatics, probably of Semitic origin, called the Hyksos, who established themselves at Zoan (Tanis), a city in the Delta, about 35 miles north of Gessen. Their rule, to which the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth dynasties are assigned, lasted 511 years, according to Manetho (cf. Josephus, "Contra Ap.", I, xiv). It was of course repulsive to the native princes, whose authority was restricted to Thebes, while it proved attractive to other invading bodies, Asiatic like the Hyksos themselves. Among these later arrivals are naturally reckoned the Israelites, who probably entered Egypt sometime prior to 1600 B.C., the date assigned for the eventual expulsion of the Hyksos by the Egyptian native kings. The position of Gessen has been fixed by recent excavations, and, as the Israelites were left to pursue without molestation their pastoral life in that region, they rapidly increased in numbers and wealth. The history of Israel's settlement in Egypt is connected particularly with Joseph, Jacob's beloved son by Rachel. IV. THE EXODUS AND THE WANDERINGS The final expulsion of the Hyksos by the native princes deprived the Israelites of their natural protectors; "nevertheless, the kings of the eighteenth dynasty, who came upon the scene about this time, did not interfere with them. On the contrary, these kings were themselves Asiatic in tone, marrying Syrian wives and introducing foreign customs. One of them, Amenhotep III, married Tyi, a Syrian princess and sun-worshipper, and their son, Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV), abandoned the national religion for the worship of the solar disc; and when this led to friction with the priesthood of Thebes, he changed his capital to Tell el-Amarna, and surrounded himself both in his temples and in the government of the country with foreigners. After his death, there was a reaction, the foreigners were ejected, and the national religion and party triumphed The next kings, therefore, those of the nineteenth dynasty, gave no quarter to foreigners, and these were the kings who knew riot Joseph, but made the lives of the Hebrews 'bitter with hard bondage, in mortar and in all manner of service in the field.' There was good reason why tyrannical kings like those who now arose should view with alarm the rapid increase of the Hebrews, seeing that they were aliens, and lived in a quarter where, if inclined to be disloyal, they could lend invaluable aid to Asiatic invaders" (Souttar "A Short History of Ancient Peoples", New York, 1903, 200 sq.). The particular Pharaoh of the nineteenth dynasty who treated the Israelites with special rigour was Rameses II, who became king at about the age of eighteen and reigned upwards of sixty years (about 1300-1234 B.C.). He employed them on field labour (Ex., i, 14); engaged them upon the store cities of Phithom (the ruins of which, eleven or twelve miles from Ismailia, show that it was built for that monarch) and Ramesse, thus called after his name; and finally made a desperate attempt to reduce their numbers by organized infanticide. Had not God watched over His people, Israel's ruin would have been simply a question of time. But He raised up Moses and commissioned him to free them from this harsh and cruel oppression. This Divine call reached Moses while he was living in the Peninsula of Sinai, whither he had fled from Pharaoh's wrath, residing among the Madianites or Kenites, who, like himself, traced their descent from Abraham. With the help of his brother, Aaron, and by means of the various scourges known as the plagues of Egypt, Yahweh's envoy finally prevailed upon Rameses' son and successor, Merneptah I (1234-14 B. c.; cf. Ex. ii, 23), to let Israel go free. In haste and by night, the Israelites left the land of bondage, turned eastward, and directed their course towards the Isthmus of Suez and the Red Sea, thus avoiding contact with the Egyptian troops which then occupied, at least in part, the Mediterranean coast, and making from the first for the encampments of their kindred, the Madianites, near Sinai. While this general direction can hardly be doubted, the localities through which Israel passed cannot now be identified with certainty. The first movement of the Israelites was from " Ramesse to Socoth (Ex., xii, 37). The former of these two places has often been regarded as the same as Zoan (Tanis) which is called in many papyri Pa-Ramessu Meriamum (the Place of Rameses II), but it is more probably to be located at Tell er-Retabeh, "in the middle of the length of the Wady Tumilat, about twenty miles from Ismailia on the East (Flinders Petrie), and only eight miles distant from Phithom. The name of the second place, Socoth, is probably a Semitic adaptation of the Egyptian word thku[t] which designated the district where the city of Phithom was situated. Proceeding thence, Israel encamped in Etham (Ex., xiii, 20; Num., xxxiii, 6), a term which is supposed to refer to the southern fortress (Egypt. Htem) of Thku (Socoth), on the eastern frontier of Egypt, upon the edge of the Wilderness of Etham, or Sur (cf. Ex., xv, 22; Num., xxxiii, 8). At this point the children of Israel changed their easterly direction, and journeying southward reached Phihahiroth, which is described in Exodus, xiv., 2, as "between Magdal and the sea over against Beelsephon". None of the places just spoken of have been identified; indeed, even the portion of the Red Sea which the Hebrews crossed miraculously, is a matter of controversy. Various writers maintain that at the time of Exodus the western arm of the Red Sea, now called the Gulf of Suez, from the modem town near its northern extremity, extended some thirty or forty miles farther north, and they admit for the actual place of crossing some point of this extension of the Red Sea. Others, on the contrary, apparently with greater probability, think that in the time of Moses the northern limit of the Gulf of Suez did not vary much, if at all, from what it is at the present day, and they maintain that the crossing took place at some point of the present head of the gulf, not far north of the present Suez, the ancient Greek name of which (Clysma) appears to embody a tradition of the Egyptian disaster. It is often and ably argued that after the Red Sea, the Israelites, resuming their journey in an easterly direction, took the haj route now followed by pilgrims going from Cairo to Mecca, running eastward across the Peninsula of Sinai to Elath at the northern point of the eastern arm of the Red Sea -- the Gulf of Akabah, as it is called. To most writers, however, there does not seem to be sufficient reason for giving up the time-honoured view which holds that the Hebrews proceeded southward until they reached the traditional Mount Sinai. On the basis of this latter view, Israel's intervening stations between the place of crossing and Mount Sinai have been identified as follows. After three days' march through the Wilderness of Sur, on the narrow and comparatively level coast-track of the Gulf of Suez, the Israelites came to a spring named Mara (Exod., xv, 22 sq.), probably the 'Ain Hawara, with its bitter waters. They next reached the oasis of Elim, usually identified with Wady Gharandel, where there are, even at the present time, wells and palms (Exod., xv, 27). Proceeding southward, they followed the road which winds by the Wady Tayibeh until it strikes the seashore, at which point the encampment by the sea (Numb., xxxiii, 10) is naturally placed. Before turning inland the coast-track expands into a plain four or five miles broad, called el-Markha, and probably to be identified with the Wilderness of Sin (Exod., xv, 1), wherein the stations of Daphea and Alus (Numb., xxxiii, 12, 13) were presumably situated. Thence Moses led his people in the direction of the sacred mount of Sinai, the next station being at Raphidim (Exod., xvii, 1), which is commonly regarded as identical with Wady Feiran, a long and fertile plain overhung by the granite rocks of Mount Sherbal, probably the Horem of Holy Writ. From Feiran the road winds through the long Wady es-Scheykh and leads to the extensive plain er-Rahah, which is directly in front of Mount Sinai, and which offered more than sufficient standing ground for all the children of Israel. It is true that none of the foregoing identifications enjoys more than a certain amount of probability and that, consequently, their aggregate cannot be considered as an unquestionable proof that the traditional road along the Gulf of Suez is the one actually followed by the Hebrews. Yet, as may readily be seen, it is a fact of no small importance in favour of the route described that its distance of some 150 miles between the place of crossing and Mount Sinai admits of a natural division into stages which on the whole correspond well to the principal marches of the Hebrews; for nothing of the kind can be put forth in support of their position by the contemporary scholars who prefer to the traditional road an eastward one running across the Peninsula of Sinai to the northern shore of the Gulf of Akabah. On leaving Sinai, under the guidance of Moses' brother-in-law, the Israelites proceeded in a northerly direction towards the Wilderness of Pharan, the barren region of et-Tih which lies south of Chanaan and west of Edom. They seem to have approached it the shore of the eastern arm of the Red Sea, now called the Gulf of Akabah. Of the various places mentioned as being on their route only two have been identified with some degree of probability. These are Kibroth Hattawah (graves of lust), regarded as identical with Erweis el-Ebeirig, and Hazeroth, apparently identical with the modern 'Ain Hudherah (cf. Numb., xi, 34; xxxiii, 16, 17). On entering the Desert of Pharan, the people established themselves at Cades, also Cadesbarne (the holy place), which has been identified with great probability with 'Ain Kedis, some fifty miles south of Bersabee (Numb., xxxiii, 36). Proceeding northward, after the return of the spies whom they had sent to explore Southern Palestine, they made a mad attempt to force their way into Chanaan. They were repulsed by the Chanaanites and the Amalecites at Sephaath, a place subsequently named Horma (cf. Judges, i, 17; now Sebaita) and some thirty-five miles north of Cades. (Cf. Numb., xii, xiv.) Then began a most obscure period in Israel's life. During thirty-eight years they wandered in the Badiet et Tih (Wilderness of the Wanderings) on the southern confines of Chanaan, apparently making Cades the centre around which their movements turned. " It is possible that while here, they came, for the first time since the Exodus, into contact with the Egyptians. An inscription of the Pharaoh Mernptah has been found recently (at Thebes, in 1896), the close of which relates the conquest by the Egyptians of the land of Chanaan and of Ashkelon, and then adds: 'The Israelites are spoiled so that they have no seed; the land of Khar [perhaps, the land of the Horites, i.e. Edom] is become like the windows of Egypt. Of the circumstances alluded to nothing positive is known; but the situation of the Israelites implied in the inscription is in or near Southern Palestine, and, as the fuller records of later date show no trace of any relations between Israel and Egypt until the time of Solomon, the sojourn at Cades seems to be the only occasion that will suit the conditions. On the assumption that the Exodus took place in the reign of Mernptah, the only alternative to the view just set forth is to regard the inscription as a boastful account of the Exodus itself', considered as an expulsion of the Israelites". (Wade, "Old Test-Hist."). In the beginning of the fortieth year of Israel's wanderings, the march towards Chanaan was resumed from Cades. In approaching Palestine this second time, it was determined to avoid the southern frontier, and to enter the Land of Promise by crossing the Jordan at the northern end of the Dead Sea. The shortest road for this purpose was through the territories of Edom and Moab, and Moses asked permission from the King of Edom to take this route, reminding him of the relationship between his people and Israel. His refusal compelled the Israelites to journey southward towards the Gulf of Akabah, and there to skirt the southern possessions of Edom, whence they marched northward, skirting the eastern frontier first of Edom and next of Moab, and finally encamping over against the River Arnon (the modern Wady Mojib). Such is the general line of March commonly admitted by scholars between Cades and the Arnon. Owing, however, to the fact that the several lists of Israel's stations in Numb., xx, 22-xxi, 11; xxxiii; Deut., x, 6, 7, contain differences as to the encampments which they mention, and as to the time which they assign to Aaron's death, some uncertainty remains as to which side of Edom -- east or west -- the Hebrews actually skirted on their way to the Arnon. With regard to the various stations named in those lists, a still greater uncertainty prevails. In point of fact, only a few of them can be identified, among which may be mentioned the place of Aaron's death, Mount Hor, which is probably the modem Jebel Madurah on the western border of Edom, some thirty or forty miles north-east of Cades; and next the encampment at Asiongaber, a place which may be identical with 'Ain el Gudyan which lies about fifteen miles north of the Gulf of Akabah. Resuming their march towards the Jordan, the Children of Israel crossed the Amon, and encountered the hostility of the Amorrhite chief, Sehon, who had taken from Moab the territory between the Arnon and the Jeboc (Wadv Zerkah). They defeated him at Jasa (not now identified), captured his capital Hesebon (the modem Resban), Jazer (Beith Zerah, three miles north of Hesebon), and the other cities of his dominions. They were thus brought into contact, and apparently also into conflict, with the northernmost kingdom of Basan, which lay between the Jeboc and the foot of Mount Hermon. They gave battle to its king, Og, defeated him at Edrei (now Edr'a), and took possession of his territory. Their victories and, still more, their occupation of the land north of Moab by Ruben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasses aroused the enmity of the Moabites who, at this juncture, summoned Balaam to curse the Israelites, and who succeeded but too well in their efforts to betray them into idolatry at Settim (Accacids), in the plains of Moab, over against Jericho (Eri'ka). The crowning events of the Wanderings were the induction of Josue into office as Moses' successor in command, and the death of Moses himself on one of the heights of the Abarim (Numb., xxvii, 12), which is variously called Nebo (Jebel Neba; Deut., xxxii, 49) or Phasga (Ras Siaghah; Deut., iii, 27), the western projection of Mount Nebo. V. THE CONQUEST OF CHANAAN Soon after the death of Moses, Josue resolved to attempt the invasion and conquest of Chanaan proper, or the country west of the Jordan, which Israel's great lawgiver had indeed contemplated, but had not been allowed to effect. In some respects this was at the time a hard task. The crossing of the Jordan was in itself a difficult .undertaking. The heights on the other side of the river were crowned with numerous cities, strongly walled, and therefore able to offer a stout resistance. Even the population in the lowlands was much superior to the Israelites in the art and appliances of war, in touch, as they had long been, with the advanced civilization of Babylonia and Egypt. In some other respects the work of conquest was then comparatively easy. The various peoples (Chanaanites, Hethites, Amorrhites, Pherezites, etc.) who made up the population of Western Palestine, constituted a number of mostly independent cities, distracted by those mutual jealousies which have been revealed by the Tell el-Amarna tablets, and hence not likely to combine their forces against Israel's invasion. "Moreover there was no possibility of outside alliances against the intruders. Tyre and Sidon, and other cities of the coast, were going their way, increasing their wealth and commercial connections by peaceful means, and were averse to entangling foreign complications. The Amorrhites east of the Jordan were the most formidable remnant of their decaying race, and they had been rendered powerless; while the Philistines, themselves a strange people, had not yet grown into power " (McCurdy). Circumstances such as these naturally called for Josue's prompt and vigorous action. With God's special help he crossed the Jordan at the head of all the tribes encamped at Galgal, identified with the modern Tell Jiljulieh, four miles from the river, and thence advanced upon Jericho. This city was one of the keys to the trans-Jordanic region, and it soon fell into his power. He next proceeded by the pass of Machmas (the Wady Suweinit) against Hai, a town two miles east of Bethel, and captured it by strategem. After this rapid conquest of Central Chanaan, Josue made alliance with he Gabaonites,. who had outwitted him, and won the memorable batttle of Bethoron over the five kings of the nearest Amorrhite peoples. This victory was followed up by the subjugation of other districts of Southern Palestine, a work which seems to have been accomplished mainly by the tribes of Simeon and Juda, assisted by the Cinites and the Calebites. Meantime, the kings of the north had rallied around Jabin, King of Azor in Galilee, and mustered their hosts near the Waters of Merom (Lake Huleh). At the head of the House of Joseph, the Jewish leader took them by surprise, defeated them, and subdued numerous northern towns. Josue's glorious achievements secured for the tribes of Israel a firm foothold in Chanaan,. by means of which they settled in their allotted territories. Great. however, as were these victories, they failed, even in conjunction with the efforts of the individual tribes (an account of which is supplied in the scattered notices in the Book of Josue and by the opening chapter of that of Judges), to complete the subjugation of Palestine. Many of the larger cities, together with the cultivated valleys and the coast-land, were still, and remained for a long time, in the possession of Chanaan's earlier inhabitants. VI. THE PERIOD OF THE JUDGES As long as Josue lived, his personality and his generalship succeeded in keeping up among the Israelites some manner of central authority, despite the tribal rivalries which manifested themselves even during the conquest of Western Palestine. When he died, with a previously appointed successor, all central authority actually ceased, and the bonds of union between the different tribes were quickly dissolved. The tribes were dispersed in different districts, and the Semitic love of tribal independence strongly reasserted itself among them. The immediate pressure of the war of conquest was no longer felt, and in many cases the distinct Hebrew communities were either unwilling or unable to exterminate the older population which survived in the land. The bond of union which naturally arises from close kinship, was likewise considerably relaxed by intermarriage between the Israelites and the Chanaanites. Even the bond created by the community of religion was time and again seriously impaired in Israel by the corruption of the ancestral worship of Yahweh with the attractive cult of the Baalim of Chanaan. This deep disunion of the tribes accounts naturally for the fact that, during a long period after the death of Moses' successor, each section of Israel's possessions was in its turn harassed and humiliated by a powerful foreign foe, and each time delivered from his oppression by a military leader, "judge " as he is called, whose authority never extended over the whole land. In the course of time, the drawbacks of such disunion were felt by the Israelites, and in order to withstand their enemies more effectively by concerted action, they wished for a king. Their first attempts in this direction were indeed unsuccessful: Gedeon refused the crown which they offered him, and Abimilech, his son, who accepted it, proved an unworthy ruler. Yet the longing of the Hebrew tribes for a monarchy could not be suppressed; during Israel's fierce conflict with the Philistines, Samuel, the last judge, wielded the universal and absolute power of a monarch with the title and the insignia of royalty; and when to the hostility of Western enemies was joined that of Eastern foes, like the Ammonites, the Israelites strenuously asked for a king and finally obtained one in the person of the Benjamite Saul. VII. THE UNDIVIDED KINGDOM Israel's first monarch resembled in many respects the judges who had preceded him, for the simple reason that, under his rule, the Hebrew tribes did not really coalesce into a nation. He was indeed the King of All Israel; his royal title and authority were to be hereditary, and at his summons all the tribes rallied around him. With their common help, he rescued the men of Jabes Galaad from impending destruction at the hands of the Ammonites, fought for a time successfully against the Philistines, and overcame the Amalecites. All the while, however, his kingship was little more than a judgeship. His court and ways of life were simple in the extreme; he had no standing army, no governors over subordinate districts; the war against the Philistines, the great enemies of Israel in his day, he waged like the judges of old, by hasty and temporary levies; and when he died at Gelboe, the profound and inveterate disunion of the tribes, which had been momentarily checked, immediately reappeared; most of them declared themselves in favour of his son, Isboseth, but Juda gathered around David and made him king in Hebron. In the civil war which ensued, "David grew always stronger and stronger", with the final result that his sovereignty was formally and voluntarily acknowledged by the elders of all the tribes. The new king was the real founder of the Hebrew monarchy. One of his first cares was to secure for Israel a political and religious capital in Jerusalem, a city of considerable size and of considerable natural strength. His military genius enabled him gradually to overcome the various nations who had cruelly oppressed the chosen people in the days of the judges. On the south-west he fought against the Philistines, and took from them the town of Geth (Tell es-Safi), and a great part of their dominions. On the south-east, he conquered and established garrisons in the territory of Edom. To the east of the Jordan he attacked and wellnigh exterminated the Moabites, while on the north-east he overthrew the Syrians of Soba as well as those of Damascus who had marched to the defence of their kindred. Finally, he waged a protracted war against the Ammonites, who had entered into a defensive alliance with several of the Syrian princes, and wreaked upon them a frightful vengeance. The possessions secured by these various wars formed a vast empire whose boundaries remained forever after the ideal extent of the Realm of Israel, and whose wise internal organization, on regular monarchical lines, greatly promoted the agricultural and industrial interests of the Hebrew tribes. Under such circumstances one might not unnaturally have supposed that the old tribal jealousies were at an end forever. And yet, on the occasion of the king's domestic broils, a rebellion broke out which for a while threatened to rend the nation asunder on the old, deep lines of cleavage. This disaster was, however, happily averted, and at his death David left to his son Solomon an undivided kingdom. David's reign had been pre-eminently a period of war and of territorial acquisition; Solomon's rule was, in the main, an era of peace and commercial achievement. Of special value to the new monarch were the friendly relations between Phnicia and Israel, continued from David's time. Through the help of Tyre he erected the Temple and other beautiful edifices in Jerusalem; the help of Tyre also enabled him to maintain for a time something of a foreign commerce by the Red Sea. His relations with Egypt were likewise peaceful and profitable. He received in marriage the daughter of Psibkhenao II, the last Pharaoh of the twenty-first dynasty, and kept up with Egypt a brisk overland commerce. He carried on a friendly intercourse and lively trade with the Hittites of Cilicia and of Cappadocia. Unfortunately, his love of splendour and luxury, his unfaithfulness to Yahweh's law and worship, gradually betrayed him into oppressive measures which especially alienated the northern tribes. In vain did he strive to overrule this dissatisfaction by doing away with the ancient territorial divisions of the tribes, and by appointing the Ephraimite Jeroboam as collector of taxes of the house of Joseph: his tampering with the old tribal principle did but increase the general discontent, and the great authority with which he invested the son of Nabat simply afforded the latter better opportunity to realize the extent of the disaffection of the northern tribes and to avail himself of it to rebel against the king. About this same time, Edom and Moab revolted against Solomon's suzerainty, so that, towards the end of his reign, everything threatened the continuity of the empire of Israel, which had always contained the hidden germs of disruption, and which, to a large extent, owed its very existence to the extreme temporary weakness of the great neighbouring nations of Egypt and Assyria. VIII. THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL Roboam's insulting reply to the northern tribes, when, gathered at Sichem, after Solomon's demise, they asked for some relief from the heavy yoke put upon them by the late monarch, was the immediate occasion of their permanent rupture with the line of David and the southern tribes. Under Jerboa's headship they formed (c. 937 B.C.) a separate kingdom which is known as the Kingdom of Israel, in contradistinction to that of Juda, and which greatly surpassed the latter in extent and population. The area of the Northern Kingdom is estimated at about 9000 square miles, with a population of about four or five millions. It included eight tribes, viz., on the west of the Jordan, Ephraim, one-half of Manasses, Issachar, Zabulon. Aser, Nephtali with the coastline between Acre and Joppe; on the east of the Jordan, Ruben, Gad, and one-half of Manasses. Its vassal-states were Moab and so much of Syria as had remained subject to Solomon (III Kings, xi, 24; IV Kings, iii, 4). The Kingdom of Juda included that tribe itself together with that of Benjamin, and -- at least eventually -- a part, if not the whole, of Simeon and Dan. Its area is estimated at 3400 miles, with a population of about one million and three quarters. Besides this, Edom continued faithful to Juda for a time. But while the Northern Kingdom was larger and more populous than the Southern, it decidedly lacked the unity and the seclusion of its rival, and was therefore the first to succumb, a comparatively easy prey to the eastern conquerors, when their victorious march brought them to the western lands. The history of the newly formed kingdom may be conveniently divided into three great periods, during which various dynasties ruled in Israel, while the line of David continued in sole possession of the throne of Juda. The first period extends from Jeroboam to Achab (937-875 1 B.C.). The kings of this opening period were as follows: ISRAEL Jeroboam I -- 937-915 B.C. Nadab -- 915-913 B.C. Baasa -- 913-889 B.C Ela -- 889-887 B.C. Zambri -- a few days Amri -- 887-875 B.C. JUDA Roboam -- 937-920 B.C. Abiam -- 920-917 B.C. Asa -- 917-876 B.C. Josaphat -- 876- Of the twenty-two years of Jeroboam's reign, few details have come down to us. At first, the founder of the Northern Kingdom took for his capital the city of Sichem, in which Abimelech had once set up kingdom, and in which the actual outbreak of the revolt against Juda had just occurred; he exchanged it for the beautiful Thersa, eleven miles to the north-east. To offset the attractiveness of Jerusalem and the influence of its Temple, he extended his royal patronage to two ancient sanctuaries, Dan and Bethel, the one at the northern, and the other at the southern, extremity of his realm. To guard against Juda's invasion of his territory, he built strong fortresses on both sides of the Jordan. With regard to Jeroboam's early military expeditions, Biblical narrative imparts no distinct information: it simply represents as practically continual the war which soon broke out between him and Roboam (cf. III Kings, xiv, 30; xv, 6). From the Egyptian inscriptions at Karnak it appears that the Northern Kingdom suffered much in connection with the invasion of Juda by Sesac, the first king of the twenty-second dynasty, so that it is not likely that this invasion was the result of Jeroboam's appeal Egypt for help in his conflict with the King of Juda. The hostilities between the sister kingdoms continued under Abiam, Roboam's son and successor. and in their pursuit, Jeroboam was, according to the chronicler's account, badly worsted (II Para!ip., iii). Jeroboam's own line lasted only through his own son Nadab, who, after reigning two years, was slain by a usurper, Baasa of Issachar (913 B.C.), while Israel besieged the Philistine fortress of Gebbethon (probably Kibbiah, six or seven miles north-east of Lydda). After his accession, Baasa pushed the war so vigorously against Asa, King of Juda, that, to save Jerusalem from an impending siege, the latter purchased the help of Benadad I, of Damascus, against Israel. In the conflict with Syria which ensued, Baasa lost much of the territory on the west of the Upper Jordan and the Sea of Galilee, with the fateful result that the controlling power in the west was now no longer Hebrew, but Aramean. Baasa was succeeded by his son Ela, whose reign lasted only a part of two years (889-87 B.C.). His murderer, Zambri, got himself proclaimed king, but perished after a few days giving place to his military competitor, Amri (887-75 B.C.), the skillful head of a new dynasty in Israel. Under Amri, Samaria, admirably and strongly situated in Central Palestine, some twelve miles to the west of Thersa, became, and remained to the end, the capital of the Northern Kingdom. Under him, too, the policy of hostility which had hitherto prevailed between Juda and Israel was exchanged for one of general friendship based on common interests against Syria. In some directions, indeed, Amri suffered considerable losses, as, east of the Jordan, Ramoth and other cities of Galaad fell into the power of the King of Damascus, while on the west of the same river, he was forced to grant to that monarch trading privileges (cf. III Kings xx, 34). But in other directions he succeeded in extending his authority. The inscription of' Mesa proves that he brought Moab under tribute. He cemented Israel's alliance with Tyre by the marriage of his son Achab with Jezabel, the daughter of the Tyrian priest and king, Ethbaal. His territories, now apparently limited to the tribes of Ephraim, Manasses, and Issachar, with a portion of Zabulon, were consolidated under his firm rule, so much so that the Assyrians, who henceforth carefully watched over the affairs of Palestine, designated Israel under the name of "the House of Amri", even after his dynasty had been overthrown The second period comprises the kings from Achab to Jeroboam II (875-781 B.C.). These kings were as follows: ISRAEL Achab -- 875-853 B.C. Ochozias -- 853-851 B.C. Joram -- 851-842 B.C. Jehu -- 842-814 B.C. Joachaz -- 814-797 B.C. Joas -- 797-781 B.C. JUDA Josaphat -- 876-851 B.C. Joram -- 851-843 B.C. Ochozias -- 843-842 B.C. Athalia -- 842-836 B.C. Joas -- 836-796 B.C. Amasias -- 796-782 B.C. Azarias (Ozias) -- 782- The reign of Achab, Amri's son and successor, was a memorable one in the history of the chosen people. It was marked at home by a considerable progress of Israel in the arts of peace (cf. Ill Kings, xxii, 39); by the public adoption of the Phoenician worship of Baal and Astarthe (D.V. Ashtaroth, Ashtoreth), and also by a strenuous opposition to it on the part of the Prophets in the person of Elias, the leading religious figure of the time. Abroad, Israel's friendly relations with Juda assumed to permanent character by the marriage of Athalia the daughter of Achab and Jezabel, with Joram the son of Josaphat; and in point of fact, Israel was a t peace with Juda throughout the twenty-two years of Achab's reign. Israel's chief neighbouring foe was Syria over whose ruler, Benadad II, Achab won two important victories (875 B.C.). Yet, upon the westward advance of their common enemies, the Assyrians, under Salmanasar II, the kings of Israel and Syria united with other princes of Western Asia against the Assyrian hosts, and checked their onward march at Karkhar on the Orontes in 854 B.C. Next year, Achab resumed hostilities against Syria and fell mortally wounded in battle before Ramoth Galaad. Achab's Son, Ochozias, died after a short reign (853-51 B.C.) and was succeeded by his brother Joram (851-42 B.C.). The two wars of Joram's reign Were unsuccessful, although, in both, Israel had the help of the Southern Kingdom. The first was directed against Mesa, King of Moab, who, as related in Holy Writ and in his own inscription (known as "the Moabitic St one"), had thrown off the yoke of Israel, and who did not hesitate, when very hard pressed, to offer his oldest son as a burnt-offering to Chamos (A.V. Chemosh). The second was waged against Damascus and proved exceedingly disastrous: Samaria nearly fell into the hands of the Syrians; Joram himself was seriously wounded before Ramoth Galaad, and next slain, at Jezrael, by one of his officers, Jehu, who assumed the crown and began a new dynasty in Israel. Jehu's long reign of twenty-eight years (842-14 B.C.), was most inglorious. Israel's deadly foe was the Syrian king Hazael, who had also reached the throne by the murder of his master, Benadad II. Instead of helping him to withstand the attacks of Salmanasar II, Jehu secured peace with Assyria by the payment of a tribute (842 B.C.), and let Hazael face single-handed the repeated invasions of the Assyrian king. Apparently, he had hoped thereby to weaken the Aramean power, and perhaps even to get rid of it altogether. It so happened, however, that after a while Salmanasar desisted from his attacks upon Hazael, and thus left the latter free to turn his arms against Israel and against Juda, its ally. The Syrian king secured for Damascus not only Basan and Galaad, and the whole of the country east of the Jordan, but also Western Palestine, destroyed the Philistine city of Geth, and was bought off by Joas of Juda with the richest spoil of his palace and temple. Joachaz (814-797 B.C.), the son and successor of Jehu, was compelled during the greater part of his reign to accept from Hazael and his son, Bernadad III, the most humiliating conditions yet imposed upon a King of Israel (cf. IV Kings, xiii, 7) . Relief, however, came to him when the resources of Damascus were effectively crippled by Assyria during the closing years of the ninth century B.C. Israel's condition was further improved under Joas (797-81 B.C.), who actually defeated Syria three several (sic) times, and reconquered much of the territory -- probably west of the Jordan -- which had been lost by Joachaz, his father (cf. IV Kings, xiii, 25). The third period in the history of the Northern Kingdom extends from Jeroboam II to the fall of Samaria (781-22 B.C.). On the basis of the Assyrian inscriptions combined with the data of Holy Writ, the chronology of the last period may be given approximately as follows: ISRAEL Jeroboam II -- 781-740 B.C. Zacharias -- 6 months Sellum -- 1 month Manahem -- 740-737 B.C. Phaceia -- 737-735 B.C. Phacee -- 735-733 B.C. Osee -- 733-722 B.C. JUDA Azarias (Ozias) -- 782-737 B.C. Joatham -- 737-735 B.C. Achaz -- 735-725 B.C. Ezechias -- 725-696 B.C. During the long reign of Jeroboam II, the Northern Kingdom enjoyed an unprecedented prosperity. Owing chiefly to the fact that Israel's enemies had grown weaker on every side, the new king was able to eclipse the victories achieved by his father, Joas, and to maintain for a while the old ideal boundaries both east and west of the Jordan (IV Kings, xiv, 28). Peace and security followed on this wonderful territorial extension, and together with them a great artistic and commercial development set in. Unfortunately, there set in also the moral laxity and the religious unfaithfulness which were in vain rebuked by the Prophets Amos and Osee, and which surely presaged the utter ruin of the Northern Kingdom. Jeroboam's son, Zacharias (740 B.C.) was the last monarch of Jehu's's dynasty. Ile had scarcely reigned six months when a usurper, Sellum, put him to death. Sellum, in his turn, was even more summarily dispatched by the truculent Manahem. The last-named ruler had soon to face the Assyrian power directly, and, as he felt unable to withstand it, hastened to proffer tribute to Theglathphalasar Ill and thereby save his crown (738B.C.). His son Phaceia reigned about two years (737- B.C.) and was slain by his captain, Phacee, who combined with Syria against Achaz of Juda. In his sore distress, Achaz appealed for Assyrian help, with the result that Theglathphalasar again (734 B.C.) invaded Israel, annexed Galilee and Damascus, and carried many Israelites into captivity. Phacee's murderer, Osee, was Assyria's faithful vassal as long as Theglathphalasar lived. Shortly afterwards, at the instigation of Egypt, he revolted against Salmanasar IV, Assyria's new ruler, whereupon Assyrian troops overran Israel and laid siege to Samaria, which, after a long resistance, fell, near the close of the year 722 B.C., under Sargon II, who had meantime succeeded Salmanasar IV. With this ended the Northern Kingdom, after an existence of a little more than two hundred years. (For the fate of the Israelites left in Palestine or exiled, see CAPTIVITIES OF THE ISRAELITES.) IX. THE KINGDOM OF JUDA Of the two kingdoms formed upon the disruption of Solomon's empire, the Southern Kingdom, or Kingdom of Juda, was in several respects the weaker, and yet was the better fitted to withstand the assaults of foreign enemies. Its general relations with Israel, Egypt, and Assyria, during the existence of the Northern Kingdom, have been brieflv mentioned in connection with the history of that kingdom, and need not be more fully set forth here. Hence the following sketch of the Kingdom of Juda deals exclusively with the period of its existence subsequent to the overthrow of the Kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians. At the time of the fall of Samaria, Ezechias was King of Juda (725-696 B.C.). He long persevered in the allegiance which his father, Achaz, had pledged to Assyria; Sargon's death, however, in 705 B. c., appeared to him and other Western princes a favourable opportunity to throw off the Assyrian yoke. He therefore formed with them a powerful league against Sennacherib, Sargon's successor. In due time (701 B.C.), the Assyrian forces invaded Western Asia, captured several Judean cities, and compelled Ezechias to renounce the league and pay an enormous fine. Not long afterwards, Sennacherib ravaged Juda again, and haughtily threatened Jerusalem with destruction . In accordance with Isaias's prophecy, however, his threats came to naught: " the Angel of the Lord decimated his army, and disturbances in the East recalled him to Nineveh (IV Kings, xviii, 13; xix). It was under Ezechias that Juda came in contact for the first time with Babylonia (IV Kings, xx). The long reign of his son, Manasses (696-41 B.C.), was, almost throughout, marked by religious degeneracy and faithful vassalage to Assyria. In the latter part of it, Juda rebelled against Asarhaddon, Sennacherib's son and successor, but the insurrection was speedily crushed, and misfortune brought back Manasses to the worship of the true God. The brief reign of Amon (641-39 B.C.) was an imitation of the first and the worst practices of his father. In 608 B.C. Palestine was traversed by an Egyptian army under Nechao II, a prince of the twenty-sixth dynasty, ambitious to restore to his country an Asiatic empire. As a faithful vassal of Assyria, the pious King Josias (639-08 B. c.) marched out to arrest Pharaoh's progress. He was defeated and slain at Mageddo, and his kingdom became an Egyptian dependency. This vassalage was indeed short-lived. The Chaldean Nabuchodonosor, on his victorious March to Egypt, invaded Juda for the first time, and Joakim (A.V. Jehoiakim) (608-597 B.C.), the eldest son and second successor of Josias, became a vassal of Babylon in 604 B.C. Despite the advice of the Prophet Jeremias, the Jewish king rebelled in 598. Next year, the newly enthroned king, Joachin (A.V. Jehoiakin), was taken, with Jerusalem, and was carried captive to Babylon together with many of his subjects, among whom was the Prophet Ezechiel. In 588 B.C., Juda rebelled again under Sedecias (597-86 B.C.), the third son of Josias. In July, 586 B.C., the Holy City surrendered, and its blinded king and most of his people were deported to Babylon. Thus began the Babylonian exile (see CAPTIVITIES OF THE ISRAELITES). X. AFTER THE BABYLONIAN EXILE "Politically and nationally the Babylonian captivity put an end for ever to the people of Israel. Even when, 350 years later, there was once more a Jewish state, those who formed it were not the people of Israel, not even the Jewish nation, but that portion which remained in the mother country of a great religious organization scattered over all Asia and Egypt" (Cornill). The exiles who, in 538 B.C., availed themselves of Cyrus's permission to return to Palestine, were mostly Judeans, whose varied fortunes after their settlement in and around Jerusalem belong in a very particular manner to the history of Judaism and consequently need be set forth only in the briefest manner in the present article. Prompted by the religious impulse which had led them to come back to the land of their fathers, their first concern in reaching it was to resume God's holy worship. Their perseverance in rearing the second Temple was finally crowned with success in 516 B.C., despite the bitter and prolonged opposition of the Samaritans. Their great leaders -- not only the Prophets of the time (Zachary and Malachy), but also their local secular heads (Nehemias and Esdras) -- were religious reformers, whose one purpose was to secure the people's fidelity to God's law and worship. They made no attempt to set up a monarchy of their own, and as long as the Persian Empire lasted they and their descendants gloried in their loyalty to its rulers. Within the Persian period falls the formation of the Jewish military colony at Elephantine, the existence and religious worship of which have been disclosed by Judeo-Aramean papyri discovered quite recently. The conqueror of Persia, Alexander the Great, seems to have bestowed special privileges upon the Jewish community of Palestine, and to have granted to the Jews who settled in Alexandria -- a city which he founded and called after his name -- equal civil rights with the Macedonians (331 B.C.). Alexander died before consolidating his empire. During the period of bloodshed which followed his death, Palestine was the bone of contention between the Syrian and Egyptian kings, often changed masters, and suffered oppression and misery at each change. As time went on, the welfare, moral and religious, of the Palestinian Jews was more and more seriously threatened by the influence of Hellenism, at first chiefly exercised by the Ptolemies from Alexandria as the centre (323-202 B.C.), and later by Antiochus III, the Great, of Syria, and his two successors Seleucus IV and Antiochus Epiphanes, reigning at Antioch (202-165 B.C.). Under this last named Syrian prince, Hellenism appeared to be on the point of stamping Judaism out of Palestine. The high-priests of the time, who were the local rulers of Jerusalem, adopted Greek names, and courted the king's favour by introducing or encouraging Hellenic practices among the inhabitants of the Holy City. At length Antiochus himself resolved to transform Jerusalem into a Greek city, and to destroy Judaism from the towns of Palestine and, indeed, from all his dominions. A most cruel and systematic persecution ensued, in the course of which the Machabees rebelled against their oppressors. The final result of the Machabean revolt was the overthrow of the Syrian power and the rise of an independent Jewish kingdom. Under the Asmonean dynasty (135-63 B.C.) the Palestinian Jewish community gradually spread, by conquest and forcible conversion, from its narrow limits in Nehemias's time, to practically the extent of the territory of ancient Israel. Internally, it was divided between the two rival sects of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, themselves the slow outcome of the twofold movement at work during the Syrian suzerainty, the one against, and the other in favour of, Hellenism. The war which broke out between the last two Asmonean kings, John Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, who were supported by the Pharisees and the Sadducees respectively, gave to the Romans the 9pportunity they had long sought for intervening in Judean affairs. In 63 B.C. Pompey invested and took Jerusalem, and put an end to the last Jewish dynasty. Up to 37 B.C., the year of the accession of the Idumean Herod to the throne of Judea, the history of the Palestinian Jews reflects, for the most part, the vicissitudes of the tangled politics of the Roman imperatores. Herod's despotic reign (37 B.C. to A.D. 4) was marked by a rapid growth of Hellenism in nearly every city of Palestine, and also by a consolidation of Pharisaism in the celebrated schools of Hillel and Shammai. Upon the death of Herod, the Emperor Augustus divided his kingdom and placed Judea under procurators as a part of the Roman Province of Syria. The last political struggles to be mentioned are (1) the Jewish revolt against Rome in A. D. 66, which ended in the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70; (2) the rebellion of liar Cochba in A.D. 132 under the Emperor Adrian, who finally transformed Jerusalem into the Roman colony of Ælia Capitolina from which all Jews were banished. Ever since then, the Jews have been scattered in many countries, often persecuted, yet surviving, always hoping in some manner for a future Messias, and generally influenced by the customs, and morals, religious beliefs of the nations among whom they live. Besides the works on Biblical history referred to in the bibllography to ISAAC, the following deserve special mention: VIGOUROUX, Bible et dcouvertes modernes (Paris, 1896); SAYCE, Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments(London, 1894); McCURDY, History, Prophecy and the Monuments (New York, 1895; new ed. announced, 1909); LAGRANGE, Etudes sur les religions sémitiques (Paris, 1903); PINCHES, The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia (London, 1903); WINCKLER, History of Israel (Berlin, 1903); BREASTED, Ancient Records of Egypt (Chicago, 1906-07); VINCENT, Chanaan d'après l'exploration récente (Paris, 1907); CORNILL, History of the People of Israel, tr. (Chicago, 1899); SOUTTAR, A Short History of Ancient Peoples (New York, 1903); WADE, Old Testament History (New York, 1904). FRANCIS E. GIGOT Issachar Issachar The exact derivation and the precise meaning of the name are unknown. It designates, first, the ninth son of Jacob and the fifth son of Lia (Gen., xxx, 16-18; xxxv, 23; 1 Par., ii, 1), on whom it was bestowed on account of some particular circumstance connected with his birth (cf. Gen., xxx, 14-18), and of whom nothing is told in Holy Writ besides the fact that, at the descent into Egypt, he had four sons (Gen., xlvi, 13; Num., xxvi, 23, 24; 1 Par., vii, 1). It designates, in the second place, one of the tribes of Israel, which had the ninth son of Jacob for its ancestor. Our knowledge of the tribe of Issachar is rather meagre. During the journey through the wilderness, that tribe, along with those of Juda and Zabulon, marched on the east of the tabernacle (Num., ii,5). It contained 54,400 warriors when the first census was taken at Mount Sinai (Num., i, 28 sq.), and 64,300 at the time of the second census (Num., xxvi, 25). After the entrance into Western Palestine, this tribe was one of the six which stood on Mount Garizim during the ceremony of the cursing and the blessing (Deut., xxvii, 12). The precise limits of its territory are not, given in Holy Writ. Its general boundaries were Zabulon and Nephtali to the north, Manasses to the south and to the west, the Jordan to the east. Its lot, according to Jos., xix, 17-23, comprised sixteen cities and their villages, prominent among which were the cities of Jezrael, Sunem, Engannim, and Anaharath. Within its territory was the great plain of Esdraelon, the general form of which enabled the Hebrew poet (Gen., xlix, 14) to describe Issachar as "a large-limbed ass stretching himself between the sheepfolds", and the fertility of which is praised by travellers down to the present day. The tribe played an important part during the period of the Judges (Judges, v, 15; x, 1, 2); and in the time of David it counted 145,600 warriors (I Par., vii, 1-5). Its history during the royal period was likewise important, and the third king of Northern Israel belonged to that tribe (111 Kings, xv, 27). The Prophet Ezechiel places Issachar among the Southern tribes between Simeon and Zabulon (Ezech., xviii, 25, 26), and St. John names it between Levi and Zabulon (Apoc., vii, 7). See Comm. on Genesis and Biblical Histories in bibliography to ISAAC, to which may be added: ROBINSON, Biblical Researches in Palestine, III (Boston, 1841); STANLEY, Sinai and Palestine (New York, 1859); SMITH, Historical Geography of the Holy Land (New York, 1897). FRANCIS E. GIGOT Issus Issus A titular see of Cilicia Prima, suffragan of Tarsus. The city is famous for a whole series of battles fought there at different periods. The first was the victory of Alexander over Darius in 333 B. c., next that of Septimius Severus over Pescennius Niger, in A.D. 194, that of Heraclius over Chosroes in A.D. 622, finally that of the Sultan of Egypt, Bibars, over the Armenian King Hetoum in August, 1266. So many combats were fought at Issus because in its vicinity was the famous defile leading along the seashore from Cilicia to Syria, the "Gates of Syria", or highway from Asia Minor into the Syrian Orient. Issus is not mentioned in the "Notitiæ Episcopatuum" of the Patriarchate of Antioch, to which Cilicia belonged (Echos d'Orient, X, 94, 145), and it is not known in what manner it became a titular see of the Latin Church. Its ruins are situated near Ayaz. ALISHAN, Sissouan ou I'Arméno-Cilicie (Venice, 1899), 476-81. S. VAILHÉ St. Ita St. Ita Saint Ita, called the "Brigid of Munster"; b. in the present County of Waterford, about 475; d. 15 January, 570. She became a nun, settling down at Cluain Credhail, a place-name that has ever since been known as Killeedy--that is, "Church of St. Ita"--in County Limerick. Her austerities are told by St. Cuimin of Down, and numerous miracles are recorded of her. She was also endowed with the gift of prophecy and was held in great veneration by a large number of contemporary saints, men as well as women. When she felt her end approaching she sent for her community of nuns, and invoked the blessing of heaven on the clergy and laity of the district around Killeedy. Not alone was St. Ita a saint, but she was the foster-mother of many saints, including St. Brendan the Voyager, St. Pulcherius (Mochoemog), and St. Cummian Fada. At the request of Bishop Butler of Limerick, Pope Pius IX granted a special Office and Mass for the feast of St. Ita, which is kept on 15 January. W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD Italians in the United States Italians in the United States Christopher Columbus, an Italian, was the leader of those who in succeeding centuries were led by the Providence of God, through economic necessities, to propagate the Faith in the New World. The immediate Italian followers of Columbus were John Cabot, the first navigator to reach the coast of North America, his son Sebastian, who reached Labrador, Amerigo Vespucci, who gave his name to the continent, and Verrazzano, the discoverer of New York Bay and of the Hudson River. Previous legendary discoveries did not open the continent to Christian civilization, as did the discovery of Columbus and the explorations of those Italians who followed him. It is true, however, that the expeditions of Columbus and his successors were not made in the service of the Italian States, and therefore the first settlers were not Italian. It is a curious fact that the history of Massachusetts supplies a number of family names which have led some investigators to claim that the Italians or persons of Italian origin fixed their homes there at a very early date. The supporters of this view hold that the Cabots of Massachusetts are descendants of the explorer Sebastian Cabot. They also point to the spelling Begelo, which occurs in the diary of Samuel Sewall (1674-1729), as the oldest form of the well-known New England name of Bigelow, and to such other names as Mico, Brisco, Cotta, Tenno, and Bristo, which are of a more or less marked Italian type. Even if these speculations be well founded, it is certain that the bearers of these names soon lost their national identity among their far more numerous Puritan neighbours. Still, although the stream of Italian immigration did not set in until much later, completeness demands some mention of the few distinguished Italians who came to the American colonies, or the United States, as scattered precursors of the latter-day tide. Among those who found their way to America in the eighteenth century was Lorenzo da Ponte, (q.v.), the librettist of Mozart's "Le Nozze di Figaro" and "Don Giovanni". Another name worthy of note is that of Constantino Brumidi, who produced many noteworthy paintings, among them those in the Capitol at Washington, where he died in 1880. Father Joseph M. Finotti, the author of "Bibliographia Catholica Americana" and several other widely known works, came to this country from Italy in 1845. There have been several other early Italian immigrants worthy of note. At the time of the Revolution of '48 many well-known Italians came to the United States and lived there for some time. The best known of these was Garibaldi, who resided two years on Staten island working in a candle factory. Since the year 1880, when Italian immigration to America began to assume its present enormous proportions, the problems arising out of it have become extremely grave for both the Italian and the United States Governments. At first, owing to the great density of the population of Italy -- 257 to the square mile in 1881, and 294 to the square mile in 1901 -- this movement of the surplusage was regarded in the mother country as a great relief. Now, however, both agricultural labourers and those available for building and manufacturers having become scarce, in proportion to the larger demands of a growing industrial and commercial activity, the Italian Government has become seriously alarmed at this continued drain upon the population. Laws have been enacted, or are being prepared, ostensibly for the protection of the emigrants, but in reality to preserve for Italy the fruit of the labour of her children. It is true that many millions of dollars are sent to Italy every year by the Italians residing in America, but this sum, which is placed by some authorities at as high a figure as sixty millions, hardly repays Italy for the loss she sustains, first in having nurtured and partly educated hundreds of thousands of men who have afterwards given their labour to a nation to which they cost nothing; second, in losing a great part of the industrial production which she might have had, and which, considering the difference in the standards of living and of wages, would have amounted to an immense sum for Italy. As a compensation for these losses Italy receives back a certain number of immigrants who, after having lived abroad for a number of years, return to their country with what appears there to be a little fortune. It is natural that this should be regarded with favour in Italy. For this reason the attitude of the Italian Government is passive. It permits people to emigrate, but emigrants are still subject to conscription, and they are more or less under the eye of the consuls and partly protected by societies subsidized by the commissioner of emigration, an official of the ministry of foreign affairs in Rome. For obvious reasons American regards this movement from a very different point of view. It is true that even the immigrants who, after a stay of some years, return to Italy with their savings have contributed to the wealth of the United States a great deal more than the sums they take away, but America does not need money as much as she needs good citizens, although it is always desirable for the sake of national economy that the money accumulated in America should be there invested. Both nations, though in different ways, are equally interested in Italian migration. Its cause, it must be emphatically stated, is economic. Those who repeat that Italians emigrate to America because of their desire of more liberty and political opportunity forget that forty years ago Howells wrote that it is "difficult to tempt from home any of the homekeeping Italian race". The race remained homekeeping during the long period of foreign domination and during the troublesome and disorderly period of the Revolution; it began to feel the need of emigrating many years after the unification of Italy, and the reasons that induced the Italians to become a migratory race are entirely economic. The system of conscription, the new bureaucracy, the type of the new Government, the diffusion of popular education, the improvement in the means of transportation, the progress of industrial enterprises, lead many of the Italian peasantry to leave, first, their native villages, then the province, and, at last, the country. The construction of great railroads has attracted thousands of unskilled labourers to the borders of Italy, where they can earn much more than they could in their native hamlets. France, Germany, South America, then began to attract these labourers, who, however, after one season, would return home with their savings. They would, of course, ultimately be attracted to those countries which offered them the highest pay and the most constant employment. The United States thus attracted these emigrants, especially those of Southern Italy. This fact can also be explained by other economic causes. Prof. Pantaleoni (in the "Giornale degli Economisti") affirms that during the year 1891, when the emigration from Italy reached 100,000, Northern Italy, with 48 per cent of the national wealth, paid 40 per cent of the taxes; Central Italy, with 25 per cent of the national wealth, paid 28 per cent of the taxes; Southern Italy, with only 28 per cent of the national wealth, paid 32 per cent of the national taxes. The system of taxation was the chief cause of the lack of enterprise in agricultural pursuits. The owners of the land did not improve it for fear that the tax might be increased, and to these heavy taxes the monopoly of the tobacco and the family tax were added, rendering the situation of the agrarian classes almost unendurable. Italy was then the weakest of European nations, and the bleeding of the masses became a necessity in order to maintain the Government. The young nation paid $200,000 a day for interest on the public debt, and, after paying this, as well as the salaries of the civil employees, the pensions, and the expenses of worship, only a small part of the national budget remained available for national expenditures such as the army, navy, public instruction, railways, police, the maintenance of prisons, etc. Under these conditions depreciated labour had to find another field and a better market. Agriculture was no longer profitable, in many places. Unimproved lands, with primitive methods, did not yield great profits, and a large part of these were absorbed by taxation. The letters of the first emigrants announced to their friends the favourable conditions of the labour market abroad, and especially in the United States. A rush of emigrants followed immediately. Soon the good news was confirmed by returning emigrants, with "fortunes" of a few hundred dollars. Since then the stream of immigration continued with two interruptions caused by the two great industrial crises of 1893 and 1907. The official statistics of Italian immigration into the United States, from 1831 to 1908, are given below. It should be remembered, however, that the figures previous to 1890 are not so accurate as those for the succeeding years. 1831-1870: 25,082 immigrants 1870-1880: 55,759 1880-1890: 307,309 1890: 52,093 1891: 76,055 1892: 62,137 1893: 72,916 1894: 43,967 1895: 36,961 1896: 68,060 1897: 59,431 1898: 58,613 1899: 77,419 1900: 100,135 1901: 135,996 1902: 178,375 1903: 230,622 1904: 193,296 1905: 221,479 1906: 273,120 1907: 285,731 1908: 128,503 Total: 2,743,059 Between 1821 and 1850 the Italian immigration into the United States amounted to 4531. Since then the figures by decades are as follows: -- 1851-1860: 9,231 immigrants 1861-1870: 11,728 1871-1880: 55,759 1881-1890: 307,309 1891-1900: 651,899 1901-1908: 1,647,102 It should be borne in mind, however, that a large number of immigrants returned to Italy, and therefore, in the official statistics, some immigrants are necessarily counted twice and even three times. Statistics have not been compiled of the number of immigrants returning to Italy, but from what has been obtained during the last few years when more attention has been given to this important phenomenon, it is safe to say that almost one million of the Italians counted in the general total of immigrants into the United States have returned to Italy. Their number, however, is perhaps more than made up by the children of Italian parentage born in the United States. On account of the peculiar environment of the Italian quarters of the great cities, many of these American-born Italians may be considered as Italian rather than American. The number of the Italians in the United States at the beginning of the year 1910 can therefore be roughly estimated at about 2,250,000. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS AND DISTRIBUTION In the statistics taken by the Federal Government at the immigration station, the Northern Italians are separated from the Southern Italians and Sicilians. From these statistics it appears that, of the total Italian immigration into the United States, 80 per cent is composed of Southern Italians and Sicilians. This means that the Latin type is ethnically predominant among them, since the Northern Italians, as is well known, have a considerable Teutonic element in their composition. One important thing to note is that those Italians who emigrate to the United States with the intention of returning to Italy include only a very small proportion of women. On the whole the women constitute no more than 30 per cent of the Italians in the United States -- according to some estimates considerably less. But the percentage of Italian women passing through the immigration station at Ellis Island, which was almost negligible ten years ago, is now rapidly increasing. Economically, the Italian element has not contributed as largely to the progress of the United States as have other races. They have, however, enjoyed their share of American prosperity. Italians pay taxes to the City of New York on more than 100,000,000 dollars value of real estate. They have, besides, large sums in the banks. The silk industry is to a large extent in their hands, and so is the fruit and grape industry in California. They carry on an extensive manufacture of macaroni in many cities, while their unwillingness to give up their national dishes is partly responsible for the rapid increase of Italian-American commerce which, in 1909, exceeded 100,000,000 dollars. Eighty per cent of the Italian-American immigrants are unskilled workers. The number of skilled workers among them was very small, nearly all the immigrants being rustics up to a few years ago, but the proportion is rapidly increasing, while the immigrants from the cities are beginning to come in larger numbers. Statistics of Italian marriages are lacking, but it is a fact that the Italian prefers to marry an Italian, and many Italian girls cross the ocean by every steamer and are married to the men who have sent for them at the immigration station. Statistics are also lacking as to the birth rate among the Italians in America. In the State of Massachusetts the average number of children in families in which both husband and wife are children of natives, is less than two, while the number in families in which the husband and wife are foreign born is over four. This, perhaps, may be taken to be a fair average for the Italian families in the United States. The Italians can be considered one of the strongest races among the immigrants, yet it is sad to note that, on account of the crowding in the cities, of the lack of air in the tenements, and perhaps also because of ignorance of practical hygiene, mortality among them in this country is 3.6 per cent, that is, higher than that of any other nationality. In deaths from measles, diphtheria, scarlet fever, and broncho-pneumonia, Italians reach a higher percentage than any other nationality. The Italian working population of the United States is approximately 1,200,000. Of these 800,000 were engaged in agriculture, and 400,000 in trades, mining, etc., before emigration; 1,000,000 living in towns of less than 10,000 population, and 200,000 in larger towns. Their distribution in the United States, in respect to occupations, is as follows: agriculture, 80,000; mining of all kinds, 100,000; factory work, 500,000; building- and railroad-industries, 520,000. In respect of local distribution, 200,000 inhabit towns of less than 10,000 population, and 1,000,000 inhabit larger towns. Hence it appears that the vast majority of Italian immigrants were occupied in agriculture at home and do not engage in agricultural pursuits in the United States. Only a small part of the Italians coming to the United States devote themselves to agriculture. It is worth noting that 60 per cent of the Italians engaged in agriculture in the United States come from Northern Italy, although Northern Italians from less than 20 per cent of the total immigration. In the vicinity of the large cities of the East, where truck-farming and chicken-raising can be made very remuneratively, Italians have established themselves on the small farms abandoned by the children of Americans who go to the city. Thus the neighborhood of Boston, all the Connecticut Valley, and the western part of the State of New York have several hundred farms occupied by Italians. In the southern part of New Jersey, also, the Italians have devoted themselves to agriculture and especially to grape-growing. It is in California, however, that Italians have achieved most success as cultivators. Throughout the South, and especially in Louisiana, the Italians work as farmers with remarkably good results. In West Virginia their success is not so marked, and some promising colonies have failed miserably. The states which have the largest proportion of Italian immigrants are: the New England States with 200,000, of whom 50,000 live at Boston; New Jersey, 250,000, of whom 60,000 live at Newark; New York, 700,000, of whom 500,000 live in the City of New York; Pennsylvania, 300,000, of whom 100,000 live at Philadelphia; Illinois, 100,000, of whom 50,000 live at Chicago; Louisiana, 60,000, of whom 30,000 live at New Orleans; California, 50,000, of whom 25,000 live at San Francisco. Of the Northern Italians, four-fifths are found in the States of Illinois, Ohio, New Jersey, Colorado, California. Of the Southern Italians and Sicilians, four-fifths are found in the States of New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Connecticut. As to occupation, the Italians of the New England States, of New York, and New Jersey are chiefly occupied in mills or on railroads; in Pennsylvania a large number are working in the mines, where, however, the Slavic element is growing stronger every day. The steel and the coke industries in Pennsylvania also employ a considerable number of Italians. From what precedes it appears at once that 87 per cent of the Italians of the United States are settled in the New England and North Atlantic divisions, and that of these nearly 80 per cent crowd into the large cities. This congestion presents a most serious problem. The phenomenon, however, is not peculiar to the Italians; it is also to be observed in the case of other nationalities which are in the same economic condition as the Italians. The city offers a large number of various resources; it furnishes work to the newcomer from the start, and it needs the newcomer for a variety of occupations which he alone can fill. The Italian immigrant is perhaps the most adaptable of all in this respect; he is intelligent, in most cases sober, faithful in his work, always looking for an opportunity to increase his salary. He goes from one shop to another, from the railroad tracks to the mill. The country offers the Italian immigrant a kind of occupation which he looks upon with disgust, an occupation which reminds him of centuries of oppression and slavery. There was a time in Italy when agriculture was productive, when the owners of the land gave their energies to it, when they considered the working people their wards; but landowners began to live in the city and neglect the country, and the country which had produced enough for lord and peasant, now produced enough for neither. Yet these poor serfs of the soil, in whom the love of the fields is inborn, bring that love with them, and go to the city because there they can easily accumulate enough to buy the piece of land they long for in their native village. Those who have studied the problem of the distribution of Italian immigrants in the United States have forgotten two most important facts: (1) the disgust of the immigrants for agricultural work, which they associate with sufferings and poverty; (2) the desire -- almost general -- among the immigrants to return to their native land. The first of these two facts is only temporary and disappears with changed economic conditions. Italians do not come to the United States with the idea of settling there, as did the immigrants from North-Western Europe a generation or two ago. It is true, however, that almost all Italian immigrants ultimately adopt the United States as their permanent home, but all arguments based on this fact are futile. So many have asked: If it be true that the vast majority of the Italian immigrants settle permanently, with their families, in the United States, why not try to distribute them better in the West and South, instead of letting them crowd into the cities of the East? Such reasoning as this has led to efforts on the part of the Federal Government to distribute the Italian immigrants more advantageously -- such, for example, as the establishment of the information bureau at Ellis Island. This is like applying a social and economic cure to what is essentially a psychologic phenomenon. The Italian is the most idealistic of all immigrants. The money which he wants to accumulate, which he has reason to believe he will sooner accumulate in the city than the country, he does not want for its own sake. The feelings of the Italian who leaves his country have been beautifully described by Manzoni in his masterly novel: "To the mind of him who voluntarily departs in the hope of making a fortune in a strange country, the dreams of wealth vanish. . . . He is astonished at his own courage in having gone so far, and would return home at once if he did not think that at some future day he will be able to return rich. Sad and bewildered, he enters the crowded cities; the long rows of houses, and the streets upon streets, take away his breath; in presence of the magnificent monuments which tourists admire, he can only think with painful yearning of the little farm, of the village, of the little house which he has long desired to possess, and which he will buy when he returns rich to his native mountains." It is this mental attitude that defeats every attempt to properly distribute the Italian immigration: anxious, above all, to return to Italy with a certain sum of money, the immigrant knows that he can earn that sum more quickly in the city than in the country, and for that reason he prefers the city. Here is the key to the whole problem; for this point of view is common to all immigrants except those -- obviously undesirable as settlers in the United States -- whose criminal past debars them from all hope of a return to Italy. How can the newly arrived immigrant be persuaded that, whatever he may think now, he will eventually be glad to make his and his family's home in the United States? Even if it were possible to persuade him of this, there would still remain the financial difficulty. To go West, he needs money -- to buy land, to live during the first year, to take care of the family in Italy -- and the average Italian immigrant comes here with just enough money to pass through the immigration station. In most cases the money spent for the journey represents a loan, which must be repaid out of the immigrant's first earnings. This explains in part the large sums of money sent back to Italy by immigrants. All projects, therefore, for the distribution of Italian immigrants in the United States should be made subject to these two facts: the set purpose of the newly arrived immigrant to return to Italy, and his lack of money. Of all the Italians who pass the United States immigration officials at Ellis Island, 90 per cent already have friends in their new country to whom they can go, and who, in most cases, have already found employment for them. In many cases the newcomer is placed in the hands of some Italian "banker", who sells passages, acts as notary public, sells real estate, and furnishes contractors with Italian labour. The immigrants are at first glad to accept whatever employment may be offered them; when the initial difficulties have been overcome by their persistence and sobriety, and when they have realized that money cannot be as quickly made in America as they had imagined, they next discover the economical advantage of maintaining the whole family in America rather than dividing earnings between board in American and remittances to Italy. The wife, or the betrothed girl, is then brought over, with the idea of working hard, side by side, so as to be able all the sooner to return to Italy together. They buy furniture on the instalment plan and spend their savings; the children grow up in America without any knowledge of Italy or the Italian language. Then one of the old people at home dies, and the crisis comes. The immigrant goes back to Italy and finds that, accustomed as he now is to a different environment, he no longer feels at home in his native country. He regulates his family affairs and brings with him to American his surviving parent. Thus the home is transplanted to the United States, and the Italian becomes an American in spirit as well as in residence. How long does it take for the average immigrant to go through the process? Sometimes two or three years, sometimes fifteen or even twenty. It is certain, however, that when this evolution is completed the immigrant is a city dweller, and cannot be induced to give up city life. The only hope of solving the problem would seem to be in giving good advice to intending emigrants before they leave Italy. An Italian peasant will always sooner believe a fellow-townsman, however ignorant, than an agent of the Government. Experience in California, as well as in some parts of Texas, shows that a successful agricultural colony of Italians grows very rapidly, while an unsuccessful one just as rapidly disappears. Every effort should therefore be made to reach the Italian in his own country through his friends in America, in such a way as to convince him that it will be to his advantage to go to some agricultural settlement where others of his countrymen are successful and prosperous. As the Italian immigrant can, unquestionably, be of more service, both to himself and to his new country, as a farmer than as a sweat-shop worker or a miner, any expenditure with a view to the attainment of this desirable result would be well repaid. RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION Since the discovery of the new continent the sons of Saint Francis have been indefatigable in their work in the new vineyard of the Lord. When the immigrants began to come in large numbers the Franciscans were already at work among them, instructing them, and comforting them in the trials of their new life. St. Anthony's Church, founded in 1866, was the first Italian parish to be organized in the Archdiocese of New York, and its pastors, the Franciscan Fathers, have established missions all over the country, faithfully imitating their seraphic founder by their zeal. Notable among the pioneer Franciscans were Father Pamfilo da Magliano, founder of St. Bonaventure's College at Allegany, New York; Leo Paccillio, first pastor of St. Anthony's church and parish, New York; Anacletus De Angelis, who raised a monument to his order by building the church and convents of St. Anthony. The Franciscans were followed by the Jesuits, the Scalabrini Fathers, the Salesians, the Passionists, and the Augustinians. The American episcopate has at all times endeavoured to provide the Italian immigrants with churches and Italian priests. In some cases these efforts did not prove very successful on account of the difficulty of persuading Italians to support their church, a difficulty which can easily be explained when it is borne in mind that the Church in Italy is supported by what might be called indirect taxation. Whenever possible, parochial schools have been established, and in most of them both English and Italian are taught. These schools are looked upon very favourably by the Italians, and an effort ought to be made to extend their influence; very often the parents are brought to the Church through the influence of the pupils of the parochial schools. In New York City, where the problem of Italian immigration is more acute than anywhere else in the country, Archbishop Farley has done his utmost, helped by Dr. Ferrante, his secretary. Archbishop Quigley of Chicago, Bishop Fitzmaurice of Erie, and Bishop Canevin of Pittsburgh have done much to give Italians churches and schools. In some cases priests of other nationalities have even learned the Italian language in order to be able to minister to the needs of the Italians, and a most notable instance of this kind is that of Father C. Wienker, of the Diocese of Erie, who for many years has faithfully worked among the Italians of the bituminous mines of western Pennsylvania. Among the laymen who have contributed of their wealth to promote the religious welfare of of the Italians must be mentioned the members of the Iselin family who built the Italian church at New Rochelle, N.Y., and several churches and schools in the mining towns of western Pennsylvania. The Church does not neglect the immigrants at their first landing. It is then that they need most assistance. The San Raffaele Society was organized in New York in the year 1893 for the protection of Italian immigrants. Archbishop Farley is the president, the Rev. Gherardo Ferrante is the superintendent, and the Rev. G. Moretto is the managing director. There are in the United States two Italian Catholic weeklies: the "Italiano in America", published by the Salesians, and the "Verité", published partly in English at Philadelphia. One of the strongest evidences of the religious disposition of the Italians in the United States is the fact that over one-half of the eight hundred benevolent societies existing among them bear the names of patron saints of various Italian towns, and in most cases a yearly festival is celebrated in honour of the patron. These festivals, and the parades of all kinds for which they are the occasions, are somewhat apt to give outsiders an unfortunate impression of popular Italian religion. It is true that among the lower classes the cult of the saints is misunderstood and overemphasized, but at the same time these celebrations are proof of a strong attachment to their native homes and of the religious feeling with which it is associated. It is to be regretted that unscrupulous liquor dealers make of these festivals the occasion for a sale of intoxicants which indirectly leads to disorders and even murders. The following religious statistics are taken from the "Official Catholic Directory": -- + Archdiocese of Baltimore: 3 Italian churches; 3 priests. + Archdiocese of Boston: 8 Italian churches; 15 priests; 2 parochial schools (8 Franciscan Sisters; 4 Sisters of the Sacred Heart), attended by 724 pupils. + Archdiocese of Chicago: 10 Italian churches; 6 Fathers, O.S.M.; 13 secular priests; 1 parochial school (10 Sisters of the Sacred Heart), attended by 850 pupils. + Archdiocese of Cincinnati: 1 Italian church; 1 priest. + Archdiocese of Milwaukee: 2 Italian churches; 2 priests. + Archdiocese of New Orleans: 1 Italian church; 5 priests. + Archdiocese of New York: 26 Italian churches; 55 priests; 6 parochial schools (20 Sisters of the Third Order of Saint Francis, 3 Sisters of Jesus and Mary, 10 Sisters of Charity, 7 Sisters of the Sacred Heart, 31 lay teachers), attended by 3397 pupils; 1 industrial school for boys and girls; 15 chapels; 1 college; 1 seminary; 1 Catholic hospital, with 27 Sisters of the Sacred Heart; 1 orphan asylum, with 13 sisters of the Sacred Heart and 202 inmates; 1 day nursery, with 8 Pallotine Sisters, 56 boys and 52 girls. + Archdiocese of Oregon City: 1 Italian church; 2 priests. + Archdiocese of Philadelphia: 13 Italian churches; 21 priests; 3 parochial schools (25 Sisters of Saint Francis), attended by 1615 pupils; 1 orphan asylum, with 10 Sisters of Saint Francis; 1 industrial school, kindergarten, and day nursery, with 22 missionary Sisters of the Third Order of Saint Francis, 164 boys and 162 girls. + Archdiocese of St. Louis: 3 Italian churches; 5 priests; 1 parochial school (2 lay teachers), attended by 117 pupils. + Archdiocese of St. Paul: 2 Italian churches; 2 priests. + Archdiocese of San Francisco: 3 Italian churches; 5 priests. + Diocese of Albany: 4 Italian churches; 4 priests; 1 seminary with 8 professors and 90 students. + Diocese of Altoona: 2 Italian churches; 2 priests; 1 parochial school with 56 pupils. + Diocese of Brooklyn: 11 Italian churches; 16 priests; 2 parochial schools, with 3 Sisters of St. Francis, 11 Sisters of the Sacred Heart, 3 lay teachers, 815 pupils; 1 kindergarten, with 3 teachers, 52 boys, 85 girls. + Diocese of Buffalo: 8 Italian churches; 12 priests; 4 parochial schools, with 2 Sisters of St. Joseph, 10 Sisters of St. Mary, 8 Sisters of St. Francis, 983 pupils. + Diocese of Burlington: 2 Italian churches; 2 priests. + Diocese of Cleveland: 7 Italian churches; 7 priests. + Diocese of Columbus: 2 Italian churches; 2 priests. + Diocese of Davenport: 1 Italian church; 1 priest. + Diocese of Denver: 3 Italian churches; 5 priests; 2 parochial schools, with 8 Sisters of the Sacred Heart, 10 Sisters of Charity, and 620 pupils. + Diocese of Detroit: 1 Italian church; 1 priest; 1 parochial school with 78 pupils. + Diocese of Duluth: 2 Italian churches; 2 priests. + Diocese of Erie: 6 Italian churches; 7 priests; 1 parochial school, with 2 Sisters of Mercy and 170 pupils. + Diocese of Fall River: 1 Italian church; 1 priest. + Diocese of Harrisburg: 3 Italian churches; 3 priests + Diocese of Hartford: 6 Italian churches; 9 priests; 3 parochial schools, with 2 Sisters of the Precious Blood, 10 Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart, 5 Sisters of Our Lady of Compassion, and 385 pupils. + Diocese of Helena: 1 Italian church; 1 priest; 1 parochial school, with 5 Sisters of Charity, 1 lay teacher, and 270 pupils. + Diocese of Indianapolis: 1 Italian church; 1 priest. + Diocese of Little Rock: 1 Italian church; 1 priest. + Diocese of Marquette: 4 Italian churches; 4 priests. + Diocese of Mobile: 1 Italian church; 1 priest. + Diocese of Monterey and Los Angeles: 2 Italian churches; 2 priests. + Diocese of Nashville: 1 Italian church; 2 priests; 1 parochial school, with 4 Sisters of Charity of Nazareth and 140 pupils. + Diocese of Natchez: 1 Italian church; 1 priest. + Diocese of Newark: 19 Italian churches; 20 priests; 6 parochial schools, with 4 Baptistine Sisters, 4 Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart, 2 Sisters of Charity, 5 Sisters of St. Francis, 4 Sisters of the Immaculate Conception, 1 lay teacher, and 1289 pupils; 1 orphan asylum with 12 sisters and 92 orphans. + Diocese of Peoria: 1 Italian church; 1 priest. + Diocese of Pittsburg: 13 Italian churches; 20 priests; 2 parochial schools, with 4 Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis, 1 lay teacher, and 307 pupils. + Diocese of Providence: 2 Italian churches; 5 priests. + Diocese of Rochester: 3 Italian churches; 3 priests; 1 parochial school, with 5 Sisters of St. Joseph and 271 pupils. + Diocese of Sacramento: 1 Italian church; 1 priest. + Diocese of St. Augustine: 1 Italian church; 1 priest. + Diocese of Scranton: 12 Italian churches; 15 priests; 1 parochial school, 6 Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart, and 200 pupils. + Diocese of Seattle: 1 Italian church; 1 priest; 1 parochial school, with 10 Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart and 110 pupils. + Diocese of Springfield: 4 Italian churches; 4 priests. + Diocese of Superior: 3 Italian churches; 3 priests; 1 parochial school, with 4 Franciscan Sisters and 200 pupils. + Diocese of Syracuse: 1 Italian church; 2 priests. + Diocese of Trenton: 12 Italian churches; 14 priests. + Diocese of Wheeling: 5 Italian churches; 6 priests. + Summary: 219 Italian churches; 315 priests; 41 parochial schools; 254 teachers, including 70 Sisters of the Sacred Heart, 27 Sisters of Charity, 12 Franciscan Sisters, 4 Sisters of the Immaculate Conception, 24 Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis, 4 Baptistine Sisters, 3 Sisters of St. Dominic, 7 Sisters of St. Joseph, 38 Sisters of St. Francis, 2 Sisters of the Precious Blood, 4 Sisters of Charity of Nazareth, 5 Sisters of Our Lady of Compassion, 4 Sisters of Jesus and Mary, 2 Sisters of Mercy, 2 Sisters of St. Mary, 39 lay teachers, and 12,697 pupils; 15 chapels; 1 industrial school; 1 kindergarten; 1 day nursery with 8 Pallotine Sisters, 230 boys and 224 girls; 2 seminaries; 1 Catholic hospital; 1 home for Italian immigrants; 3 orphan asylums with 317 orphans. For statistics of the immigration movement, see the Reports of the Commissioner General of Immigration (Department of Commerce and Labor, Washington, D.C.) and the Bollettino dell' Emigrazione (published at Rome by the Commissioner of Emigration, Ministry of Foreign Affairs). For a general survey of Italian Immigration: PECORINI, Gli Americani nella Vita Moderna (Milan, 1909), xxiv. For social, moral, and economic conditions of the Italians in the United States and for criminal statistics, LORD, TRENOR, AND BARROWS, The Italian in America (New York, 1905). For conditions among Italians occupied in agriculture in the United States, PECORINI, The Italian as an Agricultural Laborer, in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science: Labor and Wages (Philadelphia, 1909). For an exhaustive study of Italian immigration from the Italian point of view, PREZIOSI, Gl'Italiani negli Stati Uniti del Nord (Milan, 1909). JOHN DE VILLE Italo-Greeks Italo-Greeks The name applied to the Greeks in Italy who observe the Byzantine Rite. They embrace three classes: (1) the ecclesiastical communities which have followed the Greek Rite since the Byzantine period; (2) the Greek colonies in the various maritime cities and at Rome; (3) the descendants of the Greeks and Albanians who emigrated en masse into Southern Italy after the Turkish occupation of the Balkans, and established towns, or at least formed powerful groups by themselves; they long maintained their native language and customs, and even now observe the Greek Rite, though in other respects they have been absorbed in the Italian population. (1) As to the first class, it is difficult to say whether the Greek Rite was followed in any diocese of Southern Italy or Sicily before the eighth century. But the gradual hellenization of those regions, as well as the founding of numerous Greek monasteries, must have affected liturgical life. The spread of Greek monasticism in Italy received a strong impulse from the Saracenic invasion of Palestine and Egypt, and later from the Iconoclastic persecutions. The monks naturally retained their rite, and as the bishops were not infrequently chosen from their number, the diocesan liturgy, under favourable conditions, could easily be changed, especially since the Lombard occupation of the inland regions of Southern Italy cut off the Greeks in the South from communication with the Latin Church, whose intellectual culture, moreover, was far inferior to that of Byzantium. When, in 726, Leo the Isaurian, by a stroke of his pen, withdrew Southern Italy from the patriarchal jurisdiction of Rome and gave it to the Patriarch of Constantinople, the process of hellenization became more rapid; it received a further impulse when, on account of the Saracenic occupation of Sicily, by Greeks and hellenized Sicilians repaired to Calabria and Apulia. Still it was not rapid enough to suit the Byzantine emperors, who feared lest those regions should again fall under the influence of the Western Empire, like the Duchy of Rome and the Exarchate of Ravenna. Finally, after the Saxon emperors had made a formidable attempt to drive the Greeks from the peninsula, Emperor Nicephorus Phocas and the Patriarch Polyeuctos made it obligatory on the bishops, in 968, to adopt the Greek Rite. This order aroused lively opposition in some quarters, as at Bari, under Bishop Giovanni. Nor was it executed in other places immediately and universally. Cassano and Taranto, for instance, are said to have always maintained the Latin Rite. At Trani, in 983, Bishop Rodostamo was allowed to retain the Latin Rite, as a reward for aiding in the surrender of the city to the Greeks. About the middle of the eleventh century, however, Bishop Giovanni II joined the schism of Michael Caerularius. In every diocese there were always some churches which never forsook the Latin Rite; on the other hand, long after the restoration of that rite, there remained Greek churches with native Greek clergy. The restoration of the Latin Rite began with the Norman conquest in the eleventh century, especially in the first period of the conquest, when Norman ecclesiastics were appointed bishops. Another potent factor was the reform of Gregory VII, who in his efforts to repress marriage among the Latin clergy found no small obstacle in the example of the Greek priests. However, he and his successors recognized the Greek Rite and discipline wherever it was in legitimate possession. Moreover, the Latin bishops ordained the Greek as well as the Latin clergy. In the course of time the Norman princes gained the affection of their Greek subjects by respecting their rite, which had a strong support in the numerous Basilian monasteries (in the fifteenth century there were still seven of them in the Archdiocese of Rossano alone). The latinization of the dioceses was complete in the sixteenth century. Among those which held out longest for the Greek Rite were Acerenza (and perhaps Gravina), 1302; Gerace, 1467; Oppido, 1472 (when it was temporarily united to Gerace); Rossano, 1460; Gallipoli, 1513; Bova (to the time of Gregory XIII), etc. But even after that time many Greek priests remained in some dioceses. In that of Otranto, in 1583, there were still two hundred Greek priests, nearly all native. At Reggio, Calabria, Count Ruggiero in 1092 had given the Greeks the church of S. Maria della Cattolica, whose clergy had a protopapa, exempt from the jurisdiction of the bishop; this was the ease until 1611. In 1695 there were in the same dioceses fifty-nine Greek priests; after thirty years there was only one. Rossano still had a Greek clergy in the seventeenth century. The few native Greek priests were afterwards absorbed in the tide of immigration (see below). Of the Basilian monasteries the only one left is that of Grottaferrata, near Rome. In Sicily the latinization was, for two reasons, accomplished more easily and radically. First, during the rule of the Saracens most of the dioceses were left without bishops, so that the installation of Latin bishops encountered no difficulty; secondly, the Normans had come as liberators, and not as conquerors. (2) Important Greek colonies, founded chiefly for commercial reasons, were located at Venice, Ancona (where they obtained from Clement VII and Paul III the church of S. Anna, which they lost in 1833, having been declared schismatical in 1797), Bari, Lecce (where, even in the nineteenth century, in the church of S. Nicola, Divine worship was carried on in the Greek tongue, though in the Latin Rite), Naples (where they have the church of SS. Pietro e Paolo, erected in 1526 by Tommaso Paleologo Assagni), Leghorn (where they have the church of the Annunziata, 1607). In Rome, where Greek was the official language of the Church until the third century, there was always a large colony observing the Greek Rite. From the end of the sixth century until the ninth and tenth there were several Greek monasteries among which were Cella Nova, near S. Saba; S. Erasmo; S. Silvestro in Capite; the monastery next to S. Maria Antiqua at the foot of the Palatine. Like other nations, the Greeks before the year 1000 had their own schola at Rome. It was near the church of S. Maria in Cosmedin. Even in the pontifical liturgy -- at least on some occasions -- a few of the chanted passages were in Greek: the custom of singing the Epistle and Gospel in both Latin and Greek dates from that period (Gaisser, "Brani greci nella liturgia latina" in "Rassegna Gregoriana," 1902, nos. 7, 8, 9). At present (1909) there are in Rome two Greek Catholic churches: S. Atanasio, belonging to the Greek College, and S. Maria in Domnica al Celio, belonging to the Basilian monks of the Congregation of Choueir. (3) Besides the first large emigration of Albanians which took place between 1467 and 1470, after the death of the celebrated Scanderbeg (when his daughter, who had become the Princess of Bisignano, invited her countrymen to the Kingdom of Naples), there were two others, one under Sultan Selim II (1566-1574), directed to the ports along the Adriatic and to Leghorn; the other about 1740. In the course of time, owing to assimilation with the surrounding population, the number of these Italo-Greeks diminished, and not a few of their villages became entirely Latin. The following is a list of towns with an Albanian population. In Calabria and Basilicata: Castroregio, Farneto, S. Paolo, S. Costantino, Plataci, Civita Percile, Frassineto, S. Basilio, Fermo, Lungro, Acquaformosa (Cassano Ionico), Marri, S. Benedetto d'Ullano, S. Sofia di Epiro (Diocese of S. Marco and Bisignano), Macchia, S. Demetrio Corone, S. Cosmo, S. Giorgio Albanese, Vaccariso Albanese (Diocese of Rossano); a total of 37,000 souls and about fifty priests. Five other districts in the same region are completely latinized. In Sicily, Italo-Greeks are found at Piana dei Greci, Palazzo Adriano, Contessa Entellina (Diocese of Monreale), Mezzofuso, Palermo (Diocese of Palermo), and Messina, where in the chureh of S. Maria del Graffeo the Latin Rite is observed in the Greek tongue; a total of about 22,000 souls and forty priests. Other Italo-Greek colonies were at Villabadessa (Diocese of Atri and Penne); Pianiano, near Acquapendente; and Cargese, in Corsica. To educate the clergy of these Greeks Gregory XIII founded in 1577 at Rome the Greek College of S. Atanasio, which served also for the Greek Catholics of the East and for the Ruthenians, until a special college was instituted for the latter purpose by Leo XIII. Among the alumni of S. Atanasio was the celebrated Leo Allatius. Another Greek ecclesiastical college was founded at Palermo in 1715 by P. Giorgio Guzzetta, founder of an oratory of St. Philip Neri among the Greek clergy. At Fermo the seminary of SS. Pietro e Paolo existed from 1663, erected by the Propaganda to supply priests for Albania. It was suppressed in 1746. Finally Clement XII, in 1736, founded the Corsini College in the ancient Abbey of S. Benedetto d'Ullano, whence it was transferred in 1794 to S. Demetrio Corone, in the ancient Basilian monastery of S. Adriano. Since 1849, however, and especially since 1860, this college has lost its ecclesiastical character and is now secularized. Ecclesiastical Status The Italo-Greeks are subject to the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishops; several times, but in vain, they have sought exemption. However, the popes have long wished them to have a titular archbishop, resident in Rome, for the ordination of their priests, and to lend splendour to Divine service. The first of these was Gabriele, titular Archbishop of Mitylene. When Clement XII established the Corsini College, he placed it in charge of a resident bishop or archbishop of the Greek Rite. At present this episcopus ordinans for the Greeks of Calabria resides at Naples. In 1784 the Greeks of Sicily obtained from Pius VI an episcopus ordinans resident at Piana dei Greci. Naturally, the position of a people whose rite and discipline differed m many points from those of the surrounding population, required special legislation. Benedict XIV, in the Bull "Etsi pastoralis" (1742), collected, co-ordinated, and completed the various enactments of his predecessors, and this Bull is still the law. The Holy See has always endeavoured to respect the rite of the Italo-Greeks, on the other hand, it was only proper to maintain the position of the Latin Rite. No member of the clergy may pass from the Greek to the Latin Rite without the consent of the pope; and no layman without the permission of the bishop. The offspring of mixed marriages belong to the Latin Rite. A Greek wife may pass to the Latin Rite but not a Latin husband to the Greek Rite. Much less would a Latin be allowed to become a priest of the Greek Rite, thus evading the law of celibacy. As regards the Eucharist, any promiscuity of Greeks and Latins is forbidden, except in case of grave necessity, e.g. if in a given locality there should be no Greek church. Where custom has abolished communion under both kinds, a contrary usage must not be introduced. RODOTA, Dell' origine. . .de rito greco in Italia (Rome, 1758-63); DE CORONEL, L'autonomia ecclesiastica degli italo-albanesi della Calabria e della Basilicata (1903); COTRONEO, Il rito greco in Calabria (Reggio in Calabria, 1902); DE MARTINIS, Juris Pontificii de Propaganda Fide, pt. II (Rome 1888); Bullarium Pontificium S.C. de Prop. Fide (8 vols., Rome, 1839); GAY. L'Italie meridionale et l'empire byzantin depuis l'avenement de Basile I jusqu'a la prise de Bari par les Normands 867-1071 (Paris, 1904); CHALANDON, Histoire de l'Italie meridionale sous la domination normande (Paris, 1908); CHARON, Le quinzieme centenaire de St. Jean Chrysostome (Rome, 1909), 258-264; GAISSER, I canti ecclesiastici italo-greci in Rassegna Gregoriana, IV (Rome, 1905), 385-412; IDEM, Brani greci nella litugia latina, ibid. (1902), fasc. 7, 8, 9. U. BEGNINI Italy Italy In ancient times Italy had several other names: it was called Saturnia, in honour of Saturn; OEnotria, wine-producing land; Ausonia, land of the Ausonians; Hesperia, land to the west (of Greece); Tyrrhenia, etc. The name Italy (Gr. Italia), which seems to have been taken from vitulus, to signify a land abounding in cattle, was applied at first to a very limited territory. According to Nissen and to others, it served to designate the southernmost portion of the peninsula of Calabria; but some authorities, as Cocchia and Gentile, hold that the name was given originally to that country between the Sele and the Lao which later was called Lucania. We find the name Italy in use, however, among Greek writers of the fifth and the fourth centuries b.c. (Herodotus, Thucydides, Aristotle, Plato); and in 241 b.c., in the treaty of peace that ended the First Punic War, it served to designate peninsular Italy; while in 202 b.c., at the close of the Second Punic War, the name of Italy was extended as far as the Alps. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Italy has an area of 110,646 square miles, of which 91'393 are on the Continent of Europe, and 19,253 on the islands. The area of Italy, therefore, is little more than half that of France. Under the Romans and in the Middle Ages, under the powerful republics of Amalfi and of Pisa, of Genoa and of Venice, Italy ruled the Mediterranean Sea, which, however, after the discovery of America, ceased to be the centre of European maritime activity. The centre of European interests was carried towards the west: the Italian republics fell into decay, and sea power went to the countries on the Atlantic Ocean. But the opening of the Suez Canal (1869) and the tunnelling of the Alps (Fréjus, 1871; St. Gothard, 1884; Simplon, 1906), which brought Central and North-western Europe into easy communication with Italian ports, and especially with Genoa, have restored to the Mediterranean much of its former importance and made of Italy a mighty bridge between Europe and the Levant. Of the three great peninsulas of Southern Europe, Italy is that whose adjoining seas penetrate deepest into the European Continent, while its frontiers border on the greatest number of other states (France, Switzerland, Austria) and are in contact with a greater number of races: French, German, Slav. Before Italy took its present form it was part of a great body of land called by geologists Tyrrhensis, now covered by the waters of the Tyrrhenian Sea, which was united to Africa. In fact, a great part of the Tuscan Archipelago and of the other islands of the Tyrrhenian Sea, the masses of the Peloritan Mountains in Sicily, of Aspromonte and of Sila in Calabria, the Roian Alps, formed of archaic rocks, all are fragments of an ancient land now for the most part submerged. Another fact that gave to the configuration of Italy its present characteristic lines was the recession of the sea from that great gulf which became the fertile plain of the Po. Glaciers that at one time occupied the greater portion of Northern Italy gave rise to many moraine ranges. When the promontory of Gargano was an island, the Adriatic Sea, which separated that elevation from the Apennines and which occupied all the table-land of Apulia, projected an arm towards the south through the Sella di Spinazzola and the valley of the rivers Basentiello and Bradano, until it met the Ionian Sea. Therefore Italy is a recent formation, and consequently is subject to telluric phenomena that are unknown, or are less frequent, in the neighbouring countries. It is due to these causes that Sicily was separated from the Continent and became an island. Within historical times, the coast of Pozzuoli, near Naples, has undergone a slow depression that caused the columns of the temple of Serapis to sink into the sea, from which they emerged later through a rising movement of the ground. In consequence of the earthquake that destroyed Messina and Reggio (28 December, 1908), the ground has undergone alteration, and telluric movements show no tendency to cease. Italy has the characteristic shape of a riding hoot, of which the top is represented by the Alps, the seam by the Apennines, and the toe, the heel, and the spur, respectively, by the peninsulas of Calabria, Salento, and Gargano. The country consists of a continental portion that terminates at almost the forty-fourth parallel, between Spezia and Rimini, of peninsular, and of insular portions. It is customary to divide the peninsular portions into two parts: Central Italy and Southern Italy, of which the former is contained between the forty-fourth parallel and a straight line that connects the mouth of the Trigno River with that of the Garigliano, marking the narrowest part of the peninsula between the Adriatic and the Tyrrhenian Seas. Southern Italy is the part of the peninsula which lies south of this line. Northern Italy includes Piedmont, Lombardy, Venice, Emilia, and Liguria; Central Italy includes Tuscany, Umbria, and Lazio; Southern Italy includes Campania, the Basilicata, and Calabria. Insular Italy will be found treated of under the articles SICILY; SICILIES, KINGDOM OF THE TWO; SARDINIA. Piedmont, Lombardy, Tuscany, Venice, and the historic towns within those regions will also be found the subject of separate articles. Concerning the temporal power of the popes and events culminating in the seizure of Rome in 1870 see the articles TEMPORAL POWER and PAPAL STATES. Coast-line and Seas The coast-line of the Italian Peninsula measures 2100 miles. Its principal harbours are the Gulf of Genoa, the first commercial port in Italy; the Gulf of Spezia, an important naval station; Civitavecchia, an artificial harbour; the harbours of Gaeta, Naples, and the Gulf of Taranto; Brindisi, a natural port; the Gulf of Manfredonia, and the lagoons of Venice. The principal seas are: (1) the Sea of Italy Also known as the Tyrrhenian Sea, which lies between the islands of Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica and the mainland. It slopes from its shores to its centre, where it attains a depth of more than two and one-quarter miles, and scattered over it are the Tuscan Archipelago, the Ponza and Parthenopian Island groups, the Ægadian Islands, the volcanic Island Ustica, and the Lipari or Æolian Islands, the latter being all extinct volcanoes with the exception of Stromboli. The tides of this sea vary by only eight or twelve inches; it abounds in coral banks, and anchovy, sardine, and tunny fishing is remunerative along the coasts of Sicily and Sardinia. (2) Ligurian Sea The Gulf of Genoa is the most inland and also the most northerly part of this open sea, which extends to the south as far as the Channels of Corsica and of Piombino, through which it communicates with the Tyrrhenian Sea. It is open towards the Mediterranean, while its south-western limit is a line drawn from Cape Lardier, in Provence, to Cape Revellata in Corsica. The tides of this sea vary from six to eight inches. On account of its depth and of the absence of tributary rivers, it contains few fish. (3) Sea of Sicily; Sea of Malta That branch of the Mediterranean that lies between Tunis and Sicily is called the Channel of Tunis or of Sicily, and has a minimum breadth of 90 miles. The branch that separates the Maltese Islands from Sicily is called the Malta Channel and has a minimum breadth of 51 miles. In the former, at an average depth of 100 fathoms, there is a submarine bank that unites Africa and Sicily; it has extensive shoals, known for their volcanic phenomena. Sponge and coral fisheries in this sea are lucrative. The tides are higher than those of other Italian waters, and a singular phenomenon, called marrobbio, is observed here, being a violent and dangerous boiling of the sea, having, possibly, a volcanic origin. (4) Ionian Sea This is an open sea between Sicily and the Calabrian and the Salentine peninsulas, and the western coasts of the Balkan Peninsula; it communicates with the Tyrrhenian Sea by the Strait of Messina, which was formed by the catastrophe that violently detached Sicily from the Continent. This strait, which is one of the most frequented waterways of Europe, is funnel-shaped, having a breadth of 20 miles at its southern, and of 2 miles at its northern, opening. On the line between the islands of Sicily and Crete, the Ionian Sea reaches a depth of 2¾ miles, the greatest that has been found so far in the Mediterranean Sea. While the tides on the African coast rise over six feet, those on the coast of Italy are very slight; they are all the stronger, however, in the Strait of Messina, where the currents that pass between the Tyrrhenian and the Ionian Seas, especially when the wind blows, form vortices and surges that beat violently against the coast of Calabria. The fantasy of the ancients personified these two phenomena, in the monster Scylla, for the Calabrian coast, and Charybdis on the Sicilian side (Homer, "Odyss.", I, xii; Virgil, "Æneid", III, 420-425). (5) Adriatic Sea This sea lies between the Italian and the Balkan Peninsulas, with an area of 51,000 sq. miles. It abounds in fish of exceptionally good quality. Orology Italy is a country of mountains and hills, with few high table-lands; while, of the latter, the two most important, those of Tuscany and of the Murgie, are broken and surmounted by hills and mountainous groups. Lowland plains are, on the contrary, the dominant characteristic of Northern Italy; plains, in fact, occupy about one-third of the surface of the country. The principal mountains of Italy are: (1) The Alps They form a system of parallel ranges, at the north of Italy, forming an arc that presents its convex side to the west; they extend from the pass of Cadibona to the masses of Mt. Blanc, which is the highest point of the Alpine range (15,780 feet), and from that point, following a north-easterly direction, they extend to Vienna on the Danube. One of the greater eastern branches of this system, the Carnic and the Julian Alps, diverges in a south-easterly direction and terminates in the Fianona Point on the Gulf of Quarnero. Their length, from the pass of Cadibona to Cape Fianona, is nearly 735 miles. Their mean height is 6500 feet. The Italian watershed of the Alps is steep, with short spurs and deep valleys, while the opposite side is a gentle slope. Hence the facility of crossing over the Alps from without (France, Germany), and the corresponding difficulty of the passage from the Italian side, as history has shown by foreign invasions. The Alps are of climatic benefit to Italy, for they are a screen against the cold winds from the north, while the vapours of warm winds from the Mediterranean and the Adriatic Seas are condensed on the Alpine heights, producing the copious rains and snows that result in those numerous glaciers which are reservoirs for the rivers. The inhabitants of the Alps are a strong and robust people, sober, and attached to their native valleys. Temporary emigration, due to the nature of the land, is very great, but permanent emigration is rare. With the Alps is connected the typical Italian figure of the chimney-sweep evoked by the fancy of artists and of poets. (2) The Apennines They form parallel trunk chains, arranged in echelon, like the tiers of a theatre; they extend from the Pass of Cadibona to the Strait of Messina and are continued in the northern mountains of Sicily as far as Cape Boeo. The range is of much less elevation than the Alps, its mean height being 3900 feet, nor has it the imposing, wild, and varied aspect of the Alps. Its summits are bare and rounded, the valleys deep, and cultivation goes on well up the heights. The sides were once covered with forests, but that wealth of vegetation has been improvidently destroyed everywhere along this range, and, consequently, iron grey, the ashy colour of calcareous rocks, and the red brown of clay and sand-beds are the predominant tints of the country. The highest summit is that of Mt. Corno (9585 feet) in the group of the Gran Sasso. On account of their latitude and of their proximity to the sea, the Apennines have neither snow-clad peaks nor glaciers, and, while the Pre-Alpine hills are of moraine origin the Pre-Apennine hills were formed of sands, clay, flint and other substances disintegrated and transformed by the waters. Rains are frequent on the Apennines in autumn and winter. The configuration of the Apennine system is simple at its two extremities, but it becomes complex towards the centre, where it consists of a group of parallel chains, arranged in steps, those curving towards the east constituting the Sub-Apennine range; while those groups that extend along the Tyrrhenian and the Adriatic coasts constitute the Anti-Apennine system. Geographers do not agree on the determining lines of these three divisions. We will adopt the line from Cadibona Pass (1620 feet) to Bocca Serriola (2400 feet) between the Tiber and the Metauro Rivers, for the northern division; from Bocca Serriola to the Pass of Rionero between the Rivers Sangro and Volturno, for the Central Apennines, and from this point to Cape Armi, for the southern division. The Northern Apennines encircle the southern basin of the Po, in a north-west to south-east direction, and the Pass of Cisa (3410 feet) divides them into two sections, the Ligurian and the Emilio-Tuscan. (a) The Ligurian Apennines They form an arc around the Gulf of Genoa and have their crest near and parallel to the coast; but, to the north of Genoa, they deviate towards the east. Their southern spurs are short and steep; those towards the Po are longer and more ramified, the two principal ones among them being those of Mt. Antola and of Mt. Penna, the former of which fans out between the Scrivia and Trebbia Rivers and contains Mt. Ebro (5570 feet) and Mt. Lesima (5760 feet), and it terminates near the Po, forming the Pass of Stradella; that of Mt. Penna, with numerous branches between the Trebbia and the Taro Rivers, contains Mt. Misurasca, or Bue (5930 feet), which is the highest point of this section. The Langhe and the hills of Monferrato, which last are called also Hills of the Po, famous for their sparkling wines, form a species of promontory of the Ligurian Apennines, enclosed between the Po, the Tanaro, and the western part of the Bormida. All this hilly region consists, superficially, of greenish and of yellowish sands, and below the surface, of clay and of bluish marl, alternating with veins of gypsum, of gravel, and at times of lignite. During the Miocene period, this region was a continuation of the Gulf of the Po and communicated with the Mediterranean Sea by the channel, or possibly the archipelago, of Cadibona. Four railroads cross this section: + (i) the Savona-Torino, with a branch to Alessandria through the Cadibona Pass; + (ii) the Genova-Ovada-Asti near the summit of the Turchino; + (iii) the Genova-Novi, with two tunnels near the summit of the Giovi Pass; + (iv) the Spezia-Parma, with the Borgallo tunnel. (b) The Emilio-Tuscan-Apennines There are characteristic differences between the two slopes of this section of the Apennines. The branches towards the north-east, that is towards the Adriatic Sea, are parallel, and perpendicular to the crest that separates the watersheds; they terminate at a short distance from the Emilian Way. The most important branch, on account of its length and ramifications, and also because it separates Northern Italy from Central Italy, is the one which is called Alps of Luna, beginning in the dorsal spur of Mt. Maggiore (4400 feet), between the Marecchia and the Metauro Rivers and divided into three branches, the last of which closes the great valley of the Po near the Pass of Cattolica. On the south-western watershed the spurs are almost parallel to the mother chain and are separated from it by broad longitudinal valleys, forming the Sub-Apennines of Tuscany. (c) The Tuscan or Metalliferous Anti-Apennines They consist of a group of parallel chains, directed from north-west to south-east on the Tuscan uplands, ploughed by the Ombrone of Pistoia. The eastern chain, towards the Arno River and the valley of Chiana, is formed by the wine-producing mountains of Chianti, Montepulciano, and Cetona. The interior chains consist of the mountains of Siena, abounding in marbles, the mountains of Volterra, that yield alabaster, and those of Montalcino, and they terminate in the volcanic mass of Mt. Amiata, the highest point of the Anti-Apennines (5640 feet). The coast range, abounding in metals, includes the mountains of Leghorn, the Cornate di Gerfalco, and the Poggio Montieri. They contain mines of copper, lead, zinc, salt, and are rich in borax and lignite coal. The highest point of the Emilio-Tuscan Apennines is Mt. Cimone (7190 feet). Other summits are the Alps of Succiso (6610 feet) and Mt. Cusna (6960 feet). Two railroads cross this section: the Bologna-Firenze and the Faenza-Firenze. Wherefore northern and central Italy are connected by five railroads which, together with the common roads, constitute the unifying system between these two divisions of the country. The Central Apennines are divided into two sections, the Umbro-Marchesan, from Bocca Serriola to the Torrita Pass, between the Velino and the Tronto Rivers, and the Apennines of the Abruzzi, from the Torrita Pass (3280 feet) to that of Rionero. (d) The Umbro-Marchesan Apennines This range is not formed of a single, well-defined chain, as is the case in the Northern Apennines, but, of three parallel ranges, in echelon, that gradually approach the Adriatic Sea towards the south. The first chain, that is the western one, is merely the prolongation of the Northern Apennines, and extends from Bocca Serriola to the highland plain of Gubbio, to terminate on the low plain of Foligno. The second, or middle, range, called also Chain of Mt. Catria, contains many peaks over 4900 feet, Mt. Catria being 5570 feet high. These two ranges are connected by a highland plain which terminates at the defile of Scheggia (1930 feet) and over which passed the ancient Flaminian Way. The eastern or Mt. San Vicino range begins to the right of the Metauro River and follows a north-easterly direction. It is cut by many openings through which flow the rivers that rise in the central chain and empty into the Adriatic Sea. From Mt. San Vicino this range takes a southerly direction and forms the Sibilline Mountains, of which the chief summits are Mt, Regina (7650 feet) and Mt. Vettore (8100 feet). Towards the Adriatic Sea the Sub-Apennine range consisted of chains parallel to the Apennines, but it was worn away by the waters and only the mountains of Ascensione, Cingoli, and Conero remain to mark the position that it occupied. The Umbrian or Tyrrhenian Sub-Apennines are divided into two principal groups. The first of these is between the Tiber and the Valley of Chiana, and beyond the Scopettone Pass (920 feet), it receives the names of Alta di S. Egidio (3400 feet), Perugia Mountains, Poggio Montereale and others. The second group stands between the Tiber, the Topino, and the Maroggia Rivers, containing the Deruta Mountains, Mt. Martano (3500 feet), and Mt. Torre Maggiore (3560 feet). There is but one railroad that crosses this section of the Central Apennines; it is the one between Ancona and Foligno that passes near Fossato, through a tunnel about a mile and a quarter long. (e) The Abruzzan Apennines This section consists of three high ranges that form a kind of ellipse of which the major axis is in a south-easterly direction. They enclose the lofty plain of the Abruzzi that is divided into the Conca Aquilana, to the east, through which flows the River Aterno, and the Conca di Avezzano or of the Fucino, to the west. The eastern range extends from the defile of Arquata to the Sangro River and is divided into three stretches, namely, the group of Pizzo di Sevo (7850 feet), from the Tronto River to the Vomano; the Gran Sasso d'Italia, between the Vomano and the Pescara Rivers, the highest group of the peninsula, its greatest elevation being that of Mt. Corno (9560 feet); and third, the group of the Majella, which is preceded by the Morone chain and the highest point of which is Mt. Amaro (9170 feet). Bears are still to be found in these mountains. The middle range of the Abruzzan Apennines parts from the Velino River near Mt. Terminillo and divides into the groups of Mt. Velino and of Mt. Sirente, from which the range is continued to the south-east, by the Scanno Mountains, which are separated from those of Majella by the plains of Solmona and of Cinquemiglia. (f) The Roman Sub-Apennines The Sabine Mountains rise between the Aniene, the Tiber, the Nera, the Velino, and the Turano Rivers, containing Mt. Pellecchia (4487 feet); they are a continuation of the mountains of Spoleto and develop a most picturesque region that is rich in historic memories. The Simbruini Mountains stand between the Turano and the Aniene Rivers, following the direction of the Sabine Mountains. Between the Sacco and the Aniene Rivers are the Ernici Mountains, which are of volcanic nature. They are followed in a north-westerly direction by the Palestrina Mountains, which contain Mt. Guadagnolo (3990 feet) and which are separated from the saddle of Palestrina (1130 feet) and from the Alban Mountains, which belong to the Anti-Apennines. (g) The Roman Anti-Apennines This range extends from the Fiora to the Garigliano rivers and is divided into two parts. Between the Rivers Fiora and Tiber there is a predominance of volcanic groups like that of the Volsini Mountains (2270 feet) that form a chain of volcanic stone around Lake Bolsena, which was formed, possibly, by the reunion of several extinct craters. This group is followed by the Cimini Mountains around Lake Vico; the Sabatini Mountains around Lake Bracciano: Mt. Soracte (2270 feet), standing solitary on the Tiber, and the Tolfa Mountains (2000 feet) on the sea; these are rich in alum. The Alban Mountains, also of volcanic character, rise between the Rivers Tiber, Garigliano, Sacco or Tolero, and the sea, with their highest elevation in Mt. Cavo (3100 feet) near Rome. Beyond the gap of Velletri rise the Volscian Mountains, which are of a calcareous nature and which extend to the Garigliano. They are divided into three groups: the Lepini Mountains, containing Mt. Semprevisa (5000 feet), the Ausonian Mountains, and the Aurunci Mountains, which contain Mt. Petrella (5000 feet.) and which form the promontory of Gaeta. There are three railroads that cross this section of the Apennines: the Chieti-Aquila-Terni-Roma, the Chieti-Solmona-Avezzano-Roma, and the Aquila-Isernia-Naples. The Southern Apennines are divided into three parts: the branch that is formed by the Neapolitan and Lucan Apennines, the true continuation of the Central Apennines, of which they preserve both the nature and the direction; the Apennines of Calabria, which are different in direction, aspect, and nature from the Apennines, having an Alpine character; the Murgie range, also differing in origin and characteristics from the Apennines. (h) The Neapolitan Apennines This range extends from the Pass of Rionero to the saddle of Conza. Beginning at the north, there is first the highland plain of Carovilli, and then the mountains of Frentani or of Campobasso. These are followed by the vast highland plain of the Sannio and by that of Irpino which forms the eastern border of the Beneventana basin and terminates at the saddle of Conza. This series of elevations, although of medium height, marks the principal axis of the Apennine range. (i) The Neapolitan Tyrrhenian Sub-Apennines They are formed of the groups of the Matese and of the Terminio, and of the Avellino Mountains. The Matese group, which is totally isolated, has its highest elevation in Mt. Miletto (6700 feet) and consists of two parallel trunks that are very close together, having between them a narrow height that contains a small lake. The group of the Terminio (about 6000 feet high), which contains Mt. Accellica and Mt. Cervialto, constitutes one of the most important oro-hydrographic points of Southern Italy. They abound in springs, and from them come the fresh waters of the Serino with which Naples is supplied through an aqueduct. Between the two above groups rise the Avellino Mountains that close the Beneventana basin. These are groups that are isolated by deep clefts, chief among them being Mt. Vergine (4800 feet) which has upon it a celebrated sanctuary. (j) The Neapolitan Tyrrhenian Apennines This Anti-Apennine range extends in the direction of the Roman Anti-Apennines, through the volcanic group of Roccamonfina and of Mt. Maggione, to the Volturno River. On the coast is the region of Campi Flegrei, formed of small, extinct volcanoes; then the active volcano Mt. Vesuvius (4070 feet), and after that the Lattari or Sorrento chain which forms the peninsula of Sorrento and terminates at Campanella Point. (k) The Neapolitan Adriatic Anti-Apennines They consist of the Gargano group which is entirely isolated and which differs from the Apennines in origin and in nature. It projects into the Adriatic Sea (the Gargano Head) for 30 miles and the River Candelaro now takes the place of the branch of the sea that formerly separated this group from the peninsula. The elevation rises steep above that river and the Gulf of Manfredonia, forming a series of forest-covered terraces upon which stand dome-shaped summits, as Mt. Calvo (3460 feet), and sloping down towards the north upon Lake Varano. From this side of Mt. Cornacchia (3800 feet) the Capitanata Mountains branch towards the north and pass around the plain of Apulia on the west. (l and 2) Lucan Apennines This is a chain that extends from the Sella di Conza to the Scalone Pass and is bounded by the Sele River, the Ofanto with its affluent the Locone, the Bradano and its affluent the Basentiello, the coast of the Gulf of Taranto, the Isthmus of Calabria, and the Tyrrhenian Sea. The range is divided into two parts by the plain of San Loja, which is crossed by a highway and by the Napoli-Potenza railroad. The northern part is grouped around Mt. Santa Croce (4670 feet) that gives out several ramifications, one of which extends to the group of Mt. Volture, an extinct volcano on the right of the Ofanto River. The second, southern division contains the Maddalena Mountains (Mt. Papa, 6560 feet), a short and rugged chain that runs from north to east, and the nearly isolated group of the Pollino which bars the entrance of the peninsula of Calabria and contains the highest summits of the Southern Apennines, Mt. Pollino and Serra Dolcedormi. The group of the Cilento which projects into the sea at Capes Licosa and Palinuro may be considered as the Lucan Sub-Apennines. It is separated from the Apennines by the longitudinal valley of Diano and constitutes one of the wildest and most broken borders of Italy. Its principal summits are Mt. Cervati (6000 feet), Mt. Sacro (5600 feet), and Mt. Alburno. (3) Murgie The Apulian group of the Murgie constitutes a system of its own, different from the Apennines in shape, origin, and nature. Its boundaries are the Ofanto River and its affluent the Locone, the Sella di Spinazzola, the Basentiello River, the Bradano, and the coasts of the Ionian and the Adriatic Seas. The Murgie are hills that are surmounted here and there by rounded elevations. Their height, which at the north is nearly 2000 feet, decreases more and more towards the southeast. There are no rivers or streams among these hills, for they absorb the rain-waters into deep clefts that are called lame or gravine. When the sea occupied the plain of Apulia and extended towards the south as far as the Ionian Sea, the Murgie were separated from Italy and were divided into islands and submarine banks. (4) The Calabrian Apennines The mountains of Calabria, by their crystalline and granite nature, by their alpine appearance and by difference of direction, form a system that is independent of the Apennines. Their boundaries are a line drawn from the mouth of the Crati River to the Scalone Pass and the coasts of the Tyrrhenian and of the Ionian Seas. They constitute a straitened territory of mountain groups that are separated by deep depressions, or united by sharp crests, in which communication becomes very difficult. The highlands are covered with forests, and the lowlands with orange groves, vineyards, olive trees, and kindred plantations. These mountains are divided into four groups: first, the Catena Costiera, between the sea and the Crati River, extending from the Pass of Scalone to the River Amato; it contains Mt. Cocuzzo (5000 feet). As its name implies, this chain is always very near the sea, rising steeply to a mean height of 3700 feet, while at its southern extremity it is united with the highland plain of Sila. The second group is a vast highland plain of a mean height of 3900 feet, with gaps, here and there, through which flow the streams that rise on the plain. The highest summit is Botte Donato (6300 feet). The name of Sila is connected with the Latin silva and with the Greek hyle (forest) and refers to the rich growth of tall trees that covered the plain in ancient times, and even then were utilized in naval construction. To the south of Sila, between the Gulfs of Squillace and Santa Eufemia, there is the Pass of Marcellinara (800 feet), which was possibly a sea canal before the Strait of Messina existed. This pass separates the Sila from the third group, called the Sierre, which contains Mt. Pecoraro and which extends to Mercante Pass, terminating in the sea, at Cape Vaticano on the promontory of Monteleone (1600 feet). The fourth group rises between Mercante Pass and the Strait of Messina; it is Aspromonte, a vast conical mass of granite that rises by wooded grades and terraces. It contains Mt. Alto (6500 feet). Plains (1) Plain of the Po The spurs of the Alps and of the Apennines that are directed towards the valley of the Po never reach the shores of that river; on the contrary, there stretches between the base lines of those two mountain systems the vast plain of the Po (17,500 sq. miles), which may be compared to a great amphitheatre, open towards the east, the Alpine and the Apennine watersheds forming its tiers and the plain its arena. Its uniformity is broken by the hills of Monferrato and by those of the Langhe, by the Euganean hills, and by the Berici Mountains. If the sea should rise 300 feet, it would reach the base of the Monferrato hills and would enter the Apennine valleys; and if it should rise 1300 feet more it would enter the valleys of Piedmont. This plain of the Po, which is divided into plains of Piedmont, Lombardy, and Venice, on the left of the river, and into plains of Marengo and of Emilia on its right, was formerly a gulf of the Adriatic Sea that was filled in by the alluvial deposits of the rivers and was levelled by inundations. This process of filling in the Adriatic Sea is continuous, as is shown by the fact that the delta of the Po is carried forward by nearly twenty-six feet each year, while Ravenna, which in the time of the Romans was a naval station, is now five miles from the sea. The Alps contributed a greater portion of alluvial materials than did the Apennines, and therefore the course of the Po was thrown towards the lower range, so that the plain on the left of the river is greater than that on the right. The low plain of the Po has two light slopes that meet in the thalwegg of that river; one of them descends gradually from west to east (Cuneo, 1700 feet). While this plain covers only a third of the surface of the valley of the Po, it is nevertheless the historical and political centre of that valley. (2) Plains of Central Italy Between the mouth of the Magra River and Terracina there is a lengthy extent of low plains that vary considerably in breadth. These plains are monotonous and sad, in contrast with those of the river valleys, as that of the Ombrone, those of the Arno and of other rivers, which are fertile and beautiful. First there is the plain of Tuscany divided into the low plains of the basin of the Arno and the Maremma, of which the former were once marshy and unhealthy, especially that of the valley of Chiana; but, through the great hydraulic works of the Medicis of the sixteenth century, they are now most fertile and are model expositions of agriculture. (3) The Tuscan Maremma This is a low expanse of level land where the rain-waters become stagnant and where the streams are sluggish on account of the too gentle slope of the land, and therefore they accumulate their refuse; this disadvantage, however, is now turned to profit in the fertilization of the ground by what is known as the filling-in system. (4) The Roman Campagna The lightly undulating Roman Campagna lies on either side of the lower Tiber, and, although it has the monotony and sadness of all plains, it has a grandeur in itself, in its beautiful sunsets and in the gigantic and glorious ruins that witness how great a life there was in these now deserted places, abandoned to herds of cattle and to wild boars. The remains of the consular roads that traverse this plain in every direction, reminding one of the victorious armies that marched over them, are now scarcely to be discerned under the brush; the waters, no longer checked, have left their channels and formed extensive marshes, where malaria reigns; and houses and tillage are not to be found on the Campagna at many miles from Rome. (5) The Pontine Marshes From Cisterna to Terracina and from Porto d'Anzio to Mt. Circeo there lies a swampy expanse, 25 miles in length and from 10 to 11 miles in breadth, called in ancient times Agro Pomenzio, and now Pontine Marshes. Formerly this tract was cultivated and healthy, only a little swamp existing near Terracina; and in the fifth century of the Roman Era the Censor Appius constructed over it the magnificent way that bears his name. But the provinces having been depopulated by wars, and the cultivation of the soil having been interrupted, the stagnant waters overlaid all. The Consul Cethegus, however, by new drainage, made these lands healthy again, but the civil wars reduced them to a worse condition than the one from which they were redeemed; and in the time of Augustus, as Horace tells us, the Appian Way ran solitary through that vast swamp. Augustus and his successors attempted to drain the tract once more; but the barbarians destroyed every vestige of their work, Popes Leo I, Sixtus II, Clement XIII, and especially Pius VI, resumed the undertaking, and by means of large canals restored it to agriculture; but once more the region is unhealthy, and almost without inhabitants. (6) Plains of Southern Italy The plains of Southern Italy cover nearly four-tenths of its surface, the regions which contain more of them being Campania and Apulia. There are none in the Basilicata, and few in Calabria. On the Tyrrhenian Sea, there are; (a) the Campania Plain This plain extends along the coast between the Garigliano and the Sarno Rivers. Over it rise the volcanoes of the Campi Flegrei and that of Vesuvius. This is the Campania Felix of antiquity, a region of extraordinary beauty and of exceptional fertility due to the volcanic soil and to the maritime climate. (b) The Plain of Pesto, or of the Sele The second is much smaller than the first. It is situated at the mouth of the Sele River, not far from where stood Posidonia, or Pæstum, the city of roses, famous for its life of delights and delicacy, but already in ruins at the beginning of the Roman Empire. Now these places are marshy and unhealthy. (c) The Plain of Santa Eufemia It is situated at the end of the gulf of the same name and traversed by the Amato River, and the Plain of Gioja, traversed by the River Mesima. They are small, marshy, and unhealthy plains in the shape of amphitheatres, formed by the alluvial deposits of those two rivers. Looking towards the Ionian Sea is the plain of Sibari, where once stood, at the mouth of the Crati River, the Greek city for which the plain is named. It is of alluvial origin and nature, as are the preceding two. Towards the Adriatic Sea the plains of the coast of Apulia have their northern terminal in the famous Tavoliere delle Puglie which is almost a steppe, treeless, monotonous, and sad, exposed to the winds and traversed by a few streams that change their channels. Formerly this plain was used for winter pasturage, but, the soil being fertile, corn is now grown. It is bounded by the Candellaro River, the Apennines, the Ofanto River, and the Gulf of Manfredonia. On the Salentine peninsula there is a species of Tavoliere, contained between the Brindisi-Oria railroad and a line drawn from Torre dell' Orso, on the Adriatic Sea, to Nardò on the Ionian. Volcanoes and Earthquakes As Italy is one of the most recently developed parts of the mainland and of the crust that has risen above the waters, it is subject to the phenomena that are due to that internal energy of the earth called volcanism, which is manifested in the various forms of volcanic activity, in earthquakes and in microseisms. The valley of the Po contains no active volcano, but the Berici Mountains and the Euganean Hills that are rich in thermal springs (as at Abano) were, in remote times, two very active centres, as is shown by the great quantity of volcanic matter around them. In the peninsula of Italy and on the islands, volcanic activity is still very great, especially towards the Tyrrhenian coast. The Apennine zone that extends from the group of Mt. Amiata to Mt. Roccamonfina is almost entirely covered by extinct volcanoes: the San Vincenzo hills, to the north of Campiglia, and the Sassofondino hills, to the west of Roccastrada, are of volcanic nature, as is also the great cone of Mt. Amiata, which is the highest volcanic elevation of the peninsula; to the east of the Amiata rises the picturesque basaltic mass of Radicofani, and the Lakes of Bolsena (Vulsinio), Vico (Cimino), Bracciano (Sabatino), and Albano (Latino) are merely the principal craters of the many volcanoes that form the Roman group. A great number of these volcanoes began their activity under the sea which they filled in with their products, creating in this way the broken Campagna that consists chiefly of volcanic materials. In the valley of the Tolero or Sacco, near Frosinone, rise the Ernici volcanoes, of which the chief summits are those of Posi, Ticchiena, Callano, and of San Giuliano; and to the south of the plain through which the Volturno River flows stands the group of extinct craters that constitute Mt. Roccamonfina. The volcanic group of Naples is the most important one of them all, and the most famous, because it contains the oldest active volcano in Europe, namely Mt. Vesuvius (4000 feet). That ancient volcano rises between the destroyed cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum, at about six miles from Naples. Diodorus Siculus, Vitruvius, Plutarch, and Strabo speak of it as a volcano that had been extinct for centuries in their day. In the year 79 of the Christian Era it suddenly became active again, burying in molten stone, sand, and ashes the cities of Stabia, Herculaneum, and Pompeii, and by its noxious vapours terminating the life of Pliny the Elder. Between the years 79 and 1631 Vesuvius had a few eruptions: those of 203, 472, 512, 689, 913, 1036, 1139, 1500; but, on 16 December, 1631, the diameter of the crater was increased nearly two miles, and nearly 72,000,000 cubic metres of lava were ejected from it in a few hours, while there descended from the summit devastating torrents of boiling mud. Thereafter eruptions became more frequent, the principal ones having occurred in 1737, 1794, 1822, 1858, 1861, 1862, 1868, 1872, and the last in 1906; but flickering flames and smoke are almost always emerging from the crater. The Campi Flegrei to the west of Naples occupy a surface of nearly 60 sq. miles and consist of low craters that have been partly filled in by the waters. Notable among these are Mt. Montenuovo, which was developed in a single night in September, 1530; and Mt. Solfatara, from the fissures of which, called chimneys, there constantly emanate smoke and vapours of sulphuretted hydrogen. The Vulture volcanic region to the east of the Apennines is not allied to the Tyrrhenian volcanic region. The Vulture consists of two concentric craters of winch the interior one is more recent; this contains the two small lakes of Monticchio (2050 feet). Thermal springs are very abundant in Italy, especially those containing sulphur and carbonic acid. Of gaseous springs, there are in Italy the so-called fumaiole that emit aqueous vapour with carbonic acid, the boraciferous blowers of Tuscany, and the sulphur-producing spring of Pozzuoli which burst into an eruption in 1198, Near Rome there are the Albula Springs. Lastly there are the mephitic springs that produce carbonic acid, the most famous of them being the so-called Grotta del Cane, near the Lake of Aguano, which is an ancient, extinct crater, near Naples. Besides her volcanic characteristics, Italy, like Japan, is the classic land of earthquakes. The regions that are most subject to them are; + (a) the southern parts of the Alps, + (b) the coast region of the basin of the Po, from Venice to Pesaro, + (c) the Apennines of the Marches and of the Abruzzi, + (d) the neighbourhood of Mt Vesuvius, that of Mt. Vulture, and that of Mt. Etna, + (e) the Luco-Calabrian district, + (f) the islands of volcanic origin. Of the famous catastrophes due to earthquakes, the best known are those of 1783, in Calabria, when there were destroyed 109 cities and villages, under the ruins of which 32,000 people were buried; the one of 1857 in the Basilicata that cost 10,000 victims to Potenza and its neighbourhood. The earthquake that shook the western Ligurian Riviera in 1887, although the most terrible catastrophe of its kind that has befallen continental Italy, was, withal, much less severe than those that have visited the southern portion of the peninsula. Calabria may be said to have heen for ten years on the brink of the earthquake that culminated fatally on the morning of 28 December, 1908, when, in a few moments, the city of Messina, with 150,000 inhabitants, the city of Reggio, with 45,000 inhabitants, the town of Sille, and other smaller ones, were razed to the ground, burying more than 100,000 people under their ruins. Italy was comforted by all the civilized nations, and especially the United States, which built a town in the beautiful district of Santa Cecilia, in the neighbourhood of Messina, with nearly 1500 frame houses, after the fashion of Swiss chalets, prettily finished, and painted in white. The United States Avenue, parallel with the sea, and Theodore Roosevelt Avenue, parallel with the torrent of Zaera, divide the town into four quarters that are intersected by streets having the names of those generous Americans who helped in the work: Commander Belknap of the Navy, who was the head of the relief Commission; Lieutenants Buchanan and Spofford; Engineer Elliot, director of construction; Dr. Donelson, and others. Hydrography (1) Rivers The rivers of Continental Italy empty into the Adriatic and the Ligurian Seas. The water-courses of the Ligunian slope are rapid torrents, dry in summer, while in autumn and in winter they carry enormous volumes of water. Chief among them are the Roja, the longest and most important water course of Liguria, on the banks of which are Tenda and Ventimiglia; the Taggia; the Centa, which is formed of the Arroscia and the Neva; the Bisagno and the Polcevera, between the mouths of which is the city of Genoa; and the Entella. The Adriatic watershed being bounded by the Alps and by the Apennines, it follows that the rivers flowing from the latter mountains are shorter than those coming from the Alps, and as they do not receive the drainage of the glaciers, but only that of the snow and of the rains, they have the nature of torrents, rather than that of rivers. This is a providential condition because it minimizes the danger of inundations in the valley of the Po; for the rivers of the Apennines come down charged with alluvial matter and enter the Po almost at right angles, engaging its channel; but the Alpine rivers that flow into the Po, farther down its stream, with less turbulence, yet with a strong flood, spread the alluvial deposits of the other rivers over the entire bed. Notwithstanding this, the bed of the Po tends continually to rise, and the waters of that river, contained by embankments, are seven, ten, and even seventeen feet above the level of the lands through which they flow. The rivers of Continental Italy that empty into the Adriatic Sea are divided into four groups: (a) the Po and its tributaries; (b) the Venetian rivers; (c) the rivers of the Romagna, and (d) the rivers of Istria, grouped on account of their special characteristics. (a) The Po The Po, which is the principal river of Italy, rises on the Piano del Re, on Mt. Viso, at a height of 6500 feet above the sea. It makes a first descent of 500 feet in a distance of only 10 miles, after which it opens into the plain near Saluzzo, and from there follows a northerly direction as far as Chivasso, where the Cavour Canal begins. Throughout the remainder of its course it flows from west to east, winding along the 45th parallel, and empties into the sea through a vast delta, the chief branch of which is Po della Maestra, which is unnavigable, while the other branch, the Po delle Tolle, has two navigable entrances. The surface of its basin is 27 square miles and its mean flood is 53,000 cubic feet per second, but when at its height, more than 70,000 cubic feet. In the middle of its course, at Cremona, its greatest breadth is three fifths of a mile, hut at its greatest height, farther down the valley, it attains a breadth of two and one-half miles. Notwithstanding the volume of its waters, the Po is not well suited to navigation, on account of the instability of its bed, for which no artificial remedy has heen found. Available navigation begins at Casale for boats of about 9 tons, and from Pavia to the sea the river is navigable for boats of 120 to 130 tons. The River Po, unlike the Rhine, the Danube, and the Elbe, was never a politically unifying element, having always divided the inhabitants of its valley into two parts. (b) Among the Venetian rivers The principal Venetian river is the Adige, which is the second river of Italy; after that are the Brenta, the Piave, the Tagliamento, the Isonzo, and others. The Alpine basin of the Adige has the shape of a triangle, with its summit at Verona, and its base on the Alps, between the Reschen hill, where are the sources, and the base of Tolbach, where are the sources of the Rienz. It enters the Italian region at Salurno and receives the Noce River, on the right, and the Avisio on the left, and it passes the boundary between the Kingdom of Italy and the Austrian Empire to the south of Ala. At Verona it enters the plain and flows parallel to the Po, flanked by massive embankments. Between the two rivers is a territory, portions of which have yet to be redeemed, as are the valleys of Verona, while the remaining portion is drained already by a labyrinth of canals, as for example, the Polesine. The Adige empties into the Adriatic Sea, after a course of 248 miles, having an average breadth of 330 feet between Trent and Verona, and of 220 feet between Verona and the sea. The Venetian rivers enter the plain charged with alluvial materials that would make them overflow, if they were not held in their beds by artificial embankments. Although the sources of some of these rivers are known, it is difficult to say where and how they empty into the sea; the Bacchiglione is a type of them. (c) The Rivers of Romagna The Po di Volano, once a branch of the Po, with which river, however, it is no longer connected, rises in the springs of the plain near Cento; at Ferrara it divides into two branches, one of which is navigable and, flowing towards the east, empties into the sea at Porto Volano; the other branch, which is not available for navigation, turns towards the south-east, terminating against the embankment of the Reno, a river that rises near Prunetta, passes to the east of Bologna, flows by Pieve di Cento, and, turning towards the east, enters the old channel of the Po di Primaro and empties into the sea at Porto Primaro, after a course of 124 miles. The Idice, Santerno, and the Senio are its affluents. (d) The rivers of Istria They are very short, with little water, and flow in channels from which they disappear into the ground, to appear again in other channels or near the sea. The Recca-Timavo is the most important one of them; after a course of 28 miles in a narrow channel, it disappears into a cave, and it is probable that its waters go through the Carso and that they are the same that emerge from great springs, near Monfalcone, and empty into the Monfalcone Gulf under the name of Timavo. The other rivers, the Dragogna, the Quieto, the Lerne, which rises under the name of Foiba, all develop fords at their mouths, and the Foiba disappears and reappears several times; the Arsa empties into the Gulf of Quarnero. On account of the bow shape of the Central Apennines the rivers that empty into the Adriatic Sea are very short and almost straight, while those that empty into the Tyrrhenian Sea are longer, and have a sinuous course in the longitudinal valleys through which they flow. They cut narrow channels through the mountain ranges or at times form cataracts like those of Marmore, near Terni (530 feet), those of Tivoli, and those of the Fibreno. Many of the long valleys between the Anti-Apennine and the Sub-Apennine ranges were occupied by lakes that were either filled in naturally by the alluvial deposits of the rivers or were artificially drained, as were the valley of Chiana, the valley of the Tiber, the plain of Foligno, the lands of Reati, of Fucino, and others. The Arno River, which has an average breadth of from 330 to 500 feet, rises on Mt. Falterona (5400 feet) and flows towards the southeast between the Apennines and the Pratomagno, through a beautiful spacious valley that is the continuation of the Val di Chiana and is called Casentino. It appears that formerly the Arno flowed into the lake that occupied the valley of Chiana and was a tributary of the Tiber through the Paglia. Now the Arno, abreast of Arezzo, arches round the Pratomagno and flows through a series of narrow passes between that chain and the mountains of Chianti. At Pontassieve it receives the Sieve which flows through the valley of Mugello, and then, turning directly to the west, it enters upon the second straight course; it flows through Florence, receives the Bisenzio and the Ombrone of Pistoia and flows through the plain of Prato which was once the bottom of a lake; it enters the Pass of Golfolina, 7 miles in length, between Mt. Albano and the mountains of Chianti; thereafter it receives the Pesa, the Elsa, and the Era, on the left, and the Pescia on the right -- and in all this second course it flows over a low plain, between powerful artificial embankments. It empties into the sea at 6 miles from Pisa through a delta that is carried forward 16 feet each year. The Tiber (Tiberis). -- This is the most famous of all rivers, because there stands on its banks the city which of all has exercised the greatest influence upon the world, in ancient, as well as in modern, times. Geographically, the Tiber is the second river of Italy, in relation to its basin, and the third, in relation to its length, the first and the second being the Po and the Adige respectively. It flows from north to south, winding along the tenth meridian East of Greenwich, with an average breadth of about 500 feet, while the volume of its flood is 9500 cubic feet per second. It has a very sinuous course which is divided into four parts; the first of them is through a longitudinal valley, between the Apennines and the Sub-Apennines, called the Valley of the Tiber, the river passing by the town of Santo Sepolcro and the Città di Castello. It leaves Perugia on the right and receives the Chiascio, a river that has for affluents the Topino, which comes from the plain of Gubbio, and the Maroggia which itself receives the abundant waters of the Clitunno. At its juncture with the Chiascio, the Tiber begins its second tract: flowing in a south-easterly direction through a narrow valley of the Sub-Apennines of Umbria, it leaves Todi on its right and flows through the pass of the Forello, to receive the Paglia near Orvieto. The third division is in a south-easterly direction from the juncture of the Paglia to Passo Corese, where the Tiber receives the Nera, its largest tributary. The Nera, near Terni, receives the waters of the Velino through the falls of Marmore which are 530 feet high, the second waterfall of Italy, the first being that of Toce. The fourth division of the Tiber is through the Roman Agro, from Passo Corese to its mouth. The river divides Rome into two parts, and a little beyond the city it receives the Aniene, or Teverone, which forms the waterfall of Tivoli (347 feet) at the town of that name. The Tiber always carries a great amount of alluvial material, and consequently its mouth has always made encroachment upon the sea, and does so now by about 13 feet each year. The Isola Sacra divides the river into two branches; the southern one which washes Ostia is not navigable; the other, to the north, known as the Fiumicino Channel, is navigable and is formed by the so-called Trajan ditch. The Garigliano River in the first part of its course is called the Lin (Liris), but, after receiving the Rapido, it takes the name of Garigliano, because the Rapido in its lower part preserves its ancient name of Gari. Changing its direction, the Garigliano River flows around the Aurunci Mountains into the Gulf of Gaeta. In its higher course the River Liri, near Capistrello, receives the waters of the basin of Fucino through a subterranean passage nearly four miles long, the volume of the waters of the Liri being increased by 10,600 cubic feet per second. The rivers of Southern Italy empty into three different seas, the Tyrrhenian, the Ionian, and the Adriatic. With the exception of the Volturno, the Sele, the Bradano, the Basento, and the Sinni, none of the streams of Southern Italy deserve the name of river; they have the nature rather of torrents, especially those of Calabria which, when running full, are very destructive. The rivers of the Adriatic watershed flow perpendicularly to the coasts, with the exception of the Candellaro, which flows in a south-easterly direction; those on the Tyrrhenian in their upper courses form longitudinal valleys. The alluvial plain of Sibari, which is the largest plain of Calabria, was developed by the Crati and its affluents. The principal rivers of Southern Italy are: the Volturno (115 miles) which rises at Capo d'Acqua, on Mt. Rocchetta, with a considerable volume of water, receives the Vandra that flows from the plain of Carovilli, increased by the waters of the Cavaliere, on the banks of which stands Isernia. The Volturno thereafter flows through a broad valley, the bottom of which consists of the alluvial deposits of that river which, at the height of Presenzano, turns into a direction parallel to the Matese Mountains; in former times it probably maintained a southerly direction through the Teano depression and flowed along the present bed of the Saccione River. It receives the Calore River which flows into the Volturno at almost right angles, while the latter, turning to the west, flows through the Caiazzo Pass and opens onto the plain at Capua, with a breadth of about 500 feet, and from there on it is navigable as far as the sea (17½ miles). It flows into the sea through swampy lowlands that have been developed by its own alluvial deposits. The Sele takes its rise from numerous copious springs. Its principal affluent is the Tanagro, which disappears into the ground at Polla and appears again about one-third of a mile farther down the valley. The most important river of the Ionian versant is the Crati, that rises on the highland plain of Sila, passes through Cosenza, and flows through the depression between the Sila and the coast chains of the Apennines, which constitutes the valley of Cosenza. Near its mouth it receives the Coscile or Sibari, flowing from the Campotenese Pass, after having been engrossed by the waters of the Pollino. The Basento passes by Potenza and flows into the sea near the ruins of the ancient Metaponto. The Salerno-Potenza-Taranto railroad lies along the whole course of this river. The only stream of any importance on the Southern Adriatic watershed is the Ofanto River which beyond Conza describes an arc around the Vulture mass, the waters from which flow into the Ofanto through the Rendina River; the Locone is another of its affluents. Between the latter and the sea, the Volturno River supplies the waters of the artificial canal by which it is connected with Lake Salpi. (2) Lakes The Italian region has more lakes than rivers, especially on the plain of the Po, at the foot of the Alps. They are usually divided into (a) pre-Alpine lakes, (b) volcanic lakes, and (c) coast lakes. (a) Pre-Alpine Lakes These lakes that temper the climate of the Continental portion of the pre-Alpine region are one of the principal causes of the fertility of the soil, making possible the cultivation of the southern plains. The zone that contains them extends from Lake Orta to Lake Garda and is north of the moraine hills that close the entrance of the valleys of the Central Alps. Lake Orta or Cusio, north-west of Arona, is 950 feet above the level of the sea and has an area of about 7 sq. miles, with a maximum depth of 80 fathoms; its waters flow through the Nigaglia River into the Strona, a stream that enters into the Toce River which itself empties into Lake Maggiore (Lacus Verbanus). This lake stretches from north to south, the principal streams that flow into it being, at the north, the Ticino and the Maggia; on the west the Toce, and on the east the Tresa, which flows from Lake Lugano, and the Bardello which flows from Lake Varese. The River Ticino flows into Lake Maggiore at Magadino and leaves it at Sesto Calende. In its Gulf of Pallanza, Lake Maggiore contains the Borromean Islands, so famous for their beauty. The principal towns situated on the shores are Locarno in Canton Ticino, Pallanza, Intra, Luino, and Arona, the birth-place of St. Charles Borromeo, where stands his colossal statue in bronze, erected in 1697, having a height of 100 feet, including the pedestal, and representing the saint in the act of blessing Arona. Lake Lugano or Ceresio lies between Lake Maggiore and Lake Como; the Agno is the principal stream that flows into it, while its waters empty into Lake Maggiore through the Tresa River, On the shores of this lake are Lugano at the north, and Porlezza at the north-east, Capolago at the south, and Ponte Tresa at the west. Lake Como or Lario is formed by the River Adda that enters the lake at Colico and leaves it at Lecco, to form the minor lakes of Pescarenico, Olginate, and Brivio. Other streams flowing from Lake Como are the Mera, which receives the Liro, and the Pioverna. To the north of Lake Como is the minor lake of Mezzola through which flows the Mera. This small lake is in reality the narrowed part of Lake Como, developed by the alluvial deposits of the Adda. Bellagio Point divides Lake Como into two branches, the south-western one, which terminates at Como, and a south-eastern branch called Lake Lecco. Its varied shores are a beautiful garden of luxuriant vegetation, studded with villages, chapels, inns, and sumptuous villas. Manzoni made it still more celebrated by the description that he gave of it in his immortal novel, "I Promessi Sposi". Lake Iseo or Sebino is situated between Lakes Como and Garda, at the entrance of the valley of Camonica, and is formed by the Oglio River which enters it at Lovere and flows from it at Sarnico. It contains the island of Monte Isola on which are two villages of fishermen. Lake Garda or Benaco is the largest of the Italian lakes and the most southerly one of the Sub-Alpine region. The River Sarca is the principal stream that flows into it, while the Mincio is its chief outlet. Its smiling shores are covered with a growth of southern vegetation, the most notable places upon them being Riva, Salò, Desenzano, Peschiera, and Bardolino. The narrow peninsula of Sermione that protrudes into the lake between Desenzano and Salò was the happy sojourn of the Latin poet Catullus (Catul., XXXI, i); it is nearly two miles in length. Lake Idro is formed by the Chiese River, which is an affluent of the Oglio; it has an area of over 4 sq. miles, and its surface is 1200 feet above the level of the sea. Other minor lakes are those of Azeglio to the south-east of Ivrea, Varese, Alserio, Pusiano, Annone, and Segrino, between Como and Lecco; Lake Endine or Spinone between Val Seriana and Lake Iseo; Lake Molveno, Lake Ledro, west of Riva, and Lakes Caldonazzo and Levico, from which flows the Brenta. The lakes of the peninsula, besides being smaller than those of Continental Italy, are, almost all of them, of a volcanic nature, or are coast lakes. The lakes of Montepulciano and of Chiusi, however, at the southern extremity of the valley of Chiana, constitute a class of their own, together with Lakes Perugia and Matese, the latter, on the mountain group of the same name, having a length of 25 miles and a breadth of 625 mile, To this class belongs also the small Lake of Pergusa, in the Erei Mountains, in Sicily. The Lake of Perugia or Trasimeno is the largest lake of peninsular Italy and contains three islands, Polvese, Maggiore, and Minore. Its shores are low and marshy, and its waters, which abound in fishes, are carried by an artificial outlet into a sub-affluent of the Tiber. The lake in fact is a remnant of a larger one that covered nearly all of the valley of Chiana, and there is a project on foot to drain it dry. It was near Lake Trasimeno that Hannibal defeated the Romans in 217 b.c. The two minor lakes of Montepulciano and of Chiusi are of the same nature, and were probably a part of Lake Trasimeno, At the first of the two begins the Canal of Chiana, a work of the Grand Dukes of Tuscany, which drains the Chiana valley and directs its waters into the Arno. From the second. flows the Chiana River, which empties into the Paglia, au affluent of the Tiber. Wherefore, through these two lakes, connected by a canal, the Tiber and the Arno communicate with each other. (b) Volcanic Lakes Volcanic lakes are very plentiful in the peninsula; they are so called because they occupy the craters of extinct volcanoes, which accounts for their small dimensions. The principal one among them is Lake Bolsena (Lacus Vulsinius), containing two islands, Bisentina and Martana, on the second of which, it is said, Amalasuntha, the only daughter of Theodoric, was killed by Teodato in 534, The outlet of this lake is the Marta River. Other smaller volcanic lakes are those of Bracciano or Sabatino and Vico (Lacus Ciminus) which is situated between Lakes Bolsena and Bracciano at a height of 1650 feet above the level of the sea; also Lakes Albano and Nemi, near Rome, on the Albanian Mountains, having an area of 2.33 sq. miles and of .625 sq. miles, respectively, and an altitude of 961 ft. and of 1050 ft. Lake Albano having a depth of 558 ft., and Lake Nemi, a depth of 112 ft.; lastly, Lakes Averno, Agnano, and Lucrino, with others, in the Campi Flegrei, and Lake Gurrita, to the northwest of Mt. Etna. (c) Coast Lakes The Italian region abounds in lakes of this kind, but in many cases, rather than lakes, they are swamps that should be drained and their sites redeemed for agriculture. Among them the best-known are Lake Varano, to the north of Mt. Gargano; that of Salpi, between the Ofanto and the Carapella Rivers; Lake Lesina; Lake Massaciucoli, near the mouth of the Serchio (nearly 25 sq. miles); Lake Orbetello to the east of Mt. Argentario, with an area of 10 sq. miles; Lake Salso between the Carapella and Manfredonia; Lake Fondi to the east of Terracina; and the Lake of Fogliano, to the west of the Pontine Marshes; the lakes of Alimeni, in the Salentine peninsula; the swamps of Quartu, near Cagliari. (3) Canals There is no country in which a system for the distribution of waters is more complete than is that of northern Italy, a pre-eminence which the other portions of the kingdom do not share. In the country between the Adda and the Ticino, especially, a close network of canals and ditches, rivulets and aqueducts, now meeting, now separating from each other, intersecting or passing over and under one another, makes all the waters, whether of spring, river, or rain, available. Probably works of this kind existed in ancient times; it is certain, however, that they were resumed in the twelfth century; and from that time, the Italians spent enormous sums of money on this undertaking and employed in it a special intelligence that established their position as the first hydrologists of Europe. There is no greater manifestation of the wealth and of the civilization of medieval Italian Republics than these gigantic works. Physical Divisions Northern Italy is divided into the following regions, Piedmont, Lombardy, Venice, Emilia, and Liguria, which are politically subdivided into provinces. Piedmont, Lombardy, and Venice are the subjects of special articles. Emilia is subdivided into the provinces of Bologna, Ferrara, Forlì, Modena, Parma, Piacenza, Ravenna, Reggio nell' Emilia. Emilia, a region through which passes the ancient Emilian Way, whence the name, is quadrilateral in shape and embraces the territory formed by the north-east watershed of the Northern Apennines, and by the triangular plain, the sides of which are the Emilian Way, the Po, and the Adriatic Sea. The former is a rolling country ploughed by torrential streams that have washed out deep valleys, on which account its inhabitants live on the mountain sides; the apex of the triangular plain points towards Piacenza, while the base between Rimini and the mouths of the Po attains a length of 60 miles. It is a part of the great plain of the Po, the origin and nature of which it shares. In the district between Ferrara, the Po della Maestra, and Ravenna, it has lands that have not yet been drained, containing the so-called valli or lagoons of Comacchio, abounding in fish, and near which stands the town of the same name. They are connected with the sea by the Magnavacca Canal. Some of these valleys, like the polders of Holland, have been drained and are very fertile. The River Reno divides this region into two parts: the western, Emilia properly so-called, and the eastern, Romagna, a name that recalls the time when Ravenna was capital of the Western Roman Empire, and therefore called Romandiola, meaning Little Rome. All the roads from France, Germany, and Austria that lead directly to Brindisi, and by the Suez Canal to the Indies, pass through Emilia. The climate of this region is almost the same as that of the Continent, and agriculture is its chief industry, principally corn, sugar-beet, and cattle raising. In the lands around Bologna and Ferrara the cultivation of hemp predominates, of which staple these two districts are the chief centres of production. The cities of Emilia, with the exception of Ferrara and Ravenna, are all built on the Emilian Way, which skirts the base of the Apennines. Piacenza (pop. 36,000), on the Po, was an ancient Roman colony that became a republic in the Middle Ages and later with Guastalla a duchy of the House of Farnese. It is now a stronghold, defending the Pass of Stradella. Its communal palace of the thirteenth century and its cathedral of the twelfth century are notable structures. Piacenza was the birth-place of Melchiorre Gioja (1797-1829) and of the famous man of letters, Pietro Giordani. To the south-west of this city is the Field of Roncaglia, where the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa convoked his feudal lords to support the claims of the empire (1154-1159). The city of Bobbio (pop. 5000), on the River Trebbia, is famous for the convent founded there by St. Columbanus; and on the lower course of that river was fought a battle in 218 b.c. between Hannibal and the Romans, and one between MacDonald and Suvaroff in 1799. On the Arda is Fiorenzuola d'Arda (pop. 12,000), the birthplace of Cardinal Giulio Alberoni. In its neighbourhood were discovered the ruins of the ancient Veleia, and among them the famous Table of Trajan. Near Borgotaro, on the Taro River, where it receives the Ceno, is Fornovo, where Charles VIII of France defeated the Italian Confederation in 1495. In the valley of Stirone is Salsomaggiore, famous for its therapeutic springs; and in the plain is Borgo San Donnino (pop. 12,000), with its Gothic cathedral, and Busseto, the birth-place of the great musician Giuseppe Verdi. Parma (pop. 48,000), a very ancient Etruscan city on the Parma River, contains noble monuments, such as its cathedral and its baptistery. It became famous by its defence against Frederick II, who besieged it unsuccessfully (1247-48). It was the capital of a duchy under the princes of the House of Farnese and under the Bourbons of Spain. At the foot of the Pietra Bismantova (3440 feet) is the Castle of Canossa, where Queen Adelaide took refuge and where Gregory VII humiliated the Emperor Henry IV. Reggio (pop. 59,000), on the Crostolo River, once the capital of Cisalpine Gaul, was the birth-place of the poet Ariosto and of the famous astronomer of our times, Angelo Secchi, S.J. Where the River Secchia opens into the plain, stands Sassuolo, famous on account of its volcanic phenomena, called salse; and to the north-east is Modena (pop. 63,000), the ancient Roman city of Mutina, which became the capital of a duchy and was the birth-place of the naturalist Spallanzani, of Sadoleto, of Sigonio, and of Tassoni. It contains a military school, Vignola is the birth-place of Ludovico Antonio Muratori, and contains the famous Abbey of San Silvestro. Faenza (pop. 40,000) on the Lamone River was once famous for its majolica, called Faïence by the French. It is the birth-place of the physicist Torricelli. Cesena (pop. 42,000) is the birth-place of Pius VI and of Pius VII. Rimini (pop. 44,000), at the termination of the Emilian, and the beginning of the Flaminian Way, is rich in historical memories. It contains the bridge and the arch of Augustus, the church of St. Francis, called the Malatestan Temple, after the Malatestas, lords of the city, who caused the church to be built by Leon Battista Alberti. Two hours from Rimini, between the Marecchia and the Conca Rivers, rises San Leo, the stronghold where Berengarius II was made prisoner by Otto I and where the famous Cagliostro died. Ravenna (pop. 36,000), a most important port under the Romans, became the capital of the Western Empire, later the capital of the Goths, and finally of the Greek Exarchate. It has exceptionally fine examples of Byzantine architecture, among which should be mentioned the basilica of San Vitale. It is in this city that the immortal Catholic poet Dante Alighieri died, and where also is preserved his sepulchre. The ancient military port that was constructed by Augustus is now covered over, and the town is at a distance from the coast, with which it is connected by a small canal, 5 miles in length. Along the coast stretches the famous Pineta, 25 miles long, and from 1 to 2½ miles broad; but the negligence with which it is treated is allowing it to waste away. Liguria comprises the provinces of Genoa and Porto Maurizio and is bounded by the Apennines and the Ligurian Alps, and by the Roia and the Magra rivers. It is a mountainous country, with no other plains than the small one near Albenga. The mountain spurs that project into the sea produce an arc-shaped bay at the highest point of which is the port of Genoa. Rains, especially in the Apennines, are abundant (50 inches). This region is separated from the rest of Continental Italy by steep mountain ranges, but this barrier has been overcome by railroads that have made Liguria the natural outlet to the Mediterranean Sea for the valley of the Po and for western Germany. It has a maritime climate, but the natural fertility of its soil does not correspond with that climatic advantage, and therefore its inhabitants devote themselves to a seafaring life, as the fisheries along this coast are not remunerative. Sixty-one per cent of the population live on the coast. Where its soil is arable, Liguria produces oil, fruits, and flowers; but commerce is its chief industry. Between the Polcevera and the Bisagno Rivers, in the form of an amphitheatre, stands Genoa. (q. v.) Central Italy contains five regions: Tuscany, (q. v.), Umbria, Lazio, the Marches, Abruzzo and Molise. While northern Italy may be called the head, central Italy is the heart of Italy, for it was this section of the country which in ancient times, as well as in the Middle Ages, predominated by its prowess, by its laws, and by its religion, as in modern times by its arts and by its letters. The fertile genius of its inhabitants, together with the happy conditions of its soil and freedom from prolonged foreign domination, all conspire to intensify an artistic and literary sentiment and to maintain in the race the ethnical type of its ancestors, the Etruscans, the Marsians, the Umbrians, and the Latins -- who together conquered the world. The chief occupation of its inhabitants is farming, there being few manufacturing industries. Although this section has a coastline of 600 miles, it has only three ports: Ancona, which is the only one on the Adriatic Sea, and Leghorn and Civitavecchia on the Tyrrhenian Sea. The coasts of the latter sea being almost without inhabitants, owing to the malaria, Tuscany and Lazio have little or no seafaring populations; the corresponding shores on the Adriatic Sea, however, are abundantly peopled, but, as they are straight and low, they have no natural harbours, and consequently at the mouths of rivers small canal-ports have been dug out for fishing craft. This explains why the Marches and the Abruzzi have a considerable seafaring population that is devoted to the fishery, and not to navigation, as is the case in Liguria and Venice. The principal inland cities are Florence, on the banks of the Arno, and Rome on the Tiber. All the others, as Siena, Perugia, Urbino, and Pesaro, are famous cities that flourished in past centuries; but they have not a brilliant future under present economical conditions. Umbria consists of a single province called Perugia. It has an area of 3800 sq. miles, an estimated population, on 1 January, 1908, of 693,253 inhabitants. It is an essentially mountainous region, of which the elevation is determined by the dorsal aspect of the Apennines and by the parallel chains of the Umbrian Sub-Apennines that form the upper basin of the Tiber, the valley of Foligno, and the basin of the Nera and its affluents, or the highland plain of Norcia, the basin of Rieti, and the Sabine mountains. In the Middle Ages, the preference given to the Tuscan roads over the Flaminian Way, left Umbria in an isolated position, on which account it lived apart a life of faith and of artistic inspiration all its own. It has a mild climate, and agriculture and the raising of cattle are the chief occupations of its inhabitants. Perugia (pop. 61,000), one of the twelve Etruscan lucumonies or sacred towns, not far from the Tiber, contains many monuments of art, for the most part churches, and many antiquities. It was the adopted country of the Perugian Pietro Vannucci (1446-1524), the master of Raphael. Orvieto (pop. 18,000) is famous for its magnificent thirteenth-century cathedral, one of the grandest in Italy, especially on account of its splendid façade. At Gubbio, on the Chiascio, the Gubbio Tables were found. Assisi, the birth-place of St. Francis and of St. Clare, was the cradle of the Order of the Friars Minor. Its convent and church contain treasures of the mystic art of Umbrian painters and are the objects of devout pilgrimages. Spoleto (pop. 25,000), between the Ticino and the Maroggia Rivers, was the seat of a powerful Longobard duchy, and afterwards the residence of the Frankish dukes, of whom the last two, Guido and his son Lambert, were Kings of Italy. Terni (pop. 30,000), the ancient Interamna, home of the historian Tacitus, is now the site of important metallurgical works that use the waters of the Nera River, into which flows the Velino, over the famous Falls of Terni. Norcia (Nursia) was the home of St. Benedict; Narni, a very ancient city, on a precipitous height near the Nera, was the home of the Condottiere Gattamelata; Rieti is on a high plain called Agro Reatino, one of the most fertile lands in Italy, where celebrated grain is produced. Lazio consists of but one province, called Rome, and has an area of 7400 sq. miles, a population estimated to be 1,300,014 inhabitants, on the 1st January, 1908. Its boundaries are the Mediterranean from the mouth of the Fiora to Terracina, and the Rivers Liri, Turano, Farfa, Tiber, and Paglia. It includes the Roman Sub-Apennines and Anti-Apennines, the deserted, undulating Roman Campagna, the Pontine Marshes, and the promontories of Linaro, Anzio, and Circeo. The lands on the right of the Tiber, formerly inhabited by the Etruscans and afterwards conquered by the Romans, constitute the territory of Viterbo and the Campagna of Civitavecchia. The Albanian and Sabine hills and the valley of the Tiber among them constitute the Comarca, better known by the name of Agro Romano; the valley of the Sacco or Tolero, with the hills that surround it, forms a region that is called Ciociaria on account of the style of footgear affected by its inhabitants. Lazio has essentially a maritime climate. The principal occupation of its inhabitants is the growing of corn, grapes, and olives, and the raising of horses and of cattle. The region is represented by Rome, that owes its origin and the beginning of its greatness to the advantages of its topographical position. In the volcanic zones of the Roman Anti-Apennines the centres of population are on the hill-tops, the principal ones being Acquapendente, an Etruscan city on the Paglia, that received its name on account of a neighbouring waterfall; Bolsena, on the lake of the same name; Montefiascone, to the south of that lake, famous for its Moscato wine; Viterbo, on the skirts of Mt. Cimino, rich in historical memories of the popes, and in the neighbourhood of which are the famous hot springs called Bulicame: Civita Castellana, near the ruins of the ancient Faleria and of the Castello di Patierno, where Otto II died; Corneto, built on the site of the ancient Tarquinia; Civitavecchia (pop. 17,000), the ancient Centumcellæ, a port built by Trajan, and now the principal one of Lazio, Rome (q. v.). Ostia, founded by Ancus Marcius, was the ancient port of Rome, but now its ruins are totally buried and at a distance of one and a half miles from the sea. In the valley of the Aniene is Subiaco, and near it the cave to which St. Benedict, the founder of monasticism in the West, was wont to withdraw; Tivoli (Tibur) contains many ruins of ancient monuments and palaces. The falls of the Athene River at this point furnish Rome with electricity. In this neighbourhood are found the rich quarries of travertine marble that the Romans used so much in their monuments, and the sulphur springs, which are a bathing resort. By the wooded and vine-clad Albanian hills are the Castelli Romani, small villages that are popular summer resorts; Frascati, near the ruins of ancient Tusculum; Castelgandolfo, the papal villa; Marino; Ariccia, that has a splendid viaduct; Albano and Velletri (pop. 19,000). In the valley of the Sacco are Palestrina, upon the ruins of the ancient Præneste, which was the home of Pier Luigi, known as Palestrina, the prince of sacred music. Here remain still the ruins of the Temple of Fortune, famous for its oracles, called sortes proenestinoe. Anagni, the home of Boniface VIII, who there received grievous offence at the hands of Sciarra Colonna and of Nogaret, envoy of Philip the Fair, King of France. Alatri, which has a Pelasgian burial-ground; Terracina (pop. 11'000) on the sea, the former Anxur, a watering-place that was much frequented by the ancient Romans. The Marches, comprising the provinces of Ancona, Ascoli Piceno, Macerata, Pesaro e Urbino, is bounded by the Apennines, the Adriatic Sea, the Marecchia River at the north, and the Tronto at the south; it unites the ancient maritime Umbria and the northern half of the ancient Picenum. Originally, its elevation was formed by a group of mountain chains, parallel to the Apennines and diminishing in height as they approached the sea, but the rivers washed their way through these hills, cutting deep passes into them, so that now are seen only some isolated trunks that indicate the primitive direction of the chains. The climate of the Marches is less mild than that of Tuscany, and agriculture is its chief industry, while the fisheries, if they were well directed, would make the fortune of the numerous portion of the population that lives by that industry. This region, which in ancient times was inhabited by different peoples, became Romanized after the Flaminian Way, which was the chief outlet of Rome, had been carried through; but it lost somewhat of its importance when preference came to be given to the shorter way through Tuscany. It is a mountainous country that was subject to petty lordships, some of which were promoters of literature and the arts. The principal centres of population and places of historic interest are: Urbino (pop. 18,000), formerly the capital of a duchy (1213-1631) that was made famous by its fine arts; it was the birth-place of Raphael and of Bramante; Pesaro (pop. 25,000) at the mouth of the Foglia, the birth-place of the great musician Gioachino Rossini, and of the philosopher Terenzio Mamiani; Senigallia (pop. 23,000), the birth-place of Pius IX; Jesi (pop. 23,000), the birth-place of the Suabian Emperor Frederick II; Ancona (pop. 56.000), on the incline of a hill which forms an angle projecting into the sea. After Triest and Venice it is the most important port on the Adriatic Sea; it is famous for its heroic and successful defence when besieged in 1144 by Frederick Barbarossa. Not far from the mouth of the Musone, on a pleasant height, is Loreto, with its famous sanctuary, erected from plans by Bramante, and which according to pious tradition contains the Holy House of Nazareth that was transported from Dalmatia, by angels, to the place where later was erected this beautiful temple in honour of the glories of the Virgin. Macerata (pop. 23,000), between the Chienti and the Potenza, containing a university; Recanati (pop. 17,000), the birth-place of the modern lyric poet Giacomo Leopardi; Tolentino (pop. 13,000), famous for its sanctuary of St. Nicholas, of the Order of Hermits of St. Augustine. It was here that the treaty was signed between Napoleon I and Pius VI in 1797, and here, also, Murat was defeated in 1815. Camerino (pop. 12,000) was once the seat of a duchy, and has still a free university; Fermo (pop. 21,000) distinguished itself in the First Punic War by its firm fidelity to the Romans, whence its name; and finally, on the right of the Tronto, amid fertile lands, is Ascoli Piceno (pop. 29,000), a very ancient city and an enemy of Rome. Abruzzi and Molise The boundaries of Abruzzi and Molise are the Tronto River, the Adriatic Sea, the Fortore River, and an irregular line towards the Apennines. This region consists of the Altipiano or Abruzzo-Aquilano, along the seashore, which is divided into Abruzzo Teramano and Chietino; Molise, that consists of the entire watershed between the Sangro and the Fortore Rivers; the Marsica, which is formed of the basin of the Fucino River and of the upper valleys of the Liri and of the Salto. The climate is variable; severe on the uplands of Aquila and mild on the coast. The land is not very fertile, but pastoral pursuits are considerably developed: the flocks go for wintering to the Agro Romano or to Apulia, and especially to Capitanata, following very ancient grass-grown tracks called tratturi, which the flocks alone use. Industries are not flourishing, but they are being developed by the hydro-electric plants. The central part of this region may be called the Helvetia of the peninsula; in ancient times it was the home of the intrepid Sabini, Marsi, Marrucini, Peligni, and Frentani, who for more than a century checked the progress of Roman arms. They were subjugated, and then revolted under the Italic League; but Rome triumphed again, and from that time these people furnished the sinew of the Roman armies. Being a mountainous and poor country, it had little importance in the Middle Ages. Abruzzians have a great love for their native region; each winter great numbers of them, poor, honest, and industrious, go in search of work to Rome and to Naples, hut invariably return to their homes in the spring, with their savings. This population furnishes the largest contingent of Italian cooks, scullions, stable boys, hotel servants, and policemen. The principal centres of population are Teramo (pop. 24,000) on the Tordino River, formerly the capital of the Pretuzii, whence the name Aprutium, Abruzzo; Aquila (pop. 21,000) on the Aterno River, founded in 1240 by Frederick II, not far from the ruins of Amiterno, the capital of the Sabines and birth-place of Sallust; it is famous for its saffron; Solmona (pop. 18,000), a city of the Peligni and the home of Ovid; Castel di Sangro a strategic point at the opening of the Aquila-Naples road; Lanciano (pop. 18,000) has a beautiful cathedral; Campobasso (pop. 15,000), having a very old cutlery industry, and Tagliacozzo, at the source of the Salto or Imele River, an affluent of the Velino, where Conradin was defeated by Charles of Anjou, in 1268. Avezzano, formerly on the now drained Fucino River, is the most important place in the Marsica. Southern Italy The line drawn from the mouth of the Trigno River, on the Adriatic Sea, to that of the Garigliano, on the Tyrrhenian Sea, marks the shortest distance between those two waters and separates Southern from Central Italy. This division of the peninsula lies between three seas, the Adriatic, the Ionian, and the Tyrrhenian, and at its southern extremity, bifurcates into two peninsulas, the Salentine, which follows a south-easterly direction, and the Calabrian, which follows a south-westerly direction; and as the coasts are much more sinuous than those of Central Italy, it has yet other smaller peninsulas; they are the peninsula of Gargano, that of Sorrento, the promontory of Monteleone, and the headland of Sila, between the Gulfs of Squillace and of Taranto. The distance between the Gulf of Salerno and that of Manfredonia is 80 miles; between the Gulf of Taranto and the Tyrrhenian Sea, 30 miles, and between the Gulfs of Squillace and of Santa Eufemia 18 miles. Southern Italy is divided into the following regions: Campania, Apulia, the Basilicata, and Calabria. On account of its distance from the rest of Italy, which was increased by want of ways of rapid communications, Southern Italy had a civil and political life of its own; it suffered little from the incursions of the barbarians, but was occupied by the Greeks and by a few Normans who established there the first Kingdom of Italy. The Carlovingians and the Othonians did not succeed in binding it to the empire. Notwithstanding the fact that the peoples of the two watersheds of Southern Italy were politically united for eight centuries, and notwithstanding the undeniable ascendancy of Naples, its capital, the various sections of which this region consists were almost strangers to each other until within recent years, although the Apennines offered no serious obstacles to communication between the different parts of the country; this was due to the want of roads, for which little provision has been made, although laws have been passed to that effect. The great majority of the inhabitants are agriculturists whose homes, contrary to the custom in Northern and in Central Italy, are in the towns, of which they have all the vices, without any of the rural virtues. The country is divided into vast estates whose owners live at Naples or abroad, so that the labourer gives his day's work without any interest or love for the soil he cultivates. The soil is very fertile and rewards even the poorest tillage. The principal products are maize, corn, wine, olives, almonds, figs, and vegetables. Notwithstanding its length of coast, the region contains a sparse maritime population, and therefore secures little advantage from a sea that teems with riches for other people. Its industries are as yet little developed; nevertheless, there is already a naval arsenal at Castellamare, important metallurgical works at Naples and at Pozzuoli; factories for farinaceous foods, cotton mills, and others (Laws of 31 March, 1904, and 15 July, 1906, in favour of the Basilicata, of the South of Italy, Sicily and Sardinia). Campania comprises the provinces of Avellino or Principato Ulteriore, Benevento, Caserta or Terra di Lavoro, Naples, and Salerno or Principato Citeriore. It stretches from the Bay of Terracina to the Gulf of Policastro, except the valleys of the Tolero or Sacco and the Liri. Its elevation is formed by the Neapolitan and the Lucan Sub-Apennines and by the Neapolitan Anti-Apennines which form three different sub-regions, the Campania Plain or Terra di Lavoro, the Beneventana Basin, and the mountains of Cilento. The ancient Campania (from campus), so famous for the fertility of its soil and for the enchantments of its coast. extended from the Garigliano to the Gulf of Policastro and was the ancient seat of the Oscians and of the Ausonians. It was later subjugated by the Etruscans and the Samnites, and later still by the Romans, who made it a place of recreation. This delightful region, which seems to have been destined always to be conquered, whether by Romans or Greeks, Normans, French, or Spaniards, always assimilated its conquerors to itself, by the fascination of its beauty. Its climate is variable, and agriculture is the chief occupation of its people; the raising of cattle, however, is not much pursued. The industries are few, but they are being developed gradually by means of fiscal assistance, for which provision is made by the recent law that was promulgated in behalf of Southern Italy. The chief cities of this section are placed along the coast, between the coast and the Sub-Apennines, and between this mountain range and the Apennines. In the valley of the Liri is the thriving town of Sora (pop. 16,000), with its famous paper mills, called the Fibreno, after the waterfall of this tributary of the Liri which furnishes their power; the town is of Pelasgic origin; Arpino, the birth-place of Marius and of Cicero; Pontecorvo, a former possession of the Church; Aquino, the home of Juvenal and of St. Thomas, the prince of scholastic philosophy; on the Gari is Cassino, above which there stands upon an eminence the great Abbey of Montecassino, mother-house of the order established in 519 by St. Benedict of Nursia and the most ancient monastery in western Europe; Capua (pop. 14,000), on the Volturno River, a strong town that was founded by the Longobards on the ruins of the ancient Casilinum, where Narses defeated the Goths, and further to the south-east is Santa Maria Capua Vetere (pop. 22,000), occupying a part of the site of ancient Capua, which proved so harmful to the interests of Hannibal, and which, until the defeat of the Longobards, remained the second city of Italy; it was destroyed by the Saracens. The chief town of the Beneventana basin is Benevento. Avellino is an agricultural city in the neighbourhood of which is the famous sanctuary of Monte Vergine to which pilgrimages are made. In the Campania plain are Caserta (pop. 33,000), founded by the Longobards in the eighth century, having a villa and royal palace, built by Charles III of Bourbon; this wonderful architectural production of Vanvitelli, after many years of deplorable abandonment, is about to be restored by Victor Emmanuel III; Nola (pop. 15,000), a very ancient city where Augustus died and where were born St. Paulhius, one of the best Christian poets, and the apostate Giordano Bruno; Aversa (pop. 23,000), the first possession of the Normans in Italy; Montesarchio, southeast of Benevento, is probably in the neighbourhood of the ancient Caudium on the Appian Way; from which the famous pass, so fateful to the Romans, was named the Caudine Forks. On the coast is Gaeta, a stronghold; it has a good port and is noted for the sieges that it underwent in 1799, 1806, and 1861. Pius IX took refuge there in 1848, as did also the last King of Naples, Francis II of Bourbon. Naples is treated in a special article (q. v.). In Pozzuoli (pop. 17,000) the ruins of the Temple of Augustus and of that of Serapis are witnesses of the former splendour of the town, near which is obtained the pozzolana earth that is excellent for building purposes. At the foot of Mt. Vesuvius are Portici and Resina, under which, at a depth of from 65 to 100 feet lies Herculaneum that was buried under torrents of lava in the year 79 of the Christian Era. Farther to the east are the ruins of Pompeii, buried also by the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius; but, contrary to what happened at Herculaneum, Pompeii was buried under heaps of ashes, on which account the excavations that were begun there in 1748 were relatively easy, and now the town is almost entirely unearthed. Another city destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius, in the same eruption, was Stabiæ over which is now built Castellamare, amid attractive surroundings, and having a good harbour and important docks. Sorrento, a beautiful spot, was the home of Torquato Tasso. The Parthenopian Islands rise around the Bay of Naples; they are Nisida, at the entrance of the Gulf of Baja; Procida that gave its name to the conspirator Giovanni da Procida, the enemy of the French; Ischia, with the volcano of Epomeo; Capri, mountainous and picturesque, and famous for its blue cave and for its wines; it was the last home of Tiberius. Salerno (pop. 42,000) is at the northernmost point of the gulf of its name; it was once the seat of a famous school of medicine and was an important place under the Longobard and the Norman kings; the cathedral of St. Matthew, where the great Pope Gregory VII is buried. was erected by Robert Guiscard and is one of the grandest Norman structures in Italy. Amalfi, in the Middle Ages, one of the strongest of the maritime republics, a rival of Genoa and of Pisa, was destroyed by them. It had the glory of framing laws, the "Amalfian Tables", by which maritime and commercial relations were regulated. Cava dei Tirreni contains a famous abbey of the Benedictine Order. To the south-east of the mouth of the Sele are the much admired ruins of Pæstum, which was founded by the Greeks, about the year 600 b.c., under the name of Poseidonia; the Temple of Neptune there is one of the most beautiful examples of Greek architecture in existence. Eboli (pop. 12,000) is an important road centre of this part of Italy. Apulia comprises the provinces of Bari or Terra di Bari, Foggia or Capitanata, Lecce or Terra d'Otranto. The territorial boundaries of this region are the coasts of the Ionian Sea, as far as the mouth of the Bradano, this river and its tributary the Basentiello, the Saddle of Spinazzola, the Locone, the crest of the Apennines and that of the mountains of Capitanata as far as the mouth of the Biferno. Its topographical configuration is determined by the Promontory of Gargano, by the heights of the Murgie, and by the Tavoliere. The Murgie heights and the Promontory of Gargano at one time were two separate islands, and it is probable that the southern Murgie, to the south-east of Brindisi and Taranto were also islands. Apulia was debarred from exercising influence on neighbouring peoples, and its subjugation by them was made easy by reason of its position, its topographical conditions, and the character of its inhabitants, the Apulians, the Daunians, the Messapians, the Japygians, who were never of a warlike disposition. In ancient times, as at present, Apulia was the station between the East and the West; it was in the possession of the Greeks until the tenth century, when the Normans conquered it and established there the countship of Apulia, their first possession. This region has a mild climate and is essentially an agricultural country, wonderfully fertile in some parts; it has the disadvantage of lacking a sufficiency of water, but this defect is being remedied by the construction of a great aqueduct that will bring the waters of the Sele to this section. Its chief products are wines, oil, grain, almonds, and figs. Manufacturing industries are as yet little developed, Its principal towns are Foggia (pop. 53,000), the capital, on the right bank of the Celone River, in the heart of the Tavoliere; it is a railroad centre and a grain and wool market; it contains the notable ruins of the palace of Frederick II; Lucera (pop. 17,000), an ancient city upon a height, destroyed in the seventh century and rebuilt by Frederick II, who took to it Saracens from Sicily; Manfredonia (pop. 12,000) was founded by King Manfred, near the ruins of Sipontum; Monte Sant' Angelo, at the foot of Gargano, contains the famous sanctuary of St. Michael the Archangel; Cerignola (pop. 33,000), famous for the victory of the Spaniards over the French in 1503; Barletta (pop. 42,000), a former fortress, on the coast; here occurred the challenge of Barletta on 16 May, 1503; and in its neighbourhood was Cannæ, where Hannibal destroyed the Roman army; Trani, a port that was famous during the Crusades; Bari (pop. 78,000), a commercial port, containing the famous sanctuary of St. Nicholas. In the interior is Canosa (pop. 24,000), the ancient Canusium, not far from the position on the Ofanto River where the Romans found refuge after the defeat of Cannæ; it contains ancient tombs and also that of Bohemund the crusader; Altamura, on the Murgie Mountains, was the birth-place of the musician Mercadante. Terra d'Otranto, which comprises nearly the entire Salentine peninsula, was called the Tuscany of Southern Italy. Its four important seaports, Brindisi, Otranto, Taranto, and Gallipoli are situated respectively at the angles of a quadrangle, in the interior of which is Lecce, the capital. Brindisi (pop. 25,000), which is built on two inlets in the shape of horns, was in the time of the Romans a most important commercial and naval port, where the Appian, the Trajan, and the Tarentine Ways terminated. It was neglected in the Middle Ages, but in our days it has returned to new life and has become a station of communication with India. Otranto is famous for its sack by the Turks in 1480. Gallipoli (pop. 14,000) does a considerable commerce in oil and in wines. Taranto (pop. 61,000), the ancient Tarentum, is on the canal that unites the Mare Grande and the Mare Piccolo; it was founded by the Spartans, and through the fall of Sibani, became the strongest and richest town of Magna Græcia, but decayed after its defeat by the Romans; now it is one of the three principal points of naval defence and supplies of the Kingdom of Italy, the other two being Spezia and the Maddalena. Lecce (pop. 32,000) stands at a distance of less than a mile from the sea in a fertile plain, where tobacco is cultivated. The Basilicata forms a single province called Potenza, after the name of its chief town. It is bounded by the valley between the Murgie and the Apennines, the Ofanto River, the group of Mt. Santa Croce, the Maddalena Mountains, the Pollino group, and the Ionian Sea. It has the shape of a horseshoe, with its calks on the Ionian Sea. Originally the Basilicata must have been a high plain, like that of Sila, but having been deeply ploughed by the waters, it became a rough and disjointed country, in which communication is very difficult. Its coasts are infected by malaria, on account of the swamps formed by the rivers and of neglect; and yet on these now deserted coasts there flourished Metapontum and Eraclea, cities of Magna Græcia. Besides its dense forests, the mode of life of its inhabitants, separated as they are from the rest of the country on account of the difficulty of communications, contributes to keep this region in a condition inferior to that of the other parts of the kingdom. The climate varies with the altitudes, and is also subject to sudden changes. Agriculture and herding are the principal occupations of its people, among whom industries and commerce are not developed. In view of the fact that the country is divided into vast estates, the peasants are very poor, and they emigrate, so that the census of 1901 showed a great falling off in the population. Potenza (pop. 16 000), the chief town, built at a height of 2700 feet above the sea, near the source of the Basento River, is relatively a modern city, because the ancient one, which was on the plain, at the place called La Murata, was destroyed by Frederick II and by Charles of Anjou. Melfi (pop. 15,000), on the slopes of Mt. Vulture, was the capital of the Normans and a stronghold of Robert Guiscard. Venosa was the home of Horace; Matera (pop. 17,000) has a splendid site. Calabria comprises the provinces of Catanzaro or Calabria Ulteriore II, Cosenza or Calabria Citeriore, Reggio Calabria or Calabria Ulteriore I. Calabria includes the extreme western limit of the Italian peninsula and is connected with the rest of Italy by the Pollino group, which is its northern boundary, on all other sides it is bounded by the sea. A considerable narrowing between the Gulfs of Santa Eufemia and Squillace divides Calabria into its northern and southern parts. In ancient times it was called Bruzio, and on its Ionian coast stood the luxurious Sibari and the powerful Cotrone, with other famous cities of Magna Græcia. In the Middle Ages the pirates infested the coasts, whose inhabitants were driven to the mountains and abandoned the care of the waters so that the coasts became swampy; this is the reason why Calabria does not furnish a maritime population in proportion to the development of its coasts. Calabria is the land of all Europe that is most desolated by earthquakes. Its climate varies, according to altitude, between a southern climate on the Ionian coast and an Alpine one on the heights. It is an agricultural country of which the principal products are grain, oil, wines, figs, and especially bergamot, for the extraction of its essence. The extensive forests of Sila produce timber; there is some grazing of cattle, but the prevalence of vast landed estates keeps the labourers in poverty, and they emigrate to countries beyond the sea. Beginning at the north, the principal cities are Cosenza (pop. 21,000), capital of the Bruttians, on the Crati River, at its confluence with the Basento, in the bed of which, according to tradition, Alaric was buried with his treasures. On the mountain sides there are distributed sixteen Albanian towns, of which Spezzano is the most important. Corigliano (pop. 13,000) has a beautiful castle. San Giovanni in Fiore (pop. 13,000), on the Sila, was so called on account of a famous abbey that it contains; here, in 1844, the brothers Bandiera, who landed at the mouth of the Neto River to bring about an insurrection in Calabria, were defeated and taken prisoners. Castrovillari (pop. 10,000) is an ancient city on the slope of the Pollino, and Paola on the Tyrrhenian coast, the birth-place of St. Francis of Paola, the founder of the Order of Minims (1416-1507), contains a very famous sanctuary. Catanzaro (pop. 32,000) is built upon a height above the valley of Marcellinara. Squillace, on the gulf of the same name, was the birth-place of Cassiodorus, a civil officer of Theodoric. Cotrone, on the site of the victorious rival of Sibari. and seat of the Pythagorean school, is now only a small port. At Pizzo, on the Gulf of Santa Eufemia, Joachim Murat, once King of Naples, was shot 17 October, 1815. Nicastro (pop. 18,000) has a population of Albanian origin. Filadelfia was founded in 1783 by the survivors of Castelmenardo, a town that was destroyed by an earthquake. Reggio (pop. 45,000), a beautifully situated city of Greek origin, has undergone many calamities at the hands of men and by the action of nature; it was devastated by the Romans, by Totila, by the Saracens, by the Pisans, by Robert Guiscard, and by the Turks, and it was almost totally destroyed by the earthquake of 1783. It rose again, beautiful and splendid, but a more terrible earthquake. on 28 December. 1908, reduced it to a heap of ruins, under which were buried more than the half of its inhabitants. As has been seen, large cities are numerous in Italy; in fact, that country contains a greater number of them, in proportion to territorial extent and to population, than does any other country in Europe; there are 65 cities with a population of more than 35,000 inhabitants each. This abundance of large cities, surrounded by smaller ones, is of great historical and artistic importance; it is also the cause of the limited influence of the capital upon the life of the nation, in contrast with the rule that obtains in other countries. Climatology As a whole, Italy has a good climate, due to the Alpine wall that screens it from the northern wind and to the sea that surrounds it on three sides. From the Tyrrhenian and the Adriatic Seas arise vapours, with alternating winds, those from the south-west (Libeccio) and those from the south-east (Scirocco), which blow from the middle of September to the end of spring and which accumulate the sea vapours on the Apennine heights, where they are precipitated in rain and snow, and whence they furnish to the soil the humidity necessary for vegetation. Unhappily, the ill-advised devastation of forests over a great portion of the Apennines has destroyed, in great measure, what provident nature had done in that connexion for the good of Italy. The mean rainfall as a rule is between 20 inches and 60 inches, but it is subject to a considerable fluctuation on account of topographical conditions; so that it increases to a maximum of 100 inches on the Alps. The Tyrrhenian coast has a heavier waterfall than that of the Adriatic; while the plain of Apulia and the Salentine peninsula are the driest regions of Italy. In the north the most copious rainfalls occur in October and in the spring, and then the rivers of the valley of the Po are at their highest, whereas little rain falls in winter. In peninsular and in insular Italy the winter rains, on the contrary, are heaviest, and the absence of drainage causes the waters that overflow from the river-beds to inundate the lowlands of the coast and thereby to develop malaria. from which only six provinces are free. The regions where this evil prevails to the greatest extent are the Tuscan Maremma, the Roman Agro, the Basilicata, and almost the whole of Sardinia. Snow falls with frequency in the Alpine region and in the valley of the Po; it is more abundant along the Adriatic watershed than on that of the Tyrrhenian Sea. Fauna and Flora Italy lies within the Palearctic region, in which live a majority of the animals useful to man. It lies within the Mediterranean division of the floral kingdom and contains five botanical divisions: + (1) the Alpine region, limited to the higher parts of the Alps and of the Apennines, between the highest line of forest vegetation and the lowest line of perpetual snows; characteristic of it are the edelweiss (Leontopodium alpinum), the rhododendron and the Alpine grasses of the reed (Cyperaceoe), the rush and the clover variety. + (2) The mountain or forest region, of which the pines and beeches are characteristic. + (3) The region of the Po, devoid of forests and of evergreens; here grow vines, the elm, the mulberry, the poplar, the willow, the elder, hemp, flax, etc. + (4) The Mediterranean or evergreen region, which comprises the remainder of the peninsula and of which are characteristic the evergreen trees and plants, as the olive, the fir, the cypress, the orange, the lemon, the myrtle, and the oleander. + (5) The submarine region, which comprises the various sea-weeds. The Italian flora contain 14,912 species, of which 325 have been introduced from Asia, Africa, and America. DEMOGRAPHY (1) The People of Italy It would seem that in the quaternary period man lived in Italy, together with species of animals that have been lost or have emigrated, and witnessed those great commotions of the earth through which the sea receded from the lands of the Po, the Apennines arose, and the volcanoes of Lazio and of Campania became active. There has been much discussion as to the origin of the early inhabitants of Italy, as to the way by which they came, and as to the periods of their immigration, but, until now, only the most contradictory hypotheses have been reached. The most recent results that have been furnished by palætiology, by linguistics, and by archæology would show that Italy and a considerable part of Western Europe were primitively occupied by a race having a dolichocephalic cranium, and therefore of a branch of the family of Cham. Relatively nearer to our times, there are two orders of the Aryan immigration into Italy: the primitive and the posterior immigrations. In the former (1200-800 b.c.) we find two very ancient races, the Messapico-Iapygian, which came of the Illyrian trunk, and the Italic, properly so called. It would seem that the Messapians came by sea from Greece; and at a later period, by land, the Iapygians, who occupied the Adriatic coast, from Gargano to Cape Leuca, and were, possibly, the historical Autochthonians of the peninsula. The Italics, who are divided into two great families, the Latins and the Umbrians, descended into Italy from the East, or, as seems more probable, from the North, by the valleys of the Inn, of the Adige, and of the Adda, and occupied the plain of the Po; but, other peoples appearing, they moved to the south of the peninsula and became identified with the Latins, occupying the western watershed and dividing into the branches called Oscans, Ausonians, and OEnotrians or Italics. Then came the Umbrians, whose rule lasted a short time; and, having heen defeated by the Gauls on the Po and by the Etruscans on the Arno, they withdrew to that region to which they gave the name of Umbria. But, a great family of this race, the Sabines, passed farther on and established itself on the highland of Rieti, nearer Campania and Apulia; and having increased greatly in their new territory, they gave origin to the Samnian, Marsian, Pelignian, Vestinian, Marrucinian, and other peoples. That broad territory that lies between the right of the Tiber, the Apennines, and the sea, came to be inhabited by the Etruscans, called also Rasenans or Tyrrhenians. As to the origin of this people there are two opinions, that of Herodotus, according to which the Etruscans came by sea, driven from Lydia by famine; and the other, that of Niebuhr, Mommsen, and Helbig, according to which the Tyrrhenians came into Italy by land, over the Rhætian Alps. Of the primitive inhabitants of Italy, these were the ones who reached the highest degree of civilization, as is shown by the splendid remnants of their cities and by the objects found in their tombs; it is a pity that their language is not yet known. Later immigrations were those of the Gauls and of the Greeks. The Gauls, who were formerly held to be of Celtic origin, which now, however, is doubted, came down from the Alps at the beginning of the sixth century b.c., divided into several families: Cenomanian, Insubrian, Boian, Senonian, etc. They were harsh and rapacious peoples, who made Cisalpine Gaul return to the barbarous state out of which the Etruscans had taken it, and often, in later historical ages, their nefarious influence was carried over the whole of Italy. On the southern portion of the peninsula there were established numerous Greek colonies, whose cities, as we have seen, arose to great power and splendour, whence the name Magna Groecia, given to the southern part of Italy. This portion of the peninsula was also inhabited by the Ligurians and by the Venetians, the origin of which races is not yet established. Some persons consider the Ligurians to be a very ancient race, preceding the Aryans and allied to the Iberians, while other authorities hold that the Ligurians were of Celtic origin. However that may be, this people occupied a great portion of the western watershed of Italy, and then, expelled by the Italics and by the Etruscans, they sought new homes on the Rhone and on the Pyrenees. It would seem that the Venetian race originated in Illyria and that its expansion in Continental Italy was stopped by the Gauls; at any rate, this people, who, unlike the Etruscans, had not abandoned a pastoral life and its habits, knew a great deal about agriculture, which was the basis of private life and social relations among the primitive Italic peoples. (2) Population In 1770 the population of the territory that now constitutes the Kingdom of Italy was in round numbers 16,477,000 inhabitants; at the beginning of the nineteenth century it had grown to 18,125,000; and the census of 1901 showed a population of 32,475,253 inhabitants, implying an average annual increase of 7.38 per cent from 31 December, 1881. On 1 January, 1908, Italy had 33,909,776 inhabitants, being, therefore, the sixth state of Europe from the standpoint of population. The mean density of the population is 307 inhabitants per sq. mile, which is the highest in Europe, after Belgium, Holland, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; but, when it is considered that those countries are agricultural, industrial, and commercial while Italy is devoted essentially to agriculture, and is backward in the development of that industry, its population is shown to be dense, which accounts for emigration. The population, moreover, is very unevenly divided over the territory, according as life is more or less easily supported by the fertility of the soil, by industry, or by commerce. The most crowded population is that of the province of Naples: 3448 inhabitants per Sq. mile; after that come the province of Milan, the district of Genoa, the coast of Apulia, between Barletta and Monopoli, and the slope of Mt. Etna. The province of Sassari is the one least inhabited (80 inhabitants per sq. mile); but there are extensive regions, such as the Roman Campagna and the plateau of the Murgie, that are almost uninhabited. As to the distribution of population, 71.8 per cent of the inhabitants live in towns and 28.2 per cent live a country life. It is only in Venice and in Tuscany that the numbers of the town and country dwellers almost balance each other, while in Emilia, the Marches, and Umbria the country population is almost double that of the towns, while the opposite is the case in Sicily and in Sardinia. It is to be regretted that an ever-increasing tendency towards agglomeration is manifested, which, together with the absence of the landowners from the small centres where their properties are located, is the source of great economical, educational, and moral evil. Foreign residents in the kingdom, on 10 January, 1901, which is the date of the last census, numbered 61,606, of whom 37,762 were permanent residents, and of these there were 9079 Swiss, 7995 Austrians, 5748 Germans, and 5033 French, after whom came in order of numbers the English and the North Americans. The highest averages of marriages are furnished by Abruzzi and Molise (9.1), Campania and Calabria (8.1), Apulia (8.2), and the Basilicata (9). The highest birthrates are those of Lombardy, Venice, Apulia, and Calabria. And here it maybe observed that depopulation through the vice of neo-Malthusianism begins to show itself also in Italy, especially in the large cities, considering that the average of 36, in 1872-75, is reduced now to 31.4, notwithstanding the fact that the average of marriages has remained approximately constant; and while there is an average excess of 10.6 per 1000 of births over deaths, it is due, not entirely to the increase in births, but to the notable decrease in mortality, the average of which has fallen from 30.5, in 1872-75, to 20.8 in 1907. Sociology cannot overlook the alarming increase in the number of the still-born which is found especially in the cities of more than 100 000 inhabitants. In 1907 there were 4.33 for every 100 births, including those born dead. The lowest averages of mortality are furnished by Piedmont and by Liguria (19.7); and the highest are those of Lombardy (23), Apulia (25), the Basilicata (27), and Sardinia (24). Tubercular and intestinal maladies and pneumonia furnish the highest figures to the death-rate, together with acute and chronic bronchitis and heart disease. In 1907 there were 1315 homicides (3.9 per 100,000 inhabitants) and 2312 suicides (6.9 per 100,000 inhabitants). (3) Emigration Italy is subject to this very important sociological phenomenon, not only on account of over-population, as some believe, but, because capital does not promote industries, which is due to a moral as well as to an economic cause, the former being a lack of confidence between lender and borrower, and the latter, an exaggerated fiscalism and the want of a protective tariff; it is due also to a social cause, namely the subverting theories with which socialism inspires the working classes. These are the true mediate reasons for Italian emigration that produces a lack of labour, and, therefore, economical disorder, which itself is the immediate cause of Italian expatriation; all the other causes, such as the example of relatives and of friends who emigrate, the cheapness of travel, the facility of receiving news and of returning home, and the propaganda of navigation companies are of little consequence, when they do not rest upon economic uneasiness -- which has been the determining element of every migratory movement in the world -- nor can any human power prevent its effects. The law of 31 January, 1901, regulates emigration, and it is to be hoped that its provisions will remain in force, because the State should not promote, encourage, or guide the currents of emigration. Figures are clearer than words in these matters. YEARS TOTAL EMIGRATION EMIGRATION TO EUROPE AND TO MEDITERRANEAN COUNTRIES TRANSOCEANIC EMIGRATION ACTUAL NUMBER PER 100,000 INHAB ACTUAL NUMBER PER 100,000 INHAB PER 100 EMI- GRANTS ACTUAL NUMBER PER 100,000 INHAB PER 100 EMI- GRANTS 1876-1880 1881-1885 1886-1890 1891-1895 1896-1900 1901-1905 1906 1907 1908 108,797 154,141 221,977 256,511 310,435 554,050 787,977 704,675 486,674 390 536 744 831 972 1683 2356 2094 1435 82,201 95,146 90,694 109,076 148,533 244,808 276,042 288,774 248,101 295 331 304 353 465 744 825 858 732 76 62 41 43 48 44 35 41 51 20,596 58,995 131,283 147,444 161,902 309,242 511,935 415,901 238,573 95 205 440 478 507 939 1531 1236 703 24 38 59 57 52 56 65 59 49 The difference between temporary and permanent emigration is no longer taken into account in statistics, for the very good reason that it does not show positive facts, either because of the facility of translocation, or because the emigrant, having found work and comforts at the place to which he has emigrated, may establish there his home. In any case, temporary emigration occurs more frequently from the provinces of Venice, Lombardy, and Piedmont, and is directed more especially towards France, Switzerland, Austria, and the Balkans. Sixty-four per cent of the emigrants are farm labourers. The regions that furnished the largest numbers to the total emigration in 1906 were Piedmont, Venice, the Marches, the Abruzzi, Campania, the Basilicata, Calabria, and Sicily. With relation to transoceanic emigration the largest proportions per 100,000 were furnished by the Marches (2222), the Abruzzi (3593), Campania (2677), the Basilicata (3764), Calabria (3953), and Sicily (3390). From 1 July, 1906, to 30 June, 1907, there emigrated to the United States 285,731 Italians, nearly 43 per cent of the total of emigration. In 1907, during the economical crisis in the United States, 154,500 Italians who had emigrated returned to their country, and there was a suspension in emigration -- only a suspension, because in the first six months of 1909 there were 210,432 emigrants, of whom 187,086 went to the United States, an increase of 152,320 and 151,406, respectively, over the corresponding figures for the first six months of 1908. The undesirable element in Italian emigration is not furnished by the illiterate cafone, who has given -- and continues to give -- actual value to lands in the United States, but rather, by ungodly educated emigrants who use their unfortunate fellow-countrymen, as well as the native of his class, for their own ends. Is Italian emigration a good or an evil? For the economy of Italy it is a good, seeing that the credit of Italians in foreign countries, on 31 December, 1908, in the savings postal accounts amounted to 290,979,711.94 lire ($12,000,000 nearly), and the deposits of emigrants for the period of 1 January, 1909, to 31 August, 1909, amounted to 21,702,664.20 lire. In other words, there are nearly 4,000,000 Italians scattered over the world, like the overflow of a prolific and sober race, in search of better living; and over the world is said advisedly, because the Italian emigrant, overcoming all obstacles, as poverty and ignorance, goes, exploited and little protected withal, into distant lands, among peoples whose customs are totally different from his own, and whose languages are unknown to him. This adaptability to climate and to social life is indicative of his cosmopolitan character. (4) Language and Religion Although the population of Italy is ethnically mixed, and although there is considerable variation in its physical types, it is nevertheless different from that of all the other countries of Europe in the astonishing unity of its culture, of its language, and of its religion. That which is foreign is soon absorbed; and the Italian nation has the further advantage that, although it has a population of nearly 36,000,000 inhabitants, only 2,000,000 of them are subject to foreign governments. The Roman conquests spread popular Latin, first, over Italy, and then over the known world; it was at first slowly altered by the linguistic habits of the various countries, and then, more rapidly, through the decay of the Roman Empire and through distance from Rome. Thus originated the Romanesque or neo-Latin languages, and the first of them, by its historical excellence, is the Italian, which is the pure and clear continuance of vulgar Latin, because the latter, in Italy, was unaccompanied by other tongues. Formerly it was the principal commercial language known by foreign peoples, especially by those of the Levant. At present it is spoken by nearly 36,000,000 people. The dialects that properly belong to the Italian system are the Tuscan, which is the typical and the literary language of the Italians, the Venetian, Corsican, Sicilian and Neapolitan, the Umbro-Roman, and the Marchisan. To the Gallo-Italic system belong the dialects of Liguria and of Piedmont and the Lombard-Emilian. Those are the principal dialects, spoken in the various regions after which they are respectively named, having themselves subdivisions that are due to phonetic alterations. To the neo-Latin non-Italian dialects belong the Franco-Provençal, which is spoken in the high valleys of the Western Alps, and the Ladino or Reto-Roman dialect, which is spoken in the Canton of the Grisons, in Friuli, and in Molise. The German language is spoken in Piedmont and in Venetia by the descendants of colonies that were established in those provinces in the eleventh and in the twelfth centuries. The language of Albania is spoken by the descendants of colonists who went to Southern Italy and to Sicily, in 1461, with Skanderbeg after the fall of Albanian independence. The descendants of the Greeks who migrated to Calabria and to the territory of Otranto, between the ninth and the eleventh centuries, preserve their original language. In all, there are nearly 770,000 persons in Italy who speak languages other than Italian. The predominant religion is the Catholic, to which belong 97.12 per cent of the population. The census of 1901 showed the presence of 65,595 Protestants and of 35,617 Jews, while 795,276 persons made no mention of their religion in their declarations. (5) Arts In the first half of the Middle Ages, among the fine arts religious architecture reached a certain degree of perfection; the churches which it created reproduced the ancient Roman basilicas (Santa Maria Maggiore, San Clemente, and others, in Rome), and its baptisteries, octagonal in form, imitated celloe of the Roman baths; in this way the Christian-Roman or neo-Latin style was developed. At the same time the Greeks brought the Byzantine style to Italy (San Vitale in Ravenna, 537, and San Marco in Venice, 876). Towards the year 1000 there appeared in Italy the Romanesque style, which substituted the vaulted roof for the plain ceiling (the cathedral of Pisa); while Arabic influence was felt in Sicily in the construction of the magnificent cathedral of Monreale and of its adjacent cloister. Towards the latter part of the Middle Ages, painting, through the impetus given to it by Giotto, produced true masterpieces. Among the painters who became famous at that time are Senesi, Buoninsegna, and Martini, the two Gaddi, Fra Angelico, and Masaccio, who was the true founder of the modern school of painting. Among the famous sculptors were the two Pisanos, Orgagna, Ghiberti, and -- most famous of them all -- Donatello (1386-1466), who may be called the Masaccio of sculpture. Finally, we should name Luca della Robbia, a popular sculptor who invented the terra-cotta process that is known by his name. The erroneously so-called Gothic style that was developed in France was brought into Italy, where, however, it was not fully adopted, except in the cases of the church of St. Francis at Assisi and of the cathedral of Milan; the churches of Santa Maria Novella and of Santa Croce in Florence, the cathedrals of Siena and of Orvieto and others are based upon it, as are, among other civil edifices, the Ducal Palace in Venice, the Orgagna Loggia, in Florence, and the communal palaces of Udine and Siena. The Renaissance in the first decades of the sixteenth century led to the further development of the fine arts, and great masterpieces were produced. Here it is enough to mention the three great names of Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519), Michelangelo Buonarroti (1474-1564), and of Raphael Sanzio (1483-1520), which have made that age immortal. In architecture Roman forms were adopted, and the first examples of Renaissance architecture were the churches of Santa Maria dei Miracoli in Venice, San Lorenzo in Florence, etc.; and among civil buildings, the Pitti and the Strozzi palaces in Florence, the ducal palace of Urbino, etc. The best architects were Bramante, Giacomo Barozzi, called Vignola, Peruzzi, Palladio, the two Sangallos, Sansovino, and Buonarroti, who planned the cupola of St. Peter's. Sacred music reached its acme in the compositions of Palestrina (1529-1594). The straining after odd and exaggerated forms which were condemned in the literature of the seventeenth century also appears in the architecture and in the sculpture of that time. Bernini (1598-1680) and Borromini (1599-1677), men of great but bizarre genius, introduced the barocco style which was disfigured by their imitators. But painting remained free from the defects of that period, through the influence of Dolci, Sassoferrato, the two Carracci, Albani, Domenichino, and Guido Reni. The heavy and contorted manner of building which prevailed in the seventeenth century gave way to a lighter but peculiar style marked by ornamentation; it was brought to Italy from France. This style, which is called rococo, corresponds to what in literature is known as preciosity; but towards the middle of the eighteenth century classical forms were revived, especially in the works of the famous architects Vanvitelli and Juvara, while Canova restored its simplicity to sculpture, combining the study of nature with that of classic forms. Music also continued its ascendant progress under Pergolesi, Porpora, and Paisiello. In the nineteenth century architecture attempted the "liberty" style, which came from beyond the Alps; sculpture developed, as is shown by the names of Bertolini, Tenerani, Dupré, Monteverde, and others; but painting produced less noted names (Celentano, Fracassini, Morelli, Maccari, Michetti, etc.). Profane music, on the other hand, reached its greatest height in Bellini, Donizetti, Rossini, and Verdi. ECONOMICAL FACTORS (1) Agriculture Italy was once the classic land of agriculture; but, in our day, notwithstanding a reawakening that foretells better times, it is one of the countries in which agriculture is most backward. This is due to many causes, of which the chief are fiscalism and the landlord system (there were 3,351,498 landed proprietors in 1882, which number was reduced to 3,286,691 in 1901); absenteeism and the inertia of the large landowners, the ignorance of agriculture and the lack of capital and of agrarian credit are also to blame. And consequently the average yield of an acre of corn in Italy is less than one-half the yield in Germany and England, notwithstanding better conditions of soil and of climate. Exact data concerning these matters will not be had until the valuations that are made conformably to the law of March, 1886, are available. So far investigations have been limited to agricultural products, to the silk-worm industry and to the cultivation of tobacco. But, in order to remedy this evil, there was established, in 1907, an office for the express purpose of collecting agricultural statistics. The production of wheat is inferior to the demands of the population, and great quantities of that staple are imported, notwithstanding the high duty. On the other hand, there is an over-production of wine. The cultivation of vegetables is important, as is also that of kitchen herbs and of fruits, in which there is a great deal of exportation that could be profitably increased if refrigerator cars were used for transportation, as in America. In the production of silk-worms, Italy is the leading country of Europe, and the third, after Japan and China, in the world: in 1906, there were produced 538,380 new cocoons, and the native and the imported cocoons that were spun by the factories throughout the kingdom produced a total of 6666 tons. Among industrial plants hemp and flax hold an important place in Italian agriculture, there being a yearly product of nearly 80,000 tons of the former and of nearly 20,000 tons of the latter, furnished in greater part by Lombardy. Among the other industrial plants are the sumac and the manna in Sicily, saffron in Aquila, liquorice, hops, madder, straw for the manufacture of hats, etc. Cotton is imported from America, and of late years there has been a successful effort to cultivate beet-root for the manufacture of sugar, and also to cultivate tobacco, which, in 1905, yielded a product of more than 7000 tons from 12,500 acres. Horticulture also has made notable progress in recent times, especially in Tuscany and on the Ligurian Riviera, which has an exceptionally favourable climate for this industry. Unfortunately, notwithstanding so many favourable conditions, agriculture, which is a source of great profit in foggy England, in Italy is in a rudimentary state as yet. Between 1867 and 1906 there were reafforested, at the expense of the Government and with its assistance, 114,000 acres, costing in all $1,700,000, a very small showing in the presence of the serious problem of reafforestation. (2) Live Stock There is not much raising of live stock in Italy, not enough even to supply the home demand, in which that country is behind the nations of Central and of Northern Europe; and it is not easy to understand why agriculturists do not profit by the advantages offered by the Government in this connexion. The animals that are chiefly raised are oxen, horses, asses, mules, goats, sheep, and hogs. On account of the natures of the different peoples, in northern Italy is found chiefly the raising of the larger animals, while on the peninsula the raising of smaller animals is prevalent. Poultry and eggs are a special source of wealth; still their supply is not equal to the demand. The fisheries, of river and of sea, are neglected by the Government; each year there is a retrogression in these pursuits that is stayed by the co-operative efforts of a few fishermen of the Adriatic shores of the Marches, assisted by their priests. (3) Minerals In view of the lack of coal, Italy is not very rich in mineral products, although lignite, anthracite, and peat are not scarce. It is the first country in the production of sulphur, however, as we have seen, when speaking of Sicily; formerly there was no competition in this commodity, but now California has closed the American markets to the Italian product, Italy abounds in salts (Salsomaggiore and Volterra); it is rich also in iron ores of the best quality, found in the regions of Brescia, Bergamo, and Comasco, and more especially in the island of Elba. In Liguria, Piedmont, and Venice is found copper, but more abundantly in Tuscany, near Campiglia Marittima, where there is a great establishment for smelting the ores of Lanzi and of Mt. Temperino; these mines were known to the Etruscans and to the Romans, who left there the traces of their industrial spirit. The greatest yield of mercury is obtained from the mines of Grosseto, near Mt. Amiata, and from those of Siena. In 1906 the total production of minerals, in which 69,224 workmen were employed, amounted to a value of $20,000,000. Another source of wealth to Italy are the quarries that produce valuable materials for construction, as pozzolana (cement), volcanic tufa, calcite, sandstone, etc., and stone, such as decorative and statuary marbles, granite, slate, peperine etc., as well as other materials for use in the arts, such as pumice stone, lithographic stone, asbestos, and colouring clays, etc. Italy is rich in thermal and in mineral waters that compare favourably, from the therapeutic standpoint, with those of other countries, and they could be made the sources of considerable profit, if they were competently exploited. Among these thermal waters special mention should be made of those of Acqui (Alessandria), Salsomaggiore (Parma), Telese (Benevento), and Bormio. Among the mineral waters, the following obtain highest favour: Montecatini (Tuscany), Recoaro (Venice), San Gemini and Nocera (Umbria), and Ischia and Casamicciola (Naples). Of late years Italy has not been idle in regard to the redemption of lands: from 1884 to the present time nearly 4,000,000 acres have been redeemed, whether by the process of filling-in, by draining, or by the use of hydraulic machines. In 1905 the King of Italy, at the petition of the American agriculturist Lubin, initiated the establishment of an International Agricultural Institute which, totally independent of all political connexion, should study agricultural conditions in the different countries for the general good. All the Powers accepted the initiative and appointed each a representative in accordance with it, so that the institution is now an accomplished fact. (4) Industries Industries and manufactures fell from the prosperous condition in which they were in the Middle Ages when Italy was the teacher of other countries. Political dissensions, internal strife, and lack of technical instruction, the want of capital, and an exaggerated protectionism produced a certain relaxation and want of care, in consequence of which national industry neither followed the progress of the times nor even produced the supply required by national demand; and it fell entirely upon the discovery of steam, which revolutionized the economy of peoples and of states. But in recent years Italy has reawakened and, notwithstanding obstacles in the way of development, increased by an exaggerated and ill-advised fiscalism, has made notable progress in its industrial life, especially through the intelligent efforts of its northern population, to the extent, in fact, of attaining the highest ranks in the silk industry, as well as in those of cotton, wool, leather, of the metals, and of alimentary products (cheese, salted meats, and pastes). Notable also are the soap industry, the chemical products and the paper industries, the manufacture of artistic furniture, of jewellery, of objects in straw, matches, glasses, beads, porcelains, majolica, mosaics, and, in general, all of the artistic industries, due to the natural good taste of the Italian people. Visitors to Italy take into the country from $60,000,000 to $80,000,000 each year. Available fuel and motor power are the measure of industrial activity, and in 1887, in which year regular investigations on these points began, the amount of fuel used in the industries aggregated a tonnage of 4,004,065, representing a value uf $18,000,000 while, in 1905, according to the most recent statistics, the tonnage was 6,912,183, with a value of $33,000,000. The importation of coal alone, deducting the amount of that commodity that was exported or entered into the manufacture of conglomerates, was nearly 6,000,000 tons. The total sum of the various motor forces available on 1 January, 1904, according to the statistics of the "Ispettorato generale dell' Industria e Commercio", published in 1906, was as follows: steam engines, 2,472,133 horse power; gas motors, 45,855 horse power; hydraulic forces, 490,000 horse power; motors of other kinds, exclusive of windmills, 446 horse power -- total, 3,008,452. As regards textile industries, in which Italy is making an effort to regain the primacy that it enjoyed in the glorious Middle Ages, we give in round numbers the following approximate data:-- INDUSTRY FACTORIES HORSE POWER SPINDLES IN OPERATION LOOMS WORKMEN Silk 2,200 13,000 2,000,000 20,000 196,000 Wool 800 21,000 330,000 12,000 390,000 Linen, Hemp and Jute 320 14,000 110,000 8,000 27,000 Home Weaving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . The mechanical industries, in the working of iron, are also growing, as in the manufacture of arms, foundries, and naval construction. Coal has been used until now almost exclusively in the industries, and consequently Italy is yearly a tributary to foreign countries in the sum of nearly $50,000,000; but now it can substitute electrical power, derived from its numerous watercourses, an inexhaustible wealth that Raddi estimates to be equal to 10,000,000 horse power. This is the white coal, according to the happy expression of Bergès, which will be capable of supplying both the great and the small industries; and the Italian mind must have presaged this new force, in which the future prosperity of Italy lies, seeing that in this country, where, nearly a century ago, Volta discovered the electric pile, have appeared also the two greatest transformers of electrical energy, Pacinotti and Galileo Ferraris; while Marconi, utilizing the Hertzian waves, has opened up a new horizon. The principal centres of the silk industry are Milan, Como, Genoa, Turin, and Florence; those of the cotton industry are Milan, Bergamo, Como, Turin, Novara, Genoa, Salerno, Udine, and Pisa; the principal centres for the wool industry are the Biellese, Vicenza (Schio), and Tuscany; the principal centres for the manufacture of linen textures and for the hemp industry are in Lombardy. Emilia, Venice, and Campania; the metallurgical industries are centred at Follonica (Grosseto), Cecina, Piombino, Portoferraio, Terni, Iglesias, and Pertusola in Sardinia. Pozzuoli, Terni, and Brescia enjoy a high reputation for their metallurgical industries in general, and for the manufacture of arms in particular, while the products of important shops in Lombardy, Piedmont, Venice, Tuscany, Liguria, and Naples, in marine engines, railroad supplies, automobiles, and kindred productions enjoy high favour. Naples, Leghorn, Spezia, Genoa, and Sestri Ponente have considerable dock yards, while the largest arserials are at Spezia, Venice, Naples, Castellammare di Stabia, and Taranto. Italy occupies an important position with regard to the industrial trades, the development of which is being promoted through the establishment of the museums of Turin, of Rome and of Naples, and by the opening of industrial schools. Florence, Venice, and Rome are famous for their mosaic productions; Venice, the Romagna, the Milanese, and Tuscany, for their terra-cotta, majolica, and porcelain arts; Venice and Murano for their mirrors, for glass, and for glass beads; Naples, Genoa, Leghorn, and Trapani are famous for their coral works, and Turin, Naples, Venice, Rome, and Florence, for their bronzes, statues, pictures, tapestry, etc. Tuscany, and especially Florence, enjoys a good reputation for the manufacture of straw hats, as do the establishments of Piedmont, Lombardy, and Liguria for the manufacture of paper, and especially so Fabriano, in the Marches, for its hand-made paper, one of the oldest establishments of its kind in Europe. Milan is the principal centre of Europe for the printing of music and is the chief centre of Italy for the polygraphic industries. In alimentary products Liguria and Naples lead for pastry, and Bologna and Modena for their sausages; Liguria for salt fish; Lombardy for its cheeses; Tuscany and Liguria lead in the production of oil. The best-known wines, enjoying high esteem in foreign countries, are Barolo, Barbera, Grignolino, and Vermouth of Piedmont; Sangiovese and Canino, of the Romagna; Chianti, Pomino, and Rufina, of Tuscany; Orvieto and Aleatico, of Umbria; the wines of the Roman Castelli; Tauraso, Capri, and Falerno, from the southern provinces. (5) Commerce More intimate relations with the principal powers, with which Italy has commercial treaties, and the increase of ways of communication by land and sea, especially the tunnelling of Fréjus, the St. Gotthard, and the Simplon, and the opening of the Suez Canal, have facilitated commercial relations and have increased the intercourse of Italy with other countries. This is sufficiently shown by the fact that, while the sum total of Italian commerce in 1861 was of a value of $3,200,000, it was of a value of $922,000,000 in 1907, exclusive of precious metals, of which amount $552,000,000 represent the imports, and $370,000,000 the exports. The most important commercial centres are Lombardy, Piedmont, Liguria, and Venice, which is due not only to the greater activity of the inhabitants of those regions and to their contact with the neighbouring foreign peoples, but also to the many good highways of those provinces, and to their navigable canals and railroad development. In the second rank are Emilia, Tuscany, the Marches, Umbria, and Lazio. The commerce of Southern Italy and of Sicily is yet at a low standard, although it is slowly awakening. The greater portion of foreign commerce is done by maritime transportation, the most active ports being those of Genoa, Leghorn, Naples, Palermo, Catania, Brindisi, and Venice. The economical conditions of Italy, on the whole, are not unfavourable, but the nation is far from enjoying the prosperous conditions to which other countries have attained in this regard. The weak points are in the backward unscientific conditions of agriculture and of the raising of cattle, wavering on the verge of excessive cultivation; while there is a considerable danger in the exaggerated protectionism that gradually is fixing its roots in the sentiment of the people and in that of nations. The merchant marine is not at the height that it attained in the Middle Ages under the glorious maritime republics, and a complication of historical and of geographical causes, added to the inertia of Governments and to the lack of judicial protection, have obstructed its favourable progress. Nevertheless private enterprise has not been abated in the development of the merchant marine, although it be true that it has not attained the favourable results that have crowned like efforts in other countries. In the last four years, however, the Società di Navigazione Generale Italiana, the Veloce Company, the Italia Company, the Italian-Lloyd, the Sabaudo-Lloyd, and the Società Siculo-Americana have added thirty-five large, twin-screw, transatlantic steamships to the emigrant service, with a capacity of 240,000 tons burden, and accommodation for nearly 70,000 passengers, which was done at an expense of not less than $28,000,000. The Italian merchant marine occupies the seventh position among those of the large countries. The State, to assist the merchant marine, grants navigation prizes and compensation for the construction of ships and for repairs that are carried out in Italian yards, amounting in all to a yearly maximum of $1,600,000. This system, however, which has been in force since 1886, and involving a larger sum of money, has not produced the results desired, because the cost of construction in Italian yards is higher than those in other countries, and consequently the Government's compensation is without practical effect. According to a new bill, the direct protection of the State would assist the mercantile marine by a compensation of equipment for a duration of not less than ten months per ton burden and by compensation for velocity, for every half mile above a 14-knot speed, as well as per ton. For ships constructed in foreign yards, the bill provides that these compensations be one-half of those granted in the case of ships that are built at home. It grants a great many reimbursements of taxes and other compensations to the thirty-one shipyards of the kingdom, if they use the home metallurgical products. This bill continues the former policy of uniting the metallurgical, the shipyard, and the navigation interests. The sum total of merchandise that was shipped or unloaded in 1906 amounted to 23,287,916 tons, of which less than half (10,503,815 tons) was carried on Italian bottoms; this is worthy of consideration, in view of the fact that 75% of the value of Italian commerce with foreign powers is transported by sea. There are 302,296 persons bearing certificates of matriculation or whose names appear on the registers of seafaring people. On 31 Dec., 1907, 4981 sailing ships, with a tonnage of 503,260, and 548 steamships with a tonnage of 497,537, had received certificates of nationalization. (6) Coinage The metrical system is in force in Italy for the measure of objects and of value; the lira is the unit of value; its nominal worth is 20 cents. Italy, France, Belgium, Greece, and Switzerland form the Latin Monetary Union, having a bimetallic basis, which is imperfect, however, because since 1879, suspicion has attached to the coinage of the pieces of five lire; the fractional coins were nationalized. From 1862 to 1907 the State coined, in all denominations, a sum total of $220,000,000 and a sum total of $154,000,000 were withdrawn from circulation, with a loss of 7.2 per cent on their nominal value. On 31 December, 1907, the treasury resources were: gold, 303,313,673 lire; silver, 71,862,419 lire; nickel, 2,537,285 lire; copper, 2,595,212 lire; total, 380,309,129 lire ($76,061,826). The Bank of Italy, the Bank of Naples, and the Bank of Sicily are the only financial establishments that are authorized by law to issue bank-notes that are legal currency; this authorization is for a limited time and upon condition of financial compensation to the State; the bank-notes are for values of 50, 100, 500, and 1000 lire respectively (law of 9 October, 1900). The Treasury also issues state notes of 5, of 10, and of 25 lire, all legal currency, and to some extent, legal tender, because, although they are de jure convertible into metallic money, the treasury de facto does not redeem them. This kind of paper circulation is limited by law to 467,500,000 lire, and on 31 December, 1907, it actually amounted to 437,518,410 lire, being 26.8 per cent of the gold security. The amount of the bank-notes in circulation on the same date was 1,851,541,950 lire, being 72.4 per cent of the gold reserve. In sum, the paper circulation on 31 December, 1907, amounted to 2,289,060,360 lire, or 68 lire per head of the population. (7) Labour Organization The highest wages for workmen in the manufacturing industries and in commerce is of slightly more than a dollar a day, and the lowest is 30 cents, for men; and the salaries for women vary from 60 to 10 cents a day. According to the census of 1901, there were 2,471,672 wage-earning women, above the age of 9 years, as compared with 5,662,672 men; and according to the declaration made by employers conformably with the law of 19 June, 1902, concerning the work of women and of children, there were, in 14,510 establishments, 414,915 workmen and 414,975 working women. The laws of 17 May, 1898, and of 29 June, 1903, compel the employer, in some trades, to insure his workmen against accidents in work, and by the law of 8 July, 1883, the Cassa Nazionale was established for that purpose, without, however, prohibiting such insurance in private companies or in syndicates of mutual insurance. According to the statistics of the Ufficio del Lavoro, working men and women, insured and non-insured, who suffered through accident, in 1906, numbered 166,561, of whom 9963 were women; there were 398 cases of death and 259 accidents in which many workmen suffered. It should be noted that the great increase in the number of accidents is not to be ascribed to a noteworthy increase of industrial activity, or to less prudence, but rather to the malice of the workmen, and it is extremely doubtful whether there does not exist a medical criminal school, established for the purpose of encouraging the men to simulate serious injuries. Recently a bill has been introduced into the Legislature to remove these evils, which cause high insurance premiums and are otherwise detrimental to industry and to insurance societies. The statistics compiled by the "Ispettorato generale del Credito e della Previdenza" in 1906 show that there were 63,369 accidents for which financial compensation to the amount of $120,900 was paid. In 1905 there were 540,850 workmen insured in the Cassa Nazionale di assicurazione; the number of injured among them amounted to 145.50 per 1000, and the indemnities paid to $830,000. In the third quarter of the year 1908 there were 48,621 accidents. Regarding the organization of workmen, on 1 January, 1908, there were 4477 leagues, having a membership of 612,804 industrial workmen; on 1 January, 1909, there were 98 camere del lavoro, having 3834 sections with 501,220 members; 43 of these camere belonged to the Confederazione del Lavoro; there were 22 federazioni of trades, on 1 January, 1908, with 2550 sections and 191,599 members. There were 2814 leagues registered in the camere del lavoro, and 1324 in the federazioni of trades, while 339 were independent. In 1906 there were 1302 strikes, affecting 257,809 workmen; in 1907 there were 1963 strikes, affecting 276,535 workmen, and in 1908 there were 1543 strikes in which 218,289 workmen participated. The year 1907 developed the greatest number of strikes, much in excess of those of 1903, in which latter-named year there occurred the maximum of industrial strikes. The chief cause of strikes related to wages, to hours, to the monopoly of labour, and to discipline, and, as is natural, the first two produced the greatest number of strikes, and questions of discipline more than those related with the monopoly of labour. In 1906 20.5 per cent of the strikes were entirely successful, while 2.53 per cent were unsuccessful; in 1907, 25.5 per cent succeeded, as compared with 27.7 per cent that failed; in 1908, 21.1 per cent were successful, and 36.4 per cent failed. The remainder were partly successful. In the first quarter of 1909 there were 217 strikes, in which 34,118 workmen took part. There are in all Italy 69 organizations for the defence of the demands of workmen in the industries and in commerce. The habit of making savings, which is one of the forms of natural provision, and also that of attending to the needs of parents have always obtained among Italians, especially in the labouring classes, whether agricultural or industrial, with greater force, in fact, than that of physical and intellectual development, and this is reflected in the remittances made by emigrants to their homes. Prior to the establishment of savings banks, these fruits of economy were merely hoarded up by individuals and exposed to the dangers of loss; when those banks were established, however, offering ample security through the supervision of the State, and also facilities in relation to time and place, the proportion of savings was vastly increased. In 1872, there were 120 savings banks in Italy, a number that has been increased now to 208, while the number of depositors, which was 676,237, has now grown to 2,048,364. The aggregate of deposits in 1872 amounted to nearly $100,000,000, and is now equal to $400,000,000. The people's banks, which take savings accounts, had, in 1898, deposits to the sum of $75,000,000, and now have deposits of a total of $147,000,000; and the post-office savings bank that was established in 1876 has now 5,000,000 depositors, with accounts to their favour of more than $300,000,000. The sum total of savings, therefore, may be estimated, in round numbers, at $800,000,000. Unhappily the savings banks are obliged to invest their deposits in state bonds and in first-class hypothecary loans, while the post-office bank invests deposits in loans to the Communes and to the provinces; the former, therefore, are not available in the manufacturing industries and in agriculture. Here it may be observed that while the figures given above are evidence of the habit of Italians of making savings, which is nothing but deferring consumption, those figures show also the want of the habit of placing savings in profitable investments, that other form of provision which consists in renouncing the possession of the sum saved, that is, of the power of consumption, to transform it into other powers, or for one's own security against want. Hence the slow and laboured progress of the professional unions and of the leagues, of the societies of mutual assistance and of insurance against sickness, loss of employment, or old age, the existence of which institutions depends upon the contributions of their members. Possibly this condition may be in a measure due to the malversation of funds by the directors of such corporations and to the failure of kindred establishments that are without solid foundations or competent direction, all of which causes have increased the want of economical confidence that is instinctive in the Italian character. The proof of this is furnished by the national bank that was established in 1898 for insurance against disability and against old age for workmen, conformably with the law of 31 May, 1907, No. 376; for in this establishment notwithstanding its total amount of funds of nearly $13,000,000, there were registered on 28 February, 1909, only 297,749 workmen, mainly by public corporations which, in their own interests, wished to provide for the old age of their employees. COMMUNICATIONS (1) Highways The highways of Italy, exclusive of those bordering on private property, in 1904, measured in the aggregate 85,757,300 miles; while there was a total length of 35,400 miles of mule and foot roads. (2) Railroads The first railroad in Italy, the Napoli-Portici, was opened on 4 October, 1839; in 1871 there were 3960 miles of railroad in operation, and on 30 June, 1907, there were 10,705 miles of railroads. The principal railroad lines are: + (1) the one from Turin to Venice, by Novara, Milan, and Verona; + (2) that from Turin to Brindisi, the station of the Indies, by Piacenza, Bologna, Ancona, Foggia, Bari, and Otranto; + (3) that from Genoa to Naples, by Pisa, Rome, Salerno, and Reggio-Calabria. The Italian railroads and those of France communicate by two lines, that from Genoa to Marseilles and that from Turin to Lyons, through the Fréjus, and they will soon connect, also, by the Cuneo-Nice line. They connect with the Swiss and with the German railroads by the Novara-Luino-Bellinzona line, by the Milan, Chiasso, Lugano, Bellinzona, and Airolo (the st. Gotthard road), by the Genoa, Alessandria, Novara, Domodossola (the Simplon Way); lastly, the Italian railroads connect with those of Austria by the Verona-Trent (the Brennero line), by the Venice-Udine (the Pontebba line) and by the Udine, Cormons, Görz, and Monfalcone line. (3) Tramways The first tramway that was operated by mechanical traction was opened in 1875 between Turin and Moncalieri, and on 31 December, 1904, there were 2450 miles of tramway lines in operation, 475 miles being electrified; and the combined personnel employed on all these lines included 14,742 persons. With the tramways are connected waterways, aggregating a length of 1100 miles by river, and 680 miles by navigable canals. Interior navigation, however, has been neglected until now by Italy, to the detriment of commerce and of industry, and it is a matter for congratulation that the Bertolini bill, bearing upon this matter, became law on 2 Jan., 1910. (4) The Postal Service On 30 June, 1908, the postal-telegraph offices and the places for collection numbered together 10,580, an average of 28 for each 100,000 inhabitants; there were, moreover, 143 such offices on wheels or afloat. This important public service is due in great measure to mutual conventions with other countries, on the basis established at Berne, 9 October, 1874, and developed in subsequent congresses (Berne, 1876; Paris, 1878 and 1880; Lisbon, 1885; Vienna, 1891; and Washington, 1897), leading to the establishment of the Universal Postal Union. In some foreign places where the Italian colonies are considerable, whether through the number of emigrants or by the importance of their commerce, post-offices have been established, as in the Republic of San Marino, in Albania, Tripolitania, and Crete, at Constantinople, Valona, Salonica, Jerusalem, and in the Italian colony of Eritrea and Somalia. On 30 June, 1908, there were in all 24,198 employees in the postal and telegraphic service, and in 1908-1909 the postal, telegraph, and telephone receipts continued to increase, notwithstanding the effects of the great economical crisis in the United States that caused a stagnation in business, in exchanges, and in emigration. The combined expenses in 1898-1899 amounted to $12,490,000, and in the last year of the following decade, that is, 1907-1908, they amounted to $24,610,000. The combined issue of stamps, postal orders, post-cards, cards for packages, registrations, and answers prepaid amounted in value to $17,296,000. During the above year there were 12,749,309 packages mailed, and 2,205,214 packages were received from foreign countries. These figures were due no doubt to the convention with the United States, providing for the direct exchange of packages of from 6 lb. to 11 lb., which came into force on 1 August, 1908. There were established 11 automobile services; and in order to expedite the distribution of letters and of telegrams in Rome, Milan, and Naples, there is about to be established the pneumatic postal service of the American engineer Batcheller, in a total length of 23.4 miles of tubes. By the law of 5 April, 1908, the postal service of the navigation lines between Italy and the islands of Sicily and of Sardinia was placed under the administration of the railroads of the State, while the postal and the commercial service of other lines is entrusted to private parties, with the assistance of a subsidy by the State to which, however, all profits above 5 per cent. must be paid. The contract period is limited to twenty years, the present contracts coming to an end on 30 June, 1910. (5) Telegraphs Statistics for 30 June, 1908, show that there were 30,650 miles of telegraph lines, with 157,044 miles of wires; the submarine cables belonging to the State are of a combined length of approximately 1250 miles, There are 5312 telegraph offices belonging to the Government, while the number of those belonging to railroads and to other companies is 2582; in all, 7894. (6) Telephones Telephone service was established in Italy in 1881, and, until 1907 it was furnished by private companies, except for international communication; but, by the law of 15 July, 1907, the State assumed control of city telephones, for which purpose was established the Direzione Generale dei Telefoni. There are 10 international lines, and 303 lines between cities. Moreover, there are four submarine telephone cables of a combined length of 22 miles. On 30 June, 1908, there were 2988 telephone employees and 50,278 subscribers to city telephones. (7) Wireless Telegraphs Italy has 14 fixed wireless telegraph stations that transmitted, in the period of 1907-1908, 1478 messages, containing 29,320 words, and received 4760 messages containing 77,186 words. HISTORY With the foundation of Rome (754 b.c.) the historical life of Italy begins. About 600 b.c. the Gauls appear settled on either side of the Po (Padus); to the west along the Mediterranean are the Ligurians, and eastward around the Adriatic the tribes of Venice and Istria. In central Italy the Etrurians, of mysterious origin, had reached a high degree of civilization, as their sepulchral architecture and art remain to prove. Their neighbours, the Italici, were divided into two great groups, the Latin tribes and those of Umbro-Sabine origin. To the south was "Greater Greece" (Magna Græcia), a number of Greek colonies, the most important of which was Tarentum. This is not the place to relate how gradually the small city of Rome extended its rule until all Italy, the Mediterranean lands, Gaul and Germany, Egypt and the hither Orient, i. e. the known world (orbis terrarum) acknowledged its authority (see ROME). In those centuries of conquest and assimilation Rome was alternately a kingdom, a republic, and finally an empire. It was under the first Roman emperor, Augustus Cæsar, and through his world-wide edict, that Jesus Christ came to be born at Bethlehem in Judea, and in an incredibly short time the religion of the Crucified One had been established at Rome (Romans, i, 17; xv, 23; Suetonius, "Vita Claudii", xxv; Tertullian, "De Præscr.", xxxvi; Tacit., "Ann.", lib. XV, xliv; see PETER, SAINT; PAUL, SAINT), had penetrated all parts of the peninsula and made converts in every class. Not to speak of the more or less reliable claims of many Italian cities to Apostolic origins for their churches (Cappelletti, "Le chiese d' Italia", Venice, 1844-71; J. Rivière, "La propag, du Christ. dans les trois premiers siècles", Paris, 1907), the historian Eusebius exhibits Christianity as vigorous and expansive in Italy previous to Constantine (see Fabricius, "Lux salutaris Evangelii"; Harnack, "Mission und Ausbreitung des Christenthums", 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1905; Duchesne, "Hist. Ancienne de l'Eglise", I, Paris, 1906, and Idem, "The Roman Church before Constantine", New York, 1909). Political necessity eventually led to the abandonment of Rome as the administrative centre of the unwieldy empire and the foundation (327) of a new city (Constantinople, New Rome) on the site of ancient Greek Byzantium, in a situation so incomparable for defence and attack that for many centuries the new city was impregnable (Bury, "History of the Later Roman Empire", London, 1889). In the meantime had been fought (311) near Rome the battle of the Milvian Bridge which sealed the fate of paganism, though in the higher classes and amid the rural population it lingered to the end of the fourth century (De Broglie, "L'église et l'empire romain au IV ^me siècle", Paris, 1856-66; Duchesne, "Hist. ancienne de l'Eglise", II, Paris, 1907; Allies, "The Formation of Christendom", IV, VI, London, 1861-95; G. Boissier, "La fin du paganisme", 5th ed., Paris, 1907). Outside of Rome, the cities of Milan, Aquileia, and Ravenna acquired ecclesiastical rank and influence, largely for political reasons. The synodal life of the peninsula was vigorous (Hefele, "History of the Councils") in the fourth and fifth centuries, particularly at Rome, and the relations with Constantinople were close and often friendly, a situation that was sadly affected by the momentous Acacian schism that divided Constantinople and Rome for thirty-five years (484-519) and inaugurated, though remotely, the final separation of Italy from the Eastern Empire. The barbarian invasions reached their height at precisely this time. After a century of destructive assaults on various parts of the empire, including the capture of Rome (408) by Alaric, King of the Goths, the Roman imperial authority collapsed in Italy, where Odoacer, King of the Heruli, ruled the peninsula (476-93) until overthrown by Theodoric, King of the Ostrogoths (493-526). Despite the beneficent genius of this great king, and the efforts of his patriotic prime minister, Cassiodorus, the short-lived Ostrogothic State fell before the assaults of the Byzantine generals Belisarius and Narses (553), and Italy was again part of the Roman Empire, governed by an exarch at Ravenna, subject also to the cæsaropapism of its Byzantine rulers (see VIGILIUS, POPE; THREE CHAPTERS, THE) and helpless as before in presence of new invasions (Hodgkin, "The 'Variæ' of Cassiodorus"; Pfeilschifter, "Theod. d. Grosse und d. Kirche", 1896; Bury, "Later Roman Empire"). In 568 the German Langobardi (Lombards) overran Northern Italy and by the middle of the eighth century had almost extinguished Byzantine authority in the peninsula (Hodgkin, "Italy and her Invaders", London, 1880; Kurth, "Origines de la civilisation moderne", Paris, 1905; Grisar, "Gesch. Roms u. der Päpste", I, Freiburg, 1901; Dahn, "Könige der Germanen", Munich, 1861-97). Rome itself was on the point of falling into their hands, when Pope Stephen II made his famous journey across the Alps and persuaded King Pepin (754) to intervene and save the Romans from a yoke that they equally feared and detested. He took from the Lombards the Pentapolis and Romagna, former Byzantine territory, twenty-four cities, and gave them to the Roman Church (see PEPIN THE SHORT). Again in 774, at the call of Pope Adrian, Charlemagne entered Italy, suppressed the Lombard kingdom, united it with his own, and by new gifts added the greater part of the exarchate to the papal possessions. The generosity of the faithful, the political results of the attempt to spread Iconoclasm in Italy, the hard need of self-defence, and culpable neglect on the part of the Byzantine court, had already done much to make the papacy a quasi-sovereign power. Thus arose in Italy the States of the Church (Stato Ecclesiastico, Patrimonium Petri, Temporal Power; Duchesne, "Les premiers temps de l'état pontifical", 2nd ed., Paris, 1904; Miles, "History of the States of the Church; Schnürer, "Entstehung des Kirchenstaats", 1894). At Christmas, 800, Charlemagne was crowned Western emperor by Leo III in the Basilica of St. Peter (J. de la Servière, "Charlemagne et l'Eglise", Paris, 1904), and for the next two centuries his descendants laid claim to, and occasionally enforced the title of King of Italy, constantly disputed by the Italian descendants of great Frankish nobles and by other ambitious and violent rivals, foremost among them the factious nobles of Rome, represented typically by the Counts of Tusculum, whose rule in the tenth century was the occasion of shameful ecclesiastical disorder (see PAPACY). While in Northern and Central Italy during the ninth and tenth centuries, the bishops often represented, as missi dominici, the imperial power, the Lombard duchies to the south (Spoleto, Friuli, Benevento) were never able to overcome their chronic anarchy long enough to withstand a new peril, the invasion of the Saracens. In the ninth century the latter seized on Corsica and (848) advanced to the gates of Rome; in the eleventh century they conquered Sardinia and Sicily, and meanwhile set foot firmly in some districts of Southern Italy, the greater part of which, however, continued always subject to Constantinople, and took on in this period strongly accentuated Greek characteristics (C. Lenormant, "La Grande Grèce", Paris, 1884). With Otto I the German imperial authority reasserted (951) its right to the crown of Italy, and henceforth made use of the episcopal sees, especially in Northern and Central Italy, in order to sustain its claims (Cantù, "Storia degli Italiani", 4th ed., Turin, 1893-96; M. Hartmann, "Gesch. Italiens im Mittelalter", 1897-1903; Leo, "Gesch. der ital. Staaten", 1829-32). Secularly minded bishops were only too often imposed on the population of these cities, which soon resented the feudal rights and privileges of their spiritual rulers, while these, on the other hand, found support in the German emperor, whose ambitious aims at that period culminated in the world-empire that Otto III (died 1002) hoped to realize (Dresdner, "Kultur- u. Sittengesch. d. ital. Geistlichkeit im 10. u. 11. Jahrhundert", Berlin, 1890; A. Vogel, "Ratherius v. Verona u. das 10. Jahrhundert", 1854; Atto of Vercelli," De pressuris ecclesiasticis", in P. L., CXXXIV). The second half of the eleventh century ushered in the long and disastrous conflict between the papacy and the empire, whose protagonists were Gregory VII (died 1085) and Henry IV (died 1106). Meanwhile a new political power, the Normans, had been growing up in Southern Italy at the expense of the Byzantines, the Saracens, and the remnants of the former Lombard duchies. During the first half of the eleventh century descendants of the ninth- and tenth-century Northmen had sought fortune in these lands and found it; by 1070 their new kingdom was held as a fief of the Apostolic See, a new order of things made possible by the length and intensity of the conflict between the papacy and the Western Empire and the wretched weakness of the Byzantines (Von Schack, "Normannen in Sicilien", 1889; Von Heinemann, "Normannen in Unteritalien u. Sicilien", I, 1894; Chalandon, "Domination normande en Italia et en Sicile", Paris, 1907; Dondorf, "Normannen u. ihre Bedeutung f. europ. Culturleben", 1875). Owing to them, and to the hearty support of the Lombard League of cities, the papacy was victorious in the first phase of its conflict with the empire (Peace of Venice, 1177). Matilda, Countess of Tuscany (1064-1115), had meanwhile passed away, and left to the papacy her vast possessions in central Italy (Reggio, Lucca, Modena, Mantua, Ferrara, etc.), a new bone of contention with the empire that asserted its overlordship over rights of inheritance and administration (Tosti, "La Contessa Matilde", 3rd ed., Rome, 1886; Renée, "La grande Italienne", Paris, 1859; M. Huddy, "The Countess Mathilda", London, 1905). When Emperor Henry VI married in 1194 Constance, heiress of the great Norman house, the Kingdom of Sicily (with Southern Italy) passed into the hands of the Hohenstaufen, a combination most odious to the papacy, which rightly feared the near extinction of its independence. Out of this union of the imperial German crown and the royal crown of Sicily arose the second phase of the great medieval conflict between pope and emperor (see FREDERICK II; GREGORY IX, POPE; HONORIUS III, POPE) that ended (1265) in the complete ruin of the Hohenstaufen and the establishment of a French dynasty, the House of Anjou, on the throne of Naples. Only a few years did Charles of Anjou retain Sicily, for the native population came to detest the French knights and in the famous "Sicilian Vespers" (1282) cast off the yoke of France and called in the Spanish line of Aragon (Broglio, "Storia del Vespro Siciliano", Milan, 1858; see "Scienza e Fede", 1882, 241-61). Meantime, Italian genius had been culminating variously during this stirring thirteenth century. Education had been nobly fostered by the growth of universities like Bologna and Padua, created or protected by the papacy; law and order had been put on a solid basis by the growth and academic acceptance of the Roman Law (see LAW; PANDECTS); and by the new codification of the canon law (DECRETALS, PAPAL; CORPUS JURIS CANONICI); religion had been honoured and confirmed by the rise of the Mendicant orders (Franciscans, Dominicans); the fine arts had thriven despite feudal and municipal conflict endlessly various and passionate (Cimabue, Giotto, the Pisani); the civic spirit had developed with the growth of the communes in wealth, population, and self-consciousness, especially in Northern and Central Italy. Commerce and industry had taken on vast proportions (Venice, Florence, Milan, Genoa, Pisa); a glorious vernacular literature had sprung up (Dante), and in general Italy had entered deeply into all the phases of human activity that she was soon to develop so rapidly and so richly. At the same time the papacy, which with Innocent III (died 1216) had entered the "trecento" as arbiter of rulers, peoples, and nations and the acknowledged conscience of Europe, touched its lowest depths of humiliation when the century ended. French ambition and interests had gradually been supplanting the immemorial imperial influence, and with the death of Boniface VIII (1303) and the establishment of Avignon (1307) as the future seat of the papacy, a new political order set in for the peninsula. The Angevin kings dominated the south, while in the north the last traces of German overlordship (imperial vicars) disappeared after the ill-fated attempts of Henry VII (1308-13) and Louis the Bavarian (1314-47) to dominate in Italy after the manner of the Ottos and the Fredericks. The former power of empire and papacy was now eagerly divided up between their more or less authorized representatives, and soon the "age of the despots", the nubes tyrannorum, set in, bold and resourceful men who kept and increased on all sides the power they had once obtained. The Visconti and Sforza at Milan, the Baglioni at Perugia, the Malatesta at Ravenna, the Scaligers at Verona, and a hundred others are types of a masterful and unique race that dominated for personal ends the prevailing anarchy (J. A. Symonds, "The Age of The Despots", New York, 1888). The great Spanish captain and cardinal, Gil d' Albornoz, between 1350 and 1370 restored in great measure the papal authority in its hereditary possessions (Wurm, "Cardinal Albornoz", 1894), but it was not until after the close of the Western Schism (1417) that in Martin V the States of the Church again recognized in a practical way the domination of the pope (Von Reumont, "Gesch. d. Stadt Rom", Berlin, 1867). Fifteenth-century Italy beheld the famous reform councils of Basic (1431), Ferrara-Florence (1438-39), the vain attempts at a parliamentary organization of the Roman Church, the equally vain efforts at reunion with the Greeks, the fall of Constantinople (1453), the rapid and influential development of a pagan-minded humanism (Symonds, "The Revival of Learning in Italy", New York, 1888; Burckhardt, "The Culture of the Renaissance") and of the fine arts, the moral disorders of some high-placed ecclesiastics, offset however by an extraordinary development of sanctity (St. Bernardine of Sienna, St. John Capistran, St. Antonine of Florence, St. Frances of Rome, and others). For a while the well-known "five states" of Italy (Milan, Venice, Florence, Naples, Rome) represented the political order, but from the end of the fifteenth and the first half of the sixteenth century Spain and the pope divided the mastery of the peninsula until early in the eighteenth century. After vain efforts to establish its suzeraintÿ at Naples and Milan, France was obliged to abandon the rich prize, and after the first quarter of the sixteenth century no longer repeated its earlier attempts at the hegemony of the peninsula. The Protestant Reformation made little headway in Italy, owing to the vigorous measures of the civil and ecclesiastical order, the antipathetic genius of the people, the Inquisition (reorganized at Rome, 1542), the Society of Jesus (1540), the Council of Trent (1545-63), the lives of holy reformers like St. Charles Borromeo, the new orders and congregations, and the combined religious, ecclesiastical, and theological activities known as the Counter-Reformation (Cantù, "Gli eretici d' Italia", Florence, 1865-67; see PROTESTANTISM; SOCINIANISM; GIORDANO BRUNO). The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries offer a rather sad spectacle in the various politico-ecclesiastical conflicts of Catholic states with the Holy See, in large measure, however indirectly, a result of the Thirty Years War (1618-48), e. g. Naples apropos of the so-called Monarchia Sicula; the conflict of Venice in 1605-07 with Paul III, on which occasion its state-theologian, Fra Paolo Sarpi, contributed power fully to the Venetian opposition; the stubborn purpose of Victor Amadeus II, Duke of Savoy, to control fully all larger ecclesiastical appointments in his state; the offensive attitude of Louis XIV apropos of his ambassador's impossible privileges (1685), and other similar troubles. To these may be added the political workings of Jansenism (see JANSENIUS AND JANSENISM; also UNIGENITUS) and Gallicanism (q. v.), and the concern for the safety of Christendom against the encroachments of Islam. By the Treaty of Utrecht (1713-14) Austria succeeded Spain in Northern Italy (Mantua, Milan) and later (1737) obtained the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. Savoy received Sardinia (1720) and by the middle of the century, Naples and Sicily, Parma and Piacenza acknowledged the rule of Spanish Bourbons. The ecclesiastical relations of the new powers with the Holy See, much troubled in the previous fifty years, were placed on a more satisfactory basis by a series of concordats, with Sicily in 1741, Sardinia in 1742, and Milan in 1745 (Vincenzo Nussi, "Concordata" etc., Rome, 1870). The Patriarchate of Aquileia, whose territory lay partly in Austria and partly in the Republic of Venice, was divided into two archiepiscopal sees, Görz for Austria and Udine for Venice. Italy was henceforth alternately the instrument of Spanish or Austrian policy, as was seen when in 1767 the Bourbons of Naples, Parma, and Piacenza expelled the Jesuits, and in 1786 when the ill-famed Synod of Pistoia promulgated in Italy the anti-ecclesiastical principles and measures of the Austrian Emperor Joseph II (see POPE PIUS VII; SCIPIO RICCI). Religious life nevertheless flourished in Italy where the orders of the Redemptorists (1732) and the Passionists (1741) were established by their respective holy founders, St. Alphonsus Liguori and St. Paul of the Cross. Ecclesiastical learning was also vigorously cultivated, and few ages show more erudite scholars than Muratori, Mansi, Bianchi, Bianchini, the Ballerini brothers, Zaccharia, Nons, and others. The French Revolution put an end to the ancient Republic of Venice (1797) which fell to Austria, while the latter lost Lombardy, where the short-lived Cisalpine Republic of northern Italy was soon followed by the equally ephemeral Ligurian (Genoa, 1798), the Roman (1798), and the Parthenopean (Naples, 1799) republics. The Congress of Vienna (1815) restored the ante-revolution situation, save in Venice, which remained subject to Austria, henceforth mistress of northern and central Italy, the rest of Italy being subject to three other powers, the Kingdom of Sardinia (Turin), the papacy, and the Spanish Bourbons of Naples and Sicily. The second quarter of the nineteenth century is noted for a deep unrest in Italy against Austrian rule (the Carbonari, also Mazzini, Gioberti, Balbo, and others) culminating in a general adhesion of all the dissatisfied to the House of Piedmont whose prime minister, Cavour, was henceforth the soul of the new Italian unity (Kraus, "Cavour", Munich, 1901; Von Reumont, "Charakterbilder", 1886). The revolutionary agitations of 1848 led to the flight of Pius IX to Gaeta and the establishment of the second "Roman Republic" soon suppressed by the French under General Oudinot (July, 1849). Prior to 1859, Italy was divided into the following states: the Kingdom of Sardinia, the Duchies of Modena, Parma, and Piacenza, the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, the Pontifical States, the Republic of San Marino, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies and the Principality of Monaco. The Italian territories subject to foreign powers were: Corsica, belonging to France; the group of Malta, belonging to England; the Canton Ticino, belonging to Switzerland; Lombardy, Venice, Trent, Triest, and Istria, belonging to the Austrian Empire. In 1848 Piedmont went to war with Austria for Italian independence, but was defeated at Novara in 1849. Ten years later, however, Piedmont made an alliance with France, the second war of independence was declared, and Austria having been defeated at Solferino, 20 July, 1859, by the Franco-Sardinian allies, Lombardy was annexed to Piedmont. In 1860 the Duchies of Modena and Parma, the Grand Duchy of Tuscany and the Romagnas (12 March), the Marches and Umbria (5 November), Naples and Sicily (21 October), were incorporated with Piedmont, and on 17 March, 1861, the Parliament at Turin proclaimed the Kingdom of Italy. In 1866, by its alliance with Prussia, Italy obtained Venice; finally, on 20 September, 1870, Rome, having been taken by force of arms, declared its union with the Kingdom of Italy through the plebiscite (2 October) of that year. In the formation of the new kingdom, says Minghetti, the revolution was the impelling force, not abandoned, however, to the hands of conspirators unorganized and without authority, but directed by the government of Piedmont, especially by Baron Cavour, who used it in the interest of Piedmontese supremacy, while he appealed to the sentiments of independence and of Italianism very strong in the people of northern Italy. By these two forces, ably manipulated, Cavour secured the political unity of Italy under the sceptre of Savoy. The unification of Italy was essentially an act of the Piedmontese Government; otherwise Cavour himself and Massimo d'Azeglio would not have said that once Italy was created it remained to create Italians, nor would there be still, after fifty years of legal unity, that latent germ of regionalism which occasionally asserts itself more or less vigorously. 1f the truth of history be regarded, it will be recognized that the idea of Italian unity arose towards the end of the eighteenth century; with the exception perhaps of Machiavelli, who thought Duke Valentino (Cæsar Borgia) able to bring about the union of the Italians, not one of the great men of Italy like Dante, Petrarch, and others, and none of the popes, had the idea of Italian unity. Joachim Murat, by his Rimini proclamation (1815), first suggested this idea but was not understood and was left to perish alone. His idea, however, was taken up and was vigorously pressed by the enemies of Christianity who held that, if, under the pretext of the unification of Italy, his temporal power should be wrested from the pope, the Church of Christ would of necessity come to an end. In 1871 Rome was declared the capital of the Kingdom of Italy. In that same year Pius IX refused to accept the Law of Guarantees (see GUARANTEES, LAW OF), and in 1878 issued the decree "Non Expedit" against Catholic participation in elections to the Italian Chambers. Pius X modified this measure (1905), and has permitted, under given circumstances, the participation of Catholics in the national elections. POLITICAL AND CIVIL GOVERNMENT (1) Political Establishment The Kingdom of Italy took the form of a constitutional monarchy, hereditary in the male line of the House of Savoy, according to the Salic law, and conformably to the Fundamental Statute that was promulgated by King Charles Albert on 4 March, 1848, for the Sardinian states. This statute which was extended to the various parts of Italy, as they were annexed by the Piedmontese realm, is similar to the French Constitution of 1830; according to it, sovereignty is divided between the king and the nation, the latter electing its representatives by popular suffrage. The legislative power is exercised by the king and Parliament, which consists of the Senate and of the Chamber of Deputies. With the exception of the right of initiative, which is common to all, these three governmental entities have each special functions: it is the province of the king to convoke both houses of Parliament, to close the sessions, to dissolve the Chamber of Deputies, to sanction and promulgate the laws. The Senate and the Chamber of Deputies have the functions of legislation and of watching over the finances, that is to say, the approval of the state budget, which is prepared by the executive branch of the Government; the houses of Parliament have also the function of investigation in both political and administrative matters; it is exercised through interrogation, interpellation, inquest, committees of vigilance, and by other means. Laws of taxation, however, and those concerning the budget must first be approved by the Chamber. On the other hand, the Senate has judicial functions, that is, by royal decree the house may be turned into a high court of justice, to pass upon cases of high treason and of attempts against the security of the State and to judge the ministers who may be accused by the Chamber of Deputies. The latter consists of 508 members who are elected upon the uninominal system by as many electoral constituencies, into which the nation is divided, there being an average population of 66,000 inhabitants for each constituency; the constituent districts may be changed every five years. The period between two general elections is called a legislatura, of which there have been 23, since 8 May, 1848, when the first legislatura was opened. The electoral franchise is exercised by all male citizens who, enjoying their civil and political rights, have attained the age of twenty-one years, know how to read and write (Electoral Law of 28 March, 1895), and have the minimum requirements of intellectual capacity and of income. All citizens who have attained the age of thirty years and who enjoy political and civil rights are eligible to office. In 1909 there were 2,930,473 registered voters, an average of 11.7 per cent of the total population of the kingdom. In the last general election there were 1,903,687 voters, or 65.3 per cent of the total electorate. The Senate consists of members, partly hereditary (the princes of the blood), and partly appointed by the king for life, and without a definite limitation in their number, the age of forty years being a requisite for appointment. Since 1848, 1392 senators have been appointed, there being 370 of them at the present time, not counting the princes of the blood, who become senators at the age of twenty-one years and receive the voting power at the age of twenty-five. Senators and deputies enjoy personal immunity in penal matters, and therefore the Senate alone is competent to judge a senator; while to judge a deputy the magistrate must have the consent of the Chamber of Deputies. A senator or a deputy cannot be arrested, except in flagrante delicto. Their Service is without financial remuneration. The king, as the head of the executive power has the assistance of ministers who are responsible to Parliament; they constitute the cabinet, and are responsible collectively for the official acts of each. They are named and dismissed by the king, who, however, in the exercise of this function must hold in account the manifest tendencies of the Chamber; wherefore the government of Italy is strictly parliamentary. The minister who is the head of the cabinet, called also president of the council, represents the unity of action of the Government, in contraposition to the diversity of functions among the different ministers. The royal prerogatives are: power to declare war, to conclude treaties of peace and of alliance, providing they do not require the cession of territory or of funds, the right of pardon, and that of decree. In the relations of individuals to the State the constitution establishes the following general principles of justice: legal equality, individual liberty, inviolability of domicile, that of property and of public debt, liberty of the press, freedom of association and of meetings, and, finally, equity and proportion in taxation. (2) Church and State The first article of the constitution of the kingdom declares the Catholic religion to be the only state religion. Nevertheless the Italian State and its jurisprudence are atheistical; and in all solemn public functions, as in speeches from the throne, for several years past, any reference to the Divinity is studiously avoided, while the Government, whether conservative or liberal, has always been more or less covertly Voltairian and given to State-worship. The famous formula of Cavour, "A free church in a free state", which is a truth in the United States of America, in Italy is applied only to the domestic concerns of the Church; in all else the Church, in civil and in parliamentary matters, is subject to the State through a jus singulare, which places it in a worse condition than a private citizen in regard to property rights. The laws affecting the Church in Italy are mainly Articles 1 to 18 of the Fundamental Statute of the kingdom; the fundamental constitutional law of 13 May, 1871, on the prerogatives of the sovereign pontiff and on the relations of the State to the Church, called the Law of Guarantees; the law on the suppression of regular and of secular ecclesiastical legal entities, and on the conservation of others (laws of 7 July, 1866, and 5 August, 1867). By the eighteenth article of the constitution, excepting Rome and the six suburbicarian episcopal sees, the revenues from ecclesiastical benefices that are vacant belong as of royal right to the Crown, which, after deducting expenses of administration and those incurred in the interest of the vacant benefice, ought to apply the funds to purposes of worship and of charity, such as subsidies to priests and parochial needs, public worship, and the repair of poor churches. By the Law of Guarantees, the person of the sovereign pontiff is sacred and inviolable; offences committed against him are punished as those committed against the king; royal honours are granted to him; the precedence recognized in him by Catholic sovereigns is maintained, and he is given the right to have guards for his person and for the protection of his palaces. The latter, that is the Vatican, the Palace of the Lateran and the Villa of Castel Gandolfo, with all their appurtenances, enjoy the right of extraterritoriality, which makes them free from visitations and inspections by public authorities, without the authorization of the pope. The exercise of his spiritual ministry is freed from all intervention by extraneous authority, and to this end the pope is given the right to post his decrees on the doors of the churches of Rome, without censorship and with immunity for those persons whose office it is to make such publication. The law also ensures to the sovereign pontiff freedom of correspondence with the Catholic world, there being preserved to him, with this object, the head houses of the various religious orders in Rome, while he is given the faculty of establishing postal and telegraphic offices, with employees of his choosing, at his residence. The envoys of the pope and those accredited to him by foreign powers are guaranteed the prerogatives and immunities that are recognized in diplomatic agents, by international law. Finally, the law sets aside an annuity of $645,000, to be paid to the pope for the needs of the Holy See, for the maintenance of the Apostolic palaces, and for the salaries of servants attached to his person; this annuity is exempted from taxation for all time. During a vacancy of the pontifical throne no judicial or political authority may interfere with the personal liberty of cardinals, and the Government is obliged to protect the meetings of the conclave from any external violence. The cardinalate is among the titles that make the holder eligible to the Senate, and, in matters of ceremonial precedence and of military honours, cardinals are made equal with the princes of the blood. The law assigns a sum of $20,000 to be paid to the Holy See for the maintenance of the houses of the various religious orders, excepting that of the Jesuits. The right of royal exequatur over the acts of the sovereign pontiff and that of royal placet over the acts of diocesan bishops, is exercised by the State only in regard to the use of ecclesiastical property and to the provision for the benefices, except in the city of Rome and in the suburbicarian sees; this royal prerogative, however, is of a provisional nature, because it is to cease with the re-arrangement of ecclesiastical property that is promised by the Law of Guarantees. All religious character has been taken from matrimony and from oaths; all intervention that the Church exercised in public charities and in education, according to historical tradition, has been suppressed and has been more and more replaced by lay authority; the cemeteries have been placed under civil authority; the courses of theology have been abolished in the universities, as has also the office of military chaplain, except in the case of penal establishments; there remains only the ancient custom of blessing the flags in the army and in the navy. The law that suppressed religious corporations, the regular ecclesiastical bodies having legal personality, and kindred secular ecclesiastical bodies, that is simple benefices, collegiate churches, chaplaincies, prelacies, pious legacies, and every other perpetual religious institution having religious cult for its object, was deprived of legal personality, which, contrary to Roman and canon law, is merely a concession of the State, while the property of these establishments was absorbed into the public treasury and civil patrons were given the right to receive in part the goods of the suppressed benefices. The same laws, however, maintained the episcopal sees, the seminaries, cathedral chapters (although reducing the number of canons), the confraternities, and the administratorships. A part of the property of these bodies, excepting parishes, confraternities, and administrations, equivalent to 30 per cent of their value, was taken into the public treasury for the benefit of the State, and the remainder of their real possessions was transformed into movable property, i. e., into state revenues, less 5 per cent for the expense of administration, exception being made of parishes, confraternities, artistic buildings and those destined to religious cult, and the building necessary to these bodies in performance of their functions, as episcopal palaces, seminaries, and others. Simultaneously with the suppression of ecclesiastical bodies, there was established an autonomous administration, independent of government superintendence, called Fondo per il Culto, with the function of administrating the property of the suppressed bodies, despoiled of 30 per cent of its value and converted into public bonds, and of applying the income thereof to the purposes of religion and charity. The first duty of this administration was to provide for the charges upon the suppressed bodies in the cases of the existence of their personal incumbents, who have the right to require such provision through process of law; the duty also devolved upon this establishment of paying pensions to the members of suppressed religious orders; and when the pensions become extinct, three-fourths of the capital sum registered in favour of the Fondo per il Culto, representing the property of the suppressed corporations, will revert to the State. The administration in question is obliged to supplement the episcopal incomes that may not have reached the sum of $1200, as also to supplement the salaries of parish priests whose net income is less than $200. Under the pretext of distributing the remainder of its revenue in equitable proportions among the different ecclesiastical benefices, but in reality to bolster up the Fondo per il Culto, upon which were imposed expenses beyond its resources, all the ecclesiastical bodies that were retained are obliged to make yearly increasing contributions, called "quota of assistance". As to the confraternities, the law places them among the bodies who must assist in the support of the infirm; and as these institutions have always secondary, beneficent ends, the State obliges them to render account of their operations in this field, and authorizes the communes to require them to divert their resources to lay works, for local benefit, allowing the confraternity only a minimum annuity for expenses of religious worship. Wherefore, of all the property of the Church in Italy, the State has left only a small portion to the bodies that have been retained, and that under strong vigilance and censorship, as regards either the diminution or the increase of that remnant. Another portion was taken from proprietary bodies, to establish a fund for religious cult; and a small part was taken from the Church, to be returned to lay patrons who might ask for it, or to apply it to purposes of instruction and of beneficence. In short the greater part of the ecclesiastical property, under different showings and by subtle expedients, was confiscated. (3) Ecclesiastical Circumscription The territory of the kingdom is divided into 275 dioceses, including that of Rome, the Pontifical See, of which the bishop is the Vicar of Jesus Christ, successor of the Prince of the Apostles and Pontiff of the Universal Church; 6 dioceses are suburbicarian, namely, Ostia and Velletri, Porto and Santa Rufina, Albano, Frascati, Palestrina, and Sabina. The titular cardinalates, i. e. the suburbicarian sees, the titular churches, and the diaconal ones existing in Rome number 75. Of Italian sees, 75 are immediately subject to Rome, of which 13 are governed by archbishops, and the remaining 200 constitute 37 ecclesiastical provinces, consisting each of a metropolitan see, which is one of the archdioceses, and of a number of suffragan sees that are governed by bishops. Among the metropolitan sees, that of Venice is that of a patriarchate. There are 11 abbeys and prelacies nullius dioeceseos. Each diocese is subdivided into parishes, of which there are 20,685 in all the kingdom; there are 60,446 churches, chapels, and public oratories, the service of which is maintained by 69,310 priests, regular and secular. The episcopal seminaries have 21,453 students. There are 30,564 religious; lastly, the Catholic educational establishments consist of 532 schools for boys, having 55,870 scholars, and 1302 for girls, with 102,491 scholars. (4) Codes In Italy there are seven codes, namely, the civil, the commercial, the penal, the civil procedure, the penal procedure, the military, and the mercantile marine codes. The confusion between Roman and canon law, Germanic and Italian written law, and local common law obstructed the straightforward and expeditious administration of justice; and this gave rise to the first codifications, chief among which in Italy is the "Codice Vittorio", formulated in 1723, under Victor Amadeus III of Savoy; but the most important and best prepared work of codification was without doubt the "Codice Napoleone", which was published on 21 March, 1804, and which served as a model for the civil legislation of almost every country in Europe or in America, including the states into which Italy was divided; the present civil code of the kingdom is directly derived from it, and for this reason, the history of French law is of great importance for the interpretation of Italian law. The authors of the Napoleonic Code were not carried away by the doctrines of the school of natural right, as were German legislators, but they sought in the countries de droit coutumier and in the jurisprudence of parliaments guides to make the Roman written law, the Germanic law, and the law of the land more harmonious with the requirements of the times. Once Italy had constituted itself into a nation, there was felt the need of a common civil code which should unify the various codes of the former states of the peninsula; accordingly, on 25 June, 1865, there was published the Civil Code of the Kingdom of Italy, which went into force on 1 January, 1866. This code, which is based upon Roman law, is the only civil law of the land; and it needs some reformation to make it more consonant with new economical and social needs. The code consists of three books and, like the French code, follows the clear and traditional Gaian division: "Omne jus, quo utimur, aut ad personas, aut ad res, aut ad actiones pertinet." Furthermore, the code is preceded by twelve articles which, as leges legum, lay down rules for the publication, the interpretation, and the application of laws in general. The very ancient rules of merchant guilds, which date back to the eleventh century and which did much to promote the greatness of the Italian communes, were the source of the commercial legislation, and little by little they were systematically put in order, so that between the years 1200 and 1800 the various statutes, when approved by the overlord, came to constitute the written mercantile law of the different states of Italy. By two ordinances of Louis XIV (1673, 1681) the commercial law was codified and from this the Napoleonic Code was partly taken (1808). The latter was carried by French arms into many European countries. The Italian Code, the Albert Code of 1842, and the code of 1865 also were modelled on the French Code. But, as the one of 1865 was no longer in harmony with the modern conditions of traffic, it was succeeded on 1 January, 1883, by the new Code of Commerce, which shows progress by the wealth of its contents, by its recognition of the freedom of the contracting parties, by the simplicity of its forms, by the conciseness of its language, and by its efficacious protection of credit, specially in regard to exchange. Rumania adopted this code, almost literally, in 1887. Contrary to the order obtaining in civil matters, the law regards commercial matters as resting, primarily, on the code and on commercial legislation; in the second place, on mercantile practices; and in the third place, on civil law. The code is divided into four books; the first relates to commerce in general, the second to maritime commerce and to navigation, the third to bankruptcy, and the fourth to commercial causes. Before the unification of Italy, each one of the states into which the country was divided had penal laws of its own; when, however, the union had been accomplished, the Albert Code of 1859, which was in force in Piedmont, was made applicable to the other states, excepting Tuscany, where there remained in force the Code of 1853. Reasons, analogous to those suggested in relation with commercial matters, made apparent the need of a new penal code, and one was published on 30 June, 1889, which came into force on 1 January of the following year. This code deals first with transgressions and punishments in general, and then with transgressions in detail, and it adopts the rational, ontological division of violations of the law into felonies and misdemeanors. On the other hand, in the case of participation of several persons in a crime, by articles 63 and 64, the law accepts the sound doctrine of aiding and abetting, while the system of intensive cumulation of punishments of Bauer was adopted for cases of multiplicity of crimes and punishments. With regard to relapsed criminals the following principles were adopted:-- + (a) relapse into crime aggravates its malice against the State; + (b) such malice may be incurred even though the criminal has not hitherto been brought to the bar for his crimes; + (c) the fact that a crime is habitual must be kept in sight; + (d) a crime can only be branded as habitual if committed within a certain fixed period of time dating from last conviction. The system of punishment adopted, and known as the Irlandese, consisted in:-- + (a) a period of solitary confinement; + (b) a period of hard labour with solitary confinement at night; + (c) a period of intermediate imprisonment; + (d) a period of ticket-of-leave. Imprisonment for life has taken the place of the death sentence, and periods of imprisonment for various offences vary from three days to twenty-three years, with or without hard labour according to the nature of the offence. Another penalty enforced for periods of not less than a month and not more than three years is enforced residence within assigned limits but without imprisonment. The only financial punishment is in the nature of a fine of not less than $2 and not more than $2000. Finally, there is the loss of civil and political rights, and of public office, which may he temporary, for periods varying from three months to five years, or it may be perpetual. The punishments for misdemeanours are arrest for not less than one day or more than 2 years, and fine, of not less than $0.20 or more than $400, and finally suspension from the practice of a profession or of a trade, for a period of not less than three days or more than two years. Domiciliary arrest and judicial reprimand may be substituted for other punishments; admonition, surveillance, and forced residence in a certain place are additional punishments. A recent law sanctions conditional condemnation. Causes that may nullify the trials besides the death of the accused, are amnesty, or withdrawal of the charge by the interested party, and prescription. A special reason for annulling a trial in cases of misdemeanour is voluntary surrender. Amnesty, pardon and rehabilitation are special causes of the nullification of a trial. In civil proceedings the usual course is to issue a summons citing the individual to appear for trial on a fixed day. Arrest in civil proceedings is the exception. Finally, as the present Code of Penal Procedure does not fulfil the modern requirements of a speedy trial and of fairness to the accused, several modifications have already been provided, especially in the preparation of the case for the purpose of avoiding the evils of long preliminary arrest, which violates the principles of habeas corpus, especially as the State pays no indemnity to those detained in prison while awaiting trial. (5) Judicial Establishment Justice emanates from the king and is administered in his name by judges whom he appoints. To secure judicial independence judges cannot be degraded, their salaries cannot be withheld, and their residences cannot be changed. In Italy the function of the judge is limited to recognizing the existence of a law and to applying it. As regards the acts of the executive power, these, to be valid before the courts, must be conformable to the laws. For the administration of justice the kingdom is divided into five principal districts with High Courts of Appeal, for civil cases, subdivided into twenty districts with Courts of Appeal, for both civil and criminal cases and consisting each of one or more Assize Circuits, which have only criminal jurisdiction, there are 162 districts of civil and criminal tribunals, and 1535 preture, or petty-sessions courts having civil and criminal jurisdiction. Every commune, according to its population, has one or more arbitration judges, dealing only with civil cases. These unsalaried officials may be called on to arbitrate money disputes, and they have the right to pass sentence in trials not involving sums of more than $20. The prætor, who sits alone in his court, is the representative of the law in the popular imagination, and the State attaches to his office many functions of a purely administrative nature; in civil matters his court is also one of appeal from the sentence of the arbitration magistrates, and is the court of first instance for civil cases involving sums of more than $20 and less than $300, and for cases of possession, whatever be the sums involved, excepting questions of taxation, in which only the tribunals have jurisdiction. The prætor has jurisdiction in all felonies and misdemeanours in which the accused may be sentenced to confinement or imprisonment for not more than three months, to restriction of residence for not more than one year, or to a fine of not more than $200. Each tribunal consists of three members and has civil and commercial jurisdiction, as a court of first instance, in all cases that are above the competency of the prætor, from whose judgments there is an appeal to the tribunal. In criminal matters, the Tribunal is the court of first instance, in cases not belonging to the jurisdiction of the prætors or of the Assize Courts, and it hears appeals from the sentences of the prætor. Jurisdiction in the second instance, in cases that are appealed from civil or criminal tribunals, belongs to the Courts of Appeal, which consist each of five members. The Assize Courts consist each of a president, who is a state judge, and of twelve citizens, called jurors, who are selected by lot from the district lists of those who are duly qualified by age and by intelligence, to fill the office. The Assize Courts have jurisdiction in criminal cases in which the punishment may be imprisonment or other restriction of personal liberty, for a period of not less than five years or more than ten years, and also in Cases concerning political rights, those relating to the offences by ministers of religion in the exercise of their functions, and to public violations of the liberty of the press. The High Courts of Appeal are the supreme custodians of the law and of judicial functions, and therefore their jurisdiction is limited to matters of law, determining only the question of legal error on the part of inferior courts, confirming the sentence, if such error be not found, or, on the contrary, annulling the sentence and ordering the rehearing of the case by another judge. If the new judge does not observe the principles of law laid down by the High Court of Appeal, the defeated party may again appeal to a competent High Court of Appeal, which will thereupon decide on the merits of the case, such decision to be final. Contrary to the functions of the other High Courts of Appeal, which are established respectively at Turin, Florence, Naples, and Palermo, that of Rome is final in criminal, in revenue, and in ecclesiastical matters. According to statistics of 1904, published in 1908, civil proceedings were instituted in 1,900,856 cases, an average of 57 per cent of the population, the greater number of which originated in the southern provinces; the criminal statistics of the year show 804,683 indictments, 523,206 for felony and 281,477 for misdemeanours. The number of convictions, which in 1881 was 305,593, was increased by 24.29 per cent to 379,820 in 1904. Crimes of violence, resistance to authorities, commercial dishonesty, crimes against public and private morality, and criminality among juveniles have increased. All suggest remedies for this condition of things, ignoring, either through stupidity or malice, the fact that the only remedy consists in religious education. (6) Administrative Departments The ministries are the superior directing offices of the Italian administration at the capital; each one of them is under a minister assisted by a sub-secretary of state; they are eleven in number, and are known as Ministers of the Interior, of Foreign Affairs, of Finance, of the Treasury, of War, of the Navy, of Clemency, of Justice and of Religious Worship, of Public Works, of Agriculture, of Industry and Commerce, and of Public Education. There is a Council of State, the function of which is to advise the Government; it is a supreme assembly whose duty it is, besides that of administrative justice, to give the administration "opinions", which are called "obligatory" in those cases in which the law obliges the minister to seek such opinions; and in these cases, if the Council be not consulted, the administrative act is unconstitutional and legally void. Another supreme assembly, exercising control over the public administration, is the Court of Accounts; its chief functions are to examine all decrees, from the standpoint of their legality, and thereafter to affix to such decrees its approval, after which they become executive, to control and audit all income and expenditure, to represent the State in all litigation over public funds or other securities of the State or for which the State is liable, and over those salaried officials guilty of peculation or maladministration of public funds. (7) Political Divisions The kingdom is divided into 69 provinces, 284 departments, 1805 boroughs, and 8290 communes. The province and the commune are self-governing entities, having a legal personality, exercising their activity in their own interest and indirectly in the interest of the State; they are, moreover, territorial organs of the national administration. On the other hand, the district is a hierarchical division of the province, while the borough is a division of the large communes or an aggregation of small ones and is an electoral territory, and in some measure a judicial and fiscal one. Although the commune is a natural division, like the Italian province, it is a creation of the Italian law. In the province, which is regarded as the local arm of governmental administration, the State exercises its functions through a prefect, who represents the central executive power and is assisted by a prefectoral council and an office of his own. Under him are the sub-prefects at the capitals of districts, the executive and governmental offices, and the public charities. In the commune the State exercises its functions through a syndic, who, therefore, is a government officer. The province and the commune have deliberative bodies that are self-governing and are called respectively provincial council and communal council; they consist of a membership that varies in numbers according to population, there being from sixty members to twenty members in the provincial councils, and from eighty to fifteen in the communal council, all of whom are elected by the people. The executive branch of the province is the deputation, consisting of from ten to six members, according to population, while that of the commune is composed of the syndic and the communal board, which consists of from ten to two members called assessors. All of these bodies are drawn from their respective councils. The prefect, representing the State, exercises juridic control over all the acts of the provincial council, of the communal council, of the deputation, and of the boards; and if they be not according to law, he annuls them. By administrative control, a semi-elective assembly, called provincial board, over which the prefect presides, examines, for its approval, all of those acts of the above bodies that are beyond those of normal administration, as are the alienation or the hypothecation of capital, expenses that are binding upon the budget for more than five years, regulations, etc. Finally, for weighty reasons of public order or because of maladministration, the Government may dissolve the communal or the provincial councils and name, to replace them, a commissary for the commune, and a commission for the province, for the time required to reconstruct the councils. (8) Administration of Justice In Italy, conformably with the principle of unum jus, una jurisdictio, all differences between the citizen, the self-governing political divisions of the country, and the State are referred to the judicial power, whether it be a question of civil or of political rights; but controversies concerning private interests or damage through a given act of the Government are referred to two administrative bodies which have jurisdiction in litigation of this nature; they are the administrative board, in each province, and the Council of State (sections 4 and 5). The former determines the right and wrong, in the first instance, of cases of illegality on the part of provincial or of communal administrators or of those of corporations, in acts that may be done by those officials to the detriment of private persons or of corporations in cases that are enumerated by the law. The Council of State judges in cases of appeal from the decisions of the provincial administrative boards (section 5); moreover it exercises jurisdiction alone in cases of incompetency, of abuse of power, or of violation of the law by a deliberating administrative body, except in regard to acts of government done in the exercise of political power (section 4). By this novel institution, which the executive power has borrowed from the judicial, the Staatsrecht has been established in Italy. In the not remote possibility of conflict between the judicial and the executive powers, the Court of Cassation of Rome, which is the supreme organ of the judicial branch of government, has the deciding power. Finally, for the protection of the property of the commune, under certain conditions, the actio popularis procuratoria may be exercised by any taxpayer, as actio suppletiva, to supplement the work of the communal authorities, or as actio correctiva, in pursuance of a right of the commune against its functionaries; but the actio popularis, or motion on behalf of the people, must be made before the usual magistrate, whether criminal or civil, excluding, however, the administrative magistrate. (9) Finance The new Kingdom of Italy not only inherited the financial burdens of the former Italian states, but also bore those of the debt incurred on account of the wars and of the expense of maintaining the army on a war footing, so that the first budget (1862) was closed with a deficit of nearly $90,000,000, which in 1866, on account of the war for the acquisition of Venice, was increased to $144,000,000. From that time the financial policy of Italy has had no other purpose than to balance its budget, and consequently new taxes were imposed upon the people, e. g. by the taxation of the grinding of cereals and by an increase of one-tenth on all direct taxation, while the expense of the civil administration was reduced from $6,300,000 to a little more than $4,000,000, notwithstanðing the annexation of Venice; and the military expenses were reduced from $116,000,000 to little more than $37,000,000. As, notwithstanding these measures, the deficit continued, the law of 11 August, 1870, increased existing taxations and created new taxes, till finally, in 1875, the budget closed with a surplus of nearly $3,000,000; nevertheless the former deficits still weighed upon the treasury: 50 per cent of the receipts was disbursed in the payment of interest on debt, and the compulsory acceptance of paper currency encumbered circulation and maintained money at a high price, impeding the development of national progress. Under these conditions the parliamentary revolution of 8 March, 1876, was accomplished, and the party of Cavour (the right) fell from power. The party of the opposition, having assumed the administration of public affairs, directed its financial policy towards the equalization of taxes by reducing some of them and by increasing others; in 1884 it abolished the odious tax on the grinding of cereals, which brought over $16,000,000 to the treasury. To this great loss of revenue was added an increase of 83.18 per cent to the expenses of administration and defence, besides the interest on the debt caused by the suppression of compulsory acceptance of paper currency; and, in the fiscal year of 1885-86 there reappeared the deficit, which in 1888-89 reached the sum of $50,000,000. The Government then bethought itself of putting a stop to the increase of burdens upon the budget and of eliminating all unnecessary expense; as, however, the finances remained unbalanced and the debt was increased by the war in the colony of Eritrea, further economies and new taxes were devised; so that, in the fiscal year 1895-96, when Italy celebrated the twenty-fifth anniversary of the taking of Rome, it was possible to foresee financial equilibrium; but, owing to the war with Abyssinia, that expectation was not realized until the fiscal year 1897-98. Then, however, the position of the treasury being more favourable and circulation having become more free, there were three objects towards which financial policy could tend: the immediate lightening of taxation, the improvement of the public service, and the preparation for the conversion of the debt; and the economical awakening of the nation and the improvement of financial conditions made it possible to seek the attainment of these three ends almost simultaneously; thus, while the expense for the army and for the navy was increased, the law of 23 January, 1902, abolished the internal taxes on farinaceous products; by the law of 22 April, 1905, the State assumed control of the railroads, and by the law of 29 June, 1906, was effected the conversion of the Rente, the 5 per cent gross and the 4 per cent net, into 3.5 per cent net. In the period from 1862 to 1907-1908 the receipts amounted to $12,260,000,000, the expenses to $12,883,000,000, with a total deficit of $1,623,000,000. The Treasury receipts for the year 1907-1908 amounted to nearly $400,000,000, the expenditure for the same period being $340,000,000. The extraordinary cash expenses for the same year amounted to $41,000,000. The intangible expenses, which, in 1868, represented 50.28 per cent of the total of extraordinary expenses, amounted only to 39.85 per cent for 1907-1908. The greater portion of these disbursements is connected with the payment of interest on the debts and with the payment of civil and of military pensions. From the establishment of the kingdom to the last named fiscal year, the State has paid more than $5,000,000,000 in interest on debts. From 1868 to 1907-1908 this expense has been increased by $32,000,000, 39.8 per cent. This increase is due to the suppression of compulsory paper money in 1882, to the expense for the war in Abyssinia, to the redemption of the Adriatic railways, and to the provision of funds for the operation of the state railways. The expenses for pensions in the same period of time increased by 76.09 per cent; general expenses of civil administration, which in 1886 were $3,750,000, are now more than $8,000,000, haying increased 221.49 per cent, while those of the public service have increased about 219.55 per cent. The increase of $35,500,000 between 1868 and 1907-1908 in the ordinary military expenses is the result of an increase in the war budget of $17,200,000 and of $18,300,000 for the navy. The nominal capital of the public debt on 30 June, 1908, was $2,655,000,000. The law on the administration of the property of the State and on the general accounts, and the corresponding rules and regulations, establishes the methods for all accounting, whether in regard to economical or to property matters or in regard to the budget. DEFENCE OF ITALY The Alps and the sea, the natural boundaries of Italy, constitute the best frontiers that a nation could desire, while they do not isolate the country from the neighbouring states. But the many political vicissitudes that Italy has undergone have left considerable portions of the Alpine region in foreign hands; consequently the northern barrier is partially nullified for defensive purposes; and with a view to strengthening the weakened points of the western frontier, many fortifications were built, as those of Zuccarello, St. Bernard, Tenda, Fenestrelle, Assietta, Cenisio, and others. The River Po constitutes the second line of defence, protected along its western portion by the fortresses of Genoa and of Alessandria; at the centre, by those of Piacenza and Pizzighettone, and on the east, by the Quadrilateral and by Venice. The Northern Apennines constitute the third line of defence; it is not as strong as the former two, but is none the less important because it is oblique to the line of invasion; on the west it has the fortresses of Genoa and of Piacenza, and the fortifications of Bologna at the centre. Peninsillar Italy has no lack of good positions for defence, but they are of little value if the army be not supported by a powerful fleet. It should be noted, as history shows, that the determining events of war in Italy always take place -- or thus far have done so -- on the Continental portion of the territory. The present parliamentary committee of inquiry or the army, in order to correct the serious defects in the defence of the frontier, has proposed the establishment of new defensive works costing approximately $28,000,000 for the land frontiers, and $10,000,000 for the coasts. (1) Army The army is divided into the permanent army, the movable militia, and the territorial militia. All citizens capable of bearing arms are obliged to serve in the army or in the navy (law of 6 August, 1888); this compulsory service extends from 20 to 39 years of age, partly in the ranks and partly under unlimited leave; while service in the ranks should be three years, a new law has reduced the length of service to two years. After the eighth or ninth year of compulsory service, the citizen is transferred from the permanent army to the movable militia, where he remains registered until 31 December of the twelfth year of compulsory service, and during the last seven years of it he is in the territorial militia. The recruiting is done under the mixed system, that is, national, with movable posts, in time of peace, to strengthen the sentiment of union; and territorial in the case of mobilization; the first is based upon the district, and the second upon the regimental reserves. In 1907 and 1908, 225,000 men constituted the army on a peace footing; on this basis the average strength of a company of infantry is 80 men. About 29,300 men of all arms (except cavalry) on unlimited leave are recalled each year for instruction, that is, less than 22 men per company, as compared with 75 who are recalled in Germany, 100 in France, and 135 in Austria-Hungary. The contingent of men that must join the ranks is determined annually by Parliament and is thereafter divided among the provinces, the districts, and the commanderies; it constitutes the first draft; the men over and above that number are given unlimited leave and belong to the second draft. Whether a man will belong to the first or second draft will depend on the number of men in his year, on the number of recruits wanted, on the chance of his drawing a high number from the urn, and on the number of recruits dismissed as unfit for military service. The third draft consists of young men who have been declared capable of bearing arms, but who are exempt from service in the ranks for family reasons, determined by law (law of 15 December, 1907). Soldiers registered in the second class may be called to arms in time of peace once or oftener, but for a combined length of time of not more than six months (law of 24 December, 1908). The rapid or progressive increase in the losses of the yearly contingent, notwithstanding the growth of the population, is alarming. In the decade comprising the call of those born between 1864 and 1873, 18.44 per cent of those registered were excused from service; in the call for 1906 the proportion of those excused from service was 26.09 per cent, 14.48 per cent of these on account of weak chests and 19.24 per cent on account of diseased constitutions, making 33.72 per cent. Wherefore more than one-third of those excused from service owe their release to lack of nutrition or to the effects of vicious living, and in 1909, 39 out of every 100 conscripts have been found unfit to bear arms; in the southern provinces those unfit for service amount to three-fifths of the whole; Sicily furnishes an average of 1 out of 5 competent for the service, and Sardinia only 1. The insufficiently nourished come from the country, and those broken down by vice from the towns and large centres. There is a markedly increasing reluctance among the young men in answering the call to arms and in presenting themselves for military training. Between 1901 and 1905, 8.1 per cent were disaffected: in 1906, 8.8 per cent; and in 1906 alone the number of defaulters was 11,443. Nor does the number seem to have diminished in succeeding years. The law of 20 June, 1897, divides the Italian army in time of peace into twelve army corps of two divisions each; the territory of a division is subdivided into eighty-eight districts, the recruiting for each division being under the charge of from two to seven of these districts in time of peace, while mobilization is under the charge of the regimental reserves. Each division contains two brigades of infantry, consisting of two regiments, one of cavalry and one of artillery, besides two skeleton regiments of infantry and one section of artillery of the movable militia. The Bersaglieri and the Alpine regiments are under the direct orders of the commanders of army corps. The territorial service of troops and of administration is under territorial direction, 13 for the artillery, 15 for the engineers, 12 for the sanitary corps, 12 for the commissary department, and 13 military tribunals. There are 96 regiments of infantry, two of them grenadiers, and 94 of the line, and consisting each of 3 battalions of 4 companies, each company in time of war consisting of 250 men; 12 regiments of bersaglieri, each of 3 battalions, with 1 cyclist company for each regiment; 7 Alpine regiments that are divided into 22 Battalions and 75 companies. The permanent army and the movable militia are armed with the Manlicher-Carcano rifle, model 91, calibre 6.5 mm., with a fixed magazine for 6 cartridges; the territorial militia is armed with a modification of the Wetterly rifle. The total force of the army in time of peace consists of 13,765 officers and 272,187 non-commissioned officers and men, and 52,548 horses and mules. In 1908 the army on a war-footing amounted to 3,401,038 men, that is, 272,187 men under arms; 488,487 men on leave; 372,560 in the movable militia, and 2,274,737 belonging to the territorial militia, besides 39,067 officers. The infantry and cavalry officers are educated at the Military School of Modena, and those of the artillery and of the engineers at the Military Academy of Turin; there are, moreover, the military colleges of Naples and of Rome for primary military education, while the School of War, the School of Application for the artillery and the engineers, the Central School of Marksmanship for artillery, furnish instruction to officers; non-commissioned officers are taught at the Central Military School of Defence; and surgeons are trained at the School of Applied Military Hygiene. The service of military intendance is exercised by twelve bodies, having the function of direction and vigilance, and by twenty-four commissary sections, stationed with each commander of an army corps or of a division. This body, in time of war, has the duty of assuring the subsistence of the army, of managing the funds, and of providing the uniforms and equipment; while the accountants have charge of the accounts and administration in these matters. The regiments provide themselves by means of the fixed allowance granted by the State per man and per day of service as follows; daily pay 10 centimes; food 61 centimes; uniform 12 centimes; extras 16 centimes, total, 99 centimes, or nearly 20 cents. This allowance goes to meet the cost of mess, uniform, etc., and is used by each regiment to best advantage. The permanent Council of Administration of the regiment has charge of the regiment's administrative matters and is responsible to the ministry. This system, which has the merit of being a well-ordered decentralization of power does not satisfy present military requirements; whether through the interference of the central administration or because the assignment is no longer in harmony with economical conditions, the messes of the regiments are either in debt or must have recourse to makeshifts. (2) Navy For the administration of the navy the coasts of the Kingdom of Italy are divided into three maritime departments: Spezia, Naples, and Venice. The department of Spezia comprises the coast from the French frontier to Terracina, the island of Sardinia and its dependencies, and the Tuscan Archipelago; the department of Naples comprises the coast from Terracina to Cape Santa Maria di Leuca and the island of Sicily and its dependencies; the department of Venice includes the littoral from Cape Santa Maria di Leuca to the Austrian frontier. The twenty-four maritime divisions, the six arsenals, the ports of construction, the depots of stores and of coal, the maritime fortifications and the sixty-four telegraphic posts along the coast are all under their respective maritime division. The recruiting for the navy is, in principle, identical with that for the army: all citizens registered in the twenty-four maritime divisions are liable to be called for naval service, those who have served their time are put on unlimited leave, and are at once transferred to the permanent army, so that, with the exception of the officers, there is scarcely any naval reserve. In 1908 there were in the naval service 23,143 men, afloat, 5249 on the coasts, and 2035 officers; total peace strength, 30,427 men. In 1909 the fleet consisted of 15 battleships, 10 armoured cruisers, 25 protected cruisers, 122 torpedo-boats, torpedo-gunboats, and torpedo-destroyers, and 7 submarines. There were, moreover, 2 battleships, 1 protected cruiser, and 10 torpedo-boats in course of construction. In 1909-1910 the expenses on naval construction are anticipated to amount to nearly $9,000,000. Italy is the seventh of the naval powers and has an efficient tonnage of 150,980. The naval academy at Leghorn and the engineering school of Venice provide officers for the navy. EDUCATION In the Kingdom of Italy education is divided into primary or elementary, secondary and superior, and the scholastic administration, in general, is under the Ministry of Public Instruction, which is assisted by a partly elective Superior Council, consisting of thirty-two members; local educational administration, excluding universities, is under the prefect, a provincial scholastic council, the superintendent of studies, the board of vigilance for the technical and nautical institutes, and the district inspectors of the elementary schools. Elementary instruction is divided into two grades, the lower and the superior, each of which is divided into three classes, and the law compels the communes to furnish it; it is, as a rule, gratuitous, and parents and guardians are obliged to see that their charges receive it between the ages of six years and twelve years, unless they provide otherwise for their children's instruction (laws of 15 July, 1877, and 8 July, 1904). The State furnishes primary instruction, also, in schools established in foreign parts. No citizen is allowed to vote who has not passed the examination at the end of the primary course. The normal schools train the teachers of the elementary schools. It is evident, however, that compulsion in regard to this elementary education, both so far as the communes and the heads of families are concerned, is as yet only a laudable wish, seeing the very slow diminution in the numbers of those unable to read and write. Those who did not know how to read and write, according to the census of 1872 constituted an average of 68.7 per cent of the population; the same class, in the census of 1901, furnishes a corresponding average of 52.3. The illiterate among the army conscripts born in 1886 numbered 50,642, or 29.3 per cent of the enrolled, and the corresponding figures of the navy conscripts born in 1885 were 5833 or 48.7, In the marriages contracted in 1906 there was a proportion of 29.3 per cent of the men, and 42.1 per cent of the women illiterate. The causes of permanent illiteracy, notwithstanding expenditure and government effort, are poverty of workingmen's families, which are constrained to make their children earners before they have reached the age of twelve years; the moral debasement of the teachers who, with some exceptions, have become apostles of socialism and atheism, because of their miserable remuneration, which is inferior to the salary of a workman; the want of care on the part of the communes in regard to the hygiene of the schools, which makes the school a repellent rather than an attractive centre; the fact that the agricultural population is scattered through the country, which makes profitable attendance at school difficult for the children; many children leave school without having acquired instruction, knowing scarcely how to write their names. What are the remedies? ARCHDIOCESES AND DIOCESES OF ITALY Part A Suburbicarian Sees (1) Ostis and Velletri, (2) Porto & S. Rufina, (3) Albano, (4) Frascati, (5) Palestrina, (6) Sabina I. Subject Immediately to the Holy See ARCHDIOCESES Amalfi Ancona Aquila Camerino Catania Cosenza Ferrara Gaeta Lucca Perugia Rossano Spoleto Udine DIOCESES Aci-Reale Aquapendente Alatri Amelia Anagni Aquino, Sora & Pontecorvo Arezzo Ascoli Assisi Aversa Bagnorea Borgo S. Donnino Cava & Sarno Città della Pieve Città di Castello Cività Castellana, Orte and Gallese DIOCESES (Cont.) Corneto Tarquinia & Civitavecchia Cortona Fabriano & Matelica Fano Ferentino Foggia Foligno Gravina & Monte Peloso Gubbio Jesi Luni-Sarzana S. Marco & Bisignano Marsi Melfi & Rapolla DIOCESES (Cont.) Mileto Molfetta Terlizzi & Giovenazzo Monopoli Montalcino Montefiascone Montepulciano Nardò Narni & Terni Nocera Norcia Orvieto Osimo & Cingoli Parma Penne & Atri Placenza Plenza Poggio Mirteto DIOCESES (Cont.) Recanati & Loreto Rieti Segni Sutri & Napi Teramo Terracina and Piperno Tivoli Todi Treia Trivento Troia Umana Valva & Sulmona Veroli Viterbo and Toscanella ARCHDIOCESES AND DIOCESES OF ITALY Part B Piedmont and Liguria Lombardy and Venice States of the Church Tuscany and Emilia II GENOA Albenga Bobbio Brugnato Chiavari Savona & Noli Tortona Ventimiglia III TURIN Acqui Alba Aosta Asti Cuneo Fossano Ivrea Mondovi Pinerolo Saluzzo Susa IV VERCELLI Alessandria della Paglia Biella Casale Mon- ferrato Novara Vigevano V MILAN Bergamo Brescia Como Crema Cremona Lodi Mantua Pavia VI VENICE Adria Belluno & Feltre Ceneda Chioggia Concordia Padua Treviso Verona Vicenza VII BOLOGNA Faenza Imola VIII FERMO Macerata & Tolentino Montalto Ripatransone S. Severino IX RAVENNA Bertinoro Cervia Cesena Comacchio Forli Rimini Sarsina X URBINO S. Angelo in Vado & Urbania Caglia & Pergola Fossombrone Montefeltro Pesaro Sanigallia XI FLORENCE Borgo San Sepolcro Colle di Val d'Elsa Fiesole S. Miniato Modigliana Pistoia & Prato XII MODENA Carpi Guastalla Massa di Carrara Reggio XIII PISA Leghorn Pescia Pontremoli Volterra XIV SIENA Chiusi Grosseto Massa Marit- tima Sovana- Pitigliano ARCHDIOCESES AND DIOCESES OF ITALY Part C Southern Provinces Sicily Sardinia XV ACERENZA & MATERA Anglona-Tursi Potenza Tricarico Venosa XVI BARI Conversano Ruvo & Bitanto XVII BENEVENTO S. Agata del Goti Alife Ariano Ascoli, Satriano & Cirignola Avellino Bojano Bovino Larino Lucera S. Severo XVII Cont. Telese Termoli XVIII BRINDISI Ostuni XIX CAPUA Calazzo Calvi & Teano Caserta Isernia & Venafro Sessa Aurunca XX CHIETI Vasto XXI CONZA S. Angelo del Lombardi & Bisaccia XXI Cont. Campagna Lacedonia Muro Lucano XXII LANCIANO Ortona XXIII MANFRE- DONIA Viesti XXIV NAPLES Acerra Ischia Nola Pozzuoli XXV OTRANTO Gallipoli Leece Ugento XXVI REGGIO Bova Cassano all' Ionio Catanzaro Cotrone Gerace Nicastro Nicotera & Tropea Oppido Squillace XXVII SALERNO Acerno Capaccio- Vallo Diano Marsico Nuovo Nocera Dei Pagani Nusco XXVII Cont. Policastro Bussentino XXVIII S. SEVERINA Cariati XXIX SORRENTO Castellamare di Stabia XXX TARANTO Castellaneta Oria XXXI TRANSI & BARLETTA Andria Bisceglie XXXII MESSINA Lipari Nicosia Patti XXXIII MONREALE Caltanissetta Girgenti XXXIV PALERMO Cefalù Mazzara del Vallo Trapani XXXV SYRACUSE Caltagirone Noto Piazza Armerina XXXVI CAGLIARI Galtelli- Nuoro Iglesias Ogliastra XXXVII ORISTANO Ales & Terralba XXXVIII SASSARI Alghero Ampurias & Tempio Bisarchio Bosa There is only one: the liberty of elementary teaching in the broadest sense of the word, not only as regards the teachers but also as regards the course of studies, except on questions of morality; and the establishment of premiums in proportion to the number of children who obtain the diploma of the course. ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PUBLIC TYPE OF SCHOOL NUMBER OF SCHOOLS PUPILS MEAN PER 1000 INHAB. TEACH- ERS Infant Asylums Elementary, Various Night Festive & Autumnal Complementary for Girls Normal for Boys Normal for Girls 2,112 53,259 4,159 2,394 78 32 105 271,500 2,548,583 105,598 72,713 4,701 1,921 19,818 8.30 77.90 3.90 2.01 0.12 0.05 0.50 5,587 57,331 3,166 2,517 827 264 1,556 PRIVATE TYPE OF SCHOOL NUMBER OF SCHOOLS PUPILS MEAN PER 1000 INHAB. TEACH- ERS Infant Asylums Elementary, Various Night Festive & Autumnal Complementary for Girls Normal for Boys Normal for Girls 1,202 8,518 ? ? 155 ? ? 84,094 184,766 ? ? 4,646 ? ? 2.60 5.70 ? ? ? ? ? 2,112 9,306 ? ? 1,077 ? ? According to the law of 13 November, 1859, secondary instruction is of two kinds, classical and technical. The classical course of the first grade is given in the gymnasia (colleges) and extends over a course of five years; that of the second grade is given in the lyceums, the course being three years. The technical instruction is also of two grades, the first, given in the technical schools, lasts three years, and the second, in the technical or in the nautical institutes, the course lasting four years. Ordinarily the burden of secondary instruction is divided among the State, the province, and the communes. SECONDARY EDUCATION PUBLIC PRIVATE TYPE OF SCHOOL NUMBER OF SCHOOLS PUPILS MEAN PER 100,000 INHAB. TEACH- ERS NUMBER OF SCHOOLS PUPILS MEAN PER 100,000 INHAB. TEACH- ERS Gymnasia Lyceums Technical Schools Technical Institutes Nautical Institutes 284 159 298 73 19 34,219 13,812 55,597 13,830 2,291 102.0 41.0 166.0 41.0 6.7 5,400 2,175 3,202 1,388 208 442 187 106 7 1 24,850 4,962 3,623 378 29 79.00 16.00 12.00 1.90 0.08 ? ? ? ? ? Of other special courses of secondary instruction that are not wholly allied with those to which reference has already been made are given by the State under the ministry of Public Instruction and under that of Agriculture, Industry and Commerce, and also by the autonomous divisions of the kingdom. SPECIAL SECONDARY SCHOOLS - PUBLIC TYPE OF SCHOOL NUMBER OF ESTABLISH- MENTS STU- DENTS MEAN PER 100,000 INHAB. TEACH- ERS Schools of Practical Agriculture Special Schools of Agriculture Schools of Mines (Agordo, Iglesias, Caltanisetta) Industrial Schools Schools of Industrial Arts Commercial Schools Professional Schools for Women Oriental Institute (Naples) 27 7 3 72 185 27 26 1 1,251 639 75 16,913 20,442 3,415 7,133 241 3.6 1.8 0.2 49.8 62.2 10.0 21.0 0.7 124 73 20 726 679 288 486 14 SPECIAL SECONDARY SCHOOLS - PRIVATE TYPE OF SCHOOL NUMBER OF ESTABLISH- MENTS STU- DENTS MEAN PER 100,000 INHAB. TEACH- ERS Industrial Schools Schools of Industrial Arts Commercial Schools Professional Schools for Women 82 201 37 107 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? There are thirteen government institutes for the study and assistance of the fine arts, and as many other establishments of the same kind that are not governmental, with two hundred and twenty-seven teachers. In the school year of 1905-1906 these schools had in all 3759 students, a decrease of 445 during the preceding five years. There are five conservatories of music belonging to the Government and forty-eight private institutions, with five thousand five hundred students and four hundred and forty-four teachers. Superior instruction includes four faculties: law, medicine and surgery, mathematics, physics and natural science, philosophy, and rhetoric. There belong to it also the schools of pharmacy and the independent veterinary schools of Milan, Naples, and Turin, the schools of applied engineering of Rome and of Bologna, the superior schools of commerce of Bari, Genoa, Venice, Milan, and Rome, those of agriculture of Milan, Portici, Perugia, and Florence, those for teachers at Rome and at Florence, and the naval school at Genoa. Superior instruction is given in seventeen state universities, which, in the Middle Ages, had been centres of knowledge and culture for all Europe: the Universities of Bologna (1200?), Padua (1222?), Naples (1224), Rome (1303), Cagliari, Catania, Genoa, Macerata, Messina, Modena, Palermo, Parma, Pavia, Pisa, Sassari, Siena, and Turin. There are four free universities, those of Perugia, Camerino, Urbino, and Ferrara. Higher education is also furnished by three law schools connected with the lyceums of Aquila, Bari, and Catanzaro, by the three polytechnic schools of Milan, Turin, and Naples, by the Finishing Institute of Social Science at Florence and by the Scientific and Literary Academy at Milan. In the scholastic year of 1893-1894, these universities and higher educational establishments were attended by 22,289 students, an average of 71.9 per 100,000 inhabitants; and in the scholastic year of 1905-1906 the number of students was 27,009, an average of 81 per 100,000 of the population. The professors are divided into ordinary (who are irremovable), extraordinary, special lecturers, and privat-dozents. The university is governed by a rector, appointed by the king on the recommendation of the body of ordinary professors, by an academic council, consisting of the rector and of the presidents of the different faculties, and by the general assembly of professors. There are other institutions connected with public instruction, as the libraries, some of which enjoy the prerogative of incorporation, while others are merely the property of the State, of the commune, or of the province. The public has not the same free use of all these libraries, there being a distinction between those that are independent and those that are annexed to other institutions, or to offices, as those of the ministries, of the Senate, of the Chamber of Deputies, etc.; the first are public in the full sense of the word, while the second are so only upon certain conditions. Only persons over the age of sixteen years may receive books for reading in the libraries. Books are permitted to be taken out of the library only in special cases. There are approximately 1830 libraries open to the public, 32 of them belonging to the Government. Other educational institutions are: the national boarding schools for boys, and those for girls, under the direct supervision of the Ministry of Public Instruction; institutions belonging to the provinces or to the communes; endowed institutions; the seminaries; and private boarding schools. Those of the Government are 43 in number for boys, and 8 for girls, and according to the last statistics the former had 4165, and the latter 593 pupils. The others together number 880, with 60,000 boarders. There are no precise statistics as to the teachers in boarding schools for boys; it is known, however, that in 1906, 360 of the directors, approximately, were laymen, while the remainder were of the regular or of the secular clergy. In 320 boarding schools, all the teachers were laymen; in 215 all were ecclesiastics, and in the remainder of these schools the teachers were, some ecclesiastics, and some laymen. The number of persons who are connected with the administration and with the teaching of the boarding schools for girls is nearly 8686, of whom only 3587 are lay, the remainder belonging to the secular clergy or to religious congregations. New publications, including new editions of works already published, amounted to 9975 in the year 1900, at which time statistics on this subject were discontinued; this was exclusive of monthly publications, which, in 1898, amounted to 971. There were 151 new daily papers, and the total number of periodicals in 1905 was 3120, published in 363 cities, 815 of these publications dealing with politics, and 147 daily. Lombardy has the greatest proportion of periodicals (544), and the Basilicata the smallest (11). Charities Charity, which was unknown to paganism, is a Christian growth that found a fertile soil in Italy, the home of the head of the Christian Church; and under his influence that country developed a wealth of beneficent institutions for the relief of every form of want; while the Council of Trent formulated laws to prevent the waste of the funds of the poor (Sess. VII, "De reform.", c. xv; Sess. XXV, "De reform.", c. viii). And the stream of charity flows on, notwithstanding the exclusion of the Church from all intervention in charitable works, for, between 1881 and 1905, there were founded 1626 new charitable institutions, with a combined capital of nearly 27,000,000, while the donations and legacies of that same period to already existing establishments amounted to 31,328, with an aggregate value of $56,000,000. There are 27,078 charities in Italy, with an aggregate capital of $400,000,000, an average of $12 per inhabitant; their combined income is nearly $34,000,000, and their charitable disbursements amount to $22,000,000. The English system of official charities (taxation on behalf of the poor) is unknown in Italy, where charity is left to the voluntary action of individuals, and as we shall see is made compulsory only in fixed cases. The law of 17 July, 1890, limits the action of the State to protecting and favouring the free exercise of public charities, to watching over the opere pie, which are the chief benefactors of the poor, and to reforming them by the union of several, by statutory revision, and by the changing of their purpose. In Italy the forms in which charity is generally practised are: aid to infants (foundling asylums, orphanages, asylums for education, hospices, etc.); aid to those who are in want and unable to work (retreat for mendicants, dormitories, etc.); eleemosynary aid (economical restaurants, patronages, home assistance. etc.); hospital aid (hospitals, insane asylums, etc.), and monti di pietà. The law requires the existence of a charity association in each commune for the care of the interests of the poor; its members are taken from the communal council and consist of a president and of from 4 to 12 councillors, according to the population. The charitable association and the opere pie are required by law to give aid in urgent cases, to support the needy who are unable to work, where there is no local home for the poor, and to care provisionally for orphans and for deserted minors, for the blind, and for the deaf mutes who are poor. Besides the work of institutions that are created for the purpose, the State, the province, and the commune are obliged to provide otherwise for certain public charities; thus the commune is compelled to provide sanitary service, doctors, midwives, surgeons, and medicines for the poor, when they are not provided for by any institution. The province is bound to care for the insane poor, and the law divides between the province and the commune the expense of the support of foundlings. Lastly, the support of those who are not able to work falls upon the State, when the province and the commune are unable to provide for them. According to the last statistics, in 1899, the communes spent $9,000,000 in public charity; the provinces spent $4,600,000; and the State, in 1905-1906, spent $1,500,000. There were assisted by orphan asylums or placed out with nurses directly by the communes, in the five years from 1902 to 1906, 127,586 children, of whom 8456 were born in lawful wedlock. According to the last statistics of the monti di pietà, on 31 December, 1903, there were 527 of these establishments that loaned money on 4,790,539 pledges to the amount of $14,000,000, of which 1,405,206 were renewed for an amount of $4,899,205; there were 4,425,422 redemptions for an amount of $13,348,493 and 412,336 sales of a total amount of $769,345. All institutions of public beneficence are under the watchful care of the Government with the assistance of a superior council for public aid and charity, which has an advisory function. In all that concerns economical ends, local vigilance is exercised by provincial commission; and the administration of any opera pia may be dissolved for grave reasons, but must be reconstructed. HYGIENE AND HEALTH Sanitation, which is an important juridical and social function of the modern State, has made no little progress in Italy, where it is regulated, in general, for all the kingdom by the law of 7 August, 1907, by other sanitary laws, and by corresponding rules and regulations, while it is regulated for local purposes by various provincial and communal regulations of importance. The sanitary laws provide for the safety of the public health by a series of imposts on the citizen, and by police restrictions regarding the practice of medicine, of surgery, of the veterinary art, of pharmacy, and of obstetrics, all of which professions are subject to supervision and have special obligations imposed upon them for the security of the sick and for the gratuitous attendance of the poor. MEDICO-SURGICAL SERVICE MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENTS FREE PRAC- TITIONERS ARMY AND NAVY TOTAL PER 100,000 INHAB. COMMUNES HAVING THEM PHYSICIANS 8,191 10,263 12,375 861 23,499 69 In order to prevent the spreading of infectious diseases, physicians are obliged to denounce cases of infectious disease, and citizens are obliged to submit to visitations, to disinfections, and to vaccination. Under this head comes a special supervision over aqueducts, the sewage system, and the right of the Minister of the Interior to prevent or to suppress evils regarded as causes of contagious disease. There are, moreover, burial laws, the chief end of which is to prohibit the burial of bodies elsewhere than in cemeteries, exception being made in favour of illustrious personages and of private burial grounds that are situated in the country and not open to the public. Landing in Italy is made under special supervision, for which purpose there is a medical officer in each port. There are many pure food regulations, the first of which is the right of inspection and that of provisional seizure of suspected articles by the sanitary authorities, the establishment of laboratories for chemical analysis, the prohibition of slaughtering unhealthy animals, or of any animals outside of the regular slaughter houses. Special attention is given to preventing the adulteration of wines and to the prevention of skin diseases. OBSTETRICAL SERVICE OBSTETRICAL ESTABLISHMENTS FREE PRACTI- TIONERS TOTAL PER 100,000 INHAB. COMMUNES HAVING THEM MIDWIVES 6,615 8,000 6,199 14,199 42 PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICE NUMBER OF THE COMMUNES PHARMACIES PER 100,000 INHAB. PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICE OF THE ARMY AND NAVY PHARMASISTS 4,934 10,996 33 658 13,000 (?) Hygiene is under the Minister of the Interior, and in charge of the prefects, the sub-prefects and the syndics, under him. He is assisted by a superior sanitary council, or advisory body, and by a General Directory of Sanitation; the prefect is assisted by a Provincial Sanitary Council; the former care for the sanitary conditions of the whole kingdom; the latter, for the communes of the whole province. In each province there is a physician and a provincial office whose function is to watch over the sanitary service, the hygienic conditions of the communes, the sanitary institutions and the execution of the sanitary laws; the physician investigates the causes of diseases and inspects pharmacies, hospitals, etc. There is a provincial veterinary whose business is to supervise disease among animals. In each commune, moreover, there is a sanitary officer, who, besides his supervisory duties, must inform the syndic and the provincial physician of all circumstances that may in any way affect health or hygiene. FOREIGN POSSESSIONS (1) Colonies At about the time of the Mahdi's revolt in Upper Egypt, European nations were seized with the desire of acquiring lands in Africa; Italy also entered upon the course of colonial conquest, and consequently it has come into the possession of territories, and has created protectorates and zones of influence on the western coast of the Red Sea, on the Gulf of Aden, and on the Indian Ocean. The direct possessions of Italy are the colonies of Eritrea and Italian Somalia (Benadir). The colony of Eritrea originated in the possession of the Bay of Assab, which was proclaimed by the law of 5 July, 1882. The colony extends along the western coast of the Red Sea from Cape Kasar (18.2° N.) to Cape Doumeirah (12.30° N.) on the Strait of Bab-el-Mandeb. From Cape Kasar the boundary line has a generally south-western direction to the confluence of the Khor-Um-Hagar and the Setit Rivers. The southern or Abyssinian boundary is formed by a line drawn towards the west from the confluence of the Khor-Um-Hagar and the Setit Rivers, along the latter stream, to its confluence with the Maiteb, and follows the course of the latter to the Mareb at the confluence of the Mai-Ambessa; it follows the Mareb River as far as its junction with the Belesa, and then the latter river, after which it follows the course of the Munma, and turning to the south-east, at a distance of 37 miles from the coast it reaches the frontier of French Somalia, near which the boundary line leaves the extreme point of Doumeirah and follows the watershed line of the promontory of that name, for one mile, and turns to the place called Bisidiro on the Weima; from this point it turns east and south-east as far as Daddato (Italo-British Agreements of 15 April, 1891; 7 December, 1898; 1 June, 1899; 16 April, and 22 November, 1901; Italo-French Protocols of 24 January, 1900, and 10 July, 1901; Italo-British Ethiopian Convention of 15 May, 1902; Italo-Ethiopian Conventions of 10 July, 1900, and 16 May, 1908). The Archipelago of Dahlac and the minor islands along the Dancala coast belong to the Colony of Eritrea. The Colony of Somalia consists of that region of eastern Africa that lies between the Sultanate of Obbia, which is an Italian protectorate, the Giuba River, the Indian Ocean, Ethiopia, and English Somalia. The boundary between Somalia and the Ethiopian Empire is a line that, beginning at Dolo, reaches the confluence of the Daua and the Ganale Rivers, and, to the north of the fourth parallel, it takes an easterly course, as far as Uebi-Scebeli, which is located at the extreme north of the Baddi Addi country; from Uebi-Seebeli it follows a north-easterly direction towards British Somaliland. The Colony of Eritrea, within its present boundaries, has an area of nearly 50,000 sq. miles, of which the Dahlac Archipelago occupies 580, and its population is 279,551 inhabitants, of whom 3949 are Italian. The area of the Colony of Somalia may be estimated at 146,000 sq. miles, with half a million of inhabitants who, along the coast, are Somalians, and in the interior, Galla. The plain of Danakil and the coast country about Massowah, in Eritrea, are worthless for agricultural purposes, but the higher portion of the territory and the lands which are intermediary between it and those of the coast and which are watered by the Barka and by the Anseba Rivers, may become fertile through a good system of irrigation. In the colony there is little industry and less commerce, as is shown by the statistics of the custom house of Massowah, which show imports for a value of 2 millions of dollars, and exports for $600,000, approximately. The United States send to the colony only petroleum, and cotton textiles, carried in English bottoms, for a value of about $40,000, and they export a small amount of hides. Commerce by caravan with Ethiopia increases continually; in 1906 it amounted to $1,200,000 for imports, and to nearly $2,000,000 for exports. The commerce of the country is in the hands of Greeks and of Banians, Indian merchants. Hair, musk, wax, medicinal plants, and especially pearls and mother-of-pearl, are exported. The imports of the Colony of Somalia for 1906 amounted to $720,000, and the exports to $546,000. The principal exports include animal products. hair, ivory, and amber. The arrivals at the port of Massowah numbered 146 steamships, and 1893 sailing vessels, with an aggregate tonnage of 164,148; the clearances were 147 steamers and 1874 sailing vessels, with an aggregate tonnage of 204,814. In Eritrea there are 10 post offices, for both the postal and telegraph services; there are 4 offices of the kind in Somalia. The number of postal orders issued in the Colony of Eritrea in 1904-1906 was 28,619, to the value of $3,650,000, and 14,507 were cashed, for an aggregate sum of $2,770,000. There were 2395 deposits in the postal savings banks, amounting in all to $100,000, and there were 1305 withdrawals to the amount of $70,000. The number of telegrams sent was 15,697, and of those received, 2610. The telegraph system of Eritrea consists of: + (a) Massowah-Assab and the Assab-Perim cables, which connect with the wires of the Eastern Telegraph Company; + (b) the land line of Massowah-Asmara-Cheren-Sabderat, which at Kassala connects with the Sudano-Egyptian wires; + (c) the Asmara-Addis-Abeba line. The law of 14 July, 1907, authorized the expenses for the establishment of wireless telegraph stations at Asmara, in the Colony of Eritrea, and at Mogadiscio, Brava, Merka Giumbo, Bardera, and Lugh, in Somalia. The first railroad line, the Massowah-Saati, 16½ miles long, was opened in 1887; thereafter, the line was extended to Ghinda, and so attained a length of 43 miles. In 1907 the Ghinda-Asmara line, 31 miles long, was opened to traffic. The colonial budget is approximately $2,000,000, both for receipts and expenses; and the nation's African expenses since 1882 have amounted to nearly $92,000,000, exclusive of provisions and materials to the army and to the navy. The corps of colonial troops consists of 126 officers and 4451 men, 193 horses, 521 small mules, 147 mules, and 10 scouting camels. Each one of the colonies is governed by a civil governor, assisted by residents, who are placed under his orders. The chief centres of population in Eritrea are Massowah (population, 10,000), situated upon an islet that is connected with the mainland by an embankment, Keren (population, 2000), and Asmara, the capital. The chief places in Somalia are the ports of Brava, Merka, Mogadiscio, Marshek, and Obbia. The administration of justice is under colonial judges, and is based upon Moslem jurisprudence (Cheriat), the common native law (Testur), and the different religious regulations and habits. (2) Protectorates Under the protectorate of the Kingdom of Italy are; + (a) the territory of the Sultan of the Migiurtins, which extends along the coasts of the Gulf of Aden and of the Indian Ocean from Bender-Ziade (49° E. of Greenwich) to Cape Bovven in the Bay of Dar-es-Saleh (Convention of 7 April, 1889, and 18 August, 1901); + (b) the territory of Nogal, the head of which is Sayed ben Abdallah, called the Mullah; this territory extends from Cape Bovven to Cape Garad (Agreement of Illig, 5 March, 1905); + (c) the territory of the Sultan of Obbia, which extends from Cape Garad to the northern boundary of the territory of Uarsceik, 2° 30' N. (Treaty of 8 February, 1889). The limits of the zone of influence in Somalia were established by the Italo-British protocols of 24 March, 1891, and 5 May, 1894. They first established the western and the southern boundaries by a line which, from the sea, follows the wady of the Giuba River to the sixth degree of northern latitude, and from there to the thirty-fifth meridian E. of Greenwich, where it reaches the Blue Nile. The second protocol established the boundary by a line from Gildessa towards the eighth degree of N. latitude, along the north-eastern frontier of the territories of the Girri, Bertiri, and Rer Ali tribes; from that point, the line follows latitude 8° N. to its intersection with parallel 48° E. of Greenwich, whence it goes to the intersection of latitude 9° N. with the parallel of 49° E. of Greenwich, and thence on follows that meridian to the sea. Bender-Ziade, although situated to the west of the forty-ninth meridian, is included within the sphere of Italian influence. By the agreement of 7 June, 1902, the Chinese Government recognized the concession of Tien-tsin, in China, a small territory that is situated on the right of the Pei-ho River, which constitutes the southern boundary for nearly a mile; on the east this territory is conterminous with the Russian concession, and on the west with the Austrian concession, while the lands of the Imperial Chinese Railroad Company form its northern boundary; its area is nearly 18 sq. miles and it contains a village and some salt mines; its native inhabitants number about 17,000. The concession is in charge of the consul, who is assisted by an administrator. For the history of Italy see the medieval annals, best collected in the monumental work of MURATORI, Scriptores Rerum Italicarum, etc. (500-1500) in 28 folio volumes (Milan, 1725; new ed., small 8°, Città di Castello, 1900); see also his valuable Annali d'Italia -- from the beginning of the Christian era to 1749 -- (12 vols., Milan, 1744-49); SIGONIUS, Hist. de regno Italioe, 570-1200; BALAN, Storia d'Italia (2nd ed., Modena, 1894); HEGEL, Storia della costtituzone dei municipi italiani (Milan, 1861); SISMONDI, Hist. des républiques italiennes du moyen-âge (Paris, 1817-18), non-Catholic and often prejudiced; LANZANI, I communi, da Carlomagno ad Henrico VII (Milan, 1880); FICKER, Forschungen zur Reichs- und Rechtsgeschichte Italiens (Innsbruck, 1894); MANN, History of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages (St. Louis, 1904 sqq.), and PASTOR, History of the Popes since the End of the Middle Ages, tr. ANTROBUS (London and St. Louis, 1902-); VAN DUERM, Pouvoir temporel des Papes (Lille, 1890); PERTILE, Storia del diritto italiano (Padua, 1887-88); LITTA, Famiglie celebri italiane (Milan, 1815-69); COPPI, Le università italiane nel medio evo (2nd ed., Florence, 1880); BALZANI, Le cronache italiane nel medio evo, also in English transl., S. P. C. K.; TONIOLO, Le buone tradizioni della storia d'Italia (Lendinara, 1891); AMPÈRE, L'Histoire d'Italie et ses historiens in Rev. des Deux Mondes, V, 1856, 45-81. Histories of Italy should be read with caution, as writers are frequently moved by anti-papal or anti-Catholic prejudice or passion. LUIGI TACCHI VENTURI. Italian Literature Italian Literature Origins and Development The modern language of Italy is naturally derived from Latin, a continuation and development of the Latin actually spoken among the inhabitants of the peninsula after the downfall of the Roman Empire. It is still disputed how far this spoken Latin was identical with the classical literary language of Rome, the Latinus togatus, and how far it was a merely popular tongue, the sermo rusticus. Most probably it was a mixture of the two -- the latter, owing to the changed social conditions, predominating. A small number of words derived from Greek are in part relics of the epoch of Byzantine domination, in part introduced later through the Crusades and through commerce; the Saracenic invasions have left traces in a very few Arabic words, chiefly in Sicily; a certain number of words have come indirectly from the Latin through French or Provençal; even the long centuries of Teutonic conquests and inroads caused only a comparatively slight influx of words of Germanic origin. In the "De Vulgari Eloquentia" (i, 10-16), Dante speaks of the "many discordant varieties of the Italian vernacular", and rejects them all in favour of the "illustrious, cardinal, courtly, and curial vernacular in Italy", the standard and ideal national language, "which belongs to every city of Italy, and seems to belong to none, and by which all the municipal dialects of the Italians are measured, weighed and compared". These dialects fall into three groups: + (1) Ligurian, Piedmontese, Lombard and Emilian, and Sardinian, which form a Gallo-Italian group apart from the vernacular of the rest of the peninsula; + (2) Venetian, Corsican, Sicilian, Neapolitan, Umbrian, and the dialects of the Marches and of Rome, which, though diverging from true Italian, form one system with it; + (3) Tuscan. But the national and literary language, the "illustrious vernacular", is one and the same throughout the land. This language is not an artificially formed Italian, stripped of the accidental peculiarities of place and race; but substantially the vernacular of Tuscany, and more particularly of Florence, as established by the great Florentine writers of the fourteenth century, adopted by those of other districts in the Renaissance, and formulated by the famous Accademia della Crusca, which was founded in the latter part of the sixteenth century. From the seventh century onwards, we begin to find traces in extant documents, from various parts of Italy, of the use of the vernacular, in the shape of forms that are more or less Italian inserted into the corrupt Latin of the epoch. Italian familiar names of men and Italian names of places rapidly appear; and, in a document of 960 in the Archives of Montecassino, a whole sentence, four times repeated, is practically Italian: Sao ko kelle terre, per kelle fini que ki contene, trenta anni le possette parte sancti Benedicti (I know that those lands, within these boundaries that are here contained, the party of St. Benedict has possessed them thirty years). A confessio, or formula of confession, from an abbey near Norcia, probably of the end of the eleventh century, shows passages still nearer to the Italian of to-day. Fifty years later we meet literary composition in the vernacular. The inscription formerly on the cathedral of Ferrara, of 1135, consists of two rhyming couplets of Italian verse. Four lines, known as the "Cantilena Bellunese", also in rhymed couplets, inserted in a fragment of a chronicle, allude to the taking of Casteldardo by the people of Belluno in 1193. In a contrasto (a dialogue in verse between lover and lady) by Raimbaut de Vaqueiras (c. 1190), the lady answers in Genoese to the Provençal advances of the poet. The "Ritmo Laurenziano", a cantilena in praise of a bishop by a Tuscan, and the "Ritmo Cassinese", an obscure allegorical poem in the Apulian dialect, are both probably of the end of the twelfth century. To the same epoch belongs a series of twenty-two sermons in a northern Italian dialect mixed with French, published by Wendelin Foerster, which are the earliest extant specimens of vernacular preaching in Italy. The Thirteenth Century (Il Ducento) The Italians naturally regarded the language and traditions of Rome as their own, and still clung to the use of Latin while a vernacular literature was already flourishing in France and Provence. Italian literature, strictly speaking, begins with the early years of the thirteenth century. Among the influences at work in its formation must first be mentioned the religious revival wrought by St. Francis of Assisi and his followers bearing lyrical fruit in the Lauda, the popular sacred song, especially in Central Italy. St. Francis himself composed one of the earliest Italian poems, the famous "Cantica del Sole", or "Laudes Creaturarum" (1225), a "sublime improvisation" (as Paschal Robinson well calls it) rather than a strictly literary production. The growing self-consciousness of the individual states and cities later gave rise to the chronicles and local histories. Provençal troubadours, who settled at the petty Courts of Ferrara and Monferrato, or passed southwards into the Kingdom of Sicily, brought the conventions of their artificial love poetry with them. Equally influential with the Franciscan movement, though in a totally different spirit, was the impulse given to letters by the highly cultured, but immoral and irreligious court of the Emperor Frederick II and his son Manfred, whose Kingdom of Sicily included not only that island, but also Naples and all the south of the peninsula. Dante wrote: "From the fact that the royal throne was in Sicily, it came to pass that whatever our predecessors wrote in the vulgar tongue was called Sicilian" (V. E., i, 12). The writers of this Sicilian school were drawn from all parts of Italy. They did not normally use the Sicilian dialect, but wrote in a vernacular practically identical with what became the literary language of the whole nation. Their productions are almost exclusively love poems derived from those of Provence. Frederick himself (died 1250) and his chancellor, Pier delle Vigne (died 1249), wrote in this fashion. Many of these poets, like Ruggiero de Amicis (died 1246), Arrigo Testa (died 1247), and Percivalle Doria (died 1264), were of high social position, notable in the history of the epoch, dying on the scaffold or the battlefield; but their lyrics are lacking in individuality, conventional, and artificial in sentiment and treatment. Noteworthy poets of this school are Giacomo da Lentino, "Il Notaro", who was one of the emperor's notaries in 1233; Rinaldo d'Aquino, a kinsman of St. Thomas, whose lament of a girl whose lover had gone on the Crusade was probably written in 1242; Giacomo Pugliese da Morra, in whom we find a trace of popular realism; and Cielo dal Camo, or d'Alcamo, whose contrasto, "Rosa fresca aulentissima", now held to have heen written after 1231, is strongly tinged with the local dialect of Sicily. A more personal note is struck in the pathetic poem of King Enzo of Sardinia (died 1272), "S'eo trovasse", written from his prison at Bologna, which brings the Sicilian epoch to a dramatic close. The last poet of the Sicilian school is Guido delle Colonne (died after 1288), who also wrote the "Historia Trojana" in Latin prose, and is mentioned with praise by both Dante and Chaucer. The earlier Tuscan poets, such as Pannuccio dal Bagno, of Pisa, and Folcaccluero de' Folcacchieri, of Siena (c. 1250), are closely associated with the Sicilians. But from the outset the Tuscans did not restrict themselves to erotic poetry, but sang of religious, satirical, and political themes as well. Guittone del Viva (1230-94), known as Fra Guittone d'Arezzo, shows himself an imitator of the Provençals in his love lyrics, but writes with vigour and sincerity in his religious and political poems, especially in his canzone on the defeat of the Florentines at Montaperti (1260). He is also the author of a collection of letters, one of the earliest achievements of Italian prose. By the middle of the century, in addition to the canzone, or ode (which was taken over from the Provençals), we find in Central Italy two forms of lyrical poetry purely Italian in their origin: the ballata and the sonnet. The overthrow of the Suabian monarchy in the South, by the victory of Charles of Anjou (1266), shifted the centre of culture to Bologna and Florence. A number of disciples of Guittone now appear, of whom Chiaro Davanzati (date uncertain), of Florence, and Bonaggiunta Urbicciani, of Lucca (died after 1296), are the most noticeable. Of a far higher order is the poet who inaugurated the dolce stil nuovo, the "sweet new style", of which Dante speaks -- Guido Guinizelli of Bologna (died 1276). Guido wrote of the noblest love in a spirit that anticipates the "Vita Nuova", and thereby founded a school to which the poets of the last decade of the century belonged, even as their predecessors had adhered to that of Guittone. The chief of these is Guido Cavalcanti (died 1300), the chosen friend of Dante. He composed an elaborate canzone on the philosophy of love, in which poetry is smothered by metaphysics; but m his minor lyrics, original in motive and personal in sentiment, he brought the ballata and the sonnet to a degree of perfection previously unattained. With him and Dante is associated another Florentine poet, Lapo Gianni (died 1323), whose work belongs to this epoch although he outlived it. In another vein, we have the humorous and satirical pieces of Rustico di Filippo (died circa 1270) and the "Tesoretto" of Brunetto Latini (died 1294), an allegorical didactic poem which influenced the external form of the "Divina Commedia". The religious poetry of Umbria, developing under Franciscan influence, culminates in the mystical laudi of Jacopone da Todi (died 1306), one of the most truly inspired sacred poets that the world has seen. In comparison with the poetry, the Italian prose literature of this century is insignificant. The chief chronicler of the epoch, Fra Salimbene of Parma (died 1288), wrote in Latin; Brunetto Latini composed his encyclopedic work, the "Trésor", in French. Many of the literary productions formerly assigned to this are now known to belong to a later epoch, and it is impossible to say with certainty whether those that are authentic should be placed at the end of the thirteenth or at the beginning of the fourteenth century. Among these are the "Cento Novelle Antiche", a collection of short stories drawn from various sources, and the "Tavola Ritonda", an Italian version of the romance of Tristram. Fra Ristoro of Arezzo, in 1282, completed an elaborate treatise on cosmography, "Della Composizione del Mondo". Most of the prose of this epoch is simply translated from the Latin or French. To Bono Giamboni (died after 1296), a Florentine who italicized Brunetto Latini's" Trésor", are attributed three ethical treatises (possibly of a later date), based upon medieval Latin models, but not mere translations; the most important of these, the "Introduzione alle Virtù", derived in part from Boethius and Prudentius, is a striking religious allegory in which the Soul is led by Philosophy to the palace of Faith to witness the triumph of the Church, and herself attain to spiritual freedom. The Fourteenth Century (Il Trecento) Through the triumph of the Guelphs, the chief place in Italian culture is now held by Florence instead of Sicily. Italian literature has become mainly republican in temper'(even when professedly imperialist) and Tuscan in language. The philosophical glory of St. Thomas causes even belles lettres to be deeply tinged with scholasticism; while the growing antagonism to the political actions of the popes, particularly during the Babylonian Captivity of Avignon, gives an anti-clerical tone to much of the poetry and prose of the century. At the close of the epoch the revival of classical studies begins to make itself felt. In the hands of three great Tuscan writers -- Dante Alighieri (1265-1321), Francesco Petrarca (1304-1374), and Giovanni Boccaccio (1313-1375) -- the national literature and the national language appear in full maturity and artistic perfection. In his "Vita Nuova" (c. 1295), Dante still belongs to the preceding century, while uplifting the ideals of love set forth by Guido Guinizelli to the heights of Catholic mysticism. His "Rime", more particularly his canzoni, develop the lyrical forms of his predecessors, while investing them with fresh passion and with philosophical authority. With his "Convivio" (circa 1306 -- unfinished, but the earliest monumental work of Italian prose) he intended to bring down the scholastic learning of his age to the understanding of the general reader. The "Divina Commedia" (1314-21), the noblest expression of the Italian spirit in poetry and a landmark in the history of man, sums up the intellectual gain and the spiritual progress of the nine centuries since the fall of the Roman Empire, while faithfully depicting the highest aspirations and whole moral atmosphere of the poet's own epoch. In spiritual insight, dramatic intensity, sureness of touch, and terseness of expression, it has never been surpassed. In it modern Europe first produced a masterpiece to rival those of the classical world. Petrarca brings the canzone and the sonnet to their ultimate technical perfection in his lyrical poems, the "Canzoniere" or "Rime", a series of miniature paintings of all the varying moods of the soul passing through earthly love and patriotic enthusiasm to find its rest in religion. His "Trionfi", a poem in terza rima, in ten cantos, deal with the same matter in allegorical fashion, giving a symbolical representation of his own life. In his voluminous Latin writings -- letters, treatises, and poems -- he appears as the first of the Humanists, the precursor of the Renaissance. The worshipper of Dante and intimate friend of Petrarca, Boccaccio, in his "Filostrato" and "Teseide", established ottava rima (previously only used in popular verse) as the normal measure for Italian narrative poetry. In his "Ameto" he introduced the prose pastoral and the vernacular eclogue. His grossly immoral "Fiammetta" may be said to inaugurate the modern psychological novel. In the hundred stories of the "Decameron", he gave perfect artistic form to the novella, or short story, imbuing it with modern life. Written in an ornate and poetical prose, lacking in simplicity and directness, the "Decameron" gives an unsurpassable picture of certain aspects of fourteenth century society, but is disfigured by obscenity, and permeated by a superficial and sensual ideal of life. This century in Italy, as elsewhere, is the golden age of vernacular ascetical and mystical literature, producing a rich harvest of translations from the Scriptures and the Fathers, of spiritual letters, sermons, and religious treatises no less remarkable for their fervour and unction than for their linguistic value. From the earliest years of the Trecento have come down the sermons of the Dominican, B. Giordano da Rivalto (died 1311). The exquisite "Fioretti di San Francesco", now known to be a translation from the Latin, date from about 1328. Prominent among the spiritual writers, who thus set themselves to open the Church's treasury to the unlearned, are the Augustinians, B. Simone Fidati da Cascia (died 1348) and Giovanni da Salerno (died 1388), whose works have been edited by P. Nicola Mattioli; and the Dominicans, Domenico Cavalca, a copious translator, and Jacopo Passavanti (died 1357), whose "Specchio della Vera Penitenza" is a model of style and language. The admirable letters of B. Giovanni Colombini (died 1367) and the mystical lyrics of his follower, Bianco dall' Anciolina (El Bianco da Siena), have the glowing fervour, the Divine madness, of the first Franciscans. In a less exalted vein, the epistles of the monk of Vallombrosa, B. Giovanni dalle Celle (died 1396), extend from the forties to the nineties of the century. Supreme above them all, a figure worthy, from the mere literary point of view, to stand by Dante and Petrarca, is St. Catherine of Siena (1347-80), whose "Dialogo" is the greatest mystical work in prose in the Italian language, and whose "Letters" have hardly been surpassed in the annals of Christianity. Minor poets are numerous. Ceceo Angiolieri of Siena (died circa 1312), the Italian Villon, wrote humorous and satirical sonnets of amazing vigour and originality on subjects mainly drawn from low life. Folgore da San Gimignano (died after 1315) pictured the fashionable existence of the young nobles of Siena with the touch of a painter. Guittoncino de' Sinibuldi, known as Cino da Pistoia (died 1337), also won renown as a jurist; the friend of Dante, whose "Rime" he imitated, his best amatory and political lyrics are hardly unworthy of his master. Francesco da Barberino (died 1348), who was influenced by French and Provençal models, is the author of two somewhat insipid allegorical didactic poems. A higher note is struck by the Florentine exile, Fazio degli Uberti (died after 1368), whose "Dittamondo", a long poem in terza rima, "was intended as an earthly parallel to Dante's Sacred Poem, doing for this world what he did for the other" (Rossetti); he surpassed himself in splendid patriotic lyrics, which give spirited expression to the new national Ghibellinism of Italy. Antonio Pucci of Florence (died 1374) is the chief literary representative of the popular poetry of the age. With the early years of the century begins the series of chronicles and diaries in the vernacular. Dino Compagni (died 1324), to whom is also ascribed the "Intelligenza", an allegorical poem in nona rima, describes the factions of the Bianchi and Neri in Florence with patriotic indignation and impartiality. Giovanni Villani (died 1348) and his brother Matteo (died 1363) wrote the whole history of Florence from the legendary origins down to the year of the latter's death; their work, in addition to its supreme historical value, is a monument of the purest Tuscan prose. Minor chroniclers arose all over Italy; we will mention only the two Sienese, Agnolo di Tura and Neri di Donato, and the Benedictine Abbot Niccolò of Gavello, who wrote the "Libro del Polistore", a kind of universal history (still only in part published) which ends in 1367. In fiction, the "Reali di Francia" of Andrea da Barberino, written at the end of the century, renders the chivalrous tales of Charlemagne and his Paladins from the French; the "Pecorone" of Ser Giovanni Fiorentino (c. 1378) is a collection of tales in imitation of Boccaccio. Franco Sacchetti (1335-1400), less artificial than Boccaccio, adapted the novella to a moral purpose; he also wrote evangelical sermons, and poems, both playful and serious, frequently of real lyrical beauty, in which the literature of the Florentine Trecento comes to a pleasant close. The Renaissance There are two distinct epochs in the history of the Italian Renaissance: the earlier, including the greater part of the fifteenth century (Il Quattrocento), from the return of the popes from Avignon (1377) to the invasion of Charles VIII (1494); the later, comprising the sixteenth century (Il Cinquecento), from the defeat of the French at Fornovo (1495) to the devolution of the Duchy of Ferrara to the Holy See (1597). Allowing for some necessary overlapping, the literature of the epoch falls into two corresponding periods. The Quattrocento is an intermediate period between the mainly Tuscan movement of the fourteenth, and the general Italian literature of the sixteenth, century. It developed under the auspices of the princes who were forming hereditary states on the ruins of the communes, and is at first marked by the continuance of the work (inaugurated by Petrarch) of recovering classical writers and copying manuscripts, while the vernacular was despised, and authors attempted to write Latin verse and prose in the manner of the ancients. Greek scholars flocked to Italy, and the influence of Plato, translated into Latin by Leonardo Bruni (died 1444) and Marsilio Ficino (died 1495), became paramount. The latter, who was bent on harmonizing Plato with Christianity, and who also translated Plotinus, was instrumental in founding the Florentine neo-Platonic Academy. Some of these Humanists were purely pagan in spirit, like Poggio Bracciolini (died 1459), Antonio Beccadelli, called Panormita (died 1471), and Francesco Filelfo (died 1481). But there were others, such as the Camaldolese monk, Ambrogio Traversari (died 1439), Palla Strozzi (died 1462), Giannozzo Manetti (died 1459), Guarino Veronese (died 1460), Vittorino da Feltre (died 1446), and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463-94), who could reconcile their worship of antiquity with their living faith in the Catholic Church. Among these Christian Humanists were two popes, Nicholas V (died 1455) and Pius II (died 1464). A vivid picture of the literary life of the age is given in the "Vite d'uomini illustri" of the Florentine bookseller, Vespasiano da Bisticci (1421-98). In the earlier part of the century, vernacular literature is of minor importance. Leonardo Giustiniani of Venice (1388-1446) wrote popular love poetry and religious laudi, some of which have been attributed to Jacopone da Todi. The Florentine architect, Leon Battista Alberti (1406-72), is the author of artistic treatises and moral dialogues, especially the four books of "Della Famiglia", in a Tuscan tinged with Latinisms. Feo Belcari (1410-84) wrote mystery plays and religious poems, and also lives of B. Giovanni Colombini and his followers, with the devout simplicity of an earlier age. Also in religious literature we have the ascetical letters of B. Giovanni Dominici (died 1419), a strenuous opponent of the pagan tendencies of the classical revival, and the vernacular sermons (1427) of St. Bernardine of Siena. In the latter part of the century, mainly through the influence of Lorenzo de' Medici and the dukes of Ferrara, Italian again triumphed over Latin. Three poets appear, almost of the first class: Lorenzo de' Medici himself (1449-92), Angelo Poliziano (1454-94), and Matteo Maria Bolardo (1434-94). Of extraordinary versatility as a poet, Lorenzo left the imprint of his striking personality upon all he wrote and, especially in his subjects drawn from country life, shows a keen feeling for nature. The ballate and canzonette of Poliziano have the true lyrical note, while his "Stanze per la Giostra" are impregnated with the spirit of Florentine painting, and his "Orfeo" handles a mythological subject in the style of a religious mystery play. Bolardo's "Canzoniere", somewhat Petrarchan in tone, but largely original in form, is the finest collection of love poems of the century; his unfinished "Orlando Innamorato", a poetic romance in ottava rima, gives fresh life to the Carlovingian legends by informing them with the spirit of the Arthurian Cycle. Among lesser poets of the Medicean circle, Luigi Pulci (1432-1484), in his "Morgante ", treated the adventures of Orlando with a fantastic mingling of seriousness and japery; Girolamo Benivieni (1453-1542), a noble mystical and patriotic spirit who outlived his age, sang of celestial love "according to the mind and opinion of the Platonists" (1487), and became the lyrical interpreter of the aspirations of Savonarola, At the northern courts, the blind poet Francesco Bello followed in Boiardo's footsteps with his "Mambriano" (1496); the Ferrarese courtier Antonio Tebaldeo (1463-1537), whose poetry all belongs to the fifteenth century, exaggerated the defects of Petrarch and versified the politics of his patrons; Antonio Cammelu, called "Il Pistoia" (1441-1502), produced an extraordinarily vivid series of satirical sonnets which are historical documents of high importance. In the South, the two chief literary figures are the Neapolitans, Giovanni Pontormo (1426-1503) and Jacopo Sannazaro (1458-1530). The former, who gave his name to a famous academy, wrote only in Latin, which, alike in prose and verse, he used as though it were his own tongue. The latter owes his fame to his Latin "Eclogæ Piscatoriæ" and his Italian "Arcadia", in prose and verse, which influenced the literature of Elizabethan England; his chief Latin poem, "De Partu Virginis", was not published until 1526. The most important Italian historical work of the fifteenth century is the "Storia di Milano" of Bernardino Corio (1459-1510), of special value for its minute and vivid picture of the reigns of the dukes of the Sforza family. The Cinquecento witnessed the Tuscan vernacular finally established as the literary language of Italy, and the classical studies of the past bearing fruit no longer in pedantic imitation, but in a national literature which is classical only in its perfection of form. In prose, Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) and, in poetry Lodovico Ariosto (1474-1533), are the master spirits of the age. Machiavelli's political and historical works, admirable in clarity, brevity, and efficacy of expression, penetrating in insight, and at times noble in patriotic aspiration, are open to severe condemnation as virtually excluding moral considerations from the sphere of public life. Next to Dante, Ariosto is the greatest poet that Italy has produced. His "Orlando Furioso", a romantic epic continuing the matter of Boiardo's chivalrous poem, but conforming to classical models, has all the highest qualities of style, imagination, and humour; but, while faithfully reflecting the society of the early Cinquecento, it is stained with the licentiousness and lack of noble ideals that characterize the age. His "Satires", or epistles in verse, give a perfect portrait of the poet himself, and sketch the life of the times with a master's hand. In his "Rime", notwithstanding occasional Petrarchan imitations, we recognize a sincerity of utterance and a genuine passion which are rare in the lyrical poetry of that day. Next to these two giants stands Francesco Guicciardini (1483-1540), pitiless investigator of men's secret motives in his "Storia d'Italia" and his political writings, endowed with a rare power of historical portraiture, but devoid of enthusiasm and all lofty aspirations. A higher ideal of life and conduct is expressed in the "Cortegiano" of Baldassare Castiglione (1478-1529), the picture of the perfect gentleman, which at the close rises on the wings of Platonic love to the mystical contemplation of celestial beauty. Pietro Bembo (1470-1547), the literary high-priest of the century, touched the latter theme, less nobly, in his "Asolani"; his poetry is little more than a servile imitation of Petrarch; but his "Prose", in which he formulated the rules of the Italian language, and the zeal with which he set the example of editing the vernacular classics, were influential in creating a standard of good taste. To the same poetic school as Bembo belong the Petrarchists, Francesco Maria Molza (1489-1544), Giovanni Guidiccioni (1500-41), Giovanni della Casa (1503-56), all noted for perfection of technic rather than for originality of thought; Vittoria Colonna (1490-1547), whose saintly life illumines her poetry, Gaspara Stampa (1523-54), in whose lyrics we find the faithful delineation of a profound and unhappy passion; and the great artist, Michelangelo Buonarroti (1475-1564), raised above the others by loftiness of thought and rugged vigour of style. A versatile Southerner, Luigi Tansillo (1510-68), shows marked individuality alike in his lyrics and in his idyllic poems. Among burlesque poets are the witty but immoral Francesco Berni (1498-1535), and Teofilo Folengo (1492-1544), whose "Macaronea", or "Baldus", is a burlesque epic written in an extravagant but subtile blend of Latin and Italian, the poesia maccheronica, of which he was the perfecter but not the inventor. Didactic poems in blank verse, in imitation of Virgil's Georgics, were composed by Giovanni Rucellai(1475-1526) and Luigi Alamanni (1495-1556), while Gian Giorgio Trissino (1478-1550), one of the chief literary critics of the age, essayed the heroic epic in the same metre in his "Italia liberata dai Goti". Numerous writers strove to tread in Ariosto's footsteps with romantic epics, of which the "Amadigi" of Bernardo Tasso (1493-1569), the father of Torquato, is the most successful. In the religious poetry of Celio Magno (1536-1602), we find the renovation of spiritual ideals caused by the Catholic reaction, and this is no less marked in Torquato Tasso (1544-95), with whom the poetry of the Italian Renaissance ends. Modelled upon classical rules, Tasso's "Gerusalemme Liberata" is at once a heroic and a religious epic, stately and musical, in which the minor charms of romance and sentiment are not lacking. He likewise won a high place as lyrist and dramatist, and, at the end of his life, composed a didactic poem, "Il Mondo Creato", the merits of which are theological rather than poetical. The Renaissance in Italy produced no great national drama. The Italian comedy of the Cinquecento is directly imitated from Plautus and Terence, but attempts to adapt the plots and characters of the Latin playwrights to the conditions of life in the sixteenth century. Here, as in the romantic epic, Ariosto stands supreme. His earlier comedies (1508-1509) are written in prose, his later (1520-1531) in verso sdrucciolo, blank verse ending in a dactyl, intended to reproduce the trimeter iambic of the Latin comedians. They give us vivid pictures of the times; the dialogue is natural and brilliant, the characterization superficial but clever; but they are disfigured by deplorable obscenity. Between Ariosto's earlier and later comedies come the "Calandria" of Bernardo da Bibbiena (1513) and the "Mandragola" of Machiavelli (after 1512), both in prose; the latter is a work of real dramatic power, but cynical and immoral to the last degree. This, unfortunately, applies to much of the comedy of the century, and is found at its worst in the plays of the infamous Pietro Aretino (1492-1556). The tragedies are poorer, and have no relation with the life of the age; they are mere rhetorical imitations of the Greek tragedians and of Seneca, the "Torrismondo" of Torquato Tasso (1587) alone rising above mediocrity. Far more attractive are the pastoral lyrical dramas, Tasso's "Aminta" (1573) and its worthy rival, the "Pastor Fido" of Battista Guarini (1585), masterpieces of their kind, in which what is artificial and conventional in sentiment is idealized and made acceptable by the melodiousness of the poetry with which it is clothed. Besides Machiavelli and Guicciardini, Florence produced a number of admirable historians, especially Jacopo Nardi(1476-1555), Donato Giannotti (1492-1572), and Benedetto Varchi (1502-65). At Venice, besides the official histories of Bembo and Paolo Paruta (died 1598), we have the voluminous "Diarii" of Marino Sanudo (1466-1536), which enable us to reconstruct the public and private life of the republic day by day. Angelo di Costanzo (1507-91) wrote the history of Naples with accuracy and simplicity. The autobiography of Benvenuto Cellini (1500-71) and the series of "Vite" of the painters, sculptors, and architects, by Giorgio Vasari (1531-74) bring the artistic side of the Renaissance vividly before our eyes. Bernardino Baldi (1553-1617), also an idyllic and didactic poet of an austere spirit, composed admirable monographs on the lives and times of the first two dukes of Urbino. Two novelists, Matteo Bandello (1480-1560) and Giambattista Giraldi (1504-75), have the merit of being less immoral than Boccaccio. Among minor prose treatises the "Galateo" of Giovanni della Casa, a manual of good breeding, has made its title proverbial. The translation of Tacitus by Bernardo Davanzati (1529-1606) is a model of style. Among grammarians and literary critics, besides Bembo, Trissino, and Varchi, should be mentioned Leonardo Salviati, who played a leading part in the foundation of the "Accademia della Crusca" in 1582. The spiritual element in vernacular literature is represented by the "Vita e Transito della beata Osanna da Mantua", by Girolamo Montolivetano (1505); the "Trattato del Purgatorio" of St. Catherine of Genoa (died 1510); the mystical writings of her godchild, the Carmelite nun, Battista Vernazza (died 1587); the Letters of St. Catherine de' Ricci (died 1590); and the "Combattimento Spirituale" (circa 1585) of Lorenzo Scupoli, still so widely used among us for purposes of devotion. The Decadence The creative genius of the Italians had been exhausted by the Renaissance, and the life of the nation crushed down by the foreign yoke of Spain, imposed on the peninsula by the Treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis (1559). Already in the latter part of the sixteenth century the decline had set in; it lasted through the whole of the seventeenth (Il Seicento), and the first half of the eighteenth century (Il Settecento), which together form the least fruitful epoch in the history of Italian literature. Exaggeration and extravagance, with corrupted taste and frantic straining after novelty (in part a reaction against the frigid classicism in which the Renaissance ended), are the characteristics of earlier seventeenth-century poetry, of which the most typical work is the "Adone" of the Neapolitan poet, Giovanbattista Marini (1569-1625), a profoundly immoral poem with a pretended ethical intention. Alessandro Tassoni (1565-1635) parodied the heroic poem in his comic epic, "La Secchia Rapita", and assailed the Spanish oppressors of his country in his prose "Filippiche". A new school of lyrical poetry was inaugurated by Gabriello Chiabrera (1552-1637), who attempted, with only partial success, to adopt the metres of the Greek and Roman poets for Italian verse. He was followed, with less refined taste and more virility, by Fulvio Testi (1593-1646), whose patriotic poems strike a higher note. Among satirical poets, natural fruit of a corrupt age, is the Neapolitan painter, Salvator Rosa (1615-73). The inevitable reaction against the inflated mannerisms of the Marinisti led to a movement for reforming Italian poetry by a return to nature and simpler ideals. To this latter school belong Vincenzo Filicaja (1642-1707), a deeply religious poet, the best of whose sonnets are the poetic gems of his age, Benedetto Menzini (1646-1704), a Florentine priest, who was also successful as a writer of satires; and Alessandro Guidi (1650-1712), called "the Italian Pindar", who introduced greater freedom into the rhythmical structure of the canzone. This movement culminated in the famous "Accademia dell' Arcadia", inaugurated at Rome in 1690, which soon sank into an affected pastoralism and artificial simplicity, as false to nature and to true poetry as the mannerisms which it was intended to combat. Although the greatest Italian of the epoch, Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), belongs to science rather than to literature, his writings are distinguished by the highest literary excellences. Francesco Redi (1626-1698), a distinguished physician, was also a poet and philologist. Three Jesuits are among the chief prose writers of the century, combining devotion and learning with a literary style which, though far less free than Galileo's from the faults of the age, is unsurpassed by any of their contemporaries. Father Sforza Pallavicino (1607-1667) composed the official history of the Council of Trent, in refutation of that of Fra Paolo Sarpi (1552-1623), and ethical and religious treatises, of which the "Arte della Perfezione Cristiana" and the four books "Del Bene", philosophical dialogues held in the villa of Cardinal Alessandro Orsini at Bracciano, are still read; Father Daniello Bartoli (1608-85), a prolific and brilliant author, wrote the history of the Society of Jesus in a style which is typical of the Seicento at its best, Father Paolo Segneri (1624-94) reformed the art of religious oratory and freed it from the corruptions of the times. Prominent among historians are Cardinal Guido Bentivoglio (1579-1644), a trusted diplomatist of the Holy See, and Enrico Caterino Davila (1576-1631), who wrote on the Civil Wars of France. A little later, the study of history was set upon a scientific basis by Giambattista Vico (1668-1744) and Lodovico Antonio Muratori (1672-1750). Vico showed how history is illumined by the application of jurisprudence and philosophy; Muratori, that worthy priest to whom the student of the Middle Ages owes more than to any other man, taught by his own example that history must be founded in documentary research, and prepared the ground for subsequent scholars. In philology and literary criticism must be mentioned Carlo Dati (1619-76), who is associated with the Accademia della Crusca (of which the first Dictionary had been published in 1612); Gianvincenzo Gravina (1664-1718), who was one of the founders of the Arcadia; and the Sienese, Girolamo Gigli (1660-1722), the zealous editor of St. Catherine. The Jesuit Girolamo Tiraboschi (1731-94) compiled the voluminous history of Italian literature which is still indispensable. By the middle of the eighteenth century dynastic changes had swept away most of the old decadent reigning houses, and by the Peace of Aachen (1748) the reactionary yoke of Spain was forever lifted from Italy. The latter half of the century shows a moral and intellectual awakening, but at the same time the growth of a sceptical and irreligious spirit, due in part to French influence. It is an epoch of scientists and political economists, among the latter Cesare Beccaria (1738-94) winning the most permanent fame. In poetry, Pietro Trapassi (1698-1782), better known as Metastasio, brought the melodrama to the ultimate perfection of which it is capable, investing it with tragic dignity and lyrical beauty. Carlo Goldoni (1707-93) reformed Italian comedy, withdrawing it from pedantry and buffoonery to the representation of real life and character. With Giuseppe Baretti (1718-89), the critic who lashed literary affectations and pleaded for virile sincerity in letters, Piedmont made a significant entry into Italian literature. Finally, two great poets arose, a Lombard priest and a Piedmontese nobleman, who anticipated the new age and used poetry as an instrument for social progress: Giuseppe Parmi (1729-99) and Vittorio Alfieri (1749-1803). Parini's chief poem, "Il Giorno", satirizes the corrupt and effeminate life of the aristocracy, and protests against the injustice of class; his "Odi", no less admirable in style, bring the same virile note into lyrical poetry. Alfieri, besides composing robust sonnets and satires, produced a long series of austere and powerful tragedies which are in the main a protest against every kind of tyranny and oppression, and a trumpet-call to the nation to put on the armour of manliness and endurance. Modern Literature At the beginning of the nineteenth century the ideals of the French Revolution had penetrated into Italy, while the establishment first of the Cisalpine Republic and then of the short-lived Napoleonic Italian kingdom inspired national feeling and gave hope of ultimate independence. These events had naturally a profound influence upon Italian literature, which, for the next fifty years, is divided between the Classic and the Romantic schools; the former attempting to accomplish the work of renovation by adapting classical models to the new conditions, the latter appealing less to form than to the picturesque aspects of history (particularly of the Middle Ages), to popular sentiment, and to nature. Vincenzo Monti (1754-1828) is the head of the Classical school in poetry, though his earlier works belong to the preceding century. With no great originality, no stability of thought or constancy of ideals, he has inexhaustible fertility and a vigour of style that is frequently impressive. Ugo Foscolo (1778-1827) is, like Monti, a literary critic as well as poet, but a consistent patriot. His masterpiece, "I Sepolcri", is a poetical epistle in blank verse, classical in thought, lofty in style, and rich in imagery; the "Ultime lettere di Jacopo Ortis", his best known prose work, is an unwholesome and morbid production. Among minor writers of the Classical school are the poet Ippolito Pindemonte (1753-1828), the translator of the Odyssey, who answered Foscolo's "Sepolcri" from the religious standpoint; Antonio Cesan (1760-1828), a priest of Verona, whose aim was to purify the language by the standard of the Tuscan writers of the Trecento; Giulio Perticari (1779-1822), the son-in-law of Monti, with whose linguistic labours in connexion with the revision of the "Vocabolario della Crusca" he was closely associated; Carlo Botta (1766-1837), who attempted to follow in the footsteps of the Latin historians and the great Florentines of the sixteenth century. Belonging more to the Classic than the Romantic school, Giacomo Leopardi (1798-1837) is a solitary and tragic figure. Domestic unhappiness, physical health early shattered by excessive application to study, unrequited love, combined with loss of the Catholic Faith in which he had been reared, drove him into crude pessimism. No Italian since Petrarch had reached the lyrical beauty of his "Canti", in which the contrast between the past and present of his country, the worship of antiquity, political disillusion, hopeless love, and, at length, even the contemplation of nature find utterance in sheer despair. The founder of the Romantic school is Giovanni Berchet (1783-1851), of Milan, who in 1816 characterized the Classical school as "poetry of the dead", and the Romantic school as "poetry of the living"; his own patriotic lyrics, a little later, won him the title of "the Italian Tyrtæus". To the Romanticists belongs the noblest figure in Italian literature of the nineteenth century, the great Catholic writer, Alessandro Manzoni (1785 1873), whose life was ruled and his art inspired, by religion and patriotism alone. In his "Inni Sacri" (1815-22), he gives lyrical expression to the chief mysteries of the Faith; in his ode on the death of Napoleon, "Il Cinque Maggio", he passes judgment on the mighty conqueror's Career in the light of religion. His lyrical dramas, "Il Conte di Carmagnola" (1820) and "L'Adelchi" (1822), are deficient in true dramatic qualities, but notable for the choral interludes, patriotic no less than religious in their aim. The same ideals inform his masterpiece, "I Promessi Sposi" (1827), a realistic romance with a historical background, as admirable in characterization and description, in pathos and in humour, as it is lofty in its idealism. To the school of Manzoni, similarly combining fervent Catholicism with nationalistic enthusiasm, belong Tommaso Grossi (1790-1853), poet and novelist; Silvio Pellico (1789-1854), whose "Le Mie Prigioni" describes with pathetic detail and Christian resignation his cruel imprisonment at the hands of the Austrians; and Cesare Cantù (1804-95), better known for his later voluminous works on history. Political considerations colour most of the literature of the middle of the century, whether it be the historical writings of Cesare Balbo (1789-1853), the satirical and patriotic poems of Giuseppe Giusti (1809-50), the revolutionary lyrics of Gabriele Rossetti (1783-1854), the tragedies of Giovanbattista Niccolini (1782-1861), or the once admired romances of Francesco Domenico Guerrazzi (1804-73). The "Storia d'Italia nel Medio Evo" of Carlo Troya (1784-1858), the "Storia della Repubblica di Firenze" of Gino Capponi (1792-1876), and the "Storia dei Mussulmani di Sicilia" of Michele Amari (1806-89) are works of more permanent value. Niccolò Tommaseo (1802-74), poet and patriot, who united the study of philology with that of philosophy, made his name dear to students of Dante and St. Catherine. Midway between this epoch and our own, belonging by the character of his art to the old rather than to the new era, stands a true, though not a great, poet, Giacomo Zanella (1820-89), a learned professor and devout Catholic priest. In Zanella's work the cult of science, the love of nature, an ardent patriotism, and profound religious convictions are nobly blended. He is at his best in his lyrics; and in the last of these, an ode to Leo XIII, he pleads for a reconciliation between Church and State, the wedding of the Cross of Christ with the Savoyard cross on the national banner. Since the unification of Italy, more has been accomplished in economics and in social science than in pure literature. One modern Italian, indeed, takes his place among the foremost European poets of the nineteenth century -- Giosuè Carducci (1836-1906). A bitter opponent of the Christian ideal and a strenuous democrat, Carducci has given poetic form to the anti-clerical side of the Revolution that has made Italy one, and has expressed the paganism that is latent in the Italian genius. In his masterpiece, the "Odi Barbare", he casts his essentially modern matter into new rhythmical forms modelled upon the lyrical metres of the classical poets of Greece and Rome. His prose writings and professorial teaching have been influential in creating a high standard of literary criticism and scholarship in Italy. In this latter field much, too, is due to the veteran historian Pasquale Villan (born 1827). Of living poets (in 1909) the place of honour belongs to Giovanni Pascoli (born 1855), whom the contemplation of nature and the life of the peasants in the fields inspire to short poems that are classical in their beauty. Alike in verse and in prose, Gabriele d'Annunzio (born 1864) has perverted extraordinary talents to the basest literary uses; it is impossible to believe that his gorgeous rhetoric, with its elaboration of sensual passion and its gross obscenity, can win any permanence. The mantle of Manzoni has fallen upon the pupil of Zanella. Antonio Fogazzaro (born 1842), a Catholic and an idealist, whose romances tower above the rest of modern Italian fiction, and of which the keynote is found in the author's conviction that the one mission of art is to strengthen the Divine element in man. Archivio Glottologico Italiano (Rome, quarterly); MORANDI, Origine della lingua italiana (Città di Castello, 1892); CAIX, Le origini della lingua poetica italiana (Florence, 1880); MONACI, Crestomazia italiana dei primi secoli (Città di Castello, 1889-97); TIRABOSCHI, Storia della letteratura italiana; TORRACA, Studi sulla lirica italiana del Ducento (Bologna, 1902); BANTOLI, Storia della letteratura italiana (Florence, 1878-84); GASPARY, Geschichte der italienischen Literatur (Berlin, 1885-88); tr. into Italian, with additions, by ZINGARELLI AND ROSSI (Turin, 1887-1901); OELSNER, Gaspary's History of Early Italian Literature to the Death of Dante (London, 1901); D'ANCONA AND BACCI, Manuale della letteratura italiana (Florence, 1892-94); FORNACIARI, Disegno storico della letteratura italiana (Florence, 1898); D'ANCONA, Origini del teatro italiano (Turin, 1891); BURCKHARDT, Die Cultur der Renaissance in Italien (new ed., Leipzig, 1901); VOIGT, Die Wiederbelebung des classischen Alterthums (Berlin, 1859); Italian tr., enlarged, by VALBUSA (Florence, 1888-97); SYMONDS, The Renaissance in Italy: Italian literature (London, 1881); DORNIS, La poésie italienne contemporaine (Paris, 1898); GARNETT, History of Italian Literature (London, 1898); KING AND OKEY, Italy To-day (London, 1901); GREENE, Italian Lyrists of To-day (London, 1893). A comprehensive literary history, by various hands, is now in course of publication at Milan: NOVATI, Origini della lingua; ZINGARELLI, Dante; VOLPI, Il Trecento; ROSSI, Il Quattrocento; FLAMINI, Il Cinquecento; BELLONI, Il Seicento; CONCARI, Il Settecento; MAZZONI, L'Ottocento. The quarterly Giornale Storico della letteratura italiana, edited by NOVATI AND RENIER (Turin), is indispensable to students. EDMUND G. GARDNER. Ite Missa Est Ite Missa Est This is the versicle chanted in the Roman Rite by the deacon at the end of Mass, after the Post-Communions. It is our formula of the old dismissal (apolysis) still contained in all liturgies. It is undoubtedly one of the most ancient Roman formulæ, as may be seen from its archaic and difficult form. All the three oldest Roman Ordines contain it. "Ordo Rom. I" says: "When the prayer [Post-Communion] is over, that one of the deacons appointed by the archdeacon looks towards the pontiff to receive a sign from him and then says to the people: Ite missa est. They answer: Deo gratias (ed. Atchley, London, 1905, p. 144. See also "Ordo Rom. II", 15; "Ordo Rom. III", 18). The medieval commentators were much exercised to explain the meaning of the strange expression. Durandus (Rationale, IV, 57) suggests several interpretations. It has been thought that a word is omitted: Ite, missa est finita; or est is taken absolutely, as meaning "exists", is now an accomplished fact". The real explanation seems to lie rather in interpreting correctly the word missa. Before it became the technical name of the holy Liturgy in the Roman Rite, it meant simply "dismissal". The form missa for missio is like that of collecta (for collectio), ascensa (ascensio), etc. So Ite missa est should be translated "Go it is the dismissal." (See Florus the Deacon, "De expositione Missæ", P.L., CIX, 72.) On certain days which have the character of fasting or penance, this versicle is replaced by the words Benedicamus Domino. The fact is noticed by medieval liturgists (e.g., Durandus, IV, 57 -- cf. "Micrologus", xxxiv; etc.) since about the eleventh century. The three Roman Ordines before the tenth century know only the form Ite missa est. The explanation is that originally the people were not dismissed on such days, but stayed in church for further prayers after Mass, suitable to fasting days (so Bona, "Rerum liturg. libri duo", II, xx, n.3). This is confirmed by a now extinct medieval custom of singing Benedicamus Domino at the end of midnight Mass at Christmas, because Lauds follow at once (Durandus, op. cit., IV, 57, §7). So the idea obtained that Ite missa est implies a festal Mass. Our present rule that it follows the Gloria in Excelsis (and therefore the Te Deum in the Office) is noted in "Micrologus" (xlvi). Either versicle was always answered by the obvious response Deo gratias, implying thanks that the Sacrifice has been offered -- is now complete. At Requiems (since they have no Gloria) Ite missa est is not said. In this case the versicle is Requiescant in pace. The response is Amen. John Beleth (twelfth century) says that this arose "only from a general custom" ("Rat. div. offic." in P.L., CCII, 49). Till about the twelfth century the Ite missa est really ended the liturgy, as its form implies. In the First Roman Ordo, immediately after it the text continues: "Then the seven candlesticks are carried before the pontiff . . . to the sacristy" (ed. Atchley, p. 146). It was not till the sixteenth century (Missal of Pius V) that the accretions to the Mass that had gradually been introduced (Placeat, blessing, last Gospel -- all originally private prayers) were definitely recognised as part of the liturgy to be said at the altar. The corresponding dismissals in the other Western rites are: at Milan, V. "Procedamus in pace." R. "In nomine Christi"; Mozarabic, "Solemnia completa sunt in nomine D. N. I. C: votum nostrum sit acceptum cum pace." R. "Deo gratias" ("Missale Mixtum", P. L., LXXXV, 120). Of the Eastern rites that of the "Apostolic Constitutions" dismisses the people with the form: "Go in peace" (Brightman, "Eastern Liturgies", p. 27). The Antiochene and Byzantine Liturgies end with the deacon's announcement: "Let us go forth in peace." R. "In the name of the Lord"; and then a short "prayer of dismissal" said by the celebrant (op. cit., 67, 397); so also the Alexandrine Rite (ibid., 142): while the Nestorians have only a prayer and blessing by the celebrant (ibid., 303). Present Ritual At high Mass, as soon as the last Post-Communion is ended, the celebrant and ministers go to the middle of the altar and stand in line. The celebrant turning to the people sings Dominus vobiscum (the usual introduction to any announcement), and remains facing them. When the choir has answered, the deacon turns round and, with hands joined, sings Ite missa est to its proper tone, the choir answering Deo gratias to the same notes. In the former Missal ten melodies were provided for various solemnities. The idea is to sing this last versicle to the tone of the first Kyrie eleison, so that Mass ends with the same chant as that with which it began. To carry this out more completely the new Vatican Missal provides nineteen tones, most of them very elaborate (for Ite missa est and Benedicamus Domino), corresponding to the various masses in the Kyriale". The tone of the first Kyrie should always be used. In figured masses the Ite missa est should be sung to the tone of the plain-song mass provided for the occasion. From Holy Saturday till White Saturday (Sabbatum in albis), inclusively, two Alleluias are added to both versicle and response; in this case they have a special melody (the first in the Missal), which does not correspond to the Kyrie. At Masses that have no Gloria in excelsis (therefore in the Office de tempore of Advent and Lent, vigils, and ember-days, except Maundy Thursday and Holy Saturday; at Votive Masses, except those of the B.V.M. when celebrated on Saturday, Votive Masses of Angels, and, for a grave cause, when violet vestments are not used in the Mass -- "Rubr. Gen." of the Missal, viii, 4) the celebrant turns back to the altar after the Dominus vobiscum, and the deacon, facing the altar, sings, Benedicamus Domino, to the same tone (of the Kyrie); the answer is the same, Deo gratias. At all Requiems in the same manner he sings, to the tone provided in the Missal. Requiescant in pace (in the plural, even when Mass is said for one person -- S. R. C., 22 Jan., 1678). R. Amen. As soon as the deacon has finished his versicle the celebrant turns back to the altar and waits; the deacon and subdeacon kneel on the suppedaneum. When the answer of the choir is finished the celebrant says the prayer Placeat and then gives the blessing. The celebrant himself says Benedicamus Domino or Requiescant in pace in a low voice while the deacon sings, because these are prayers. He does not say Ite missa est, because this is an announcement to the people. At a sung Mass the celebrant sings the deacon's part, at a low Mass he says it. Otherwise there is no change. BERNOLD OF CONSTANCE in the "Micrologus" in "P.L"., CLI, 973-1022, xlvi; JOHN BELETH, "Rationale divinorum officiorum" in "P.L"., CII, 14-166, xlix; DURANDUS, "Rationale", IV, 57, and all the medieval commentators: BONA, "Rerum liturgicarum libri duo," xx; BENEDICT XIV, "De S. Missæ Sacrificio", II, xxiv; GIHR, "Das heilige Messopfer" (Freiburg im Br., 1897), 714-17; DE HERDT, "Sacræ Liturgiæ praxis "(Louvain, 1894), I, 481-83. ADRIAN FORTESCUE Itineraria Itineraria (MEDIEVAL CHRISTIAN GUIDE-BOOKS: Lat. iter, gen. itineris, journey) Under this term are comprised two kinds of works: travellers' relations describing the places and countries visited by them, together with such incidents of the voyage as are worth noting; and compilations intended to furnish information for the guidance of travellers, i.e. works which we now distinguish as books of travel and guide-books. Nearly all the itineraria of the Middle Ages have for their subject the journey to the Holy Land and neighbouring countries. In those days, when travelling was beset with difficulties and dangers, long journeys were rarely undertaken except under the impulse of religious motives. The devout were especially attracted by the places hallowed by the presence of the Saviour or famous in sacred story; and, because of the unusual interest attaching to these holy places, many wrote an account of their pilgrimage, while others gathered the information furnished by these writers for the use of future pilgrims or for the instruction of those who could not undertake the voyage. Though a number of these works, especially of the older ones, have perished, an extensive literature remains, and it is of the greatest value for the history of the Church and Christian archæology as well as for the study of the Bible. The relations of pilgrims, who speak as eye-witnesses, are naturally of greater importance than the works of mere compilers. The oldest extant pilgrim's relation is the "Itinerarium Burdigalense" -- or "Itinerarium Hierosolymitanum", as it is also called -- by an anonymous writer commonly known as "the Pilgrim of Bordeaux", who visited the Holy Land in 333-4, going by land through Northern Italy and the valley of the Danube to Constantinople, thence through Asia Minor and Syria, and returning by way of Macedonia, Otranto, Rome, and Milan. The report of his journey outside Palestine is little more than a dry enumeration of the cities through which he passed, and of the places where he stopped or changed horses, with their respective distances. For the Holy Land he also briefly notes the important events which he believes to be connected with the various places. In this he falls into some strange blunders, as when, for instance, he places the Transfiguration on Mount Olivet. Such errors, however, are also found in subsequent writers. His description of Jerusalem, though short, contains information of great value for the topography of the city. Very different from the above is the account of her pilgrimage written by a nun for the sisters of her community towards the end of the same century (c. 385). Gamurrini, who discovered it in the library of Arezzo in 1884, attributed it to Saint (?) Silvia of Aquitaine, the sister of Rufinus, prefect of the prætorium under Theodosius the Great and his successor Arcadius, whence it became known as the "Peregrinatio Sanctæ Silviæ". Dom M. Férotin, however, later showed (Rev. des Questions Historiques, Oct., 1903) that the real authoress is a native of Galicia, Spain, whose name is variously given as Etheria, Echeria, and Egeria. She seems to have been a lady of importance with friends at court, possibly a relative of Theodosius himself (who was a Galician). Wherever she went, the clergy, even bishops, attended her and acted as her guides, while imperial officers gave her a military escort where the road was unsafe. During her pilgrimage of over three years, she visited Western and Eastern Palestine, Idumea, Sinai, Egypt, Asia Minor, Syria, and Mesopotamia. She is a keen observer, and writes with a certain charm in spite of her crude, provincial Latin. The work, unfortunately, exists only in a fragmentary state, though the lacunæ at the beginning are partly filled up by extracts found in the treatise "De Locis. Sanctis" of Peter the Deacon, a writer of the twelfth century (Geyer, pp. 107-21). While it furnishes very valuable topographical details about Jerusalem, its description of the churches and of the religious ceremonial then in use makes it of special interest to the liturgiologist. Its value in this respect is well brought out by Dom Cabrol in his work "La Peregrinatio Silviæ: Les églises de Jérusalem, la discipline et la liturgie au IV ^e siècle" (Paris, 1895). The text of the "Peregrinatio" has often been edited and studied. A study from a philological point of view was published in the United States by Professor Edw. A. Bechtel -- "Sanctæ Silviæ Peregrinatio. The Text and a Study of the Latinity" (Chicago, 1902). The Spanish nun Egeria (for this is probably the correct form of the name) was followed in 386 by two other ladies of quality, the Roman matron St. Paula and her daughter Eustochium. The account of their pilgrimage through Palestine and Egypt, written by St. Jerome after Paula's death (Epist. cviii ad Eustoch.), was intended to make known the virtues of the holy pilgrim, rather than to describe the places she visited; still it contains much useful matter. No pilgrim's narrative of the fifth century is extant. The author of the "Epistola ad Faustum", or "Epitome de aliquibus locis sanctis", commonly ascribed to St. Eucherius, Bishop of Lyons (died a.d. 450), obtained his information by reading the accounts of, and conversing with, pilgrims. The relation of Theodosius "De situ Terræ Sanctæ", discovered in 1864, belongs to the first half of the sixth century (c. 530). It is written somewhat after the manner of the "Itinerarium Burdigalense", with the valuable feature of indicating the distances between the different sites of the Holy City. Of Theodosius himself nothing certain is known. Little more is known of Antoninus of Piacenza, who made the pilgrimage about 570. In manuscripts he is sometimes styled Antoninus the Martyr, through ignorant confusion of the writer with the martyr St. Antoninus who is venerated at Piacenza. He is the last writer who saw Palestine before the Moslem conquest. Although he covered in his travels nearly the same extensive territory as the Spanish nun, his work contains but few details not found in other writers; it is, moreover, marred by gross errors and by fabulous tales which betray the most naive credulity. A century later (c. 670) the French bishop Arculf was wrecked on the western coast of Britain after visiting the Holy Land. To this accident we owe St. Adamnan's "De locis sanctis libri tres". Having been hospitably received by St. Adamnan, then abbot of the famous Monastery of Iona, Arculf described to him his voyage and drew for him the plans of some of the churches of Jerusalem. Adamnan wrote down the narrative on tablets of wax, and later edited it in three books, adding, however, matter derived from other sources. The work is important, as it contains the first description of Jerusalem after the changes wrought by the Persian conquest under Chosroes (614), and the Arab occupation under Omar (637). It was long accepted as the authority on Palestine. Venerable Bede's "De Locis Sanctis" is mainly taken from Adamnan's work. St. Willibald, nephew of St. Boniface and Bishop of Eichstätt, had travelled in his youth for eight years (721-729), three of which he spent in the Holy Land. In his later days he related his life and travels to the nuns of the monastery of Heidenheim. Two reports of his story have come down to us. The first, "Hodoeporicon Sancti Willibaldi", was written (c. 785) by a relative of the saint, a nun of the monastery, from notes which she took while he was speaking. The other, "Itinerarium Sancti Willibaldi", was probably composed from memory, after Willibald's death, by one of the two deacons who accompanied him in his visits to the monastery. Though better in style, it is less reliable than the first and contains details which the writer obtained elsewhere. The last itinerarium of any consequence before the Crusades is that of the French monk Bernard, who with two of his fellow-religious visited Egypt and Palestine (868-9). He is the first to make mention of the holy fire which is now such a conspicuous feature in the Greek celebration of Holy Saturday in the church of the Holy Sepulchre. Of the unimportant works of the next two centuries, the relation of Ingulf, Abbot of Croydon, may be mentioned, because it shows to what dangers pilgrims were exposed at that time. Of the seven thousand persons with whom he started on his pilgrimage (1064) more than three thousand perished. With the beginning of the Crusades the works on Palestine become very numerous, and after the loss of the country by the Latins they increase rather than diminish. Those which relate to the events of the crusading period do not concern us here. They may be found in such collections as Bongars, "Gesta Dei per Francos" (Hanau, 1611), "Recueil des historiens des croisades" (Paris, 1844-86), and "Publications de la Société de 1'Orient Latin, Série Historique" (Geneva, 1877-85). Of the others, a long list of which is given by Tobler and Röhricht, only the more important can be noticed. The first of these is the relation of the Russian abbot (hequmenos) Daniel, the earliest extant record of a Russian pilgrimage to the Holy Land. He came there shortly after the Christian occupation (c. 1106), and visited most of the holy places and sanctuaries, with a monk of the monastery of St. Sabas as guide. His description of what he himself saw is generally accurate, and he gives a fair picture of the country a few years after it was taken by the Crusaders. The Russian text with a French translation was published by Noroff (St. Petersburg, 1864); an English translation is given in "Palestine Pilgrims' Texts". The best medieval work on Palestine is beyond doubt the "Descriptio Terræ Sanctæ" of Burchard (also wrongly called Brocard, Bocard, etc.) de Monte Sion, a German Dominican, who spent ten years in the country (c. 1274-84). Burchard is an observer with something like the modern spirit of exactness, and is as careful in relating as he is exact in observing, distinguishing fact from mere conjecture, and what he has himself seen from what he takes on the authority of others. However, being the child of an uncritical age, he records many a legend. To the description of the land he adds a description of its fauna and flora, and a disquisition on the various religions professed by its inhabitants. The work was very popular in the Middle Ages, and because of its great value has often been printed. Burchard de Monte Sion must not be confounded with Burchard of Strasburg, a pilgrim of the twelfth century (1175), a fragment of whose itinerarium is extant. Another Dominican, the Florentine Ricoldo da Monte di Croce, deserves to be noticed, less for the account of his visit to the Holy Places (1288-9) than for the interesting relation of his mission to Bagdad, where the Dominicans were then labouring for the conversion of the Tatars. His work consists of two parts: the first is the journal of his pilgrimage through Palestine, in which the exercises of piety of the band of pilgrims with which he was associated and his own personal emotions occupy a large place; the second contains a description of his adventures on his journey to Persia, and of the manners, customs, and religion of the Tatars. It is owing to this second part that the work was soon translated into Italian and French. The Latin text of the "Itinerarium" was first published by Laurent in his "Peregrinatores medii ævi quatuor" (Leipzig, 1864; 2nd ed., 1873). For an extensive notice of Ricoldo, see "Rev. Bibl.", II (1893), pp. 44, 182, 584. "De Itinere Terræ Sanctæ" by Ludolph, pastor of Suchem in the Diocese of Paderborn, is considered the best relation of the fourteenth century. The author spent five years in Palestine (1336-41). John Poloner -- by some said to be a German, by others a Pole -- is, as far as we know, the first pilgrim who drew a map (now unfortunately lost) of the Holy Land. His "Peregrinatio ad Terram Sanctam" (1422) is in many places copied from Burchard de Monte Sion. The best work of the fifteenth century is the voluminous "Evagatorium in Terræ Sanctæ, Arabiæ et Egypti peregrinationem" of the Dominican Felix Faber, or Fabri. The author, who was twice in the East (1480 and 1483), is somewhat credulous, but reliable in what he himself observed. For travels to the Far East during medieval times, see ODORIC OF PORDENONE, BLESSED; RUBRUK, WILLIAM OF; POLO, MARCO. TEXTS. -- Library of the Palestine Pilgrims' Text Society (London, 1897); GEYER, Itinera Hierosolymitana soeculi IV-VIII in Corpus Scrip. Eccles. Latin., XXXVIII (Vienna, 1898); Publications de la Société de l'Orient Latin, Série Géograph. (Geneva, 1880-5); Itinerarium Burdig. in P. L., VIII, 783 sqq.; Ep. ad Eustoch., ibid., XXII, 878 sqq.; Itiner. Antonini, ibid., LXXII, 890 sqq.; ADAMNAN, De situ Terroe Sanctoe, ibid., LXXXVIII, 779 sqq.; Itiner. Bernardi, ibid., CXXI, 569 sqq.; Hodoeporicon S. Willibaldi in Acta SS., July, II, 501. See TOBLER, Bibliographia geographica Paloestinoe (Leipzig, 1867); RÖHRICHT, Bibliotheca grogr. Paloestinoe (Berlin, 1890). F. BECHTEL. Itinerarium Itinerarium A form of prayer used by monks and clerics before setting out on a journey, and for that reason usually printed at the end of the Breviary, where it can be conveniently found when required. Most probably the use of such prayers originated in monastic observance. The early rules of the Fathers of the Desert -- St. Anthony and St. Pachomius -- as well as that of St. Basil, legislate minutely as to the behaviour of monks when travelling, and impose various restrictions and duties upon them. St. Benedict, whose rule, more than any other, has exerted so wide an influence over all ecclesiastical customs, monastic and otherwise, in the Western Church, laid down (chap. lxvii) that when any of the brethren were to be sent on a journey, they should, before setting out, commend themselves to the prayers of the abbot and community, by whom they were to be daily remembered during their absence from the monastery. According to monastic tradition, if the absence were to be only a short one, i. e. if they were to return the same or the following day, they merely asked the abbot's blessing, usually at the conclusion of one of the canonical hours, and then requested the prayers of the community. But if the journey was, to occupy a longer time, a more solemn form of itinerarium was customary. Kneeling or lying prostrate at the altar steps, some versicles and prayers were recited over them by the abbot, who then dismissed the travellers with his blessing and the kiss of peace. This was most likely the origin of the itinerarium as we have it at present. The constitutions of the various orders and congregations usually legislate for the particular prayers to be used by their members before a journey, and the duty of a community to pray for those who may be travelling is fulfilled at the present day by the versicle "Divinum auxilium", said for absent brethren at the end of each of the canonical hours. The inclusion of the itinerarium in the secular Roman Breviary indicates that its use is at least recommended to all clerics, though not obligatory. The "Cæremoniale Episcoporum" directs that a prelate ought to recite it with his chaplains or household before commencing a Journey; and Gavanti mentions an ancient pontifical containing a longer form of itinerarium for the use of prelates. The usual form consists of the canticle "Benedictus" with antiphon, certain versicles, and several collects. Two of these latter are very ancient, being found in the Gregorian Sacramentary. In some modern editions of the monastic Breviary a shorter form of itinerarium is also given, for use "ante ambulationem extra monasterium". DURAND, Rationale Divini Officii (Venice, 1568); HAEFTEN, Disquisitiones Monast. (Antwerp, 1644); GAVANTI, Thesaurus Sacrorum Rituum (Venice, 1744); MARTÈNE, De Antiquis Monachorum Ritibus (Lyons, 1790). G. CYPRIAN ALSTON. Franz Ittenbach Franz Ittenbach Historical painter; born at Königswinter, at the foot of the Drachenfels, in 1813; died at Düsseldorf, 1879. He was a pupil at the age of nineteen at the Academy of Düsseldorf, receiving also private lessons from its president, Schadow. He was an exceedingly religious man, and associated with himself three of his friends and fellow-students, Karl and Andreas Müller, and Ernst Deger, and the four men travelled about in Germany, studying and painting together. He persistently declined any commissions for mythological or pagan subjects, and as a rule devoted his energies exclusively to church decoration, preceding the execution of his greatest works by devout religious exercises, including confession and communion. His finest paintings are to be found at Bonn, in the church of St. Remigius, and in Breslau in a church dedicated to the same saint. There is also a remarkable "Holy Family" dated 1861, painted for Prince Liechtenstein in his private chapel near Vienna, and many other works by him are in various Catholic churches in Germany. His only important fresco was painted in 1844 in a church at Remagen. He was a very popular painter in court circles, a member of most of the European academies, and the recipient of many medals and decorations. His colouring is correct and delicate, and yet of remarkable brilliance, and his pictures have a suave and attractive religious aspect and create a strong emotion in the minds of those who gaze at them. He painted a few portraits, but they were unimportant; his main work was in his altar-pieces. See various numbers of the Zeitschrift für Bildende Kunst (1879 and later years). GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON. St. Ives (Yves) St. Ives (St. Yves) St. Ives, born at Kermartin, near Tréguier, Brittany, 17 October, 1253; died at Louannee, 19 May, 1303, was the son of Helori, lord of Kermartin, and Azo du Kenquis. In 1267 Ives was sent to the University of Paris, where he graduated in civil law. He went to Orléans in 1277 to study canon law. On his return to Brittany having received minor orders he was appointed "official", or ecclesiastical judge, of the archdeanery of Rennes (1280); meanwhile he studied Scripture, and there are strong reasons for holding that he joined the Franciscan Tertiaries sometime later at Guingamp. He was soon invited by the Bishop of Tréguier to become his "official", and accepted the offer (1284). He displayed great zeal and rectitude in the discharge of his duty and did not hesitate to resist the unjust taxation of the king, which he considered an encroachment on the rights of the Church; by his charity he gained the title of advocate and patron of the poor. Having been ordained he was appointed to the parish of Tredrez in 1285 and eight years later to Louannee, where he died. He was buried in Tréguier, and was canonized in 1347 by Clement VI, his feast being kept on 19 May. He is the patron of lawyers, though not, it is said, their model, for -- "Sanctus Ivo erat Brito, Advocatus et non latro, Res miranda populo." Acta SS., May, V, 248; Life by DE LA HAYE (Morlaix, 1623); and by NORBERT (Paris, 1892); DANIEL, Monuments originaux (St-Brieux, 1887); Analecta Bolland., II, 324-40; VIII, 201-3; XVII, 259. A.A. MACERLEAN Levi Silliman Ives Levi Silliman Ives Born at Meriden, Connecticut, U.S.A., 16 September, 1797; d. at New York, 13 October, 1867. He was one of the most distinguished converts to the Church made in the United States through the influence of the Tractarian Movement of 1848-49. The war of 1812 with England broke out while he was at school, and he joined the army, serving for a year. His further education he received at Hamilton College. In 1823 he was ordained a minister of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and officiated at several charges in New York and Pennsylvania until 1831, when he was elected Bishop of North Carolina. Here he took great interest in the education and religious training of the coloured people of that section. Deeply interested by the Oxford Movement, he founded at Valle Crucis in North Carolina a religious community, called the "Brotherhood of the Holy Cross". The members, a few clergymen and zealous laymen, observed a community rule and went about preaching Tractarian ideas. So warm was the advocacy of the Oxford theories by Bishop Ives that he was arraigned for them before the convention of the Episcopal Church. His explanations were accepted for a time, but the "Brotherhood of the Holy Cross" was dissolved. In 1852 he went to Rome and made his submission to the pope, and thus, as he said himself, "abandoned a position in which he had acted as a minister of the Protestant Episcopal Church for more than thirty years, and as a bishop of the same for more than twenty, and sought late in life admission as a layman into the Holy Catholic Church, with no prospect before him, but simply peace of conscience and the salvation of his soul." His wife, who was a daughter of the Protestant Bishop Hobart, also became a convert. Returning to the United States he acted as professor of rhetoric at St. Joseph's Seminary, New York, and lectured to the pupils of several convents, concerning himself also in charity work. In the latter field he established the Catholic Protectory in New York, and was the first president of that institution. Ives, Trials of a Mind in its Progress to the Catholic Faith (Boston, 1853); Shea, The Catholic Church in the U. S. (New York, 1856); Appleton's Cyclopædia of Amer. Biog., s. v. THOMAS F. MEEHAN St. Ivo (Yves) OF Chartres St. Ivo of Chartres (Yvo, Yves). One of the most notable bishops of France at the time of the Investiture struggles and the most important canonist before Gratian in the Occident, born of a noble family about 1040; died in 1116. From the neighbourhood of Beauvais, his native country, he went for his studies first to Paris and thence to the Abbey of Bee in Normandy, at the same time as Anselm of Canterbury, to attend the lectures given by Lanfranc. About 1080 he became, at the desire of his bishop, prior of the canons of St-Quentin at Beauvais. He was then one of the best teachers in France, and so prepared himself to infuse a new life into the celebrated schools of Chartres, of which city he was appointed bishop in 1090, his predecessor, Geoffroy, having been deposed for simony. His episcopal government, at first opposed by the tenants of Geoffroy, ranged over a period of twenty-five years. No man, perhaps, is better portrayed in his writing than is Ivo in his letters and sermons; in both he appears as a man always faithful to his duties, high-minded, full of zeal and piety, sound in his judgments, a keen jurist, straight-forward, mindful of others' rights, devoted to the papacy and to his country, at the same time openly disapproving of what he considered wrong. This explains why he has been sometimes quoted as a patron of Gallican Liberties and looked upon by Flaccus Illyricus as one of the "witnesses to the truth" in his "Catalogus". Very often Ivo was consulted on theological, liturgical, political, and especially canonical matters. Of his life little more is known than may be gathered from his letters. As bishop he strongly opposed Philip the First, who wished to desert Bertha, his legitimate wife, and marry Bertrade of Anjou (1092); his opposition gained him a prison cell. In the Investiture struggle then raging in France, and especially in Germany, Ivo represented the moderate party. Though he died too early to witness the final triumph of his ideas with the Concordat of Worms (1122), his endeavours and his doctrines may be said to have paved the way for an agreement satisfactory to both sides. His views on the subject are fully expressed in several of his letters, especially those of the years 1099, 1106, and 1111 (Epistolae, lx, clxxxix, ccxxxii, ccxxxvi, ccxxxvii, etc.); these letters are still of interest as to the question of the relationship between Church and State, the efficacy of sacraments administered by heretics, the sin of simony, etc. Works The printed works of Ivo of Chartres may be arranged into three categories; canonical writings, letters, and sermons. Canonical writings For the canonical works cf. CANONS, COLLECTIONS OF ANCIENT, sub-title Collection of Yvo of Chartres. Suffice it to mention here the "Decretum" in seventeen books and the "Panormia" in eight books, the latter being undoubtedly the work of Ivo himself, with material taken from the former. Both of these were composed before 1096, but the "Panormia" enjoyed a far greater success than the "Decretum"; we immediately find it at Durham and elsewhere in England, at Naumburg in Germany, etc. One of the improvements of this collection on the works of Burchard of Worms (d. 1025) consists in this: that Ivo gives a far greater number of canons, adding to those of Burchard canons taken from Italian sources. As may be easily seen, theology and canon law are not yet precisely marked off from one another"--a defect which holds also for previous collections; the chapters on the Trinity, Incarnation, and especially the sacraments are worth seeing in this connection. But the most important feature of Ivo's work is perhaps his preface, "Prologus", which give new rules for solving the old problem of the discrepancies occurring in the texts of the Fathers and the councils. Letters The letters of Ivo, 288 in number (Merlet has added 40 more), from which we gather nearly all that we know of his life, are in the edition of Migne together with those of his correspondents. Many are of a special interest as to the political and religious questions of the time; not a few are answers to difficulties referring to moral, liturgical, or canonical matters; some discuss problems of dogmatics. The popularity of these letters was very great, as may be gathered from the fact that they appear in the catalogues of many monastic libraries; numerous manuscripts are still extant. Sermons The twenty-five sermons are sometimes treatises on liturgical, dogmatic, or moral questions and bear witness to the great piety and science of Bishop Ivo. The "Micrologus" which has been attributed to him belongs to Bernold of Constance. Other works, such as the "Tripartita" (collection of canons), "Commentary on the Psalms", etc., are still unprinted. Influence of writings The influence of Ivo's works may be seen in the writings of nearly all the theologians and canonists of his day and for some time afterwards: Alger of Liege and Hugh of St. Victor, not to mention others, depend largely on the materials put together in the "Decretum" and "Panormia"; and Hugh has also borrowed from Ivo's sermons on Holy orders, dedication of churches, etc. The connection of ideas between the "Prologus" and the scheme of Abelard's "Sic et Non" or Gratian's "Concordantia" is obvious. The saint's feast is kept, since 1570, on 20 May; it is not known when he was canonized. Ivo's works are found in P.L., CLXI, Decretum and Panormia: CLXII, Letters and Sermons in Mon. Germ. His.: Lites Imperatorum et Pontificum, II, 640-57; MERLET, Lettres de Saint Ives eveque de Chartres (1885); FOURNIER, Les collections canoniques attribuees a Yves de Chartres in Bibliotheque de l'Ecole des Chartres (1896 et 1897); IDEM, Yves de Chartres et le Droit canonique in Revuedes Questions Historiques (1898); Histoire litteraire de la France, X, 102-47. J. DE GHELLINCK Ivory Ivory Ivory (French ivoire; Italian avorio; Latin ebur), dentine, the tusks of the elephant, hippopotamus, walrus, and other animals: a tough and elastic substance, of a creamy white, taking a high and lasting polish, largely employed in the arts since pre-historic times, and used extensively in making or adorning ecclesiastical objects by the primitive and medieval Christians. In the museums of Europe there are examples of pre-historic incised and carved ivories, and also many specimens of Egyptian, Assyrian, Greek, and Roman bas-reliefs, statues, diptychs, plaques, and caskets. The classical authors frequently allude to ivory, and the Old Testament terms with references to its employment, even using its attributes as poetic qualifications, in the same way as the church does to-day in the Litany of Loretto ("Tower of ivory"). As soon as the Christians were free to display the symbols of their faith and illustrate its history pictorially, they adopted the art then in vogue for this purpose, and among their first aesthetic expressions, carved ivory diptychs were the most important; they followed closely the designs used in consular diptychs, excepting that symbolism and poetic imagery took the place of representations of mythological subjects. They consisted of two plates of ivory, hinged so as to fold together like a book; the inside of each leaf was slightly counter- sunk, with a narrow raised margin, so as to hold the wax that received the writing, while the outside of the leaves was profusely adorned with carvings. They were used for various purposes, such as listing the names of the baptized, bishops, martyrs, saints, and benefactors, and of the living and the dead who were to be prayed for. That these diptychs suggested ivory plaques for book covers, reliquary doors and triptych shrines, is obvious; hundreds of plaques are in existence, dating from the time of Constantine to the sixteenth century, and many of them are exquisite works of art; in the British Museum there is one, six inches by four, divided into thirty panels, less than an inch square, and each compartment contains a scene from the life of the Blessed virgin, all being beautiful examples of ivory sculpture. Another use the early Christians found for ivory was the making of cylindrical pyxes from a cross section of the elephant tusk; upon the covers, they carved figures of Our Lord, St. Peter, and St. Paul, and on the side the Apostles and biblical subjects. Again, somewhat later, no doubt remembering that Solomon made "a great throne of ivory" (III Kings 10:18), they overlaid their episcopal chairs with carved ivory tablets, as may be seen at Ravenna in the chair of St. Maximian, archbishop of that city (546). After the fifth century, possibly before, ivory crosiers were in use; eighty or more of them are now in existence, including those said to have belonged to a number of the saints. At the same time liturgical combs of ivory were in use. A beautiful example, the comb of St. Lupus (623), is in the treasury of St-Etienne at Lens. Representations of the Crucifixion in ivory upon various objects, are common, but not the crucifix. Most of the crucifixes date from the seventeenth century, and of these there are many, but of the earlier ones, only five have survived the action of time and the fanaticism of the Reformers. During the whole of the Middle Ages ivory was extensively used for paxes (instrumenta pacis), tabernacles, portable altars, caskets, holy-water buckets, statuettes, rosary-beads, seals, and the decoration of ecclesiastical furniture. CARYL COLEMAN Diocese of Ivrea Diocese of Ivrea Suffragan of Turin, Northern Italy. The city is situated on the right bank of the Dora Baltea and has a fine view of the Great St. Bernard. A city of the Salassi, it received a Roman colony in 90 B.C. In the Lombard period it was the seat of a dukedom. In 870 Emperor Guy of Spoleto gave the Mark of Ivrea to his brother Anscarius, whose descendants, especially Berengarius II (950) and Arduinus (1002), aspired to the title of King of Italy. Soon afterwards Ivrea had to contend vigorously for its communal freedom against the marquesses of Monferrat. Finally, in 1248, Frederick II gave it to the Count of Savoy. During the war between France and Spain for the possession of Lombardy there was, for a long time, a Spanish garrison in the fortress of Ivrea. By the Peace of Cateau-Cambrésis (1559) it was restored to the House of Savoy. It was besieged and taken by the French in 1554, 1641, 1704, 1796. In 1800 Lannes put the Austrians to flight at the pass of the Chiusella. There is a noteworthy festival at Ivrea, the burning of the scarlo (a tree decked out with fireworks), the origin of which is unknown. Legend traces the cathedral back to the middle of the fifth century, when the ancient temple of Apollo is said to have been consecrated to the service of the true God. It contains a valuable painting by Perugino. The episcopal see is said to have been established by St. Eusebius of Vercelli about the middle of the fourth century. The first historically certain bishop is Eulogius (c. 451). Among the other bishops were St. Veremundus (969); Hugo (1053), a son of King Arduinus; the Cistercian Peter (1305), afterwards transferred to Salonica; Alberto Gonzaga (1288); Giuseppe di Ceva (1614), who restored the episcopal palace and adorned it with paintings; also the present (1909) Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Richelny, made Bishop of Ivrea in 1886. The diocese has 138 parishes, with 220,000 souls; 4 religious houses of men and 10 of women; 6 schools for boys, and 5 schools for girls, and a Catholic paper. SAVIO, Gli antichi vescovi d'Italia; ANON., Cenni storici sulla provincia d'Ivrea (1843); SAROGLIA, Memorie storiche della Chiesa d'Ivrea (Ivrea, 1881); IDEM, Eporedia sacra (Ivrea, 1887). U. BENIGNI Fernando de Alba Ixtlilxochitl Fernando de Alba Ixtlilxochitl Born 1568; died 1648. The most illustrious of the native Mexican historians and the great-grandson of Don Fernando Ixtlilxochitl, fifth son of Netzahualpilli, King of Texcoco, and of his wife Doña Beatriz Panantzin, daughter of Cuitlahuac, last but one of the Aztec emperors. He was educated in the college of Santa Cruz de Tlaltelolco, but, notwithstanding his illustrious birth, education, and ability, he lived for a long time in dire poverty, and the greater part of his works were written to relieve his wants. He gives a detailed account of the important part played by his great-grandfather Don Fernando in the conquest of Mexico and the pacification of the Indians of New Spain, praising him in every possible way, and blaming the ingratitude of the conquerors. "His descendants", says the writer, "were left poor and neglected, with scarcely a roof to shelter them, and even this is gradually being taken from them." In "La Entreaty de los Españoles en Texcoco" he again remarks: "The sons, daughters, grandchildren, and relations of Netzahualcoyotl and Netzahualpilli are ploughing and digging to earn their daily bread and to pay ten reales and half a measure of corn to his Majesty. And we, the descendants of a royal race, are being taxed beyond every lawful right." Partly owing to the appeal made in his works, and partly to the favour of Fray Garcia Guerra, who afterwards became Archbishop and Viceroy of New Spain, some land concessions were granted Don Fernando, and he was appointed interpreter in the Indian judiciary court. The "Historia de la Nación Chichemeca" was his last work, but this he left unfinished, having reached only the period of the siege of Mexico. This is the best of his works. The facts are fairly well defined, the chronology is more exact, the editing much better, and more care is taken in the orthography of Texcocan names. His other works contain very important data for the history of Mexico, but they are written without order or method, the chronology is very faulty, and there is much repetition. For his writings he availed himself of the ancient Indian hieroglyphic paintings, and the traditions and songs of the Indians; he indicates those which he has consulted--all of them more than eighty years old. His works recently published to commemorate the fourth centenary of the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus, are: + A summary of all the events that occurred in New Spain and of many things known and accomplished by the Tultecas from the creation of the world to their destruction, and from the coming of the third Chichemeca settlers up to the invasion of the Spaniards, taken from the original history "La Nueva España"; + History of the Chichemecas to the time of the coming of the Spaniards. (To this is added: (a) Part of the history of Netzahualcoyotl; (b) List of 154 names of the cities subject to the three kings of Mexico, Tlacopan, and Texcoco; (c) Another section of the history of Netzahualcoyotl; (d) The Ordinances or Laws of Netzahualcoyotl; (e) Account of Netzahualpilli, son of Netzahualcoyotl.) + Order and ceremonial for the creation of a Lord, established by Topiltz, Lord of Tula. + The coming of the Spaniards to New Spain. + Entrance of the Spaniards into Texcoco. + Accounts of the country and settlers of this part of America known as New Spain. + Brief account, in the form of a memorial, of the history of New Spain and its dependencies up to the time of the coming of the Spaniards. (To this are added (a) Account of the other Lords of New Spain; (b) Accounts of the origin of the Xochimilcas.) + Summary of the History of New Spain from the beginning of the world to the present era, collected and taken from the histories, paintings, written memorials, and folk songs of the natives. + History of the Chichemeca nation (95 chapters). + Songs of Netzahualcoyotl and historic fragments of the life of the same. There seems, however, to be but little reason for attributing this last to Ixtlilxochitl. CHAVERO (ed.), Obras históricas de D. Fernando de Alba Ixtlilxochitl (Mexico, 1891-92); BOTURINI, Idea de una historia general de la América Septentrional (Madrid, 1749); Antiquities of Mexico in Collection of Lord Kingsborough, IX; Diccionario enciclopédico hispano-americano, X. CAMILLUS CRIVELLI __________________________________________________________________ Diocese of Jaca Diocese of Jaca ( Also JACCA; Lat. JACCENSIS). Located in the Spanish province of Huesca. Jaca, the chief town of the mountain district of Sobrarbe, is situated on the left bank of the Aragon, a tributary of the Ebro, about 2400 feet above sea-level. It was once the capital of the Jaccetani, a tribe mentioned by Strabo. This territory was the scene of battles between Sertorius and Pompey and later between Pompey's son Sextus and Caesar's generals. Ecclesiastically Jaca belonged originally to the Diocese of Huesca. When in 713 the town of Huesca was seized by the Moors, its prelates were replaced by itinerant bishops, sometimes called bishops of Aragon, sometimes bishops of Huesca or Jaca, who lived either at Jaca or in the neighbouring monasteries of San Juan de la Pena, San Pedro de Siresa, and Sásave. A council held at Jaca in 1063 determined anew the boundaries of the Diocese of Huesca, which thereafter included the present dioceses of Huesca, Jaca, and Barbastro, as well as a part of the Diocese of Lerida. Jaca was then made the permanent seat of the diocese. At the same time Sancho II was appointed Bishop of Huesca, and hastened to request the pope to confirm the decisions of the council. Meanwhile, however, King Sancho Ramirez of Aragon (1063-94) had won back from the Moors the city of Barbastro, and had granted it to the Bishop of Roda. Garcia, the new Bishop of Huesca (1076-86), regarded this as an infringement of the rights of jurisdiction granted the Bishop of Jaca by the Council of Jaca. He therefore renewed his petition to the new pope (Gregory VII) to have the decisions of the council confirmed, which request the pope granted (cf. Jaffé, "Reg. Pont. Roman", I, 2nd ed., Berlin, 1885, n. 5098). As, however, Bishop Raimundo of Rodo also obtained the confirmation of all his privileges from Gregory, a violent dispute arose between the Bishops Huesca and Roda as to jurisdiction over the churches of Barbastro, Bielsa, Gistao, and Alquezar, which in 1080 was decided by the king in favour of the Bishop of Roda. In November, 1096, King Pedro I of Aragon won back Huesca from the Moors, and Urban II now decreed (11 May, 1089) that, instead of Jaca, Huesca should again be the seat of the bishop (cf. Jaffé, op. cit., I, 5703). But Jaca itself had a separate existence under a vicar-general, independent of the Bishop of Huesca. It also retained its own cathedral chapter, which originally followed the Rule of St. Augustine, but in 1270 both this chapter and that of Huesca were secularized. Jaca was again erected into a separate diocese and was made suffragan to the Metropolitan See of Saragossa by a Bull of Pius V (18 July, 1571), which decision was carried into effect on 26 February, 1572. The first bishop was Pedro del Frago. Statistics According to the diocesan statistics of 1907 Jaca possessed 73,659 inhabitants, 151 parishes, 151 parish churches, 239 public and 10 private oratories, 236 secular priests, 30 regulars, and 54 sisters. The religious orders and congregations in the diocese are: Augustinian Hermits, one monastery and novitiate; Piarists, 2 houses for the training of boys; Benedictine nuns, 1 convent and 18 professed sisters in the city of Jaca; Sisters of Mercy of St. Anna, who have charge of the hospital at Jaca; Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Mary, 1 house at Jaca; sisters of Mercy of St. Vincent de Paul, with a school at Jaca, and the Little Sisters of the Aged Poor, with a home for the aged in a suburb of Jaca. The cathedral dedicated to the Most Blessed Virgin of Pilar is a three- aisled basilica in Byzantine style, belonging in the main to the eleventh century; it was consecrated in 1063 and altered in the fifteenth and eighteenth centuries. A religious and civil festival is held on the first Friday of May; it is called "Primer Viernes de Mayo", in memory of a victory said to have been won over the Moors in the eighth century by Count Aznar aided by the women of Jaca. It is celebrated with a solemn procession in which the entire cathedral chapter takes part. In the environs of Jaca are many hermitages, notably that of San Juan de la Pena. La Vergen de la Cueva is venerated in the same cave in which three hundred nobles gathered at the time of the Arab invasion and proclaimed Garcio Ximenez King of Sobrarbe. GREGOR REINHOLD Henry Moore Jackson Henry Moore Jackson Knight, born in Grenada, 1849; died in London, 29 August, 1908. The youngest son of the Anglican Bishop of the Leeward Islands, he was educated in England at Marlborough and Clifton Colleges, and at the Royal Military Academy. He entered the Royal Artillery in 1870, retiring with the rank of captain in 1885. He entered the colonial service in 1880, when he was appointed commandant of the Sierra Leone police. He was commissioner for Turks and Caicos Islands, 1885-90, and Colonial Secretary of the Bahama Islands, 1890-93. As Colonial Secretary of Gibraltar, 1894-1901, it fell to his lot to carry out the plans for the new harbour works, which had already received the approval of the Admiralty and of the War Office. His early scientific training enabled him to point out defects in the plans, and to suggest improvements which saved the Government much useless expenditure. In recognition of his efficiency he was made in 1899 a Knight Commander of the Most Distinguished Order of St. Michael and St. George. In 1901 he was appointed Governor of the Leeward Islands, and after holding this position for less than one year was appointed Governor of the Fiji Islands and High Commissioner of the Western Pacific. After a careful study of the difficult problems which he there found awaiting a solution, he drew up an exhaustive report, accompanied with a series of recommendations which were accepted almost without modification by the Colonial Office. In Fiji he showed a very remarkable power of inspiring the natives with a belief in the justice of English rule, and with personal attachment to himself. This power he exhibited also in Trinidad, to which he was appointed in 1904. When he landed the colony was still suffering from the consequences of the serious riots, which had recently occurred. After three years of untiring labour the state of feeling in the colony was entirely changed. He became a Catholic in 1880, and from the day of his reception into the Church he never willingly missed daily Mass. In recognition of his services to the Church in the various colonies with which he was connected, he was made a member of the Order of St. Gregory the Great in 1904, and as recognition of his great services to the State, the king conferred on him, shortly before his death, the Grand Cross of St. Michael and St. George. C. SCHREINER Jacob Jacob The son of Isaac and Rebecca, third great patriarch of the chosen people, and the immediate ancestor of the twelve tribes of Israel. The incidents of his life are given in parts of Gen., xxv, 21-1, 13, wherein the documents (J, E, P) are distinguished by modern scholars (see ABRAHAM, I, 52). His name-- possibly an abbreviation of Jacob-El (Babylonian: Ya kub-ilu), with which compare Israel, Ismael etc. -- means "supplanter", and refers to a well-known circumstance of his birth (Gen., xxv, 25). His early years were marked by various efforts to get the birthright from his brother Esau. His struggle for it began before he was born (xxv, 22-5). Later, he took advantage of Esau's thoughtlessness and despair to buy it from him for a pottage of lentils (xxv, 29-33). In virtue of this purchase, and through a ruse, he finally got it by securing the blessing which Isaac intended for Esau (xxvii, 1-37), Then it was that, to escape his brother's avenging wrath, and apparently also to obtain a wife from his parents' stock, he fled to Haran, the dwelling place of Laban, his maternal uncle (xxvii, 41-xxviii, 5). On his way thither, he had at Luza the vision of the angels ascending and descending by a mysterious ladder which reached from earth to heaven, and of Yahweh renewing to him the glorious promises which He had made to Abraham and to Isaac; in consequence of this, he called the place Beth-El, and vowed exclusive worship to Yahweh should He accompany him on his way and bring him back safely home (xxviii, 11-22). Jacob's relations with Laban's household form an interesting episode, the details of which are perfectly true to Eastern life and need not be set forth here. Besides blessing him with eleven children, God granted to Jacob a great material prosperity, so that Laban was naturally desirous of detaining him. But Jacob, long wearied with Laban's frequent trickery, and also bidden by God to return, departed secretly, and, although overtaken and threatened by his angry father-in-law, he managed to appease him and to pursue his own way towards Chanaan (xxix-xxxi). He managed also--after a vision of angels at Mahanaim, and a whole night's wrestling with God at Phanuel, on which latter occasion he received a new blessing and the significant name of Israel--to appease his brother Easu, who had come to meet him with 400 men (xxxii-xxxiii, 16). Passing through Socoth, Jacob first settled near Salem, a city of the Sichemites, and there raised an altar to the God of Israel (xxxiii, 17-20). Compelled to leave on account of the enmity of the Chanaanites--the precise occasion of which is uncertain--he went to Bethel, where he fulfilled the vow which he had made when on his way to Haran (xxxiv-xxxv, 15). Proceeding farther south, he came to Ephrata, where he buried Rachel, who died giving birth to Benjamin, and where he erected a pillar on the site of her grave. Thence, through Migdal- Eder, he came to Hebron, where he was joined by Esau for their father's burial (xxxv, 16-29). In Hebron, Jacob lived quietly as the head of a numerous pastoral family, received with inconsolable grief the apparent evidence of Joseph's cruel death, passed through the pressure of famine, and agreed most reluctantly to his separation from Benjamin (xxxvii, 1-4; xlii, 35-38; xliii, 1-14). The news that Joseph was still alive and invited him to come to Egypt revived the patriarch, who, passing through Bersabee, reached Egypt with his sons and grandchildren (xlv, 25-xlix). There it was given him to meet Joseph again, to enjoy the honours conferred upon him by Pharaoh, and to spend prosperously his last days in the land of Gessen. There, on his death- bed, he foretold the future of fortunes of the respective descendants of his sons, and passed away at the age of 147 (xlvi, 29-xlix). According to his last wishes, he was buried in the land of Chanaan (1, 1-13). Despite the various difficulties met with in the examination of the Biblical narrative and dealt with in detail by commentators, it is quite certain that the history of Jacob is that of a real person whose actual deeds are recorded with substantial accuracy. Jacob's character is a mixture of good and evil, gradually chastened by the experience of a long life, and upon the whole not unworthy of being used by God for the purpose of His mercy towards the chosen people. The Talmudic legends concerning Jacob are the acme of fancy. FRANCIS E. GIGOT Jacob of Juterbogk Jacob of Jüterbogk (In the world BENEDICT STOLZENHAGEN). Theologian and canonist, born of poor parents near Jüterbogk, Brandenburg, Germany, 1381; died at Erfurt in 1465. In 1401 he entered the Cistercian monastery of Paradies, in Poland; hence his names Jacobus de Polonia, Jacobus de Paradiso, and Jacobus Cisterciensis. Being sent to the University of Krakow by his abbot, he obtained the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and Theology, and thereafter became professor theology and preacher at that university. Displeased at the loose discipline of his order, he entered the Carthusian monastery at Erfurt in 1441, taught canon law at the university of that place for many years, and was elected rector in 1456. From the time of his entrance into the Carthusian Order he is often called Jacobus Carthusianus, Jacobus de Clusa, and Jacobus de Ergordia. He was full of zeal for reform in the Church, and in some of his writings severely criticizes Italian ecclesiastics for bestowing responsible benefices upon incapable and unworthy persons. Like many other great men of his time, he advocated the so-called conciliar theory, that a general council is above the pope. He is the author of about eighty treatises, mostly on theological and canonical subjects. The following twelve of his works have been printed: "Quodlibetum statuum humanorum", a sort of treatise on moral theology explaining the obligations of men in the various states of life; "Tractatus de animabus erutis a corporibus", an interesting treatise on the condition of the human soul after death -- seven editions of this work were published; "De valore Missarum pro defunctis celebratarum" (the preceding three incunabula contain neither place nor date of publication; the first came out at Esslingen in 1475, the second at Erfurt about 1463, the third in 1493 at an unknown place). "De causis multarum passionum", edited by Pez in "Bibliotheca ascetica" (Ratisbon, 1835), VII, 389-444; "De indulgentiis", a dogmatically correct treatise on indulgences, edited by Walch in "Monumenta inedita medii aevi" (Göttingen, 1764), II, ii, 163 sq.; "Petitiones religiosorum pro reformatione sui status", edited by Klüpfel in "Vetus Biblioth. ecclesiastica" (Freiburg im Br., 1780), 146 sq.; "De negligentia praelatorum", edited by Walch, loc. cit., I, fasc. 4; "Avisamentum ad papam pro reformatione ecclesiae", a memorial addressed to Pope Nicholas V, in which the author urges a reform in the Church, edited by Klupfel, loc. cit., 134 sq.; "De septem statibus ecclesiae", edited by Walch, loc. cit., II, fasc. 2; "Sermones dominicales" (date and place of publication unknown); "De erroribus et moribus Christianorum" (Lubeck, 1488); "Lavacrum conscientiae" (Cologne, 1506), of which more than nine editions were published in the fifteenth century. MICHAEL OTT Jacobus de Teramo Jacobus de Teramo (AB ANCHARANO), belonging to the family of Palladini, canonist and bishop, born in 1349 at Teramo in Italy; died in 1417 in Poland. After studying jurisprudence at Padua he was archdeacon at Aversa in 1384, and later Secretary of Papal Briefs and of the Poenitentiaria at Rome. He became successively Bishop of Monopoli (1391), of Tarentum (1400), of Florence (1401), and of Spoleto (1410). As Bishop of Spoleto he was also governor of the Duchy of Spoleto. In 1417 Pope Martin V sent him as legate to Poland, where he died the same year. He is the author of a commentary on Lombard's "Book of Sentences" (Augburg, 1472); a dialogue entitled "De Pontificis Romani monarchia" (unprinted); and a peculiar little volume entitled "Consolatio peccatorum", or "Processus Luciferi contra Jesum Christum". The last work is a lawsuit between the Devil and Jesus Christ. The Devil is represented as suing Christ for having infringed upon the rights of his ownership by descending into hell. At the first trial Solomon acts as judge, while Moses is counsel of Jesus Christ and Belial for the Devil. At the second trial the Patriarch Joseph is judge, Aristotle and Isaias defend Jesus Christ, and the Emperor Augustus and Jeremias defend the Devil. In both trials the decision is in favour of Christ, but at the second trial the Devil is granted the right to take possession of the bodies and souls of the damned at the last judgement. This work was printed repeatedly and translated into several languages, but was later placed on the Index. MICHAEL OTT Bl. Jacopo de Voragine (Di Viraggio) Blessed Jacopo de Voragine ( Also DI VIRAGGIO). Archbishop of Genoa and medieval hagiologist, born at Viraggio (now Varazze), near Genoa, about 1230; died 13 July, about 1298. In 1244 he entered the Order of St. Dominic, and soon became famous for his piety, learning, and zeal in the care of souls. His fame as a preacher spread throughout Italy, and he was called upon to preach from the most celebrated pulpits of Lombardy. After teaching Holy Scripture and theology in various houses of his order in Northern Italy, he was elected provincial of Lombardy in 1267, holding this office until 1286, in which year he become definitor of the Lombard province of Dominicans. In the latter capacity he attended a chapter at Lucca in 1288, and another at Ferrara, in 1290. In 1288 he was commissioned by Pope Nicholas IV to free the Genoese from the ban of the Church, which they had incurred for assisting the Sicilians in their revolt against the King of Naples. When Archbishop Charles Bernard of Genoa died, in 1286, the metropolitan chapter of Genoa proposed Jacopo de Voragine as his successor. Upon his refusal to accept the dignity, Obizzo Fieschi, the Patriarch of Antioch whom the Saracens had driven from the see, was transferred to the archiepiscopal See of Genoa by Nicholas IV in 1288. When Obizzo Fieschi died, in 1292, the chapter of Genoa unanimously elected Jacopo de Voragine as his successor. His again endeavoured to evade the archiepiscopal dignity, but was finally obliged to yield to the combined prayers of the clergy, the Senate, and the people of Genoa. Nicholas IV wished to consecrate him bishop personally, and called him to Rome for that purpose; but shortly after the arrival of de Voragine the pope died, and the new bishop was consecrated at Rome during the succeeding interregnum, on 13 April, 1292. The episcopate of Jacopo de Voragine fell in a time when Genoa was a scene of continuous warfare between the Rampini and the Mascarati, the former of whom were Guelphs, the latter Ghibellines. The archbishop, indeed, effected an apparent reconciliation between the two hostile parties in 1295; but the dissensions broke out anew, and all his efforts to restore peace were useless. In 1292 he held a provincial synod at Genoa, chiefly for the purpose of identifying the relics of St. Syrus, one of the earliest bishops of Genoa (324?). The cult of Jacopo de Voragine, which seems to have begun soon after his death, was ratified by Pius VII in 1816. The same pope permitted the clergy of Genoa and Savona, and the whole Order of St. Dominic, to celebrate his feast as that of a saint. Jacopo de Voragine is best known as the author of a collection of legendary lives of the saints, which was entitled "Legenda Sanctorum" by the author, but soon became universally known as "Legenda Aurea" (Golden Legend), because the people of those times considered it worth its weight in gold. In some of the earlier editions it is styled "Lombardica Historia", which title gave rise to the false opinion that this was a different work from the "Golden Legend". The title "Lombardica Historia" originated in the fact that in the life of Pope Pelagius, which forms the second last chapter of the "Golden Legend", is contained an abstract of the history of the Lombards down to 1250 (Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., XXIV, 167 sq.). In the preface to the "Golden Legend" the author divides the ecclesiastical year into four periods, which he compared to four epochs in the history of the world, viz. a time of deviation, renovation, reconciliation, and pilgrimage. The body of the work, which contains 177 chapters (according to others, 182), is divided into five sections, viz. from Advent to Christmas, from Christmas to Septuagesima, from Septuagesima to Easter, from Easter to Octave of Pentecost, and from the Octave of Pentecost to Advent. If we are to judge the "Golden Legend" from an historical standpoint, we must condemn it as entirely uncritical and hence of no value, except in so far as it teaches us that the people of those times were an extremely naive and thoroughly religious people, permeated with an unshakable belief in God's omnipotence and His fatherly care for those who lead a saintly life. If, on the other hand, we view the "Golden Legend" as an artistically composed book of devotion, we must admit that it is a complete success. It is admirably adapted to enhance our love and respect towards God, to foster our devotion towards His saints, and to animate us with a holy zeal to follow their example. The chief object of Jacopo de Voragine and of other medieval hagiologists was not to compose reliable biographies or to write scientific treatises for the learned, but to write books of devotion that were adapted to the simple manners of the common people. It is due to a wrong conception of the purpose of the "Golden Legend" that Luis Vives (De causis corruptarum artium, c. ii), Melchior Canus (De locis theologicis, xi, 6), and others have severely denounced it; and to a true conception that the Bollandists (Acts SS., January, I, 19) and many recent hagiologists have highly praised it. That the work made a deep impression on the people is evident from its immense popularity, and from the great influence it had on the prose and poetic literature of many nations. It became the basis of many passionals of the Middle Ages and religious poems of later times. Longfellow's "Golden Legend", which, with two other poems, forms the trilogy entitled "Christus", owes its name and many of its ideas to the "Golden Legend" of de Voragine. Bernard Guidonis (d. 1331), also a Dominican, made a vain attempt to supplant it by a more reliable work of the same character, which he entitled "Speculum Sanctorum". In 1500 as many as seventy-four Latin editions of the "Legenda Aurea" had been published, not counting the three translations into English, five French, eight Italian, fourteen Low German, and three Bohemian. The first printed edition was in Latin, and was produced at Basle in 1470. Many succeeding editions contain additions of the lives of later saints or of feasts introduced after the thirteenth century. The best Latin edition was prepared by Graesse (Dresden and Leipzig, 1846, 1850, and Breslau, 1890). The first English edition was printed by William Caxton at London in 1483 from a version made about 1450. It was inscribed: The Golden Legend. Fynysshed at Westmere the twenty day of Novembre/ the yere of our Lord M/CCCC/LXXXIII/. By me Wyllyam Caxton. In this edition some of the less credible legends of the original are omitted. The publication was made at the instance of the Earl of Arundel, who agreed to take "a reasonable number of copies", and to pay as an annuity "a buck in summer and a doe in winter" (see Putnam, "Books and their Makers in the Middle Ages", New York and London, II, 1897, 118). Caxton's edition was re-edited and modernized by Ellis (London and New York, 1900). The first French version that appeared in print was made by Jean Batallier, and printed at Lyons in 1476. A French translation, made by Jean Belet de Vigny in the fourteenth century, was first printed at Paris in 1488. Recent French editions were prepared by Brunet, signed M. G. B. (Paris, 1843 and 1908); by de Wyzewa (Paris, 1902); and by Roze (Paris, 1902). an Italian translation by Nicolas Manerbi was printed in 1475, probably at Venice; a Bohemian one was printed at Pilsen between 1475 and 1479, and another at Prague in 1495; a Low German one at Delft in 1472, and at Gouda in 1478. A German reproduction in poetry was made by Kralik (Munich, 1902). Another important work of Jacopo de Voragine is his so-called "Chronicon Genuense", a chronicle of Genoa reaching to 1296. Part of this chronicle, which is a valuable source of Genoese history, was published by Muratori in "Rerum Italicarum Scriptores" (Milan, 1723-51), IX, 5-56. Concerning it see Mannucci, "La cronaca di Jacopo da Viraggio" (Geneva, 1904). He is also the author of a collection of 307 sermons, "Sermones de sanctis, de tempore, quadragesimales, de Beata Maria Virgine". They have been repeatedly printed, both separately and collectively. The earliest edition of the whole collection was printed in 1484, probably at Venice, where they were published a second time in 1497 and repeatedly thereafter. His remaining literary productions are "Defensorium contra impugnantes Fratres Praedicatores" (Venice, 1504), which is a defence of the Dominicans against some who accused them of not leading an Apostolic life; "Summarium virtutum et vitiorum" (Basle, 1497), which is an epitome of a work of the same title, written by William Peraldus, a Dominican who died about thirty years before Jacopo de Voragine. A theological work, entitled "De operibus et opusculis Sancti Augustini", is also generally ascribed to him, but its authenticity has not yet been sufficiently established. It is known that he was a close student of St. Augustine. Some, relying on the authority of Sixtus of Siena, ascribe to him also an Italian translation of the Bible, but no manuscript or print of it has ever been found. MICHAEL OTT Jacopone Da Todi Jacopone da Todi (Properly called JACOPO BENEDICTI or BENEDETTI). Franciscan poet, born at Todi in the first half of the thirteenth century; died at Collazzone about 1306. Very little is known with certainty about the life of this extraordinary man. Although the oldest lives go back only to the fifteenth century, yet a few earlier records exist. The oldest and most authentic document we have is Jacopone's signature to the manifesto of Cardinals Jacopo and Pietro Colonna against Boniface VIII, dated Lunghezza (between Rome and Tivoli), 10 May, 1297. [See text in "Archiv für Litteratur and Kirchengesch.", V (1889), 509 sq.] Angelo Clareno in his "Chronica septem Tribulationum", written about 1323 ["Archiv f. Litt. u. Kirchengesch.", II (1886), 308; Döllinger, "Beitrage zur Sektengesch.", II (Munich, 1890), 492], mentions Jacobus Tudertus among those spiritual friars who, in 1294, sent a deputation to Celestine V (q.v.), to ask permission to live separate from the other friars and observe the Franciscan Rule in its perfection - a request which was granted. The next reference to the poet is found in Alvarus Pelagius's "De Planctu Ecclesiae", written principally in 1330; he quotes two of Jacopone's sayings (lib. II, cc. lxxiii and lxxvi; ed. Venice, 1560, f. 196 r b, and f. 204 r b), and calls him a perfect Friar Minor. This passage occurs also in "Chronica XXIV generalium" ("Analecta Franciscana", III, Quaracchi, 1897, 460), which was compiled in great part before 1369 and completed in 1374. About 1335 the "Catalogus sanctorum Fratrum Minorum" (in "Speculum Vitae beati Francisci et Sociorum eius", Venice, 1504, f. 200 r; cf. the separate reprint of the "Catalogus" by Lemmens, Rome, 1903, 9) uses even more emphatic words of praise. Some further details about Jacopone are given by Bartholomew of Pisa in 1385 ["Liber conformitatum" (ed. Milan, 1510), fructus VIII, pars ii, f. 60 v a to f. 61 v a; cf. "Analecta Franciscana", IV (Quaracchi, 1906), 235-40]. It may be taken for granted that all these writers knew nothing of the detailed lives of Jacopone which appear in the fifteenth century. The "Chronica XXIV generalium" and Bartholomew of Pisa would certainly have inserted one or other, as they were wont to do in other cases. Those lives can all be reduced to one, inserted in the chronicle commonly called "Franceschina", attributed to Jacopo Oddi, O.F.M. (d. 1488; see bibliography). The historical value of this and similar lives has been recntly denied by Giulio Bertoni ("La Leggenda Jacoponica" in "Fanfulla della Domenica", Rome, 10 June, 1906), on the ground that this legend has too many points of resemblance with the "Legends of St. Francis". But these resemblancs between the lives of the saints have already become a commonplace, and in this case are not to be taken seriously. On the other hand, Bertoni is right in rejecting the description of the circumstances in which each poem of Jacopone was written. The part of his life is rather to be considered as a commentary on the poems of Jacopone. As to the real sources of his life, the author himself, in the Tobler version (see bibliography), points out that he has collected the reminiscences and traditions concerning Jacopone still extant among the older friars in the Umbrian converts of his epoch. With the help of the aforesaid sources and of some allusions in Jacopone's poems, we can gather the following facts of his life. Born at Todi (1228?), of the noble family of Benedetti, Jacopone took up the study of law -- probably at Bologna, as might be inferred from the fact that this was the most famous school of law at the time, and from the manner in which he speaks of Bologna in the poem "Senno me pare e cortesia" (Modio, "I Cantici del B. Jacopone da Todi", Rome, 1558, 109). On returning home, he exercised -- the legends say with some avarice -- the profession of an advocate (procuratore). In course of time (1267?) he married a noblewoman, who in one version of the legend is called Vanna, daughter of Bernardino, Count of Collemedio (Coldimezzo near Todi) (La Verna, IV, 1906, 386). It was the great piety and the tragical death of his young spouse that brought about an entire change in Jacopone. A great feast was being celebrated at Todi -- probably in 1268. Among the onlookers was Jacopone's wife in rich array. Suddenly the raised platform from which she was witnessing the spectacle gave way, crushing her fatally. When the poet reached her side Vanna was already dying; on opening her dress, he found a hair cloth beneath the splendid robes. The terrible blow caused by his wife's death, together with the evidence of her secret penance for his sins, made such an impression on Jacopone that for many years he seemed to be no longer himself. Abandoning his profession, and wearing the habit of a Franciscan Tertiary (bizochone), he led a roaming life for a full decade (see the poem "Que farai fra Jacopone" in Modio, 73). During this period he was the terror of his friends and relations, and became a sort of Christian Diogenes. It was then probably that the former proud doctor of law, Jacopo dei Benedetti, mocked and scoffed at by the boys in the streets of Todi, received the nickname of Jacopone. Once, saddled and bridled like an ass, he crawled on all fours in the public swuare of Todi; on another occasion, to the great confusion of his family, he appeared at a wedding in his brother's house, tarred and feathered from top to toe. When asked by a citizen to carry home a pair of capons for him, Jacopone brought them to the man's family tomb, saying that this was his true house. Jacopone's folly was however the folly of the Cross, as he says: Senno me pare e cortesia Empazir per lo bel Messia. (A wise and courteous choice he'd make Who'd be a fool for the dear Lord's sake.) About 1278 he sought admission into the Order of Friars Minor at his native town, a request which after some difficuly was granted. Out of humility he chose to be a lay brother. In the great convent of S. Fortunato, at Todi, the so-called party of the "Community" of the Franciscan Order certainly prevailed. This party was strongly opposed to that of the more zealous friars, called the "Spirituals". The sympathies of Jacopone were with the latter. Boniface VIII, who had under unusual circumstances succeeded Celestine V, the friend of Spirituals, having recalled all privileges granted by his predecessor and thus subjected anew the zealous friars to their regular superiors, and having engaged in a struggle with the two Cardinals Colonna, Jacopone took sides with these two protectors of the Spirituals against the pope. Perhaps there were also personal reasons for enmity between Boniface and the poet, dating from the time when the former, then a young man (1260), obtained an ecclesiastical benefice at Todi, where his uncle Peter was bishop from 1252 to 1276 (see Eubel, "Hierarchia cath. med. aevi", I, 530; Tosti, "Storia di Bonifazio VIII", Monte Cassino, I, 1846, 221; Finke, "Aus den Tagen Bonifaz VIII", Münster, 1902, 4). Palestrina, the stronghold of the Colonnas, having been taken in 1298 by the papal troops, Jacopone was imprisoned in the fortress above the town, known to-day as Castel San Pietro. Some of Jacopone's most touching, and also most agressive, poems were composed in this dungeon. Not even in the great Jubilee of 1300 did Jacopone obtain pardon, the Colonnas and their partisans having been excluded from the Jubilee by a special Bull (see text in Tosti, l.c., II, 283). Boniface VIII was captured at Anagni on 7 Sept., 1303, and upon his death, which occured shortly afterwards (11 Oct.), Jacopone was set at liberty. Now an old man, broken down, tried and purified by hardships, he withdrew first to Pantanelli, a hermitage on the Tiber, three hours distant from Orvieto (La Verna, l. c., 390), then to Collazzone, a small town situated on a hill between Perugia and Todi. There is no record of a Franciscan monastery at that place, but there was a Poor Clare Convent, S. Lorenzo, served as was usual by Franciscan Friars (see Livarius Oliger, "Dove e morto il B. Jacopone da Todi?" in "Voce di S. Antonio", Quaracchi, 13 Feb., 1907). It was here that Jacopone died on 25 Dec., 1306, just at the moment when the priest was intoning the Gloria in Excelsis Deo at the midnight Mass; his last moments were consoled by the presence of his faithful friend, Blessed John of La Verna, from whom he had especially desired to receive the Last Sacraments, and who really arrived just before the poet's death. His body was brought to Todi and buried in the church of the Poor Clares of Montecristo (Tobler's version of the legend) or Montesanto (Bartholomew of Pisa, Marianus Florentinus), outside the walls of Todi. In 1433 it was discovered in Montecristo and removed to the Franciscan church of S. Fortunato inside the town, where his tomb is still to be seen, embellished by Bishop Cesi in 1596 and adorned by a beautiful inscription: "Ossa. Beati Jacoponi. De Benedictis. Tudertini. Fratris Ordinis Minorum. Qui stultus propter Christum. Nova mundum arte delusit. Et caelum rapuit. Obdormivit in Domino. Die XXV Martii. An. Dom. MCCXCVI. Ang. Caes. Episc. Tudert. Hic collocavit ann. MDXCVI." "Here lie the bones of Blessed Jacopone dei Benedetti da Todi, Friar Minor, who, having gone mad with love of Christ, by a new artifice deceived the world and took Heaven by violence ... (translation of Knox Little.) The date, 25 March, 1296, is however obviously erroneous. Jacopone is often called blessed, and has been considered a "blessed" or a "saint", in the technical sense of the words, by different authors. As a matter of fact, Jacopone has not been beatified or canonized by the Church, although various efforts have been made in this direction -- for example, by the municipal council of Todi in 1628, and by the chapter of the cathedral of Todi in 1676. Lastly, in the years 1868 and 1869 the postulator of the causes of saints of the Friars Minor collected call the documents proving the cultus ab immemorabili paid to Jacopone, in order to obtain its official confirmation [see "Tudertina Confirmationis Cultus ab immemorabili tempore praestiti Jacobo a Tuderto Ord. Min. S. Francisci, Beato Jacopone vulgo nuncupato (Rome, 1869), in archives of the postulator general O.F.M.]. The chief obstacle to the confirmation of the cultus lies in the part Jacopone took against Boniface VIII and the satires he wrote against this much calumniated pope. The iconography of Jacopone is not very rich. In the cathedral of Prato is a beautiful fifteenth-century fresco, often reproduced. The fourteenth-century Codex Strozzi 174 at the Laurentian Library, Florence, containts a miniature of the poet; another miniature (certainly conventional) is found in the "Franceschina" of the Portiuncula. The church of S. Fortunato of Todi is adorned by two picture of Jacopone -- one over his tomb (1596), another in a side chapel together with the portraits of four other saints (seventeenth century). Jacopone was believed to have died not so much from bodily ailment as from the excess of Divine love, which at last broke his heart (Modio, preface). The chief interest attaching to Jacopone is derived from his literary works. Of his poems, written almost all in his native Umbrian dialect, seven early editions exist but no modern critical one. + The first is printed at Florence, 1490. It is almost a critical edition and contains 102 Italian pieces. [See accurate description in "Miscellanea Francescana", I (Foligno, 1886), 21-29.] The other editons are: + Brescia, 1495, containing (in addition to compositions of other poets) 122 poems, of which seven are in Latin; + Venice, 1514 -- 139 songs; + Venice, 1556 - repetition of the preceding; + Rome, 1558 -- by Modio, with life of Jacopone in the preface, best edition after that of 1490, which it follows in the number of poems (102); + Naples, 1615 -- reprint of the Roman edition with slight alterations; + Venice, 1617 -- by Francesco Tresatti, O.F.M. -- the best known by least critical edition, containing 211 copiously annotated songs, many of which certainly do not belong to Jacopone. Alessandro de Mortara published a few hitherto unedited poems of Jacopone (Lucca, 1819). Towards the middle of the nineteenth century, Ozanam revived general interest in Jacopone by his "Poètes franciscains". Since then many have written on the subject and expressed their appreciation of these medieval songs. Jacopone was certainly a true poet, so much so that some of his productions, as "In foco l'amor mi mise" and "Amor di caritate", have been attributed to St. Francis himself. Both are at the head of Umbrian poets. Jacopone's rhymes, simple, at times even rough in expression, but profound and tender in sentiment, were less adapted to the cultured classes than the "Divina Commedia" of Dante, but were sung with enthusiasm by the people. How much Jacopone's poetry was appreciated down to the seventeenth century is shown by the numberless manuscripts which contain them, often in the particular dialect of the region where they were written, and by the fact that almost every old Italian spiritual song has been ascribed to him. These laudi were especially in use among the so-called Laudesi and the Flagellants, who sang them in the towns, along the roads, in their confraternities, and in sacred dramatical representations. Even the "Stabat Mater Dolorosa", the authorship of which is still attributed to Jacopone with greater probability than to any other competitor (Gihr), was sung in the same way. (See, on this point, D'Ancona, "Origini del Teatro Italiano", I, Turin, 1891, 114, 155-62, 550- 2.) Jacopone's prose works are much less generally known than his poems. They consist mainly of small spiritual treatises, somewhat resembling the well-known golden saying of Blessed Giles (see AEGIDIUS OF ASSISI), but they are more connected. The Latin text of these may be found in part in Bartholomew of Pisa (l. c.) and in many manuscripts. An Italian version, translated from Bartholomew of Pisa, is found in the "Franceschina" and some other versions of the life of Jacopone. Another fifteenth century Italian version, ascribed to Feo Belcari, together with the treatises of Ugo Panciera at Venice (s. d.); ed. Parenti at Modena in 1832; and finally in "Prose di Feo Belcari edite ed inedite", III (Rome, 1843), by Gigli; cf. E. Böhmer in "Romanische Studien", I (Halle, 1871), 123-32. Finke (l. c.) suspects that a treatise in the MS. J 491, no. 799, in the National Archives of Paris, and directed to the King of France by "Illiteratus Jacob", belongs to Jacopone. NOTES (1) LIVES. - In Franceschina, a manuscript chronicle by JACOPO ODDI (d. 1488), of which four codices exist: two at Perugia, one at Portiuncula (Assisi), one at Norcia (Umbria). Description of the one existing in the public library at Perugia is given by PERCOPO, La Vita e le Laudi di Fra Jacopone da Todi nello Specchio de l'Ordene Menore (Franceschina) in Il Propugnatore, XIX (bologna, 1886), 151-212. Almost identical with this is the life edited by TOBLER in Zeitschrift fur romanische Philologie, II (Halle, 1878), 26-39; cf. ibid., III (1879), 178-92; and another of MARIANO FLORENTINO (?), edited by LIVARIUS OLIGER in Luce e Amore, IV (Florence; 1907), 418-26; 473-89. There is also a shorter version: POSSEVINO, Vite de' Santi e Beati di Todi (Perugia, 1597), 98-113; MODIO, I Cantici del B. Jacopone da Todi (Rome 1558), preface; DAL GAL, La Verna (Rocca S. Casiano, 1906), 385-92; JACOBILLI, Vite de Santi e Beati dell' Umbria, III (Foligno, 1661), 215-19; WADDING, Annales, V (2nd ed.) 407-14, VI, 77-84. (2) MODERN LIVES AND TREATISES. - MACDONNELL, Sons of Francis (London 1902), 354-86, with good samples of translations of Jacopone's poetry - see also, ibid., 401-2; ANON., Jacopone da Todi in Quarterly Review (London, Jan., 1910), 53-72; DORSEY, The Mad Penitent of Todi (Notre Dame, Ind., s. d.) (a novel); OZANAM, Les Poetes franciscains en Italie au treizieme siecle (Paris, 1852), many successive editions - German tr. by JULIUS (Munster, 1853), Italian tr. by FANFANI (Prato, 1854); D'ANCONA, Jacopone da Todi, il Giullare di Dio del secolo XIII in Nuova Antologia, 2nd series, LI of the whole collection (Rome, 1880), 193-228, 438-70, reprinted in D'ANCONA, Studi della Letteratura italiana dei primi secoli (Ancona, 1884), 3-104; THODE, Franz von Assisi und die Anfange der Kunst der Renaissance in Italien (2nd ed., Berlin, 1904), 440-51; GEBHART, L'Italie mystique (Paris, 1890), 257- 70; ALVI, Jacopone da Todi (Todi, 1906) - full of inaccuracies, see Voce di San Antonio, XII (Rome, 1907), 19-20; BRUGNOLI, Fra Jacopone da Todi, publication of Societa internazionale di Studi Francescani in Assisi (Assisi, 1907). (3) ON WORKS AND PARTICULAR QUESTIONS. - BOHMER, Jacopone da Todi ... in Romanische Studien, I (Halle, 1871), 123-61; MOSCHETTI, I Codici Marciai contenenti Laude di Jacopone da Todi (Venice, 1888); TENNERONI, Inizii di antiche Poesie italiane religiose e morali con prospetto dei Codici che le contengono e Introduzione alle Laudi spirituali (Florence, 1909), preparatory work for critical edition of Jacopone. Partial German translation of Jacopone's poetry, with good introduction: SCHLUTTER AND STORK, Ausgewahlte Gedichte Jacopone's da Todi (Munster, 1864); FELDER, Jacopones Marienminne (Stans, 1903), Franch tr. La Madonne dans les Poesies de Jacopone de Todi in Etudes Franciscaines (Couvin, Belgium, March and April, 1904); LATINI, Dante e Jacopone e loro contatti di pensiero e di forma (Todi, 1900). On the Stabat Mater Dolorosa see JULIAN, Dictionary of Hymnology (2nd impression of 2nd ed., London, 1908), 1081-84, where the numerous English translations, old and new, are indicated; see, ibid., 575 and passim; CHEVALIER, Repertorium Hymnologicum, II (Louvain, 1892), 599-600, with copious bibliography; HENRY, The Two Stabats in American Cath. Quarterly Review, XXVIII (1903); GIHR, Die Sequenzen des romischen Messbuches (Freiburg im Br., 1887), 80-130; TENNERONI, Lo Stabat Mater e Donna del Paradiso (Todi, 1887); COLARULLI, La Satira, "O Papa Bonifatio, molt ay jocato al mondo", e la Sequenza "Stabat Mater" di Fra Jacopone da Todi (Todi, 1906); MARINI, L'Estetica dello Stabat Mater (Siena, 1897); GIOIA, LO "Stabat Mater Speciosa" di Jacopone da Todi (Rome, 1892); GHILARDI Il B. Jacopone da Todi e la sua prigionia in Luce e Amore, III (Florence, 1906), 931-36. LIVARIUS OLIGER Joseph Jacotot Joseph Jacotot French educator, b. at Dijon, March, 1770; d. at Paris, 30 July, 1840. He studied in the college of his native city, where, at the age of nineteen, he was appointed professor of classical literature. Later he filled successively the chairs of the methods of sciences (1796), ancient languages (1797), higher mathematics (1803), Roman law (1806), and pure mathematics (1809). A member of the House of Representatives during the Hundred Days, he expressed his preference for the Empire, and, at the time of the Second Restoration, his hostility, to the Bourbons, made it necessary for him to leave France. Going to Belgium, he taught privately at Mons and Brussels, and in 1818 was appointed professor of the French language and literature in the University of Louvain. The Revolution of 1830 allowed him to return to France. He went first to Valenciennes, and in 1838 to Paris, endeavouring to propagate his method of teaching, and working for "the intellectual emancipation" of his fellow-men. His works under the common title of "Enseignement Universel" are: "Langue maternelle" (Louvain, 1822); "Langues étrangères" (Louvain, 1824); "Musique, Dessin et Peinture" (Louvain, 1824); "Mathématiques" (Louvain, 1828); "Droit et philosophie panécastique" (Paris, 1839). He also wrote many articles in the "Journal de l'émanicipation intellectuelle", published by his two sons (1829-42), who also edited his "Mélanges posthumes" (Paris, 1841). When Jacotot began to teach at Louvain he knew neither Flemish nor Dutch, while many of his pupils could not understand French. To overcome this difficulty he gave them both the French text and the Dutch translation of Fénelon's "Télémaque". They were to memorize some sentences of the French and carefully compare them with the Dutch, every day repeating what they knew and adding a little more. After some time Jacotot was surprised at their progress, for with no other help they had mastered the rules of spelling and grammar and could apply them correctly. Encouraged by this success, Jacotot thought he had found a universal method and adapted it to all branches of knowledge. This method rightly recognizes the necessity of the student's own efforts and mental work, and it also endeavours to apply the principle that all knowledge is so connected that know one thing well, i.e. to know it n all its connections, supplies the key to a more perfect and extensive knowledge of other subjects also. Hence it matters little where the student begins, or what book he uses, provided the proceeds rightly. Generally, instead of starting with the first elements, Jacotot would have him begin with something complex, which the student himself would analyze into its elements -- comparing these, noting their similarities and differences, and thus finding the rules for himself. Among the number of principles which sum up Jacotot's method, we may mention the following: "Know something well, and always refer everything else to that". "Everyone can be his own master". "Everybody can teach, and teach even what he does not know". More paradoxical are the two axioms which are given as the bases of the whole method: "All men are of equal intelligence", that is, the same general ideas are found in every work, and consequently man should strive to master one thing well and refer everything to what he knows already. However exaggerated such principles, and even the whole method, may seem, and however vehement at times Jacotot may have been in defending them, it must be conceded that they emphasize a few vital points, the necessity of personal effort and application on the part of the student, the connection more or less immediate of all ideas, the need of order and method, and the importance of thoroughness in knowledge. C.A. DUBRAY Jacques de Vitry Jacques de Vitry Historian of the crusades, cardinal Bishop of Acre, later of Tusculum, b. at Vitry-sur-Seine, near Paris, probably about 1160; d. at Rome, 1240. After attending the University of Paris, then in its infancy, he visited Marie d'Oignies, a mystic of the Diocese of Liège, attracted by her reputation for holiness. On her advice he became a canon regular, returned to Paris for ordination to the priesthood, and thereafter devoted himself to preaching; from 1210 to 1213 he was one of the most noted preachers of the crusade against the Albigenses. In fact so great was his renown throughout Christendom that the Latin clergy of St. John of Acre chose him as their bishop. He accepted the episcopal dignity with the approbation of Honorius III. From Palestine he went to Egypt and was present at the capture of Damietta (1218-20), an account of which he wrote to the pope. The leaders of the crusade complained of his imperious temper and attributed their reverses to his stubbornness. In 1227 he returned to Rome but soon resumed the offensive against the heretics of the Diocese of Liège. In 1229 Gregory IX allowed him to resign the See of Acre, created him a cardinal and Bishop of Tusculum and later legate in France and in Germany. He did not long survive his refusal of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem; at his request his body was conveyed to Oignies. Among his works are letters to Pope Honorius, which form an important source of the history of the Egyptian crusade (ed. Roehrich, "Zeitschrift fuer Kirchengesch.," XIV-XVI), a collection of sermon-models for the use of preachers; a "Liber de mulieribus Leodiensibus," the most celebrated of these being Marie d'Oignies, whose wonderful visions the author relates (ed. Acta SS., June, IV, 636, 666), finally the "Historia Orientalis seu Hierosolymitana," his principal work, an account, at first hand, of the conditions in the Holy Land in the thirteenth century. He was of an inquiring and observant mind and conceived the plan -- a remarkable one for the age in which he lived -- of writing a geographical description of Palestine. The first book is wholly devoted to that land and gives its history from the time of Mohammed; describing the expansion of Islam, he gives many picturesque details concerning Oriental idolaters, the Turcomans, the Bedouins, and especially the Assassins, subjects of the Old Man of the Mountain. His recount of the crusades is followed by praise for the fertility of Palestine under Christian domination, and for the efforts of the Italians, French, Germans, Bretons, and English to colonize it. He likewise dwells upon the characteristics of the various indigenous nations and of the "Pullani," half-breeds, to whose vices he attributes the reverses of the Christians. The writer then undertakes a regular description of the physical geography of the country, and gives a great many particulars, half real and half fabulous, regarding its climate, flora, fauna, minerals, its barbarous and extraordinary nations, the Amazons, etc. The honey gathered from the reeds (ex calamellis) was, of course, only cane sugar. A still more curious account is that which he gives of the magnetic compass: "Acus ferrea postquam adamantem contigerit, ad stellam septentrionalem, quae velut axis firmamenti aliis vergentibus non movetur, semper convertitur. Unde valde necessaria est navigantibus in mari." (Bongars, "Gesta Dei," I, 1106.) The remainder of the book is a history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Book II, a dismally painted picture of the Christians of the East, closes with an account of the monastic orders and the hierarchy of Palestine. A third book, the story of the Egyptian crusade, is not from Jacques de Vitry, but from the pen of Oliver the Scholastic, Bishop of Paderborn. Historia orientalis, ed. BONGARS, Gesta Dei per Francos, I, 1047-1145; French tr. in GUIZOT'S Collection des memoires, XXII: DAUNOU, Jacques de Vitry (Histoire litteraire de la France), XVIII (1835); BARROUX, Jacques de Vitry (Paris, 1885). LOUIS BREHIER Francois Jacquier François Jacquier French mathematician and physicist, born at Vitry-le-Francois, 7 June, 1711; died at Rome, 3 July, 1788. His early education was entrusted to an ecclesiastic, who soon recognized in him an inclination to science and mathematics, and endeavoured to cultivate it. When sixteen years old, Francois, entered the Order of Friars Minor, and after profession was sent to Rome, to complete his studies in the French convent of the order, La Trinité du Mont. With the permission of his superiors he specialized in mathematics, and at the same time, as a sort of mental diversion, devoted himself to the study of the ancient languages. He became very proficient in Hebrew, and spoke Greek as though it were his mother-tongue. His labours and learning gained for him the patronage of Cardinals Alberoni and Portocarrero. He accompanied Cardinal Alberoni on his legation to Ravenna, and was appointed to inspect the work begun by Manfredi to prevent the repeated innudations of that territory. On his return he was given the chair of Sacred Scripture at the College of the Propaganda, and was also detailed by the general chapter of the Friars Minors, assembled at Marseilles, to work upon the annals of the order. The King of Sardinia named him professor of physics at the University of Turin in 1745, but Cardinal Valenti, prime minister of Benedict XIV, eager to retain so learned a man in Rome, had him assigned to the chair of experimental physics at the Roman College. Here he was in continual demand for consultation upon scientific matters. In 1763 he was appointed instructor in physics and mathematics to the young Prince Ferdinand at Parma. He was appointed in 1773 to the chair of mathematics at the Roman College, on the occasion of the suppression of the Jesuits. At his death he was connected with nearly all the great scientific and literary societies of Europe. The most important of his works are: + "Isaaci Newtoni philosophiæ naturalis principia mathematica, perpetuis commentariis illustrata" (4 parts in 3 vols. 4to, Feneva, 1739-42), in collaboration with P. Lesuer; + Parere e riflessioni sopra I danni della cuppola di San-Pietro" (4to, Rome, 1743); + "Elementi di perspecttiva secondo I princpi di Taylor" (8 vo, Rome, 1745); + "Institutiones Philosophicæ ad studia theologica potissimum accommodata" (6 vols. in 12 mo, Rome, 1757), reprinted many times at Rome, Venice, and in Germany, and later translated into Spanish; + "Eléments du calcul intégral" (4to, Parma, 1768), a work highly esteemed and more complete than any that had been published up to that time. E.P. TIVNAN Jaen Jaén (GIENNENSIS) Diocese in Southern Spain. The city of Jaén, capital of the province of the same name, is situated in north-eastern Andalusia on the lower part of the north-eastern slope of Monte Jabalcuz about 1800 feet above sea-level. In 1900 the population was 26,434. During the period 1013-90 the city of Jaén, the Romans' Aurgi, was the capital of the independent Moorish Kingdom of Djayyan, and was reconquered from the Moors by St. Ferdinand III of Castile and Leon in April, 1246. According to local tradition the first bishop was St. Euphrasius, supposed to be one of the seventy disciples. He is said to have been sent to Southern Spain, together with St. Torquatus and five other pupils of the Apostles, by Sts. Peter and Paul, and to have settled at Iliturgis (now Andújar), where he is reputed to have suffered martyrdom in the year 68 [cf. Henschenius, "De adventu in Hispaniam Sanctorum Torquati etc." in "Acta SS.," III, May (Brussels, 1680), 442-4; Terrones y Robres, "Vida, martirio, translación y milagros de S. Eufrasio, obispo y patrón de Andújar" (Granada, 1657)]. Other predecessors of the bishops of Jaén are, according to local investigations, the bishops of Cazlona (Episcopi Castulonenses), who were active in the period 298-656, and finally four of the bishops of Baeza (Episcopi Beatienses), flourishing between the seventh and the thirteenth centuries. The list of the bishops proper of Jaén does not begin until 1248, when the see was transferred from Baeza to Jaén. The last Bishop of Baeza was Fray Domingo, O.P. (1227-48); the first Bishop of Jaén was Pedro I Martinez (1249-50). The most notable among the sixty-four bishops who have governed the Diocese of Jaén are: St. Pedro III Pascual (1296-1300) and Gonzalo de Zunyiga (1422-56), who both died as martyrs in Moorish prisons; the sixty-fourth bishop, Juan Jose Laguarda y Fenollera (1906-9), was appointed Bishop of Barcelona at the consistory of 29 April, 1909, since which date the See of Jaén has been vacant. STATISTICS The Diocese of Jaén is suffragan of Granada: it is bounded on the north by the Diocese of Ciudad Real, on the east by the Archdiocese of Toledo, on the south by the Archdiocese of Granada and the Diocese of Guadix, on the west by the Diocese of Cordova. According to the latest official diocesan statistics (1 January, 1905) it contains about 395,000 inhabitants, 12 deaneries (arciprestazgos) divided into 136 parishes, 136 parish churches, and 6 dependent churches. There are four male religious congregations with 4 monasteries, 10 cloistered female congregations with 27 houses, and 11 uncloistered with 29 houses. The chapter of the cathedral at Jaén has 12 canonries, besides which the old chapter (6 canonries) still exists at Baeza. There is also the theological seminary of San Felipe Neri at Baeza in addition to the diocesan seminary (Seminario Conciliar) at Jaén. Other educational institutions are the Colegio del Santisimo Sacramento for theological studies, and the Colegio de San Eufrasio for the education of choir-boys, both at Jaén. The massive Cathedral of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin stands in the highest part of the city of Jaén. It was begun in 1532 by Pedro de Valdelvira, and is a fine specimen of early Spanish Renaissance. In a shrine by the high altar is preserved the famous Santo Rostro or Santa Faz, a handkerchief of Saint Veronica, which is annually exhibited to the people on Good Friday and on the Feast of the Assumption. DE XIMENA JURADO, Catalogo de los obispos de las iglesias catedrales de la diocesis de Jaén (Madrid, 1654); DE RUS PUERTA, Historia eclesiatica del reino y obispado de Jaén (Jaén, 1634), the first part of which is alone printed, the second part being in the National Library at Madrid (MS. Q 58); DEL BILCHES, Santos y Santuarios del obispado de Jaén y Baeza (Madrid, 1653); GAMS, Kirchengesch. von Spanien, III (Ratisbon, 1876), i, 48 sq., 160, 426 sq. GREGOR REINHOLD Jaenbert Jaenbert (Jaenberht, Janbriht, Janibert, Jambert, Lambert, Lanbriht, Genegberht.) Thirteenth Archbishop of Canterbury; died at Canterbury 11 or 12 August, 791: the exact date is uncertain; Florence of Worcester and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle place it in 790; Symeon of Durham, the better authority, in 791. Nothing is known of his life till 760, when he was elected Abbot of St. Augustine's, Canterbury, and blessed by Archbishop Bregwin. When the archbishop died he was buried at Christ Church, and Jaenbert asserted the rights of his own abbey as the traditional burying-place with such vigour that according to a late tradition the monks of Christ Church elected him archbishop to avoid his appeal to Rome. He was consecrated on 2 February, 766, and received the pallium from Pope Paul I in 767. During his pontificate the struggle of Kent against the growing power of Offa of Mercia ended in the defeat of the former kingdom. Offa's policy for the aggrandizement of Mercia involved the creation of a separate archbishopric independent of Canterbury, and though Jaebert opposed this vigorously, Offa obtained the pope's consent, and the papal legates George and Theophylact held a council at Chelsea in 787 where Jaebert was forced to surrender much of the jurisdiction of Canterbury to Higbald, the newly elected Archbishop of Lichfield. The extent of the territory transferred is not recorded. Silver coins were minted by Jaebert, he being the earliest Archbishop of Canterbury of whose coinage specimens have been preserved. EDWIN BURTON Jaffa Jaffa A titular see in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. The city of Jaffa is very ancient. Even before the arrival of Josue in Palestine it is mentioned on the pylons of Karnak and the cuneiform tablets of Tell-el-Amarna. Several Greek authors, relying on native legends, traced its foundation to Jopes (Cassiopeia), daughter of Aeolus, and made it the scene of the fable of Andromeda exposed on a rock and delivered by Perseus. Assigned to the tribe of Dan (Jos., xix, 46), Japho, or Jaffa, seems not to have belonged to the Jews before the reign of David, who conquered the maritime region (Judges, i, 34; xviii, 1; II Kings, viii, 1; Ecclus., xlvii, 8). In the time of Solomon it served as the port of landing for the cedars sent by Hiram for the construction of the Temple of Jerusalem (II Par., ii, 16). After the death of Solomon it probably recovered its independence or fell into the power of the kings of Israel. The Prophet Jonas took ship there for Tharsis (Jonas, i, 3), and King Ezechias brought it once more under the power of the Kingdom of Juda (IV Kings, xviii, 8). In this condition it is several times mentioned in the inscriptions of the kings of Assyria, whose domination passed later to the Chaldeans and Persians. In the reign of Cyrus Jaffa again served as a landing-port for the materials destined for the reconstruction of the Temple (I Esd., iii, 7). After the expedition of Alexander the Great (333 B.C.) the city passed into the power alternately of Syria and Egypt. In consequence of violent wrong done the Jewish population, Judas Machabeus attacked the harbour at night and burned all the vessels (II Mach., xii, 3-7). Shortly afterwards (about 142 B.C.) his brothers Jonathas and Simon Machabeus took final possession of the city (I Mach., x, 74-6). Pompey captured it from the Jews in 63 B.C., and during the period of more than a century, until it became entirely Roman, the city changed masters several times. Jaffa, which had now become Joppe, soon counted Christians among its inhabitants. It was there that St. Peter raised to life the widow Tabitha, a name interpreted Dorcas (Acts, ix, 36-42), whose tomb is still the object of a popular pilgrimage; there, too, in the house of Simon the Tanner, he had the symbolical vision of the unclean animals (Acts, x, 1-23). At the time of the great Jewish revolt against the Romans, Joppe was taken by Cestius Gallus, Governor of Syria, and its inhabitants slaughtered to the number of 8400. The fugitives from the city and vicinity afterwards reassembled there, and turned to piracy, which brought about a second intervention of the Romans and the violent death of 4200 persons. The city was then razed to the ground. Being without importance during the first centuries of Christianity, Joppe did not possess a bishop until the fifth century (Le Quien, "Oriens Christianus," III, 627); a very small number of its Greek or Latin bishops are known (ibid., III, 625-30, 1291; Eubel "Hierarchia catholica medii aevi," Munich, I, 297; II, 186). After the Arab conquest and the destruction of Caesarea Maritima in the seventh century, Jaffa acquired some importance and became the chief seaport of Palestine. Captured by the crusaders, it became, under Godfrey of Bouillon, the County of Jaffa and Ascalon, feudatory to the King of Jerusalem. One of its counts, John of Ibelin, wrote the principal book of the Assizes of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Retaken by Saladin in 1187, and surrendered to Richard Coeur de Lion in 1192, Jaffa was reconquered in 1197 by the Sultan Melek-el-Adel, who had 20,000 Christians massacred there. In 1204 it fell once more into the power of the Christians, who held it until 1268, when Sultan Bibars of Egypt took possession of it and completely destroyed it. Bonaparte took it by assault in 1799, and was accused, perhaps wrongfully, of having poisoned the Ottoman garrison and his own soldiers infected with the pest. Ibrahim Pasha, the son of Mehemet Ali, captured the city in 1831, and seven years later it was destroyed by earthquake. Jaffa is connected by railroad with Jerusalem; its harbour, which is difficult of access, received 1789 steam or sailing vessels in 1907, and transacted business to the extent of 28 million francs ($5,600,000) -- 17,000,000 imports and 11,000,000 exports. The city is surrounded by magnificent orange groves, and has now entirely recovered from all its misfortunes, the census of 1905 crediting it with a population of more than 40,000 souls. Among these are 5000 Jews, 1000 Protestants (mostly foreigners), 3550 Orthodox Greeks, 100 schismatic Armenians, 1770 Catholics (of whom 1010 are Latins, 215 Maronites, 510 Melchites, and 35 Syrians). The remainder of the population (about 30,000) is Mussulman. Franciscan Fathers direct the parish church and a school for boys. The Brothers of the Christian Schools have a boarding-school, two day-schools, and a commercial school. Italian Catholics also have a school for boys. The Sisters of St. Joseph and the Franciscan Sisters have each a boarding and a day school. There is also a French hospital conducted by nuns. The other (non-Catholic) Christian communities, especially the Protestants, also have schools, hospitals, and orphanages. VIGOUROUX, Joppe in Dict. de la Bible; MEISTERMANN, Nouveau Guide de Terre Sainte (Paris, 1907), 19-27; GUERIN, Description de la Palestine. Judee, I, 1-22. S. VAILHÉ Diocese of Jaffna Diocese of Jaffna (JAFFNENSIS.) Situated in the northern portion of Ceylon, Jaffna comprises the northern and north-central provinces of the island. Christianity in Jaffna dates back as far as the time of St. Francis Xavier. In 1548 St. Francis visited Manaar and came to Jaffna to persuade the king to cease his persecutions against the Christians. In 1580, under the protection of the Portuguese, the first Catholic church was built at Jaffna. The whole peninsula surrendered in 1591 to Andrea Furtado de Mendoza. Almost the entire population subsequently abjured idolatry and embraced Christianity. The fort of Jaffna capitulated to the Dutch in 1658. At that time there were in the peninsula 50 priests, 1 Jesuit college, 1 Franciscan and 1 Dominican convent, and 14 churches. The Dutch immediately manifested the most hostile disposition towards the Catholics. The priests and monks were banished, and giving them shelter was declared a capital offence. From that time dates the long persecution which ended only with the surrender of Ceylon to the British in 1796. To this diocese belongs the Island of Manaar rendered famous by the apostolic labours of St. Francis Xavier and by the martyrdom of from 600 to 700 Christians, who were executed by order of the King of Jaffna. Madhu, though a solitary spot in the middle of the jungle, has also its historical fame. For a long time during the Dutch persecution it was the refuge of native Christians. To this spot they had transported a statue of Our Lady which is now enshrined in the new church. Madhu has developed into an important pilgrimage, where more than 40,000 pilgrims congregate every year for the feast of the Visitation. In 1845 Ceylon was divided into the two vicariates of Colombo and Jaffna, with Bishop Orazio Bettachini as vicar Apostolic of the latter. In 1847 the Oblates of Mary Immaculate arrived in Ceylon. In 1857 the Jaffna vicariate was handed over to the Oblates, and on the death of Bishop Bettachini, Bishop Semeria, O.M.I., was appointed vicar Apostolic. In 1868 Bishop Christopher Bonjean, O.M.I., succeeded Bishop Semeria. He had been in the missions for nine years in India and in 1856 had crossed over to Ceylon to join the Oblate Congregation. During his administration a great impulse was given to primary education. The pernicious effects of the Protestant and Hindu schools were more than counterbalanced by the activity of the bishop and the missionaries. Subsequently Bishop Bonjean was transferred to the metropolitan See of Colombo. Bishop Theophile Melirzan, O.M.I., succeeded him at Jaffna and, following in his footsteps, was named Archbishop of Colombo in 1893. In the same year Henri Joulain, Q.M.I., was appointed Bishop of Jaffna. The entire population of the diocese is 499,200; the Catholics numbering 45,500. The diocese is in the hands of the Oblates; 3 secular priests help in the parochial ministry. The total number of missionaries is 46. Attached to the cathedral is St. Martin's seminary for the education of junior students aspiring to the priesthood. St. Patrick's college and boarding school is the most flourishing institution of the northern province. It has a staff of 6 European fathers, 1 native father, 2 brothers, and 15 native professors. The average number of students is 450. It is especially devoted to higher English education, and prepares its students for the Cambridge Junior and Senior examinations and for the London University Intermediate. Some years ago it was thought expedient to come into closer contact with non-Catholics and especially with the higher classes of Hindus. For this purpose a Hindu boarding school was attached to St. Patrick's college. The boarders number 100, with good prospects for the future. Jaffna convent, conducted by the Sisters of the Holy Family of Bordeaux, follows the same junior and senior courses, for the education of girls, as St. Patrick's. To the convent is attached a girls' orphanage. The native Brothers of St. Joseph are occupied in teaching at Jaffna, Kayts, Manaar, and Mullaitivu. The native Sisters of St. Peter conduct primary schools in all the important stations of the diocese. There are 127 schools under the control of the missionaries, for the vernacular and primary English education. At the two industrial schools of Colombogam and Mullaitivu 125 orphan boys are taught agriculture and useful trades. The diocese has conferences of St. Vincent de Paul and young men's associations for the working classes. St. Joseph's Catholic Press is the home of the Jaffna Catholic Guardian, a weekly paper devoted to the interests of the diocese. A Catholic Club has just been founded for the purpose of interests of the Catholic community. Catholic Directory (Madras, 1908); BONJEAN. Jaffna Directory. J.F. ALBERT LORTIE Jainism Jainism A form of religion intermediate between Brahminism and Buddhism, originated in India in pre-Christian times, and has maintained its heretical attitude towards Brahminism down to the present day. The name is derived from jina, conqueror, one of the epithets popularly applied to the reputed founder of the sect. Jainism bears a striking resemblance to Buddhism in its monastic system, its ethical teachings, its sacred texts, and in the story of its founder. This closeness of resemblance has led not a few scholars-- as Lassen, Weber, Wilson, Tiele, Barth-- look upon Jainism as an offshoot of Buddhism and to place its origin some centuries later than the time of Buddha. But the prevailing view to-day-- of Bühler, Jacobi, Hopkins, and others-- that Jainism in its origin is independent of Buddhism and, perhaps, is the more ancient of the two. The many points of similarity between the two sects are explained by the indebtedness of both to a common source, namely the teachings and practices of ascetic, monastic Brahminism. Of the reputed founder of Jainism we have but few details, and most of these are so like what we read of the beginnings of Buddhism that one is strongly led to suspect that here at least one is dealing with a variation of the Buddha-legend. According to Jainist tradition, the founder lived in the sixth century b.c., being either a contemporary or a precursor of Buddha. His family name was Jnatriputra (in Prakrit, Nattaputta), but, like Gotama, he was honoured with the laudatory names of Buddha, the enlightened, Mahavira, the great hero, and Jina, the conqueror. These last two epithets came to be his distinctive titles, while the name Buddha was associated almost exclusively with Gotama. Like Buddha, Jina was the son of a local raja who held sway over a small district in the neighbourhood of Benares. While still a young man he felt the emptiness of a life of pleasure, and gave up his home and princely station to become an ardent follower of the Brahmin ascetics. If we may trust the Jainist scriptures, he carried the principle of self-mortification to the extent that he went about naked, unsheltered from the sun, rain, and winds, and lived on the rudest vegetarian fare, practising incredible fasts. Accepting the principle of the Brahmin ascetics, that salvation is by personal effort alone, he took the logical step of rejecting as useless the Vedas and the Vedic rites. For this attitude towards the Brahmin traditions he was repudiated as a heretic. He gathered eleven disciples around him, and went about preaching his doctrine of salvation. Like Buddha he made many converts, whom he organized under a monastic rule of life. Associated with them were many who accepted his teaching in theory, but who in practice stopped short of the monastic life of extreme asceticism. These were the lay Jainists, who, like the lay Buddhists, contributed to the support of the monks. The Jainists seem never to have been so numerous as the Buddhists. Though they claim a membership of over a million believers, laity included, recent statistics of India show that their number is not greater than half a million. On the question of the propriety of going about naked, the Jainist monks have for ages been split into two sects. The White-Robed Sect, whose monks. are clothed in white garments, is the more numerous, flourishing chiefly in N. W. India. To this sect belong a few communities of Jainist nuns. The naked ascetics, forming the other sect, are strongest in the South of India, but even here they have largely restricted the custom of nakedness to the time of eating. As the Buddhist creed is summed up in three words, Buddha, the Law, the Order, so the Jainist creed consists of the so-called three jewels, Right Belief, Right Knowledge, Right Conduct. Right Belief embraces faith in Jina as the true teacher of salvation and the acceptance of the Jainist scriptures as his authoritative teaching. These scriptures are less extensive, less varied, than the Buddhist, and, while resembling the latter to a large degree, lay great stress on bodily mortification. The canon of the White-robed Sect consists of forty-five Agamas, or sacred texts, in the Prakrit tongue. Jacobi, who has translated some of these texts in the "Sacred Books of the East", is of the opinion that they cannot be older than 300 b.c. According to Jainist tradition, they were preceded by an ancient canon of fourteen so-called Purvas, which have totally disappeared. With the Jainist, "Right Knowledge" embraces the religious view of life together with the end of man, while "Right Conduct" is concerned with the main ethical precepts and with the ascetic, monastic system. The Jainist, like the Buddhist and the pantheistic Brahmin, takes for granted the doctrine of Karma and its implied rebirths. He, too, views every form of earthly, bodily existence as misery. Freedom from rebirth is thus the goal after which he aspires. But, while the pantheistic Brahmin and the primitive Buddhist looked for the realization of the end in the extinction of conscious, individual existence (absorption in Brahma, Nirvana), the Jainist has always tenaciously held to the primitive traditional belief in a final abode of bliss, where the soul, liberated from the necessity of rebirth on earth, enjoys forever a spiritual, conscious existence. To attain this end, the Jainist, like the Buddhist and the pantheistic Brahmin, holds that the traditional gods can aid but little. The existence of the gods is not denied, but their worship is held to be of no avail and is thus abandoned. Salvation is to be obtained by personal effort alone. To reach the longed-for goal, it is necessary to purify the soul of all that binds it to a bodily existence, so that it shall aspire purely and solely after a spiritual life in heaven. This is accomplished by the life of severe mortification of which Jina set the example. Twelve years of ascetic life as a Jainist monk and eight rebirths are necessary to constitute the purgatorial preparation for the Jainist heaven. While the Jains are not worshippers of the Hindu gods, they erect imposing temples to Jina and other venerated teachers. The images of these Jainist saints are adorned with lights and flowers, and the faithful walk around them while reciting sacred mantras. Jainist worship is thus little more than a veneration of a few saints and heroes of the past. On its ethical side-- sphere of Right Conduct-- is largely at one with Brahminism and Buddhism. There are, however, a few differences in the application of the principle of not killing. The sacredness of all kinds of life implied in the doctrine of metempsychosis has been more scrupulously observed in practice by the Jain than by the Brahmin or the Buddhist. The Brahmin tolerates the slaughter of animals for food, to provide offerings for the sacrifice, or to show hospitality to a guest; the Buddhist does not scruple to eat meat prepared for a banquet; but the Jain reprobates meat-food without exception as involving the unlawful taking of life. For similar reasons the Jain does not content himself with straining his drinking water and with remaining at home during the rainy season, when the ground is swarming with lower forms of life, but when he goes forth, he wears a veil before his mouth, and carries a broom with which he sweeps the ground before him to avoid destruction of insect life. The Jainist ascetic allows himself to be bitten by gnats and mosquitoes rather than risk their destruction by brushing them away. Hospitals for animals have been a prominent feature of Jainist benevolence, bordering at times on absurdity. For example, in 1834 there existed in Kutch a temple hospital which supported 5000 rats. With all this scrupulous regard for animal life the Jain differs from the Buddhist in his view of the lawfulness of religious suicide. According to Jainist ethics a monk who has practised twelve years of severe asceticism, or who has found after long trial that he cannot keep his lower nature in control, may hasten his end by self-destruction. JACOBI, The Jaina Sutras, vols. XXII and XLV of the Sacred Books of the East; HOPKINS, The Religions of India (Boston, 1895); HARDY, Der Buddhismus nach älteren Paliwerken (Münster, 1890); MONIER WILLIAMS, Buddhism (London, 1889); BARTH, The Religions of India (London. 1891). CHARLES F. AIKEN. Jamaica Jamaica The largest of the British West Indian islands, is situated in the Caribbean Sea, between latitude 17 deg. 43 min. and 18 deg. 32 min. N., and longitude 76 deg. 11 min. and 78 deg. 30 min. W. It is 90 miles south of Cuba, 100 west of Haiti, and 554 miles from Colon. The nearest point of the continent of America is about 400 miles southwest of the island. The name Jamaica is said to be derived from Arawak words denoting water and wood, signifying a fertile land. The island is 144 miles long, and from 21.5 to 49 miles broad. Its area is 4207.5 square miles, of which about 646 are flat, consisting of alluvium, marl, and swamp. There are some mineral deposits in the island, the most abundant being copper. The surface of the island is very mountainous, almost 2000 square miles of it being above an altitude of 1000 feet. The culminating point, Blue Mountain Peak, is 7360 feet high. FLORA AND FAUNA There are over two thousand distinct species of flowering plants and some four hundred and seventy varieties of ferns in Jamaica. The economic woods include: logwood, lignum-vitae, cedar, mahogany, mahoe, fustic, bullet-wood, yacca satin-wood, and cashaw. The medicinal woods and plants are quassia, cinchona, gamboge, sarsaparilla, senna, belladonna, castor-oil, ginger, tamarind, and tobacco. Dietetic: coffee, cocoa, arrow-root, pimento, cane, plantain, yam, and sweet potato. Among the fruit trees, all the citrus family abound, mango, star-apple, bread-fruit, banana, cocoa-nut, custard-apple, avocado pear, pineapple, etc. TOPOGRAPHY The island is divided into three counties: Surrey, Middlesex, and Cornwall, and each into five parishes: Portland, St. Thomas, St. Andrew, Kingston, Port Royal; St. Mary, St. Ann, St. Catherine, Clarendon, Manchester; Hanover, St. James Trelawny, St. Elizabeth, Westmoreland. POPULATION AND VITAL STATISTICS The first recorded attempt at enumerating the population of Jamaica was in 1660, when "the relicts of the army" were stated to be 2200, and the planters, merchants, and others about the same number. In 1775, there were 13,737 whites, free coloured 4093, slaves 192,787. In 1834 -- the year of negro emancipation -- it was computed that there were 15,000 whites, 5000 free blacks, 40,000 coloured, 311,070 slaves, making a total of 371,070. In June, 1844, the census gave whites 13,816, coloured 81,074, and blacks 346,374; total 441,264. The population in 1891 was 639,493 of whom 14,692 were white, 121,755 were coloured, 486,624 black, 10,116 coolies (East Indians), 481 Chinamen, and 3623 not described. The total estimated population in 1907 was 830,261. The Registrar-General's statistics show that upwards of 65 per cent of births were those of illegitimate children. Many of these are the offspring of consistent or permanent concubinage rather than of promiscuity. In this connection it must not be forgotten that the ancestors of the majority of this people some two generations ago were permitted and encouraged to breed like cattle, and were denied admission to the marriage state. In 1881 there were over 10,000 Catholics in Jamaica; in 1891 there were 12,000, and at the present date (1908) about 14.000. The average annual birthrate for ten years 1896-7 to 1906-7, was 36.5 per 1000 of the estimated mean population. For the same period the mean average death-rate of population per 1000 was 23.2. The population of Kingston is some 50,000, Spanish Town 5690, Montego Bay 4760, Port Antonio 2500, Falmouth 3100, Mandeville 1500. CLIMATE AND METEOROLOGY Intimately associated with vital statistics comes the question of climate. Jamaica, being a tropical island, was formerly looked on as injurious as a residence to the inhabitants of northern latitudes. This theory has been completely refuted, and for many years past the invalid and tourist is resorting in increasing numbers to this "Riviera of the West," which is an ideal sojourn for the health-seeker. The diversity of surface, from the plains to the plateaux and mountain slopes, affords a variety of climate suitable to any requirement. The table of 1899 given in the next column will illustrate this fact, at varying altitudes and localities. Meteorological records are wanting for Manchester and St. Elizabeth highlands, which are much drier than other hill districts of the island. There are many mineral springs valuable for the cure of acute and chronic diseases, especially gout and rheumatism. Two of them possess very remarkable curative properties: the hot sulphurous springs of Bath, and the warm saline spring at Milk River. Locality Temperature Humidity Rainfall Mean Mean Mean Annual Total Annual Annual Annual (%) (inches) (deg. F) Range 7 a.m. 3 p.m. (F deg.) Kingston, Public Gardens, elev. 60 ft. 79.4 16.2 81 63 46.78 Hope Gardens, elev. 700 ft. 77.3 20.9 87 67 62.39 Cinchona Gardens elev. 4900 ft. 62.9 12.2 83 84 90.08 HISTORY Jamaica was discovered by Columbus on 3 May, 1494. He landed probably at or near St. Ann's Bay, called by him Sancta Gloria, owing to the great beauty of the environs. Nine years later his caravels were wrecked at Puerto Bueno -- the present Dry Harbour. He gave the name Santiago to the island, which was but partially colonized by the Spaniards, and was never popular with them. They first introduced horses, cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, and domestic poultry. To the Spaniards Jamaica is also indebted for the orange, lemon, lime, and other fruit trees; the coffee tree is due however to British initiative about the year 1721. From the constituents of the shell mounds throughout the island and the absence therefrom of all objects of a European character, it would appear that these accumulations represent the kitchen middens of the pre-Columban aboriginal inhabitants. These remains found principally in caves, comprise: (a) crania and other bones (human), (b) stone implements (celts, etc.), (c) objects of pottery (various), (d) ornamental beads (chalcedony), kitchen middens containing shells (principally marine), broken pottery, fish and coney bones, stone implements, and ashes. Their cottages were built on stockade posts set vertically side by side in a trench. For animal food they depended principally on the sea, and on their festivals or barbecues the entire village went out on marine or river excursions. Their gardens yielded arrow-root, beans, cassava, cucumbers, melons, maize, and yams; for fruit they cultivated the guava, mammee, papaw and star-apple. They cultivated cotton and wound it for cordage and twisted it into yarn for making garments. The only domestic animals were probably the muysea duck and the alca, a small dog. The aborigines were most probably a tribe of the Arawak Indians, and not Caribs, who were cannibals. The Arawaks were a gentle and inoffensive people as their name (meal-eaters) signifies. They believed in a Supreme Being (Jocahuna), in a future state, and had a tradition about a deluge. Their form of government was patriarchal. They smoked tobacco and played a football game called bato, in which both men and women joined. Spanish Occupation A review of the period of Spanish occupation is one which reflects very little credit on Spanish colonial administration in those days. Their treatment of the aboriginal inhabitants, whom they are accused of having practically exterminated, is a grave charge, and if true, cannot be condoned on the plea that such conduct was characteristic of the age, and that as bad or worse was perpetrated by other nations even in later years. In the few places where the Spaniards settled, they invariably built a church, sometimes a monastery, and occasionally a theatre. Sevilla-Nueva (or Sevilla d'Oro) was the capital of the island from 1510 till 1520, when Diego Columbo founded a new capital, Santiago de la Vega, which is now known as Spanish Town. In 1521 orders were received from Spain to cease from making the native Indians slaves. Las Casas, deservedly called "Protector-General of the Indians," was instrumental in inducing the pope to issue a Bull in 1542, restoring the Indians to freedom. Unhappily this concession came too late for the aboriginal inhabitants of the island. Soon after, Africans were imported into Jamaica as slaves. The discreditable failure to capture San Domingo by the expedition under Admiral Penn -- father of the founder of Pennsylvania -- and General Venables, described by Carlyle as "the unsuccessfulest enterprise Oliver Cromwell had concern with," ended in a successful descent on Jamaica, which was captured in May, 1655. English Occupation "To signalise the capture of St. Iago" by the English "a small leaven of Puritan feeling and a large amount of ruffianism led the troops into a display of energy. . . . The abbey and the two churches were demolished and the bells melted down for shot" (Gardner). The poet Milton, secretary to Cromwell, justified this invasion of the West Indies on the ground of "the most noble opportunities of promoting the Glory of God, and enlarging the bounds of the Kingdom of Christ, which we do not doubt will appear to be the chief end of our late expedition to the West Indies." The advent of the English adventurer gave a considerable impetus to trade with the outside world. The chief seaport of the island, now Port Royal, soon became "a nest of iniquity and a centre of rude luxury, the emporium of the loot of the buccaneer. . . . no form of vice was wanting, no indulgence too extravagant for its lawless population." But it paid the penalty of its lawlessness, being wiped out by an earthquake on 7 June, 1692, after which event Kingston, the present capital, was established. As a means of repeopling the island, which was being decimated by fever, a large number of Royalists in Ireland were seized and sent out as slaves by the English. "As a result of Cromwell's Irish policy one thousand young women and the same number of young men were by order of the Council of State arrested in Ireland and shipped to Jamaica, while the sheriffs of several counties of Scotland were instructed to apprehend all known idle, masterless robbers and vagabonds, male and female, and transport them to the island" (Ellis). In 1660 the population of Jamaica was about 4500 whites and some 1500 negroes. Jamaica was ceded to England by the treaty of Madrid in 1670. On the accession of James II, the Duke of Albemarle (a Catholic), son of General Monk, was appointed governor of Jamaica. One of his suite was Sir Hans Sloane, founder of the British Museum. Slavery The war with the American colonies met with little sympathy in Jamaica. The assembly petitioned George III to grant more political autonomy to the struggling colonists. In 1778 France, which had recognized the independence of the new republic, was forced into war by England, and Jamaica, like the rest of the West Indies, suffered accordingly. Seven years later the maroons, or half-breed negroes, rose in rebellion, repulsed both the colonial militia and the regular troops, devastated large tracts of country, and were not finally overpowered till 1790. Some 600 of them, men, women, and children were deported to Nova Scotia, and subsequently to Sierra Leone. In the eighteenth century 700,000 negro slaves were landed in Jamaica. When, in 1807, the slave trade was abolished in the British colonies, there were some 320,000 slaves in Jamaica. Slavery was destined to continue there for more than another quarter of a century. The local Government, which consisted almost entirely of slave holders and sympathizers with slavery, was a negrophobic plutocracy, and the Anglican, or Episcopalian, clergy were in sympathy with the assembly, as they were dependent on it for their stipends. Ministers of other Protestant denominations were working for the education and enlightenment of the negroes, only to be reviled, hindered, and persecuted by the dominant party. A serious outbreak among the slaves occurred in 1831, property to the value of $3,500,000 being destroyed. The law emancipating the slaves passed by the British Parliament was accepted by the Jamaica Assembly in 1833 under strong protests, and on 1 August, 1834, slavery was abolished in the island. The number of slaves for whom compensation was paid by the British Government was 225,290, the amount awarded having been $29,269,875. As an immediate result of the emancipation of the negroes, the want of labourers was soon experienced. In 1844 immigration of hill- coolies from Hindustan was sanctioned by the Legislative Council. During the past sixty years, some 30,000 Hindu agricultural labourers have been imported into the island, of whom over 10,000 have, during the last twenty years, returned to India, taking back with them more than $350,000 in government bills of exchange. Catholic Revival From the time of the expulsion of the Spaniards in 1655, and especially after the adoption of the Toleration Act of 1688, which "afforded liberty of conscience to all persons except papists" (Gardner), Catholic revival in the island was debarred. It was not until 1792 that the first instalment of freedom of worship was granted to them. Dr. Douglas, Vicar Apostolic of the London District, and ecclesiastical superior of the Catholics in the British West Indies, sent out an Irish Franciscan, Father Quigley, in 1798, who did pioneer work for seven years, and died in 1805. He was succeeded by Fathers Rodriguez d'Arango and Campos Benito, both Franciscans. By a Brief of Gregory XVI dated 10 January, 1837, the British West Indies were divided into three vicariates Apostolic: the Windward Islands, British Guiana and Jamaica. Father Benito was appointed first Vicar Apostolic of this island in 1837. The same year two Jesuits, Fathers Cotham, an Englishman, and Dupeyron, a Frenchman, arrived. They, with the Vicar Apostolic and Father Duquesnay, the first native of Jamaica raised to the priesthood, formed the whole ecclesiastical body. Asiatic cholera broke out in Jamaica in October, 1850, claiming over 30,000 victims; the Catholic clergy won the highest praise for their self-sacrifice and heroism during the plague. In 1835 the Vicar Apostolic, Benito, died and was succeeded by Father Dupeyron, S.J., the first Jesuit to act as Vicar Apostolic of Jamaica. Jesuit Administration We have now to deal with the mature development of the mission in the nineteenth century. Numerically it was small, but it had attracted public attention by its philanthropic and religious work. With the accession of Father Dupeyron the Jamaica mission came formally under the control of the Society of Jesus, and has remained so ever since. The new Vicar Apostolic, hampered like his predecessors by a paucity of labourers and scantiness of resources, could continue only to watch over and safeguard that which had already been effected. In 1857 four Sisters of the Third Order Regular of St. Francis arrived in Jamaica from Glasgow, to instruct the coloured children. In a short time they opened a poor school and subsequently a high school for young ladies, both destined to do excellent work. In 1866 Father Joseph Sidney Woollett, S.J., of the English province, received sub-delegate powers of Vicar Apostolic. The following year Father Hathaway, S.J., arrived from England. He was a distinguished graduate of the University of Oxford, and had been a Fellow of Worcester College, and subsequently dean and bursar. In 1849 he accepted the incumbency of Shadwell, near Leeds. Becoming a Catholic in 1851, he joined the Society of Jesus at the age of thirty-eight. He was a most zealous, self-denying, hardworking priest, an eloquent and persuasive preacher, and a cultured scholar; yet for years he taught the poor school for boys (St. Joseph's), until his health broke down. He died in 1891. The number of Catholics in Jamaica in 1872 did not exceed 6000; the greater portion of them lived in Kingston, where there were two churches. Seven chapels supplied the wants of the sparsely scattered rural Catholic population. There were about 400 children, boys and girls, attending the convent schools and St. Joseph's in the capital. In August, 1880, a cyclone passed over the east end of the island, destroying nearly all the wharves in Kingston. The Catholic churches and schools were wrecked, but were soon replaced through the generosity of the faithful in England and the United States, and the efforts of Father Thomas Porter, S.J., Vicar Apostolic from 1877 till 1888. After some forty consecutive years of priestly labour, Father Joseph Dupont, S.J., died in 1887. To perpetuate his memory, the citizens of Kingston, irrespective of creed or class, erected a marble statue in the Parade Square of the city. The statue was overturned and broken by the earthquake of 1907. Bishop Gordon Before his arrival in Jamaica, the Right Reverend Charles Cordon, S.J., D.D., who succeeded Father Porter as Vicar Apostolic, had been consecrated Bishop of Thyatira in partibus infidelium. He set about supplying the most pressing needs of the mission. Efficient elementary schools were started. In 1891 Holy Trinity church was improved, a tower, the Lady chapel, a sacristy, and baptistery being added at a cost of $12,500. Finally a hall to afford recreation and instruction for Catholic men, and for the meetings of the church guilds and sodalities, was completed in 1905 and named "Gordon Hall" after its founder. The hall and the church were both destroyed by the earthquake of 1907. Dr. Gordon also brought the Salesians into Jamaica, placing at their disposal a large property, Reading Pen, near Montego Bay, to be used for an agricultural college. In 1894 the care of the Jamaica mission was transferred to the Maryland-New York province of the Society, from the English province which had served it from the year 1855. In 1905 Father John Joseph Collins, S.J., was appointed administrator Apostolic of the vicariate, and in 1907 he was raised to the episcopacy as Bishop of Antiphellos in partibus infidelium and Vicar Apostolic of Jamaica. Education One of the first subjects to which the friends of emancipation turned their attention after the abolition of slavery was the education of the predial population of the West Indies. In Jamaica, however, there had been very little progress. The grant which had been made by the imperial Parliament was discontinued in 1844, and all that was done for elementary education in Jamaica was the grant of $15,000 per annum by the legislature for the next twenty years. A training college for educating teachers was established in 1870. In 1850 some Spanish Jesuits, who had been banished from New Granada by the Liberal revolutionary party, arrived at Kingston and opened what was called the Spanish College and what is now St. George's College, a school of higher education for boys of the middle and upper classes. Most of the refugee priests left Jamaica shortly afterwards for Guatemala, but the work they inaugurated was carried on by Father Simond, S.J. The college was closed about 1865, and opened again in 1868. Many prominent men in the island of all denominations have been educated there. In 1870 it ceased to be a boarding establishment. On the coming of the American Jesuits, the college was transferred to Winchester Park, in the suburbs of Kingston. Elementary education for Catholics had been left very much in abeyance up to Bishop Gordon's arrival in 1889. The convent primary school had not more than 150 children, St. Joseph's school for boys not as many, and some half-dozen schools in various parts of the island, with a fluctuating attendance of under one hundred, were all that represented Catholic elementary education in Jamaica. The advent of the Sisters of Mercy from the parent-house, Bermondsey, London, in December, 1890, soon gave an additional impetus to Catholic education. Fifteen years later there were in all some two thousand children attending the various schools of the Sisters of St. Francis, and considerably over one thousand in the schools of the Sisters of Mercy. In addition, there are two orphanages at the Convent of Mercy, as well as two industrial schools (under Government), and a high school for girls. A house of mercy has also been established for the protection of young women. Recent Events The history of the colony from 1850 till 1865 might be described as a political tempest in a teapot. The Assembly and the Executive were at a dead-lock. Trouble was brewing in the country. During 1864 a severe drought had greatly impoverished the people, and the American Civil War had increased the price of imported bread-stuffs. Agitators had called on the coloured population to assert themselves, and the cry of "colour for colour and blood for blood" was raised. A partial rebellion, limited to the parish of St. Thomas, broke out among the black population in 1865. Some magistrates and officials were butchered at the beginning of the outbreak, but martial law was proclaimed, and the rebellion was quickly suppressed by methods which a Royal Commission pronounced later to have been unnecessarily severe. The chief agitators were hanged, after which Governor Eyre was recalled by the British authorities and was succeeded by Sir John Peter Grant, during whose term of office (1865-74) a number of important reforms were introduced. He brought an order in council abolishing the Legislative Assembly and establishing Crown government. The new legislature was designated the "Legislative Council of Jamaica" consisting of the Governor, six official members, and three non-official members. A privy council was also provided; a new revenue system was established; the police were organized; and other useful departments -- judicial, public works, and banks -- were re-arranged or founded. In 1871 the State, or Anglican, Church in Jamaica was disestablished. The seat of the civil government was transferred from Spanish Town to Kingston during the same year. The Rio Cobre irrigation works completed at a cost of $650,000 have in recent years converted the lowlands of the parish of St. Catherine into a huge banana plantation. In 1868 the cultivation of cinchona as an economic industry was started by Government; and the rapidly increase in banana trade between Port Antonio and the United States has been the salvation of the island financially during the last twenty-five years. In Nov., 1875, a cyclone occurred, followed by another in Aug., 1880. The advent of Sir Henry Norman as governor to the colony in Dec., 1883, was signalized by the establishment of a revised constitution (promulgated by an order in council of Queen Victoria), consisting of a governor, a privy council, and a legislative council. The first is appointed by the sovereign for five years, and holds office during the sovereign's pleasure. The privy council consists of the senior military officer (not being below the rank of lieutenant-colonel), the colonial secretary, the attorney-general; and such other persons, not to exceed eight, provisionally appointed by the governor subject to the approval of the sovereign. The legislative council consists of the president (the governor), five ex-officio members, ten nominated members, and fourteen elected members (one for each of the fourteen parishes). In 1890 the Jamaica Government Railway was sold to an American syndicate for $500,000 in cash, and $3,500,000 in second mortgage debentures. An international exhibition was opened (27 Jan., 1891), by the then Prince George of Wales. The guarantee fund was $120,000, total visitors, 302,830. Sir Henry Blake was then administering the affairs of the colony as governor. In 1893 a board of education was formed. The abolition of fees in elementary schools was provided for by a house tax. In 1896 a scheme for the sale of Crown lands to small settlers was instituted. In 1898 direct cable service between Jamaica and England was established. The Imperial Direct Line of steamers was inaugurated with $200,000 annual subsidy -- half from Jamaica, and half from the Imperial Government. Port Royal was created a separate parish in the same year. AGRICULTURE AND COMMERCE There is an agricultural society with some fifty affiliated branches in the various parishes of the island. Lectures and practical demonstrations have been organized by the society. Of the 2,500,000 acres of land in Jamaica, 1,310,000 are in wood and ruinate, and 775,000 under cultivation, 360,000 grazing land, and 215,000 under tillage). There are 143,000 acres of government or Crown land unoccupied. The following table shows the area under cultivation the last year of each of the three decades: Year Canes Coffee Cocoa Ginger Corn Tobacco Bananas 1885 40,500 19,650 415 148 925 86 ? 1895 30,970 23,640 1,687 84 384 230 18,850 1905 24,420 21,480 6,532 184 86 378 32,675 In 1902-3 over 14,000,000 bunches of bananas valued at $5,673,750 were exported. Over 95 per cent of these went to America. It was officially estimated that the loss to the island by the cyclone the following year, through destruction and damage to crops and buildings and loss of trade, was $12,500,000. The estimated number of cattle, horses, etc. in the island in 1904-5 was: horned stock, 107,695; horses, 57,908; asses, 18,500. Shipping Number and tonnage of vessels that entered in the ports of the island for the year 1907: Type Nationality Number Tonnage Sail British 182 15,974 Sail Foreign 49 28,441 Steam British 312 506,683 Steam Foreign 932 968,189 Quantity and value of the chief exports in 1907: Commodity Quantity Value Sugar 15,499 hhds. $592,710 Rum 14,630 puns. 670,570 Coffee 54,861 cwts. 442,320 Pimento 85,294 cwts. 394,480 Dyewood 34,004 tons 417,560 Fruit 5,053,020 Tobacco 134,425 Minor products 1,675,590 Thus the relative importance of the island's exports that year was: sugar 6.3, rum 7.1, coffee 4.7, dyewood 4.4, pimento 4.2, fruit 53.8, tobacco 1.4, minor products 17.8. Of the exports, 57.2 per cent in value went to the United States of America, and 29.8 per cent to the United Kingdom. Currency Gold and silver coins current in Great Britain and Ireland are legal tender to any extent, and local nickel pennies, half pennies, and farthings are legal tender to the extent of twelve pence (one shilling) in one payment. Paper money consists of the notes of the Colonial Bank, and of the Bank of Nova Scotia, of 1 to 5 pounds sterling and upwards. The other coins here are American gold coins. English weights and measures are in use in the colony. There are three daily newspapers published at Kingston and twelve others (six weekly, four monthly, and two quarterly) at Kingston and other parts of the island. Means of Communication The whole length of main roads on the island aggregates close on 2000 miles; they are sufficiently broad almost everywhere for a double line of traffic, and are generally maintained in excellent condition. The first railway in Jamaica was opened between Kingston and Spanish Town in 1845. It was extended to Old Harbour in 1867, and from there to Porus in 1885, as well as the branch line to Ewarton from Spanish Town in the same year. In 1890 American capitalists extended the line to Montego Bay, a distance of 113 miles, and to Port Antonio, a distance of 54 miles. An electric tram line, some 24 miles in extent, serves Kingston and its suburbs. The first steamship communication between Jamaica (Kingston) and the United States (New York) was begun in 1860. Jamaica joined the Universal Postal Union in 1877. There is a fortnightly mail service to and from England direct, also one via New York, a weekly service to the United States. There are 160 post and 64 telegraph offices in the island -- and two lines of cables connect Jamaica with America. THE EARTHQUAKE OF 1907 A shock of earthquake of great severity occurred about 3:30 p.m. on Monday, 14 January, 1907. It lasted for upwards of twenty seconds; its greatest intensity was experienced along the foreshore of Kingston harbour. A large proportion of the buildings of the capital were either destroyed or badly damaged. The injuries to the submarine cables indicated that the gravamen of the shock was experienced at a depth of about a mile. The greater part of the business area of the city was destroyed, most of it by fire. The loss of life and property was estimated at about 800 persons and about $10,050,000 (Handbook of Jamaica, 1909). Almost of the churches in the city were either completely wrecked or damaged beyond repair, and the majority of the public buildings, institutions, and the two convents, and their schools suffered equally. The cataclysm was one of the most calamitous events which has occurred in the history of the colony. Generous offers of pecuniary aid were made by most of the large cities of the United States, but were declined by the local Government. Some of the ships of the United States Atlantic fleet landed a party of medical officers, and equipment for the temporary field hospital at the Jesuits' college at Winchester Park. These surgeons did excellent work. A body of American marines was landed at the request of the authorities to quell an uprising among the prisoners at the general penitentiary. This action was subsequently taken exception to by the governor, and consequently the American admiral had no alternative but to withdraw his squadron, leaving, however, supplies, medicines, etc. for the use of the sufferers. Subsequently the Imperial Government expressed regret at the action of its representative, who shortly afterwards resigned. A Mansion House (London) fund to relieve the distress was promptly started, and realized some $277,000. A free grant was made by the Imperial Parliament of $750,000 and a temporary loan of $4,000,000 at 3 per cent. The funds subscribed from all sources were distributed by a relief committee. Up to 31 Dec., 1908, loans to the value of $1,317,150 had been made. Thanks to the energy of Dr. Collins, the Vicar Apostolic, most of the damaged Catholic schools were repaired or rebuilt in a few months. A new Catholic church dedicated to the Holy Trinity is being erected near Winchester Park in place of the former one which was ruined by the earthquake. DEPENDENCIES The Turks and Caicos Islands, which geographically form part of the Bahama group, are dependencies of Jamaica. They have an area of 162.5 square miles and a population of some 5300. The exports are salt and sponges. The seat of government is at Grand Turk, the town containing 1750 inhabitants. The Cayman Islands, having an area of about 225 square miles, are situated some 180 miles to the W.N.W. of Negril Point, Jamaica. They were discovered by Christopher Columbus and named by him Las Tortugas, on account of the turtles with which the coast swarmed. The estimated population of the three islands, Grand Cayman, Cayman Brac, and Little Cayman, is 5000 for the largest island, and about 1000 between the two smaller islands. The exports are coco-nuts, turtles, phosphates, ropes, cordage, etc., made from the palm-thatch which grows in abundance. Shipbuilding to a limited extent goes on; sloops and schooners of from 40 to 70 tons register are built from native woods, mahogany, cedar, calabash, cashaw, etc., and sold in Cuba. The Cayman group has an administrator and local justices and forms a dependency under the jurisdiction of Jamaica. LONG, History of Jamaica (3 vols., London, 1774); BRIDGES, The Annals of Jamaica (2 vols., London, 1820); GARDNER, A History of Jamaica (London, 1873); ELLIS, A Short Sketch of a History of the Church of England in Jamaica (Kingston, Jam., 1891); HILL, The Geology and Physical Geography of Jamaica (Cambridge, Mass., 1899); CUNDALL, Jamaica in 1905, Handbook, etc. (Kingston, Jam., 1905); Handbook of Jamaica (London and Kingston, Jam., annual publication). J.F. DONOVAN Jamay, Denis Denis Jamay Franciscan, missionary, date and place of birth unknown; died in France, 1625; an important figure in the early history of the Church in Canada. In 1615 he was chosen by his superiors in France as provincial commissary and chief of the first band of Recollect friars, who were also the first missionaries of Canada. Leaving France on the 24 April, 1615, he arrived at Tadoussac on 24 May, and went immediately with Champlain to meet the savages at Sault St. Louis. On 24 June, 1615, at Riviere des Prairies, he celebrated the first Mass said in the country by its first missionaries. In 1616 Father Jamay returned to France with Champlain to urge before the king and the "Associates" of Rouen the material and spiritual interests of the colony. In 1620, again elected commissary provincial, he returned to Canada with Champlain and his wife. On reaching Quebec he exhorted the colonists to obey the viceroy and his lieutenant, Champlain. Having completed the first regular convent of the Recollects at Quebec, he blessed it and dedicated it to Our Lady of the Angels. He returned to France in 1621. ODORIC-M. JOUVE Epistle of St. James Epistle of St. James The questions concerning this epistle are treated in the following order: I. Author and Genuineness; II. Tradition as to the Canonicity; III. Analysis and Contents of the Epistle; IV. Occasion and Object; V. To whom addressed; VI. Style; VII. Time and Place of composition. I. AUTHOR AND GENUINENESS The author is commonly identified with the Lord's brother, the Bishop of Jerusalem (see ST. JAMES THE LESS; the view that the Lord's brother must be identified with James, the son of Alpheus, is by far the most probable). Internal evidence (contents of the Epistle, its style, address, date, and place of composition) points unmistakably to James, the Lord's brother, the Bishop of Jerusalem, as the author; he exactly, and he alone, fulfils the conditions required in the writer of the Epistle. External evidence begins at a comparatively late date. Some coincidences, or analogies, exist between the Epistle and the Apostolic Fathers (Clement of Rome, the Pastor Hermas, St. Justin, St. Irenæus; see Mienertz, "Der Jacobusbrief", Freiburg im Br., 1905, p. 55 sqq.). The literary relation between the Epistle of James and the Epistle to the Romans is doubtful. Its later recognition in the Church, especially in the West, must be explained by the fact that it was written for Jewish Christians, and therefore not widely circulated among the Gentile Churches. From the middle of the third century, ecclesiastical authors cite the Epistle as written by St. James, the brother of the Lord. See the testimonies in the section following. The greater number of the Fathers in the Western Church identify the author with James the Apostle. In the Eastern Church, however, the authority of Eusebius and St. Epiphanius may explain some ecclesiastical doubts about the Apostolic origin of the Epistle, and consequently about its canonicity. II. TRADITION AS TO CANONICITY In the first centuries of the Church the authenticity of the Epistle was doubted by some, and amongst others by Theodore of Mopsuestia; it is therefore deuterocanonical. It is wanting in the Muratorian Canon, and because of the silence of several of the Western Churches regarding it, Eusebius classes it amongst the Antilegomena or contested writings (Hist. eccl., III, xxv; II, xxiii); St. Jerome gives the like information (De vir. ill., ii), but adds that with time its authenticity became universally admitted. In the sixteenth century its inspired nature was contested by Erasmus and Cajetan; Luther strongly repudiated the Epistle as "a letter of straw", and "unworthy of the apostolic Spirit", and this solely for dogmatic reasons, and owing to his preconceived notions, for the epistle refutes his heretical doctrine that Faith alone is necessary for salvation. The Council of Trent dogmatically defined the Epistle of St. James to be canonical. As the solution of this question of the history of the canonicity of the Epistle depends chiefly on the testimony of the ancient Fathers, it remains to be seen whether it is quoted by them as Scripture. (a) In the Latin Church it was known by St. Clement of Rome (before A.D. 100), the Pastor Hermas (about A.D. 150), St. Irenæus (125?-202?, 208), Tertullian (d. about 240), St. Hilary (d. 366), St. Philaster (d. 385), St. Ambrose (d. 397), Pope Damasus (in the canon of about A.D. 382), St. Jerome (346-420), Rufinus (d. 410), St. Augustine (430), and its canonicity is unquestioned by them. (b) In the Greek Church, Clement of Alexandria (d. 217), Origen (d. 254), St. Athanasius (d. 373), St. Dionysius the Areopagite (about A.D. 500), etc., considered it undoubtedly as a sacred writing. (c) In the Syrian Church, the Peshito, although omitting the minor Catholic Epistles, gives that of St. James; St. Ephraem uses it frequently in his writings. Moreover, the most notorius heretics of Syria recognised it as genuine. Thus we find that Nestorius ranked it in the Canon of Sacred Books, and James of Edessa adduces the testimony of James, v, 14. The Epistle is found in the Coptic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, Arabic, and Armenian versions. Although, therefore, the canonicity of the Epistle of St. James was questioned by a few during the first centuries, there are to be found from the very earliest ages, in different parts of the Church, numerous testimonies in favour of its canonicity. From the end of the third century its acceptance as inspired, and as the work of St. James, has been universal, as clearly appears from the various lists of the Sacred Books drawn up since the fourth century. III. ANALYSIS AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE The subjects treated of in the Epistle are many and various; moreover, St. James not infrequently, whilst elucidating a certain point, passes abruptly to another, and presently resumes once more his former argument; hence it is difficult to give a precise division of the Epistle. It is doubtful whether the sacred writer intended any systematic arrangement of subject; indeed, it is more probable that he did not, for in the Hebrew Sapiential Books of the Old Testament, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Ecclesiasticus, to which the present Epistle may in many ways be likened, the order in which the moral sentences stand does not seem to suggest any connection between them. It will therefore be more expedient to give a simple enumeration of the subjects treated in the Epistle: + Inscription (i, 1); + persecutions are to be borne with patience and joy (2-4); + wisdom must be asked of God with confidence (5-8); + humility is recommended (9-11); + God is not the author of evil but of good (12-18); + we must be slow to anger (19-21); + not faith only, but also good works are necessary (22-27). + Against respect of persons (ii, 1-13); + another exhortation to good works (14-26). + Against the evils of the tongue (iii, 1-12); + against envy and discord, 13-18. + Against wars and contentions (iv, 1-3); + against the spirit of this world and pride (4-10); + against detraction (11-13a); + against vain confidence in worldly things (13b-16). + Against the rich that oppress the poor (v, 1-6); + exhortation to patience in the time of oppression (7-11), and to avoid swearing (12); + of the anointing of the sick (13-15); + of prayer (16); + we must have at heart the conversion of sinners (19-20). This enumeration shows that St. James inculcates especially: patience and perseverance in adversity, temptations, and persecutions; the necessity of good works, mercy, and charity. For the question of apparent opposition between St. James and St. Paul with regard to "faith and works" see EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. IV. OCCASION AND OBJECT A. Occasion St. James seems to have been moved to write his Epistle on witnessing that the first fervour of the Jewish Christians had grown cold, and that, owing to various causes, both external and internal, a certain spirit of discouragement had declared itself amongst them. (1) External Causes. The new Christian converts found themselves at first the object of the indifference only of their fellow townsfolk, the greater number of whom still remained in unbelief; but this attitude very soon changed to one of hostility and even persecution. These early converts, belonging as they mostly did to the poorer classes, found themselves oppressed by the wealthy unbelievers; some were refused employment, others were denied their wages (v, 4); at other times they were mercilessly dragged before the tribunals (ii, 6); they were persecuted in the synagogues, and were, besides, reduced to extreme want and even starvation (ii, 15-17). (2) Internal Causes. In the midst of these trials the faith of many began to languish (ii, 14, 20, 26), and the evil ways they had abandoned at their conversion were gradually indulged in once more. Thus it came to pass that the poor were despised in the sacred assemblies (ii, 1-9); there were breaches of brotherly charity (ii, 7); some arrogated to themselves the office of teacher who were unfitted (iii, 1, 13); many were guilty of detraction and other sins of the tongue (iii, 1-12; iv, 11-13); there were contentions and lawsuits (iv, 1-2); some indulged in swearing (v, 12); others neglected assiduous prayer (v, 13, 17-18); pride and vainglory were yielded to (iv, 6-10); even some of the sacred rites seem to have been overlooked (v, 14-16). Such were the evils that the Epistle sought to remedy. B. Object St. James wrote his Epistle for a moral purpose, and addressed his co-religionists as their pastor, in his quality of Bishop of Jerusalem, in order: (1) to exhort them to constancy in the faith in spite of the persecutions and trials they were undergoing, and to give them comfort in their tribulations; (2) to correct the abuses and extirpate the evils amongst them, by urging them to make their conduct conformable to their faith, and by earnestly reminding them that faith alone would not save them unless they added good works. V. TO WHOM ADDRESSED St. James wrote his Epistle for the Jewish Christians outside Palestine, who, for the greater part, were poor and oppressed. This we gather with certitude from the inscription (i, 1), and from various indications in the text. A. The words, i, 1, "to the twelve tribes" can mean the whole Jewish nation; but the words following, "which are scattered abroad", designate clearly the Jews of the Dispersion. The Jews in Palestine, surrounded by Gentiles, were not considered as "scattered abroad". That he addressed the Jewish Christians only becomes evident by the fact that the author styles himself "the servant of God, and of our Lord Jesus Christ", and by this title he indicates clearly that he writes to the disciples of Christ only. B. That the readers were Jewish appears still more evidently from the Epistle itself. St. James takes for granted that those whom he addressed were well versed in the writings of the Old Testament. Moreover, he calls them not only his "brethren", which name taken by itself does not remove all doubt, but he so clearly shows them to be Christians that it is incomprehensible how any critics understand unconverted Jews to be the "brethren" to whom the Epistle was written. Thus in i, 18, he writes to those whom God "of his own will hath begotten by the word of truth, that they might be some beginning of his creature"; in ii, 1, he admonishes them as follows: "My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ of glory with respect to persons"; in ii, 7, he refers to them when he writes of "the good name [of Christ] that is invoked upon you"; in v, 7, they are to be patient "until the coming of the Lord"; etc. Further proof is afforded by the date of composition. C. The context does not reveal who were the particular Jewish converts, to whom the Epistle was addressed. We gather, however, that St. James appeals to certain Christians, labouring under the stress of particular circumstances, in order to warn them against special perils; no one will easily admit that the vices against which he inveighs and the errors which he condemns were to be met with in each and every community of Jewish converts. Therefore the conclusion that he addressed some particular Churches forces itself upon our minds. As, according to the most probable opinion, the Epistle was not written later than about A.D. 50, we may conclude that it was written to some of the Churches of Syria or of another country not far distant from Jerusalem. VI. STYLE The style is sententious, figurative, often poetical, and may be compared to that of the Prophetical and Sapiential Books of the Old Testament. It is rapid, betrays emotion, and is not wanting in those vehement outbursts of feeling customary with the writers of that period, and which so powerfully set the force of the argument before the reader. It has already been noticed that the different sentences of the Epistle may be divided into hemistichs of parallel meaning; this is quite in keeping with the distinctly Hebraic style of the whole Epistle; it is a well known fact that the classical period is not found in Hebrew, but that the short members of a proposition are continually in juxtaposition. VII. TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION A. Time The Epistle was probably written about A.D. 47. The reference to the persecutions (ii, 6) is in the present tense, and indicates a stage of suffering which has not yet receded into the past of history. Now, in A.D. 44 the Churches of Judea were exposed to the persecution inflicted by Herod Agrippa, in which James, the son of Zebedee, was murdered (Acts, xii, 1 sqq.). Moreover, the author could not have written after the Council of Jerusalem (A.D. 51), where James acted as president, without some allusion to his decision unanimously accepted (Acts, xv, 4 sqq.). Another indication also derived from indirect internal evidence, is an allusion to the hungry and naked poor (of Jerusalem, ii, 15 sqq.); they suffered probably from the famine foretold by Agabus (Acts, xi, 28-30), and usually identified with one mentioned by Josephus (Antiq., XX, ii, 5), A.D. 45. B. Place of Composition The Epistle was probably written by St. James in Jerusalem; this we may conclude from the study of the life of the author (see JAMES THE LESS, SAINT), and this opinion finds favour with nearly all its critics. Consult Introductions to the New Testament. It will suffice to indicate some recent commentaries and special studies in which the earlier bibliography is mentioned. CATHOLIC WORKS:-ERMONI IN VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible, s.vv. Jacques (Saint) le Majeur, Jacques (Saint) le Mineur, Jacques (Epître de Saint); JACQUIER, Histoire des livres de Nouveau Testament (Paris, 1909); MEINERTZ, Der Jacobusbrief und sein Verfasser in Schrift und Ueberlieferung (Frieburg im Br., 1905); CALMES, Epître catholiques, Apocalypse (Paris, 1905); VAN STEENKISTE-CAMERLYNCK, Commentarius in Epistolas Catholicas (Bruges, 1909). NON-CATHOLIC WORKS:-LIPSIUS, Die apocryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden (Braunschweig, 1883-1890); SPITTA, Der Brief des Jacobus (Göttingen, 1896); MAYOR, The Epistle of St. James (London, 1892); IDEM in HASTINGS, Dict. of the Bible, s.vv. James and James, The General Epistle of; PLUMPTRE, The General Epistle of St. James (Cambridge, 1901); EMMETT in HASTINGS-SELBIE, Dict. of the Bible, s.v. James, Epistle of. A. CAMERLYNCK James of Brescia James of Brescia Theologian of the fifteenth century. He entered the Dominican Order at Brescia, his native city, and in 1450 was appointed to the office of inquisitor. He aided the papal auditor, Bernardo da Bosco, in putting an end to the teaching of impious doctrines at Bergamo. He also took a prominent part in the controversy between the Dominicians and the Minorites with regard to the Precious Blood. During Easter Week, 1462, St. James of the Marches, a celebrated Minorite preacher, maintained in a sermon at Brescia that the Blood separated from the Body of Christ during His Passion was thereby separated from His Divinity, and consequently was not entitled to adoration during the time that Christ remained in the sepulchre. As this doctrine had been proscribed by Clement VI in 1351, James of Brescia cited James of the Marches to appear before his tribunal in case he should not retract. A dispute at once arose between the Dominicans and Friars Minor. Shortly before, in a Bull written at Tivoli, Pius II had declared that it was not contrary to Christian Faith to hold that Christ did not reassume a part of the Blood he shed in His Passion. This declaration narrowed down the controversy to the question: Whether the Blood which Christ shed in His Passion and reassumed at His Resurrection was adorable as the Blood of the Son of God during the three days that it was separated from His Body. The affirmative was maintained by the Dominicans, the negative by the Minorites. The pope ordered a solemn disputation to be held before the pontifical court at Christmas, 1462 (1463, according to many). James of Brescia was one of three theologians who represented the Dominicians. Among the Minorite champions was Francesco della Rovere, later Pope Sixtus IV. After a debate of three days, a consultation was held by the pope and the cardinals, but no definitive decision was pronounced. In a Constitution dated 1 August, 1464, two weeks before his death, Pius forbade all further disputation on the subject. A full presentation of the Dominican side of this controversy is preserved in an unpublished treatise written by James of Brescia and his two colleagues. Other theological works attributed to James are no longer extant. J.A. MCHUGH James of Edessa James of Edessa A celebrated Syrian writer, b. most likely in A.D. 633; d. 5 June, 708. He was a native of the village of `En-debha, in the district of Gumyah, in the province of Antioch. During several years he studied Greek and Holy Writ at the famous convent of Kennesrhe, on the left bank of the Euphrates, opposite Europus (Carchemish). After his return to Syria he was appointed Bishop of Edessa, about A.D. 684, by the Patriarch Athanasius II, his former fellow-student. Equally unable to enforce canonical rules and to connive at their infringement, he resigned his see after a four years' episcopate, and withdrew to the convent of Kaisum (near Samosata), while the more lenient Habhibh succeeded him as Bishop of Edessa. Shortly afterwards he accepted the invitation of the monks of Eusebhona (in the Diocese of Antioch) to reside at their convent, and there he commented for eleven years on the Sacred Scriptures in the Greek text, doing his utmost to promote the study of the Greek tongue. Owing to the opposition which he met on the part of some of the monks who did not like the Greeks, he betook himself to the great convent of Tell-'Adda (the modern Tell-'Addi), where, for nine years more, he worked at his revision of the Old Testament. Upon Habhibh's death he took possession again of the episcopal See of Edessa, resided in that city for four months, and then went to Tell-Adda to fetch his library and his pupils, but died there. James of Edessa was a Monophysite, as is proved by the prominent part he took in the synod which the Jacobite patriarch Julian convened in 706, and by one of his letters in which he speaks of the orthodox Fathers of Chalcedon as "the Chalcedonian heretics". In the literature of his country he holds much the same place as St. Jerome does among the Latins (Wright). For his time, his erudition was extensive. He was not only familiar with Greek and with older Syriac writers, but he also had some knowledge of Hebrew, and willingly availed himself of the aid of Jewish scholars, whose views he often records. His writings, which are not all extant, were very varied and numerous. Among them may be noticed first, his important revision of the Old Testament. This work was essentially Massoretic. James divided the Sacred Books into chapters, prefixing to each chapter a summary of its contents. He supplied the text with numerous marginal notes, of which one part gives readings from the Greek and the Syrian versions at his disposal, and the other part indicates the exact pronunciation of the words of the text. Some of the notes contain extracts from Severus of Antioch; while, at times, glosses are inserted in the text itself. Unfortunately, only portions of this revision have come down to us. These are: practically the whole Pentateuch and the Book of Daniel, preserved in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris (Syric. nos. 26, 27); the two Books of Samuel with the beginning of Kings, and the prophecy of Isaias, found in the British Museum (Add. 14429, 14441). The other principal writings of James of Edessa on Biblical topics are: (1) his unfinished "Hexameron", or work on the six days of creation, which is divided into seven treatises, and which opens with a dialogue between the author and Constantine, one of his disciples. James's "Hexaemeron" is preserved in two MSS., one of which is found in Leyden, and the other in Lyons; (2) commendaries and scholia on the Sacred Writings of both Testments, which are cited by later authors such as Dionysius bar-Salibi, Bar-Hebraeus, and Severus. Some of his scholia have been published in the Roman edition of the works of St. Ephraem, and, at different times, by Phillips, Wright, Schröter, and Nestle; (3) letters treating of questions relative to Holy Writ, and mostly yet unpublished. As a liturgical author, James of Edessa drew up an anaphora, or liturgy, revised the Liturgy of St. James, wrote the celebrated "Book of Treasures", composed orders of baptism, of the blessing of water on the eve of the Epiphany, and of the celebration of matrimony, to which may be added his translation of Severus's order of Baptism, etc. He is also the author of numerous canons; of important homilies, a few of which survive in MS; of a valuable "Chronicle" which he composed in 692, and of which a few leaves only are extant; of an "Enchiridion", or tract on technical philosophical terms; of a translation of the "Homiliae Cathedrales", written in Greek by Severus of Antioch; and of the "Octoechus" by the same author; of a biography of James of Sarugh, of a translation from the Greek of the apocryphal "History of the Rechabites", of a Syriac grammer, a few fragments of which are extant in Oxford and London, and in which he advocated and illustrated a novel system of indicating the vocalic element not found in the Syrian alphabet; and, finally, of an extensive correspondence with a large number of persons throughout Syria. J. S. ASSEMANI, Bibliotheca Orientalis, I (Rome, 1719), II, (Rome 1721); MAI. Script. Vet. Nova collectio (Rome, 1825-38); CERIANI, Monumenta sacra et profana (Milan 1863); BALL, in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v. Jacobus Edessenus; NESTLE, Syrische Grammatik mit Litteratur (Berlin, 1888); MERX, Historia artis grammatiae apud Syros (Leipzig, 1889); WRIGHT, Catalogue of the Syriac MSS. in the British Museum (London, 1870--); IDEM, A Short History of History of Syriac Literature (London, 1894): BROCKEL-MANN, Syriche Grammatik mit Litteratur (Berlin, 1899), DUVAL, Grammaire Syriaque (Paris, 1881); IDEM, Litterature Syriaque (3rd ed., Paris, 1907). FRANCIS E. GIGOT James of Sarugh James of Sarugh A writer of the Syrian Church "the flute of the Holy Spirit and the harp of the believing church"; b. at Kurtam, 451, probably in the district of Sarugh; his father was a priest; d. at Batnan 29 Nov., 521. Three biographies of him are extant in Syric: first by James of Edessa (seventh century), the second anonymous, and the third by a certain George, probably George, Bishop of Sarugh, contemporary of James of Edessa. We do not know where he was educated, nor when and how he was ordained to the priesthood. He became "periodeutes" or "chorepiscopus" of Haura in the district of Sarugh, whence in 502 he wrote to the city of Edessa, threatened by the Persians, and in 519 to the Christians of Najran: in 519 he became Bishop of Batnan, the chief city of Sarugh. Assemani (Bibliotheca Orientalis, I, 290 sq.) has endeavoured indeed to prove against Renaudot the orthodoxy of James of Sarugh, but from this writer's letters to the monks of the convent of Mar-Bassus (published by Martin in the "Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenl. Gesellschaft", XXX. 217 sqq.) it is evident that he was always a Monophysite and continued such to his death. However, he took practically no share in the Christological polemics of his time and devoted his activity to study and literature. He is especially famous for his metrical homilies in the dodecasyllabic verse of which, says Bar-Hebraeus, he composed seven hundred and sixty. Of these barely one-half has come down to us, and a few only have heen published, e.g. on Simeon Stylites (in Assemani, "Acta Martyrum", Il. 230 sqq.), on virginity, fornication, etc. (in Overbeck, "S. Ephraemi Syri . . . opera selecta", pp. 385 sq.), two on the Blessed Virgin Mary (in Abbeloos, "De vita et scriptis S. Jacobi Sarugensis", Louvain, 1867), on the chariot of Ezechiel (in Moesinger, "Monum. Syr.", II). He wrote the first one (on Ezechiel's chariot) when only twenty-two years of age. His prose writings were comparatively few. The most important besides the letters already mentioned are a letter to Paul of Edessa of 519, a letter to the pantheist Bar-Sudaili published by Frothingham ("Stephen Bar-Sudaili. etc.", Leyden, 1886, p. 10 sqq.), a liturgy (tr. Renaudot, "Liturg. Orient. Collectio", II, 356), an order of baptism (ed. and tr. Assemani, "Cod. Liturg. Eccl. Univ.", II, 309, III, 184), festal homilies (Ger. tr. Zingerle, "Sechs Hom. d. heil. Jacob v. Sarug", 1867). WRIGHT, A Short History of Syriac Literature (London, 1894); DUVAL, La litterature Syriaque, 3rd ed. (Paris, 1907), pp. 351-854; ASSEMANI, Bibliotheca Orieritalis, I, c. XXVII. H. HYVERNAT St. James of the Marches St. James of the Marches Franciscan, b. of a poor family named Gangala, at Monteprandone, March of Ancona, Italy, 1391; d. at Naples, 28 Nov., 1476. He is generally represented holding in his right hand a chalice, out of which a snake is escaping --an allusion to some endeavours of heretics to poison him or, less likely, to the controversy about the Precious Blood. He began his studies at Offida under the guidance of his uncle, a priest, who soon afterwards put him to school at Ascoli. At the University of Perugia he took the degree of Doctor in Civil Law. After a short stay at Florence as tutor in a noble family, and as judge of sorcerers, James was received into the Order of the Friars Minor, in the chapel of the Portiuncula, Assisi, 26 July, 1416. Having finished his novitiate at the hermitage of the Carceri, near Assisi, he studied theology at Fiesole, near Florence, under St. Bernardine of Siena. On 13 June, 1420, be was ordained priest, and soon began to preach in Tuscany, in the Marches, and Umbria; for half a century he carried on his spiritual labours, remarkable for the miracles he performed and the numerous conversions he wrought. From 1427 James preached penance, combated heretic, and was on legations in Germany, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Bohemia, Poland, Hungary, and Bosnia. In the last-mentioned country he was also commissary of the Friars Minor. At the time of the Council of Basle he promoted the union of the moderate Hussites with the Church, and that of the Greeks it the Council of Ferrara-Florence. Against the Turk, he preached several crusades, and at the death of St. John Capistran, in 1456, James was sent to Hungary as his successor. In Italy he fought the Fraticelli instituted several montes pietatis, and preached in all the greater cities; Milan offered him the bishopric in 1460, which he declined. St. James belonged to the Observant branch of the Friars Minor, then rapidly spreading and exciting much envy. How much he suffered on this account is shown in a letter written by him to St. John Capistran, published by Nic. Dal-Gal, O.F.M., in "Archivum Franciscanum Historicum", I (1908), 94-97. Under Callistus III, in 1455, he was appointed an arbiter on the questions at issue between Conventuals and Observants. His decision was published 2 Feb., 1456, in a papal Bull, which pleased neither part . A few years later, on Easter Monday, 1462, St. James, preaching at Brescia, uttered the opinion of some theologians, that the Precious Blood shed during the Passion was not united with the Divinity of Christ during the three days of His burial. The Dominican James of Brescia, inquisitor, immediately cited him to his tribunal. James refused to appear, and after some troubles appealed to the Holy See. The question was discussed at Rome, Christmas, 1462 (not 1463, as some have it), before Pius II and the cardinals, but no decision was given. James spent the last three years of his life at Naples, and was buried there in the Franciscan church of S. Maria la Nuova, where his body is still to be seen. Beatified by Urban VIII, 1624, he was canonized by Benedict XIII, 1726. Naples venerates him as one of its patron saints (feast, 28 Nov.). The works of St. James of the Marches have not as yet been collected. His library and autographs are preserved in part at the Municipio of Monteprandone (see Crivellucci, "I codici della libreria raccolta da S. Giacomo della Marca nel convento di S. Maria delle Grazie presso Monteprandone", Leghorn, 1889). He wrote "Dialogus contra Fraticellos" printed in Baluze-Mansi, "Miscellanea", II, Lucca, 1761, 595-610 (cf. Ehrle in "Archiv für Litt. u. Kirchengeschichte", IV, Freiburg im Br., 1888, 107-10). His numerous sermons are not edited. For some of them, and for his treatise on the "Miracles of the Name of Jesus", see Candido Mariotti, O.F.M., "Nome di Gesù ed i Francescani", Fano, 1909, 125-34. On his notebook, or "Itinerarium", See Luigi Tasso, O.F.M., in "Miscellanea Francescana", I (1886), 125-26: "Regula confitendi peccata" was several times edited in Latin and Italian during the fifteenth century. "De Sanguine Christi effuse" and some other treatises remained in manuscript. PETRUCCI, Vita et res gesitæ B. Jacobi Piceni, edited by WADDING (Lyons, 1641). Other original information is found in B. Bernardini Aquilani Chronica Fratrum Minorum Observuntiæ, ed. LEMMENS (Rome, 1902), 66 sqq.; GLASSBERGER in Analecta Franciscana, II (Quaracchi, 1887), 393-96. Much material and papal documents are given in WADDING, Annales, 2nd ed., IX-XVI (Rome, 1724-36), See also WADDING, Scepters (Rome 1806), 126; SBARALEA, Supplementum ad Scriptores (Rome 1806), 375 ARTUR, Martyrologium Franciscanum, 2nd ed (Paris 1653), 578-80. Lives: LÉON (de Clary), Lives of the Saints and Blessed of the three orders of St. Francis, IV (Taunton 1887), 125 -51; JOS. Ma. d'Evora, Compendio della vita di S, Giacomo della Marca (Rome, 1726); GASPARE DA MONTE SANTO, Gesta dell' apostolico San Giacomo della Marca Anconitana (Ascoli,1804); GIUSEPPE ARCANGELO Di FRATTA MAGGIORE, Vita dell' apostolico eroe S. Giacomo della Marca, 2nd ed. (Naples, 1851); CELSO MARIA Di FFLTRE, Compendia Storico delta vita di S. Giacomo della Marca (Venice, 1876): CIACINTO NICOLAI, Vita Storica di San Giacomo della Marca (Bologna, 1876); LÉON, Vita de St-Jacques de la Marche, Franciscain de l'Observance (1391-1476) (Paris, l894); GAETANO ROCCO DA NAPOLI, Compendio delta Vita di San Giacomo della Marca (Naples, 1909). LIVARIUS OLIGER James Primadicci James Primadicci (Or Primadizzi.) Born at Bologna; died in the same city in 1460. As early as the year 1426 he was known to h is brethren of the Franciscan Order as an ardent promoter of the strict observance of the rule. When in 1431 Eugene IV had given orders that from among the Observantine friars then assembled in chapter at Bologna, the six ablest men be set apart to be engaged exclusively by the Holy See on grave and difficult missions, James was deemed worthy of this distinction. Accordingly, in 1437, the same pontiff placed him at the head of a legation consisting of Friars Minor, commissioned to prepare the way for the union of the Armenia Church with the Holy See. The undertaking proved successful owing chiefly to the efforts of James, as may be gathered from a letter of the Imperial Council at Caffia to Eugene IV. Hence in 1439 James was privileged to present to legates of the Armenian Patriarch to the Fathers of the Council at Florence. Again, in 1444, his name appears on the long list of Friars Minor whom the pope had sent out as his nuncios to solicit the aid of the princes and people of Europe in the matter of a projected crusade. To James was assigned the Exarchate of Ravenna. Later on, his power and jurisdiction were extended over the whole of Italy. At the end of the following year he journeyed to the East in the capacity of papal commissary. From 1446 to 1449 James held the office of vicar general of the Cismontane branches of the Observance. In 1447 he convened a chapter at St. Mary of the Angels (Assisi), on which occasion new statutes were drawn up. God has been pleased to glorify the zealous Franciscan since his death by numerous miracles. THOMAS PLASSMANN St. James the Greater St. James the Greater (Heb. Yakob; Sept. Iakob; N.T. Greek Iakobos; a favourite name among the later Jews). The son of Zebedee (q.v.) and Salome (Cf. Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1). Zahn asserts that Salome was the daughter of a priest. James is styled "the Greater" to distinguish him from the Apostle James "the Less," who was probably shorter of stature. We know nothing of St. James's early life. He was the brother of John, the beloved disciple, and probably the elder of the two. His parents seem to have been people of means as appears from the following facts. + Zebedee was a fisherman of the Lake of Galilee, who probably lived in or near Bethsaida (John, i, 44), perhaps in Capharnaum; and had some boatmen or hired men as his usual attendants (Mark, i, 20). + Salome was one of the pious women who afterwards followed Christ and "ministered unto him of their substance" (cf. Matt., xxvii, 55, sq.; Mark, xv, 40; xvi, 1; Luke, viii, 2 sq.; xxiii, 55-xxiv, 1). + St. John was personally known to the high-priest (John, xviii, 16); and must have had wherewithal to provide for the Mother of Jesus (John, xix, 27). It is probable, according to Acts 4:13, that John (and consequently his brother James) had not received the technical training of the rabbinical schools; in this sense they were unlearned and without any official position among the Jews. But, according to the social rank of their parents, they must have been men of ordinary education, in the common walks of Jewish life. They had frequent opportunity of coming in contact with Greek life and language, which were already widely spread along the shores of the Galilean Sea. Relation of St. John to Jesus Some authors, comparing John 19:25 with Matthew 28:56 and Mark 15:40, identify, and probably rightly so, Mary the Mother of James the Less and of Joseph in Mark and Matthew with "Mary of Cleophas" in John. As the name of Mary Magdalen occurs in the three lists, they identify further Salome in Mark with "the mother of the sons of Zebedee" in Matthew; finally they identify Salome with "his mother's sister" in John. They suppose, for this last identification, that four women are designated by John, xix, 25; the Syriac "Peshito" gives the reading: "His mother and his mother's sister, and Mary of Cleophas and Mary Magdalen." If this last supposition is right, Salome was a sister of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and James the Greater and John were first cousins of the Lord; this may explain the discipleship of the two brothers, Salome's request and their own claim to the first position in His kingdom, and His commendation of the Blessed Virgin to her own nephew. But it is doubtful whether the Greek admits of this construction without the addition or the omission of kai (and). Thus the relationship of St. James to Jesus remains doubtful. His life and apostolate The Galilean origin of St. James in some degree explains the energy of temper and the vehemence of character which earned for him and St. John the name of Boanerges, "sons of thunder" (Mark 3:17); the Galilean race was religious, hardy, industrious, brave, and the strongest defender of the Jewish nation. When John the Baptist proclaimed the kingdom of the Messias, St. John became a disciple (John 1:35); he was directed to "the Lamb of God" and afterwards brought his brother James to the Messias; the obvious meaning of John, i, 41, is that St. Andrew finds his brother (St. Peter) first and that afterwards St. John (who does not name himself, according to his habitual and characteristic reserve and silence about himself) finds his brother (St. James). The call of St. James to the discipleship of the Messias is reported in a parallel or identical narration by Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:19 sq.; and Luke 5:1-11. The two sons of Zebedee, as well as Simon (Peter) and his brother Andrew with whom they were in partnership (Luke 5:10), were called by the Lord upon the Sea of Galilee, where all four with Zebedee and his hired servants were engaged in their ordinary occupation of fishing. The sons of Zebedee "forthwith left their nets and father, and followed him" (Matthew 4:22), and became "fishers of men". St. James was afterwards with the other eleven called to the Apostleship (Matt., x, 1-4; Mark, iii, 13-19; Luke, vi, 12-16; Acts, i, 13). In all four lists the names of Peter and Andrew, James and John form the first group, a prominent and chosen group (cf. Mark, xiii, 3); especially Peter, James, and John. These three Apostles alone were admitted to be present at the miracle of the raising of Jairus's daughter (Mark, v, 37; Luke, viii, 51), at the Transfiguration (Mark, ix, 1; Matt., xvii, 1; Luke, ix, 28), and the Agony in Gethsemani (Matt., xxvi, 37; Mark, xiv, 33). The fact that the name of James occurs always (except in Luke, viii, 51; ix, 28; Acts, i, 13--Gr. Text) before that of his brother seems to imply that James was the elder of the two. It is worthy of notice that James is never mentioned in the Gospel of St. John; this author observes a humble reserve not only with regard to himself, but also about the members of his family. Several incidents scattered through the Synoptics suggest that James and John had that particular character indicated by the name "Boanerges," sons of thunder, given to them by the Lord (Mark, iii, 17); they were burning and impetuous in their evangelical zeal and severe in temper. The two brothers showed their fiery temperament against "a certain man casting out devils" in the name of the Christ; John, answering, said: "We [James is probably meant] forbade him, because he followeth not with us" (Luke, ix, 49). When the Samaritans refused to receive Christ, James and John said: "Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them?" (Luke, ix, 54; cf. v. 49). His martyrdom On the last journey to Jerusalem, their mother Salome came to the Lord and said to Him: "Say that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left, in thy kingdom" (Matt., xx, 21). And the two brothers, still ignorant of the spiritual nature of the Messianic Kingdom, joined with their mother in this eager ambition (Mark 10:37). And on their assertion that they are willing to drink the chalice that He drinks of, and to be baptized with the baptism of His sufferings, Jesus assured them that they will share His sufferings (Mark 5:38-39). James won the crown of martyrdom fourteen years after this prophecy, A.D. 44. Herod Agrippa I, son of Aristobulus and grandson of Herod the Great, reigned at that time as "king" over a wider dominion than that of his grandfather. His great object was to please the Jews in every way, and he showed great regard for the Mosaic Law and Jewish customs. In pursuance of this policy, on the occasion of the Passover of A.D. 44, he perpetrated cruelties upon the Church, whose rapid growth incensed the Jews. The zealous temper of James and his leading part in the Jewish Christian communities probably led Agrippa to choose him as the first victim. "He killed James, the brother of John, with the sword." (Acts 12:1-2). According to a tradition, which, as we learn from Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., II, ix, 2, 3), was received from Clement of Alexandria (in the seventh book of his lost "Hypotyposes"), the accuser who led the Apostle to judgment, moved by his confession, became himself a Christian, and they were beheaded together. As Clement testifies expressly that the account was given him "by those who were before him," this tradition has a better foundation than many other traditions and legends respecting the Apostolic labours and death of St. James, which are related in the Latin "Passio Jacobi Majoris", the Ethiopic "Acts of James", and so on. St. James in Spain The tradition asserting that James the Greater preached the Gospel in Spain, and that his body was translated to Compostela, claims more serious consideration. According to this tradition St. James the Greater, having preached Christianity in Spain, returned to Judea and was put to death by order of Herod; his body was miraculously translated to Iria Flavia in the northwest of Spain, and later to Compostela, which town, especially during the Middle Ages, became one of the most famous places of pilgrimage in the world. The vow of making a pilgrimage to Compostela to honour the sepulchre of St. James is still reserved to the pope, who alone of his own or ordinary right can dispense from it. In the twelfth century was founded the Order of Knights of St. James of Compostela (see SAINT JAMES OF COMPOSTELA, ORDER OF). With regard to the preaching of the Gospel in Spain by St. James the greater, several difficulties have been raised: + St. James suffered martyrdom A.D. 44 (Acts 12:2), and, according to the tradition of the early Church, he had not yet left Jerusalem at this time (cf. Clement of Alexandria, "Strom.", VI, Apollonius, quoted by Euseb., "Hist. Eccl." VI, xviii). + St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans (A.D. 58) expressed the intention to visit Spain (Romans 15:24) just after he had mentioned (15:20) that he did not "build upon another man's foundation." + The argument ex silentio: although the tradition that James founded an Apostolic see in Spain was current in the year 700, no certain mention of such tradition is to be found in the genuine writings of early writers nor in the early councils; the first certain mention we find in the ninth century, in Notker, a monk of St. Gall (Martyrol., 25 July), Walafried Strabo (Poema de XII Apost.), and others. + The tradition was not unanimously admitted afterwards, while numerous scholars reject it. The Bollandists however defended it (see Acta Sanctorum, July, VI and VII, where other sources are given). The authenticity of the sacred relic of Compostela has been questioned and is still doubted. Even if St. James the Greater did not preach the Christian religion in Spain, his body may have been brought to Compostela, and this was already the opinion of Notker. According to another tradition, the relics of the Apostle are kept in the church of St-Saturnin at Toulouse (France), but it is not improbable that such sacred relics should have been divided between two churches. A strong argument in favour of the authenticity of the sacred relics of Compostela is the Bull of Leo XIII, "Omnipotens Deus," of 1 November, 1884. A. CAMERLYNCK St. James the Less St. James the Less THE IDENTITY OF JAMES The name "James" in the New Testament is borne by several: 1. James, the son of Zebedee -- Apostle, brother of John, Apostle; also called "James the Greater". 2. James, the son of Alpheus, Apostle -- Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13. 3. James, the brother of the Lord -- Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Galatians 1:19. Without a shadow of doubt, he must be identified with the James of Galatians 2:2 and 2:9; Acts 12:17, 15:13 sqq. and 21:18; and I Corinthians 15:7. 4. James, the son of Mary, brother of Joseph (or Joses) -- Mark 15:40 (where he is called ò mikros "the little", not the "less", as in the D.V., nor the "lesser"); Matthew 27:56. Probably the son of Cleophas or Clopas (John 19:25) where "Maria Cleophæ" is generally translated "Mary the wife of Cleophas", as married women are commonly distinguished by the addition of their husband's name. 5. James, the brother of Jude -- Jude 1:1. Most Catholic commentators identify Jude with the "Judas Jacobi", the "brother of James" (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13), called thus because his brother James was beter known than himself in the primitive Church. The identity of the Apostle James (2), the son of Alpheus and James (3), the brother of the Lord and Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem (Acts 15, 21), although contested by many critics and, perhaps, not quite beyond doubt, is at least most highly probable, and by far the greater number of Catholic interpreters is considered as certain (see BRETHREN OF THE LORD, where the chief argument, taken from Galatians 1:19, in favour of the Apostleship of St. James, the brother of the Lord, is to be found). The objection moved by Mader (Biblische Zeitschrift, 1908, p. 393 sqq.) against the common statement that "Apostles" in Galatians 1:19 is to be taken strictly in the sense of the "Twelve" has been strongly impugned by Steinmann (Der Katholik, 1909, p. 207 sqq.). The James (5) of Jude 1:1 must certainly be identified with James (3), the brother of the Lord and the Bishop of Jerusalem. The identification of James (3), the brother of the Lord and James (4), the son of Mary, and probably of Cleophas or Clopas offers some difficulty. This identification requires the identity of Mary, the mother of James (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40), with Mary the wife of Cleophas (John 19:25), and, consequently, the identity of Alpheus (2) and Clopas (4). As Clopas and Alpheus are probably not two different transcriptions of the same Aramaic name Halpai (see CLEOPHAS), it must be admitted that two different names have been borne by one man. Indeed, there are several examples of the use of two names (a Hebrew and a Greek or Latin name) to designate the same person (Simon-Petrus; Saulus-Paulus), so that the identity of Alpheus and Cleophas is by no means improbable. On the whole, although there is no full evidence for the identity of James (2), the son of Alpheus, and James (3), the brother of the Lord, and James (4), the son of Mary of Clopas, the view that one and the same person is described in the New Testament in these three different ways, is by far the most probable. There is, at any rate, very good ground (Galatians 1:19, 2:9, 2:12) for believing that the Apostle James, the son of Alpheus is the same person as James, the brother of the Lord, the well-known Bishop of Jerusalem of the Acts. As to the nature of the relationship which the name "brother of the Lord" is intended to express, see BRETHREN OF THE LORD. JAMES IN THE SCRIPTURES Had we not identified James, the son of Alpheus with the brother of the Lord, we should only know his name and his Apostleship. But the identity once admitted, we must consequently apply to him all the particulars supplied by the books of the New Testament. We may venture to assert that the training of James (and his brother Jude), had been that which prevailed in all pious Jewish homes and that it was therefore based on the knowledge of the Holy Scripture and the rigorous observance of the Law. Many facts point to the diffusion of the Greek language and culture throughout Judea and Galilee, as early as the first century b.c.; we may suppose that the Apostles, at least most of them, read and spoke Greek as well as Aramaic, from their childhood. James was called to the Apostolate with his brother Jude; in all the four lists of the Apostles, he stands at the head of the third group (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). Of James individually we hear no more until after the Resurrection. St. Paul (I Corinthians 15:5-7) mentions that the Lord appeared to him before the Ascension. Then we lose sight of James till St. Paul, three years after his conversion (a.d. 37), went up to Jerusalem. Of the Twelve Apostles he saw only Peter and James the brother of the Lord (Galatians 1:19; Acts 9:27). When in the year 44 Peter escaped from prison, he desired that news of his release might be carried to James who held already a marked preeminence in the Church of Jerusalem (Acts 12:17). In the Council of Jerusalem (a.d. 51) he gives his sentence after St. Peter, declaring as Peter had done, that the Gentile Christians are not bound to circumcision, nor to the observance of the ceremonial Mosaic Law, but at the same time, he urged the advisability of conforming to certain ceremonies and of respecting certain of the scruples of their Jewish fellow-Christians (Acts 15:13 sqq.). On the same occasion, the "pillars" of the Church, James, Peter, and John "gave to me (Paul) and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision" (Galatians 2:9). He publicly commended the great charter of Gentile freedom from the Law, although he still continued the observance in his own life, no longer as a strict duty, but as an ancient, most venerable and national custom, trusting to "be saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 15:11). When afterwards some came from James to Antioch and led Peter into dissimulation (Galatians 2:12), his name was used by them, though he had given them no such commandment to enforce their interpretation of the concordat which, on his proposal, had been adopted at the Council of Jerusalem. When St. Paul after his third missionary journey paid a visit to St. James (a.d. 58), the Bishop of Jerusalem and "the elders" "glorified the Lord" and advised the Apostle to take part in the ceremonies of a Nazarite vow, in order to show how false the charge was that he had spoken of the Law as no longer to be regarded. Paul consented to the advice of James and the elders (Acts 21:1 sqq.). The Epistle of St. James reveals a grave, meek, and calm mind, nourished with the Scriptures of the Old Testament, given to prayer, devoted to the poor, resigned in persecution, the type of a just and apostolic man. JAMES OUTSIDE OF THE SCRIPTURES Traditions respecting James the Less are to be found in many extra-canonical documents, especially Josephus (Antiq., XX, ix, 1), the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" (St. Jerome, De vir. ill., II), Hegesippus (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", II, xxiii), the pseudo-Clementine Homilies (Ep. of Peter) and Recognitions (I, 72, 73), Clement of Alexandria (Hypot., vi, quoted by Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", II, i). The universal testimony of Christian antiquity is entirely in accordance with the information derived from the canonical books as to the fact that James was Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem. Hegesippus, a Jewish Christian, who lived about the middle of the second century, relates (and his narrative is highly probable) that James was called the "Just", that he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor ate animal food, that no razor touched his head, that he did not anoint himself or make use of the bath, and lastly that he was put to death by the Jews. The account of his death given by Josephus is somewhat different. Later traditions deserve less attention. For bibliography see EPISTLE OF SAINT JAMES; Protoevangelium Jacobi and Liturgy of St. James. A. CAMERLYNCK Bl. James Thompson Blessed James Thompson (Also known as James Hudson). Martyr, born in or near York; having nearly all his life in that city, died there, 28 November, 1582. He arrived at Dr. Allen's college at Reims 19 September, 1580, and in May of the next year, by virtue of a dispensation, was admitted at Soissons, with one Nicholas Fox, to all Sacred orders within twelve days, although at the time he was so ill that he could hardly stand. He was sent on the mission the following 10 August, and was arrested at York on 11 August, 1582. On being taken before the Council of the North he frankly confessed his priesthood, to the astonishment of his fellow citizens who knew that he had not been away more than a year. He was then loaded with double irons and was imprisoned, first in a private prison, till his money was exhausted, and then in the castle. On 25 November he was brought to the bar and condemned to the penalties of high treason. Three days later he suffered with great joy and tranquillity at the Knavesmire, protesting that he had never plotted against the queen, and that he died in and for Catholic Faith. While he was hanging, he first raised his hands to heaven, then beat his breast with his right hand, and finally made a great sign of cross. In spite of his sentence, he was neither disembowelled nor quartered, but was buried under the gallows. JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT Leopold Janauschek Leopold Janauschek Cistercian, born at Brünn, Moravia, 13 October, 1827; died 23 July, 1898, at Baden, near Vienna. In 1846 he received the religious habit at the Cistercian Abbey of Zwettl, Lower Austria, where he was professed in 1848. His superiors then sent him to their house of studies of Heiligenkreuz near Vienna, where he studied philosophy and theology, and after his ordination to the priesthood was made professor of history and canon. His learned works on these sciences soon attracted attention and won for him in 1858 the chair of ecclesiastical history in the University of Vienna. But in 1859 he was recalled by his superiors to Heiligenkreuz, where he continued as professor until 1877. During this time he composed his first great work, "Originum Cisterciensium Liber Primus" (Vienna, 1877), in which he describes the foundation of the Order of Citeaux, its organization and extension, and mentions many of those who, under various titles, had honoured it. He gives a lengthy account of 742 ancient abbeys of monks, founded between the end of the eleventh and the end of the seventeenth centuries. Each of the genealogical and chronological tables, as well as the entire work itself, supposes colossal labour of research and compilation. He was unable to publish the second volume, which was to have been devoted to the monasteries of Cistercian nuns, and for which he had collected a great deal of material; but it will be utilized by the continuator of his work. He also published, at this period, a work of less importance on the history of the Cistercian Order. His second great work is entitled "Bibliographia Bernardina". In 1891, on the occasion of the eighth centenary of the birth of St. Bernard, the Cistercian Congregation of Austria prepared four volumes for the glory of this illustrious doctor, under the title of "Xenia Bernardina". Janauschek gave his assistance in the preparation of the first three volumes, but the fourth, "Bibliographia Bernardina" (Vienna, 1891), was entirely his own work. He there treats successively of the different editions of the works of St. Bernard and their translations, the essays on the life of the saint, various panegyrics, his biographers, the inscriptions in his honour, the opinions of ecclesiastical historians, etc. These great works of Janauschek exhibit profound research, unconquerable perseverance, and great skill in classification. For these works the author was obligated to search many libraries and consult numerous archives; the books noticed in "Xenia Bernardina" amount to 2761 printed, and 119 manuscript volumes. The author was also obliged to communicate with many learned men. Despite weak health, which for many years permitted him to leave his room only at rare intervals, he persevered at his great task until interrupted by death. EDMOND M. OBRECHT Alexandre Vincent Jandel Alexandre Vincent Jandel General of the Dominican order, born at Gerbevilliers (Lorraine), 18 July, 1810; died at Rome, 11 December, 1872. He was remarkable from his earliest years for intelligence and resolution, qualities derived chiefly from his mother, a person of rare endowments, who did not fear to succour priests during the Revolution. After a brilliant collegiate course at Nancy, he entered the diocesan seminary in that city, where his success was equally great. Jandel was ordained priest 20 September, 1834, then appointed professor of Scripture, and soon afterwards rector of the seminary at Pont-à-Mousson. The young superior was regarded as a model of sanctity and learning. At this time he became acquainted with Bautain, Gerbet, Ratisbonne, and many other distinguished men, among them Lacordaire. Such was the impression made on him by Lacordaire, that he began to think of entering the Domninican Order, which the great preacher proposed to restore in France, where it had been destroyed by the Revolution. In 1839 he therefore went to Rome, consulted Gregory XVI on the matter, and finally received the habit on 15 May, 1841. Two years afterwards Jandel and Lacordaire commenced the great work of re-establishing their order in France. Lacordaire was an orator; Jandel was a ruler of men, calm, grave, sagacious, tenacious of traditions and customs, and pre-eminently practical. Though he had not the genius of his associate, he preached with great results. A sermon at Lyons on the power of the Cross led to his being challenged by a Freemason to prove the truth of his words in the lodge; he entered it, produced his crucifix, and made the sign of the cross; instantly the lights were extinguished, the furniture was thrown about, and all but he fled in terror from the scene of confusion. Many holy persons in France placed themselves under his guidance. Pius IX, however, called him to Rome, and made him in 1850 vicar-general of the order ad beneplacitum, and in 1855 general for six years. He was soon recognized as the greatest religious superior and one of the most enlightened spiritual directors in the city. Of those whom he instructed at this time, two may be mentioned: Cardinal Manning and Father Burke. A born administrator, he infused new life into the order. Several provinces were re-established, and houses opened everywhere. The Dominican nuns (second order) and tertiaries were also greatly indebted to his zeal. He also did much to promote devotion to the rosary and to propagate the doctrine of St. Thomas. Such were the services he rendered to the Holy See especially as regarded the Zouaves, that Pius IX, who was warmly attached to him, intended to make him a cardinal; but Providence disposed otherwise, for he was elected general of the order, 7 June, 1862. He visited Ireland twice, and only weak health prevented him from visiting America. New editions of liturgical books and of the "constitutions" or legislation formed part of his characteristic work. He also paid great attention to foreign missions. During his term of office sixteen Dominicans were beatified or canonized. He presidedat two chapters of the order (Ghent, 1971), and he is justly considered as one of the greatest generals that the order has had during the seven centuries of its existence. The stand authority is Cormier, Vie du Révérendissime Père Jandel, soixante-troisième Maître Général des Frères Prêcheurs (Paris, 1890). REGINALD WALSH St. Janes Frances de Chantal St. Jane Frances de Chantal Born at Dijon, France, 28 January, 1572; died at the Visitation Convent Moulins, 13 December, 1641. Her father was president of the Parliament of Burgundy, and leader of the royalist party during the League that brought about the triumph of the cause of Henry IV. In 1592 she married Baron de Chantal, and lived in the feudal castle of Bourbilly. She restored order in the household, which was on the brink of ruin, and brought back prosperity. During her husband's absence at the court, or with the army, when reproachd for her extremely sober manner of dressing, her reply was: "The eyes which I must please are a hundred miles from here". She found more than once that God blessed with miracles the care she gave the suffering members of Christ. St. Francis de Sales's eulogy of her characterizes her life at Bourbilly and everywhere else: "In Madame de Chantal I have found the perfect woman, whom Solomon had difficulty in finding in Jerusalem". Baron de Chantal was accidently killed by a harquebus while out shooting in 1601. Left a widow at twenty-eight, with four children, the broken-hearted baroness took a vow of chastity. In all her prayers she besought God to send her a guide and God, in a vision, showed her the spiritual director He held in reserve for her. In order to safeguard her children's property, she was obliged to go and live at Monthelon in the home of her father-in-law, who was ruled over by an arrogant and wicked servant. This was real servitude, which she bore patiently and gently for seven years. At last her virtue triumphed over the ill will of the old man and house keeper. During Lent, 1604, she visited her father at Dijon, where St. Francis de Sales was preaching at the Sainte Chapelle. She recognized in him the mysterious director who had been shown her, and placed herself under his guidance. Then began an admirable correspondence between the two saints. Unfortunately, the greater number of letters are no longer in existence, as she destroyed them after the death of the holy bishop. When she had assured the future security of children, and when she had provided the education of Celse-Bénigne, her fourteen year old son, whom she left to her father and her brother, the Archbishop of Bourges, she started for Annecy, where God was calling her to found the Congregation of the Visitation. She took her two remaining daughters with her, the elder having recently married the Baron of Thorens, a brother of St. Francis de Sales. Celse-Bénigne, impetous like those of her race, barred his mother's way by lying across the threshold. Mme de Chandal stopped, overcome: "Can the tears of a child shake her resolution?" said a holy and learned priest, the tutor of Celse-Benigne. "Oh! no", replied the saint, "but after all I am a mother!" And she stepped over child's body. The Congregation of the Visitation was canonically established at Annecy on Trinity Sunday, 6 June, 1610. Its aim was to receive, with a view to their spiritual advancement, young girls and even widows who had not the desire or strength to subject themselves to the austere ascetical practices in force in all the religious orders at that time. St. Francis de Sales was especially desirous of seeing the realization of his cherished method of attaining perfection, which consisted in always keeping one's will united to the Divine will, in taking so to speak one's soul, heart, and longings into one's hands and giving them into God's keeping, and in seeking always to do what is pleasing to Him. "I do always the things that please him" (John, viii, 29). The two holy founders saw their undertaking prosper. At the time of the death of St. Francis de Sales in 1622, the order already counted thirteen houses; there were eight-six when St. Jane Frances died; and 164 when she was canonized. The remainder of the saint's life was spent under the protection of the cloister in the practice of the most admirable virtues. If a gentle kindness, vivified and strengthened by a complete spirit of renunciation, predominates in St. Francis de Sales, it is firmness and great vigour which prevails in St. Jane Frances; she did not like to see her daughters giving way to human weakness. Her trials were continuous and borne bravely, and yet she was exceedingly sensitive. Celse-Bénigne was an incorrigible duellist. She prayed so fervently that he was given the grace to die a Christian death on the battle-field, during the campaign against the Isle of Ré (1627). He left a daughter who became the famous Marquise de Sévigné. To family troubles God added interior crosses which, particularly during the last nine years of her life, kept her in agony of soul from which she was not freed until three months before her death. Her reputation for sanctity was widespread. Queens, princes, and princesses flocked to the reception-room of the Visitation. Wherever she went to establish foundations, the people gave her ovations. "These people", she would say confused, "do not know me; they are mistaken". Her body is venerated with that of St. Francis de Sales in the church of the Visitation at Annecy. She was beatified in 1751, canonized in 1767, and 21 August was appointed as her feast day. The life of the saint was written in the seventeenth century, with inimitable charm, by her secretary, Mother de Chaugy. Monsignor Bougaud, who died Bishop of Laval, published in 1863 a "Histoire de Sainte Chantal" which had a great and well-deserved success. The words of the saint comprise instructions on the religious life, various minor works, among which is the admirable "Deposition for the Process of Beatification of St. Francis de Sales", and a great many letters. The Saint's qualities are seen in her precise and vigorous style, void of imagery but betraying a repressed emotion, and bursting forth spontaneously from the heart, anticipating in its method the beautiful French of the seventeenth century. The book which may be called her masterpiece, "Réponses sur les Régles, Constitutions et Coutumes", a truly practical and complete code of the religious life, is not in circulation. RAPHAL PERNIN Ferdinand Janner Ferdinand Janner Theologian, born at Hirschau, in the Upper Palatinate (Bavaria), 4 Feb., 1836; died 1 November, 1895. He completed his studies at the Latin school of Amberg, taking his philosophical course at that lyceum, studied theology at Wurzburg and Ratisbon, and was ordained priest 13 August, 1858. After devoting himself to parish work for a time, he again took up his studies at Wurzburg, where he obtained the degree of Doctor of Theology, after which he was successively, chaplain at Weiden, in 1863 prefect of the Ratisbon seminary, 1865 professor of religion and history at the gymnasium of Speyer, 1867 professor of ecclesiastical history, Christian archaeology, and history of art at the Ratisbon lyceum, 1883 diocesan consultor. He retired from active life in the year 1888. Janner's principal work is "Geschichte der Bischofe von Regensburg", the three published volumes of which bring the history to the sixteenth century (Ratisbon, 1883-86). He also wrote: "De factis dogmaticis" (Wurzburg, 1861); "Infallibilem ecclesiam Catholicam esse in diiudicandis factis dogmaticis" (Speyer, 1866); "Das officium unius martyris de communi in seinem Zusammenhang erklart" (Speyer, 1867); "Das Heilige Land, und die heiligen Statten, ein Pilgerbuch" (Ratisbon, 1869); "Missale parvun sive Missale Romanum in breviorem et commodiorem formam redactum: (Ratisbon, 1870); "Die Bauhutten des deutschen Mittelaters" (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1876); "Nicolas von Weis, Bischof zu Speyer" (Wurzburg, 1876); "Die Schotten in Regensburg, die Kirsche zu St. Jacob und deren Nordportal" (Ratisbon, 1885); a translation of the Breviary "Das romische Brevier in deutscher Sprache" (4 vols., Ratisbon, 1890). He also wrote "Personen-und Sachregister zu Rass, Die Con vertiten seit der Reformation", I-X (Freiburg im Br., 1872). FRIEDRICH LAUCHERT Matthew of Janow Matthew of Janow A medieval ecclesiastical author, born in the fourteenth century in Bohemia; died at Prague, 30 Nov., 1394. Son of Wenzel of Janow, a Bohemian knight, he began his studies at Prague and continued them at the University of Paris where he graduated after a residence of nine years. Hence his title of Parisian Master (Magister Parisiensis). In 1381 he was appointed canon and confessor in the cathedral of Prague, offices which he held until his death. He was never a preacher of the first rank, but was conspicuous for his great zeal in the confessional. Between the years 1388 and 1392 he composed several treatises which he later collected under the title "Regulae Veteris et Novi Testamenti" The work has never been published in its entirety, nor is it to be found complete in any one manuscript. Parts of it were wrongly ascribed to John Hus and published with his writings (Nuremberg, 1588, I, 376-471). Janow attributed the evils in the Church to the contemporary Papal Schism, the large number of papal exemptions and reservations, and the excessive importance attached by some Christians to accidental external practices. Owing to the abuses which at times attended the veneration of saints and relics, he ultimately advocated the removal of such special objects of piety from the churches. He was misled into this extreme view by his desire of promoting an intense interior devotion to the Blessed Eucharist. The frequent and even daily reception of Holy Communion by the laity was, according to him, not only desirable but almost necessary. At the Synod of Prague in 1389 such encouragement of daily Communion was prohibited, and the veneration of images defended. Janow's retraction of his erroneous views and his repeated protestations of never-failing loyalty to the Catholic Church are sufficient evidence that he cannot be styled, as is frequently done, a forerunner of Hus. N.A. WEBER Cornelius Jansen, the Elder Cornelius Jansen, the Elder ( Also Jansens, Janssen, Janssenius or Jansenius Gandaviensis). Exegete, born at Hulst, Flanders, 1510; died at Ghent, 11 April, 1576. He received his early education at Ghent from the Brethren of the Common Life (called at Ghent the Hieronymites), and later studied theology and Oriental languages at Louvain. After he had become a licentiate of theology in 1534, he lectured, at the request of the abbot of the Premonstratensian Abbey of Tongerloo, to the young monks on the Holy Scriptures until 1542, from which date until 1562 he discharged the duties of pastor of the parish of St. Martin at Courtrai (Kortryk) with great success. Having finally attained the degree of Doctor of Theology in 1562, he was immediately appointed professor of theology at the University of Louvain, became in the following year dean of the collegiate seminary of St. James, and attended the last sessions of the Council of Trent as delegate of the university. On his return, King Philip II appointed him first bishop of the newly founded See of Ghent, which dated only from 1559. For a long time he refused to assume the dignity, on account of the difficult conditions in the diocese, and was not preconized until 1568, by Pius V. As bishop he devoted himself especially to checking the advance of Protestantism, and to carrying out with the greatest exactness the decrees of the Council of Trent. With this object in view, he founded a seminary for priests at Ghent in 1569, held diocesan synods in 1571 and 1574, and published a ritual for his diocese. He was entrusted with the compilation of a ritual to be used in the ecclesiastical province of Mechlin, but did not finish it. While at Tongerloo he wrote a great deal, and, as pastor at Courtrai, had already become widely known for his exegetical work. Among Jansen's writings is the "Concordia evangelica." (Louvain, 1529), to which he later added the "Commentarius in Concordiam et totem historiam evangelicam" (Louvain, 1572), undoubtedly his best work. He published also: "Commentarius in Proverbia Salomonis" (Louvain, 1567), and "Commentarius in Ecclesiasticum" (Louvain, 1569), both of which were republished in one work at Antwerp in 1589; "Commentarius in omnes Psalmos Davidicos" (Louvain, 1569), with an introduction to each psalm, an excellent paraphrase of the text, and explanations of the difficult passages; "Paraphrases in ea Veteris Testamenti Cantica, quae per ferias singulas totius anni usus ecclesiasticus observat" (Louvain, 1569). After his death appeared "Annotationes in Librum Sapientiae" (Louvain, 1577). Cornelius Jansen was one of the most distinguished among the exegetes of the sixteenth century, and his masterpiece, the aforesaid "Concordia, Evangelica" was epoch-making in the history of Catholic exegesis, for he insisted on the literal interpretation, as against the mystical interpretation of his predecessors, emphasized also the importance of the original text, and of a profound study of Oriental languages as aids to a full comprehension of the Vulgate. PATRICIUS SCHLAGER Johann Janssen Johann Janssen Historian, born 10 April, 1829, at Kanten, Germany; died 24 December, 1891, at Frankfort-on-the-Main. He received his early education in a school of his native town. His course was interrupted, however, from the early part of 1842 to the spring of 1844, during which time he worked as an apprentice to a coppersmith. It soon became apparent, however that he had no aptitude for this trade, and he was allowed to return to school. In 1846 he went to the gymnasium of Recklinghausen, from which he graduated in the autumn of 1849. During the years 1849-54 he frequented the Universities of Munster, Louvain, Bonn, and Berlin, where he devoted himself to the study of theology and history; in August, 1853, he obtained the degree of Doctor of Philosophy from the University of Bonn, in virtue of a Latin dissertation on the life of Wibald, Abbot of Stablo and Corvey (1098-1158); in August, 1854, he opened a course of history as Privatdozent at the Academy of Munster, but shortly afterwards, in September of the same year, he was asked to take the chair of history for the Catholic students of the gymnasium at Frankfort-on-the-Main. He retained this position up to the time of his death in 1891. Not satisfied with attending to the ordinary duties of the classroom, Janssen devoted his spare time to historical research, the results of which were embodied in many learned volumes. At the same time he took every opportunity to visit centres of learning; thus in 1865-64 he spent several months in Italy and Rome, where he consulted the archives of the Vatican on matters relating to the Thirty Years War and to the first partition of Poland. In 1875-76 he was a deputy to the Prussian Diet, joined the Centre party, and spent much time in Berlin. This sojourn in the German capital was used not only to defend the interests of his constituency in Parliament, but also to widen the range of his knowledge by personal intercourse with learned and public men. From the days of his childhood he conceived the desire of serving God in the priesthood. The delicate state of his health prevented the execution of this cherished plan for some time; but finally he was ordained priest at Limburg, 26 March, 1860. In 1866 he was appointed spiritual counsellor by Archbishop Hermann von Vicari of Freiburg, and in 1880 Pope Leo XIII made him a prelate and a prothonotary Apostolic ad instar participantium. Janssen is the author of many valuable works on historical subjects. It was while he was at the University of Louvain that be resolved to make the study of history his principal work for the remainder of his life. His first work was a Latin biography of Abbot Wibald, which appeared in a revised form in German (1854). In 1856 he published a volume of historical documents relating to the Diocese of Munster (Die Geschichtsquellen des Bisthums Munster, 3 vols.). In 1881 appeared the essay "Frankreichs Rheingeluste und deutschfeindliche Politik in fruheren Jahrhunderten", in which he laid bare the traditional diplomacy of France, hostile to Germany and intent upon extending the boundary line as far as the Rhine. In 1863 he published an essay upon Schiller as an historian (Schiller als Historiker), in which he made it plain that the great German poet, in his historical writings, indulged too much in his imagination. For many years he was engaged in sifting part of the manuscript material found in the archives of Frankfort; and the result of these labours was the publication of "Frankfurts Reichscorrespondenz, 1376-1519" (2 vols., 1863-73). In the essay "Zur Genesis der ersten Theilung Polens" (1865) he explained the circumstances under which the former Kingdom of Poland was robbed of part of its dominions by neighbouring countries. A biography of the man whom he considered as his teacher and guide appeared in three volumes in 1868 under the title "Johnnn Friedrich Boehmers Leben, Briefe und kleinere Schriften". In 1876-77 appeared in two volumes another biography of a renowned scholar and convert to the Catholic Faith, Count Friedrich Leopold zu Stolberg. In the work "Zeit- und Lebensbilder" (1875) he published in book form a number of essays on the men and events of his time. The most important work is his "History of the German people" (Geschichte des deutschen Volkes seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters). The first suggestion of such an undertaking was made by his master and friend, Johann Friedrich Boehmer, in 1853. At first he planned to write a complete history of Germany from the remotest times to his own day but soon this plan had to be abandoned, and he confined himself to the period beginning with the end of the Middle Ages. Eight volumes have appeared; six were given to the public by Janssen himself (1876-88), and two by his pupil and friend Ludwig Pastor (1893-94) from materials collected by Janssen and they reach as far as the time of the Thirty Years War, which commenced in 1618. The great merit of this work is that Janssen treated not only of the political but also of the religious, social, and economic conditions of Germany, that he was very faithful to the sources of information and very impartial, that he made the authorities speak for themselves, and that he destroyed the common conception, according to which the Middle Ages presented nothing but corruption and moral decay. Valuable additions to this work are found in two small volumes written in reply to adverse criticism ("An meine Kritiker", 1882; "Ein zweites Wort an meine Kritiker", 1884). Most of the works of Janssen had a large sale, and appeared in several editions; this is particularly the case of the "History of the German People", which has been translated, partly, at least, into French and English. Janssen was a very prolific writer: to the works which have just been mentioned he added a number of articles written for reviews and other publications. Owing to the literary and critical merits of his works Janssen must be placed among the foremost Catholic historians of the last century. In his great work he deals much with the origin and the great leaders of the Protestant Reformation, yet he is always most moderate in tone, and never uses expressions which might give offence. The same attitude of deference and respect was shown in his personal relations towards those who differed from him in faith; and in this manner he won the esteem and confidence of Protestants, among whom he found many friends. Despite Janssen's great learning he remained humble; worldly honours and ecclesiastical dignities had no attraction for him. In 1864 efforts were made to win him for the diplomatic service of the Vatican; some time later he was mentioned for a vacant bishopric; in 1883 Pope Leo XIII contemplated summoning him to Rome for the direction of the Vatican Archives; in 1890 the cardinalate was to be conferred on him; but Janssen succeeded in escaping all these honours. We gave often and abundantly to the poor, to the sick, to churches, and to institutions of mercy. An asylum for the poor and abandoned children of Frankfort, erected in 1894 in the town of Oberursel, owes its existence largely to his efforts. Janssen was a great scholar and an exemplary priest, though he never exercised the ecclesiastical ministry. FRANCIS J. SCHAFFER Jansenius and Jansenism Jansenius and Jansenism Cornelius Jansen, Bishop of Ypres (Cornelius Jansenius Yprensis), from whom Jansenism derives its origin and name, must not be confounded with another writer and bishop of the same name Cornelius Jansenius Gandavensis (1510-1576), of whom we possess several books on Scripture and a valuable "Concordia Evangelica." I. LIFE AND WRITINGS The subject of this article lived three-quarters of a century later than his namesake. He was born 28 October, 1585, of a Catholic family, in the village of Accoi, near Leerdam, Holland; died at Ypres, 6 May, 1638. His parents, although in moderate circumstances, secured for him an excellent education They sent him first to Utrecht. In 1602 we find him at the University of Louvain, where he entered the College du Faucon to take up the study of philosophy. Here he passed two years, and at the solemn promotion of 1604 was proclaimed first of 118 competitors. To begin his theological studies he entered the College du Pape Adrien VI, whose president, Jacques Janson, imbued with the errors of Baius and eager to spread them, was to exert an influence on the subsequent course of his ideas and works. Having hitherto been on amicable terms with the Jesuits, he had even sought admission into their order. The refusal he experienced, the motives of which are unknown to us, seems not to be altogether unrelated to the aversion he subsequently manifested for the celebrated society, and for the theories and practices it championed. He was also associated with a young and wealthy Frenchman, Jean du Verger de Hauranne, who was completing his course of theology with the Jesuits, and who possessed a mind subtile and cultured, but restless and prone to innovations, and an ardent and intriguing character. Shortly after his return to Paris towards the end of 1604, du Verger was joined there by Jansenius, for whom he had secured a position as tutor. About two years later he attracted him to Bayonne, his native town, where he succeeded in having him appointed director of an episcopal college. There, during eleven or twelve years of studies ardently pursued in common, on the Fathers and principally on St. Augustine, the two friends had time to exchange thoughts and to conceive daring Projects. In 1617, while du Verger, who had returned to Paris, went to receive from the Bishop of Poitiers the dignity of Abbot of St-Cyran, Jansenius returned to Louvain, where the presidency of the new College de Sainte Pulcherie was confided to him. In 1619 he received the degree of Doctor of Theology, and afterwards obtained a chair of exegesis. The commentaries which he dictated to his pupils, as well as several writings of a polemical nature, brought him in a short time a deserved renown. These writings of Jansenius were not at first intended for publication, in fact they did not see the light until after his death. They are concise, clear and perfectly orthodox in doctrine. The principal ones are "Pentateuchus, sive commentarius in quinque libros Mosis" (Louvain, 1639), "Analecta in Proverbia Salomonis, Ecclesiasten, Sapientiam, Habacuc et Sophoniam" (Louvain, 1644); "Tetrateuchus, seu commentarius in quatuor Evangelia" (Louvain,1639). Some of these exegetical works have been printed more than once. Among his polemical works are "Alexipharmacum civibus Sy vaeducensibus propinatum adversus ministrorum fascinum" (Louvain 1630); then, in reply to the criticism of the Calvinist Gisbert Voet, "Spongia notarum quibus Alexipharmacum aspersit Gisbertus Voetius" (Louvain, 1631). Jansenius published in 1635, under the pseudonym of Armacanus, a volume entitled "Alexandri Patricii Armacani Theologi Mars Gallicus seu de justitia armorum regis Galliae libri duo". This was a bitter and well-merited satire against the foreign policy of Richelieu, which was summed up in the odd fact of the "Most Christian" nation and monarchy constantly allying themselves with the Protestants, in Holland, Germany, and elsewhere, for the sole purpose of compassing the downfall of the House of Austria. The same author has left us a series of letters addressed to the Abbot of St-Cyran, which were found among the papers of the person to whom they were sent and printed under the title: "Naissance du jansenisme decouverte, ou Lettres de Jansénius à l'abbé de St-Cyran depuis l'an 1617 jusqu'en 1635" (Louvain, 1654). It was also during the course of his professorate that Jansenius, who was a man of action as well as of study, journeyed twice to Spain, whither he went as the deputy of his colleagues to plead at the Court of Madrid the cause of the university against the Jesuits; and in fact, through his efforts their authorization to teach humanities and philosophy at Louvain was withdrawn. All this, however, did not prevent him from occupying himself actively and chiefly with a work of which the general aim, born of his intercourse with St-Cyran, was to restore to its place of honour the true doctrine of St. Augustine on grace, a doctrine supposedly obscured or abandoned in the Church for several centuries. He was still working on it when, on the recommendation of King Philip IV and Boonen, Archbishop of Mechlin, he was raised to the See of Ypres. His consecration took place in 1636, and, though at the same time putting the finishing touches to his theological work, he devoted himself with great zeal to the government of his diocese. Historians have remarked that the Jesuits had no more cause to complain of his administration than the other religious orders. He succumbed to an epidemic which ravaged Ypres and died, according to eyewitnesses, in dispositions of great piety. When on the point of death he confided the manuscript which he cherished to his chaplain, Reginald Lamaeus, with the command to publish it after taking counsel with Libert Fromondus, a professor at Louvain, and Henri Calenus, a canon of the metropolitan church. He requested that this publication be made with the utmost fidelity, as, in his opinion, only with difficulty could anything be changed. "If, however," he added, "the Holy See wishes any change, I am an obedient son, and I submit to that Church in which I have lived to my dying hour. This is my last wish." The editors of the "Augustinus" have been wrongly accused of having intentionally and disloyally suppressed this declaration, it appears plainly enough on the second page in the original edition. On the other hand its authenticity has been contested by means of external and internal arguments, founded notably on the discovery of another will, dated the previous day (5 May), which says nothing regarding the work to be published. But it is quite conceivable that the dying prelate was mindful of the opportunity to complete his first act by dictating to his chaplain and confirming with his seal this codicil which, according to the testamentary executors, was written only half an hour before his death. It has been vainly sought, a priori, to make the fact appear improbable by alleging that the author was in perfect good faith as to the orthodoxy of his views. Already, in 1619, 1620, and 1621, his correspondence with St-Cyran bore unmistakable traces of a quite opposite state of mind; in it he spoke of coming disputes for which there was need to prepare; of a doctrine of St. Augustine discovered by him, but little known among the learned, and which in time would astonish everybody, of opinions on grace and predestination which he dared not then reveal "lest like so many others I be tripped up by Rome before everything is ripe and seasonable". Later, in the "Augustinus" itself (IV, xxv-xxvii), it is seen that he scarcely disguises the close connection of several of his assertions with certain propositions of Baius, though he ascribes the condemnation of the latter to the contingent circumstances of time and place, and he believes them tenable in their obvious and natural sense. Nothing, therefore, authorized the rejection of the famous declaration, or testament, of Jansenius as unauthentic. But neither is there any authorization for suspecting the sincerity of the explicit affirmation of submission to the Holy See which is therein contained. The author, at the time of his promotion to the doctorate in 1619, had defended the infallibility of the pope in a most categorical thesis, conceived as follows: "The Roman Pontiff is the supreme judge of all religious controversies, when he defines a thing and imposes it on the whole Church, under penalty of anathema, his decision is just, true, and infallible." At the end of his work (III, x, Epilogus omnium) we find this protestation perfectly parallel with that of his testament: "All whatsoever I have affirmed on these various and difficult points, not according to my own sentiment, but according to that of the holy Doctor, I submit to the judgment and sentence of the Apostolic See and the Roman Church, my mother, to be henceforth adhered to if she judges that it must be adhered to, to retract if she so wishes, to condemn and anathematize it if she decrees that it should be condemned and anathematized. For since my tenderest childhood I have been reared in the beliefs of this Church; I imbibed them with my mother's milk; I have grown up and grown old while remaining attached to them; never to my knowledge have I swerved therefrom a hair's-breadth in thought, action or word, and I am still firmly decided to keep this faith until my last breath and to appear with it before the judgment-seat of God." Thus Jansenius, although he gave his name to a heresy, was not himself a heretic, but lived and died in the bosom of the Church. In view of the fact that he consciously and deliberately aimed at innovation or reforming, it would certainly be difficult to exculpate him entirely or declare that his attitude was in no wise presumptuous and rash; but impartial history may and should take into account the peculiar atmosphere created about him by the still smouldering controversies on Baianism and the widespread prejudices against the Roman Curia. To determine the extent to which these and similar circumstances, by deluding him necessarily diminished his responsibility, is impossible, that is the secret of God. II. THE "AUGUSTINUS" AND ITS CONDEMNATION After the death of Jansenius, the internuncio Richard Aravius vainly endeavoured to prevent the printing of his manuscript; this undertaking, actively furthered by the friends of the dead man, was completed in 1640. The folio volume bore the title: "Cornelii Jansenii, Episcopi Yprensis, Augustinus, seu doctrina S. Augustini de humanae naturae sanitate, aegritudine, medicina, adversus Pelagianos et Massilienses". It was divided into three volumes, of which the first, chiefly historical, is an exposition in eight books of Pelagianism; the second, after an introductory study on the limitations of human reason, devotes one book to the state of innocence or the grace of Adam and the angels, four books to the state of fallen nature, three to the state of pure nature; the third volume treats in ten books of "the grace of Christ the Saviour", and concludes with "a parallel between the error of the Semipelagians and that of certain moderns", who are no other than the Molinists. The author, if we are to accept his own statement, laboured for twenty years on this work, and to gather his materials he had ten times read the whole of St. Augustine and thirty times his treatise against the Pelagians. From these readings emerged a vast system, whose identity with Baianism neither skilful arrangement nor subtile dialectic could disguise. His fundamental error consists in disregarding the supernatural order, for Jansenius as for Baius, the vision of God is the necessary end of human nature; hence it follows that all the primal endowments designated in theology as supernatural or preternatural, including exemption from concupiscence, were simply man's due. This first assertion is fraught with grave consequences regarding the original fall, grace, and justification. As a result of Adam's sin, our nature stripped of elements essential to its integrity, is radically corrupt and depraved. Mastered by concupiscence, which in each of us properly constitutes original sin, the will is powerless to resist; it has become purely passive. It cannot escape the attraction of evil except it be aided by a movement of grace superior to and triumphant over the force of concupiscence. Our soul, henceforth obedient to no motive save that of pleasure, is at the mercy of the delectation, earthly or heavenly, which for the time being attracts it with the greatest strength. At once inevitable and irresistible, this delectation, if it come from heaven or from grace, leads man to virtue; if it come from nature or concupiscence, it determines him to sin. In the one case as in the other, the will is fatally swept on by the preponderant impulse. The two delectations says Jansenius, are like the two arms of a balance, of which the one cannot rise unless the other be lowered and vice versa. Thus man irresistibly, although voluntarily, does either good or evil, according as he is dominated by grace or by concupiscence; he never resists either the one or the other. In this system there is evidently no place for purely sufficient grace; on the other hand it is easy to discern the principles of the five condemned propositions (see below). In order to present this doctrine under the patronage of St. Augustine, Jansenius based his argument chiefly on two Augustinian conceptions: on the distinction between the auxilium sine quo non granted to Adam, and the auxilium quo, active in his descendants; and on the theory of the "victorious delectation" of grace. A few brief remarks will suffice to make clear the double mistake. In the first place the auxilium sine quo non is not, in the idea of Augustine, "a grace purely sufficient", since through it the angels persevered; it is on the contrary a grace which confers complete power in actu primo (i.e. the ability to act), in such a way that, this being granted, nothing further is needed for action. The auxilium quo, on the other hand, is a supernatural help which bears immediately on the actus secundus (i.e. the performance of the action) and in this grace, in so far as it is distinguished from the grace of Adam, must be included the whole series of efficacious graces by which man works out his salvation, or the gift of actual perseverance, which gift conducts man infallibly and invincibly to beatitude, not because it suppresses liberty, but because its very concept implies the consent of man. The delectation of grace is a deliberate pleasure which the Bishop of Hippo explicitly opposes to necessity (voluptas, non necessitas); but what we will and embrace with consenting pleasure, we cannot at the same time not will, and in this sense we will it necessarily. In this sense also, it is correct to say, "Quod amplius nos delectat, secundum id operemur necesse est" (i.e. in acting we necessarily follow what gives us most pleasure). Finally, this delight is called victorious, not because it fatally subjugates the will, but because it triumphs over concupiscence, fortifying free will to the point of rendering it invincible to natural desire. It is thus clear that we can say of men sustained by and faithful to grace, "Invictissime quod bonum est velint, et hoc deserere invictissime nolint". The success of the "Augustinus" was great, and it spread rapidly throughout Belgium, Holland, and France. A new edition, bearing the approbation of ten doctors of the Sorbonne, soon appeared at Paris. On the other hand, on 1 August, 1641, a decree of the Holy Office condemned the work and prohibited its reading; and the following year Urban VIII renewed the condemnation and interdiction in his Bull "In eminenti". The pope justified his sentence with two principal reasons: first, the violation of the decree forbidding Catholics to publish anything on the subject of grace without the authorization of the Holy See; second, the reproduction of several of the errors of Baius. At the same time, and in the interests of peace, the sovereign pontiff interdicted several other works directed against the "Augustinus". Despite these wise precautions the Bull, which some pretended was forged or interpolated, was not received everywhere without difficulty. In Belgium, where the Archbishop of Mechlin and the university were rather favourable to the new ideas, the controversy lasted for ten years. But it was France which thenceforth became the chief centre of the agitation. At Paris, St-Cyran, who was powerful through his relations besides being very active, succeeded in spreading simultaneously the doctrines of the "Augustinus" and the principles of an exaggerated moral and disciplinary rigorism, all under the pretence of a return to the primitive Church. He had succeeded especially in winning over to his ideas the influential and numerous family of Arnauld of Andilly, notably Mère Angélique Arnauld, Abbess of Port-Royal, and through her the religious of that important convent. When he died, in 1643, Doctor Antoine Arnauld quite naturally succeeded him in the direction of the movement which he had created. The new leader lost no time in asserting himself in startling fashion by the publication of his book "On Frequent Communion", which would have been more correctly entitled "Against Frequent Communion" but which, as it was written with skill and a great display of erudition, did not a little towards strengthening the party. Although the Sorbonne had accepted the Bull "In eminenti", and the Archbishop of Paris had, in 1644 proscribed the work of Jansenius, it continued to be spread and recommended, on the pretext that authority had not rejected a single well-determined thesis. It was then (1649) that Cornet, syndic of the Sorbonne, took the initiative in a more radical measure; he extracted five propositions from the much-discussed work, two from the book "On Frequent Communion", and submitted them to the judgment of the faculty. This body, prevented by the Parlement from pursuing the examination it had begun, referred the affair to the general assembly of the clergy in 1650. The greater number considered it more fitting that Rome should pronounce, and eighty-five bishops wrote in this sense to Innocent X, transmitting to him the first five propositions. Eleven other bishops addressed to the sovereign pontiff a protest against the idea of bringing the matter to trial elsewhere than in France. They demanded in any case the institution of a special tribunal, as in the "De auxiliis" affair, and the opening of a debate in which the theologians of both sides should be allowed to submit their arguments. The decision of Innocent X was what might have been expected: he acceded to the request of the majority, keeping in view as far as possible the wishes of the minority. A commission was appointed, consisting of five cardinals and thirteen consultors, some of whom were known to favour acquittal. Its laborious examination lasted two years: it held thirty-six long sessions, of which the last ten were presided over by the pope in person. The "Augustinus" which, as has been said, had friends on the bench, was defended with skill and tenacity. Finally its advocates presented a table of three columns, in which they distinguished as many interpretations of the five propositions: a Calvinistic interpretation, rejected as heretical, a Pelagian or Semipelagian interpretation, identified by them with the traditional doctrine, also to be cast aside, and lastly, their interpretation, the idea of St. Augustine himself, which could not but be approved. This plea, skilful as it was could not avert the solemn condemnation, by the Bull "Cum occasione" (31 May, 1653), of the five propositions, which were as follows: + Some of God's commandments are impossible to just men who wish and strive (to keep them) considermg the powers they actually have, the grace by which these precepts may become possible is also wanting; + In the state of fallen nature no one ever resists interior grace; + To merit, or demerit, in the state of fallen nature we must be free from all external constraint, but not from interior necessity, + The Semipelagians admitted the necessity of interior preventing grace for all acts, even for the beginning of faith; but they fell into heresy in pretending that this grace is such that man may either follow or resist it; + To say that Christ died or shed His blood for all men, is Semipelagianism. These five propositions were rejected as heretical, the first four absolutely the fifth if understood in the sense that Christ died only for the predestined. All are implicitly contained in the second, and through it, all are connected with the above-mentioned erroneous conception of the state of innocence and the original fall. If it be true that fallen man never resists interior grace (second proposition), it follows that a just man who violates a commandment of God did not have the grace to observe it. That he therefore transgresses it through inability to fulfil it (first proposition). If, however, he has sinned and thus demerited, it is clear that, to demerit, the liberty of indifference is not requisite, and what is said of demerit must also be said of its correlative, merit (third proposition). On the other hand, if grace is often wanting to the just, since they fall, it is wanting still more to sinners; it is therefore impossible to maintain that the death of Jesus Christ assured to every man the graces necessary for salvation (fifth proposition). If this be so, the Semipelagians were in error in admitting the universal distribution of a grace which may be resisted (fourth proposition). III. RESISTANCE OF THE JANSENISTS Well received by the Sorbonne and the General Assembly of the Clergy, the Bull "Cum occasione" was promulgated with the royal sanction. This should have opened the eyes of the partisans of Jansenius. They were given the alternative of finally renouncing their errors, or of openly resisting the supreme authority. They were thrown for the moment into embarrassment and hesitation, from which Arnauld extricated them by a subtlety: they must, he said, accept the condemnation of the five propositions, and reject them, as did the pope, only, these propositions were not contained in the book of the Bishop of Ypres, or if they were found therein, it was in another sense than in the pontifical document; the idea of Jansenius was the same as that of St. Augustine, which the Church neither could, nor wished to, censure. This interpretation was not tenable; it was contrary to the text of the Bull, no less than to the minutes of the discussions which had preceded it, and throughout which these propositions were considered and Presented as expressing the sense of the "Augustinus". In March, 1564, thirty-eight bishops rejected the interpretation, and communicated their decision to the sovereign pontiff, who thanked and congratulated them. The Jansenists persisted none the less in an attitude opposed alike to frankness and to logic. The occasion soon arrived for them to support this with a complete theory. The Duc de Liancourt, one of the protectors of the party, was refused absolution until he should change his sentiments and accept purely and simply the condemnation of the "Augustinus". Arnauld took up his pen and in two successive letters protested against any such exaction. Ecclesiastical judgments, he said, are not all of equal value, and do not entail the same obligations; where there is question of the truth or falsity of a doctrine, of its revealed origin or its heterodoxy, the Church in virtue of its Divine mission is qualified to decide; it is a matter of right. But if the doubt bears upon the presence of this doctrine in a book, it is a question of purely human fact, which as such does not fall under the jurisdiction of the supernatural teaching authority instituted in the Church by Jesus Christ. In the former case, the Church having pronounced sentence, we have no choice but to conform our belief to its decision; in the latter, its word should not be openly contradicted it claims from us the homage of a respectful silence but not that of an interior assent. Such is the famous distinction between right and fact, which was henceforth to be the basis of their resistance, and through which the recalcitrants pretended to remain Catholics, united to the visible body of Christ despite all their obstinacy. This distinction is both logically and historically the denial of the doctrinal power of the Church. For how is it possible to teach and defend revealed doctrine if its affirmation or denial cannot be discerned in a book or a writing, whatever its form or its extent? In fact, from the beginning, councils and popes have approved and imposed as orthodox certain formulas and certain works, and from the beginning have proscribed others as being tainted with heresy or error. The expedient contrived by Arnauld was so opposed to both fact and reason that a number of Jansenists who were more consistent in their contumacy, such as Pascal, refused to adopt it or to subscribe to the condemnation of the five propositions in any sense. The greater number, however, took advantage of it to mislead others or deceive themselves. All of them, moreover, through personal intercourse, preaching, or writing, displayed extraordinary activity in behalf of their ideas. They aimed especially, following the tactics inaugurated by St-Cyran, at introducing them into religious orders, and in this way they were in a measure successful, e.g. with the Oratory of Berulle. Against the Jesuits, in whom from the first they had encountered capable and determined adversaries, they had vowed a profound antipathy and waged a war to the death. This inspired the "Provinciales" which appeared in 1656. These were letters supposedly addressed to a provincial correspondent. Their author Blaise Pascal, abusing his admirable genius, therein lavished the resources of a captivating style and an inexhaustible sarcastic humour to taunt and decry the Society of Jesus, as favouring and propagating a relaxed and corrupt moral code. To this end the errors or imprudences of some members, emphasized with malicious exaggeration, were made to appear as the official doctrine of the whole order. The "Provinciales" were translated into elegant Latin by Nicole disguised for the occasion under the pseudonym of Wilhelmus Wendrochius. They did a great deal of harm. However, the Sorbonne, again declaring itself against the faction, had, by 138 votes against 68, condemned the latest writings of Arnauld, and, on his refusal to submit, it dismissed him, together with sixty other doctors who made common cause with him. The assembly of bishops in 1656 branded as heretical the unfortunate theory of right and of fact, and reported its decision to Alexander VII, who had just succeeded Innocent X. On 16 October the pope replied to this communication by the Bull "Ad sanctam Beati Petri sedem". He praised the clear-sighted firmness of the episcopate and confirmed in the following terms the condemnation pronounced by his predecessor: "We declare and define that the five propositions have been drawn from the book of Jansenius entitled 'Augustinus', and that they have been condemned in the sense of the same Jansenius and we once more condemn them as such." Relying on these words, the Assembly of the Clergy of the following year (1657) drew up a formula of faith conformable thereto and made subscription to it obligatory. The Jansenists would not give in. They claimed that no one could exact a lying signature from those who were not convinced of the truth of the matter. The religious of Port-Royal were especially conspicuous for their obstinacy, and the Archbishop of Paris, after several fruitless admonitions, was forced to debar them from receiving the sacraments. Four bishops openly allied themselves with the rebellious party: they were Henri Arnauld of Angers Buzenval of Beauvais, Caulet of Pamiers, and Pavillon of Aleth. Some claimed besides that the Roman pontiff alone had the right to exact such subscription. In order to silence them, Alexander VII, at the instance of several members of the episcopate, issued (15 February 1664) a new Constitution, beginning with the words, "Regiminis Apostolici". In this he enjoined, with threat of canonical penalties for disobedience, that all ecclesiastics, as well as all religious, men and women, should subscribe to the following very definite formulary: I, (Name), submitting to the Apostolic constitutions of the sovereign pontiffs, Innocent X and Alexander VII, published 31 May, 1653 and 16 October, 1656, sincerely repudiate the five propositions extracted from the book of Jansenius entitled 'Augustinus', and I condemn them upon oath in the very sense expressed by that author, as the Apostolic See has condemned them by the two above mentioned Constitutions (Enchiridion, 1099). It would be a mistake to believe that this direct intervention of the pope sustained as it was by Louis XIV, completely ended the stubborn opposition. The real Jansenists underwent no change of sentiment. Some of them, such as Antoine Arnauld and the greater number of the religious of Port-Roval, defying both the ecclesiastical and the civil authority, refused their signature, on the pretext that it was not in the power of any person to command them to perform an act of hypocrisy, others subscribed, but at the same time protesting more or less openly that it applied only to the question of right, that the question of fact was reserved and should be so, since in this respect the Church had no jurisdiction, and above all no infallibility. Among those who stood for explicit restriction and hence for refusal to sign the formulary as it was, must be numbered the four bishops mentioned above. In the mandates through which they communicated to their flocks the Bull "Apostolici" they did not hesitate expressly to maintain the distinction between fact and right. The pope being informed of this, condemned these mandates, 18 January, 1667. He did not stop there, but, in order to safeguard both his authority and the unity of belief, he decided, with the full approbation of Louis XIV to subject the conduct of the culprits to a canonical judgment, and for this purpose he appointed as judges nine other members of the French episcopate. IV. THE PEACE OF CLEMENT IX In the midst of all this, Alexander VII died, 22 May, 1667. His successor Clement IX wished at first to continue the process, and he confirmed the appointed judges in all their powers. However, the king, who had at first displayed great zeal in seconding the Holy See in the affair, seemed to have let his ardour cool. Rome had not judged it expedient to yield to all his wishes regarding the formation of the ecclesiastical tribunal. Together with his court he began to be apprehensive lest a blow should be struck at the "liberties" of the Gallican Church. The Jansenists skilfully turned these apprehensions to their profit. They had already won over several ministers of state, notably Lyonne, and they succeeded in gaining for their cause nineteen members of the episcopate, who in consequence wrote to the sovereign pontiff and to the king. In their petition to the pope these bishops, while protesting their profound respect and entire obedience, observed that the infallibillty of the Church did not extend to facts outside of revelation. They further confounded purely human or purely personal facts with dogmatic facts, i.e. such as were implied by a dogma or were in necessary connection with it, and under cover of this confusion, they ended by affirming that their doctrine, the doctrine of the four accused bishops, was the common doctrine of the theologians most devoted to the Holy See, of Baronius, Bellarmine, Pallavicini, etc. The same assertions were repeated in a more audacious form in the address to the king, in which they spoke also of the necessity of guarding against theories which were new and "harmful to the interests and safety of the State". These circumstances brought about a very delicate situation, and there was reason to fear that too great severity would lead to disastrous results. On this account the new nuncio, Bargellini, inclined towards a peaceful arrangement, for which he obtained the pope's consent. D'Estrées, the Bishop of Laon, was chosen as mediator, and at his request there were associated with him de Gondren, Archbishop of Sens. and Vialar, Bishop of Chalons, both of whom had signed the two petitions just spoken of, and were, therefore, friends of the four accused prelates. It was agreed that these last should subscribe without restriction to the formulary and cause it to be subscribed to in like manner by their clergy in diocesan synods, and that these subscriptions should take the place of an express retractation of the mandates sent out by the bishops. Pursuant to this arrangement they convened their synods, but, as later became known all four gave oral explanations authorizing respectful silence on the question of fact, and it would seem that they acted thus with some connivance on the part of the mediators, unknown, however, to the nuncio and perhaps to d'Estrées. But this did not prevent them from affirming, in a common address to the sovereign pontiff, that they themselves and their priests had signed the formulary, as had been done in the other dioceses of France. D'Estrées for his part wrote at the same time: "The four bishops have just conformed, by a new and sincere subscription, with the other bishops". Both letters were transmitted by the nuncio to Rome, where Lyonne, also alleging that the signatures were absolutely regular, insisted that the affair should be brought to an end. For this reason the pope, who had received these documents 24 September, informed Louis XIV of the fact about 28 September, expressing his joy for the "subscription pure and simple" which had been obtained, announcing his intention to restore the bishops in question to favour and requesting the king to do the same. However, before the Briefs of reconciliation thus announced had been sent to each of the four prelates concerned, rumours which had at first been current with regard to their lack of frankness grew more definite, and took the shape of formal and repeated denunciations. Hence, by order of Clement IX, Bargellini had to make a new investigation at Paris. As the final result he sent to Rome a report drawn up by Vialar. This report stated with regard to the four bishops: "They have condemned and caused to be condemned the five propositions with all manner of sincerity, without any exception or restriction whatever, in every sense in which the Church has condemned them"; but he then added explanations concerning the question of fact which were not altogether free from ambiguity. The pope, no less perplexed than before, appointed a commission of twelve cardinals to obtain information. These secured, it seems, the proof of the language made use of by the bishops in their synods. Nevertheless, in consideration of the very grave difficulties which would result from opening up the whole case again, the majority of the commission held that they might and should abide practically by the testimony of the official documents and especially by that of the minister I,yonne regarding the reality of the "subscription pure and simple", at the same time emphasizing anew this point as the essential basis and the condition sine qua non of peace. The four Briefs of reconciliation were then drawn up and dispatched; they bear the date, 19 January, 1669. In them Clement IX recalls the testimony he had received "concerning the real and complete obedience with which they had sincere}y subscribed to the formulary, condemning the five propositions without any exception or restriction, according to all the senses in which they had been condemned by the Holy See". He remarks further that being "most firmly resolved to uphold the constitutions of his predecessors, he would never have admitted a single restriction or exception". These preambles were as explicit and formal as possible. They prove, especially when compared with the terms and object of the formulary of Alexander VII, how far wrong the Jansenists were in celebrating this termination of the affair as the triumph of their theory, as the acceptance by the pope himself of the distinction between right and fact. On the other hand it is clear from the whole course of the negotiations that the loyalty of these champions of a stainless and unfaltering moral code was more than doubtful. At all events, the sect profited by the muddle these manoeuvres had created to extend its conquest still further and to get a stronger hold on several religious congregations. It was favoured by various circumstances. Among them must be included the growing infatuation in France for the so-called Gallican Liberties, and in consequence a certain attitude of defiance, or at least indocility, towards the supreme authority; then the Declaration of 1682, and finally the unfortunate affair of the Régale. It is worthy of remark that in this last conflict it was two Jansenist bishops of the deepest dye who most energetically upheld the rights of the Church and the Holy See, while the greater number of the others too readily bowed before the arrogant pretensions of the civil power. V. JANSENISM AT THE BEGINNING OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY Despite the reticence and equivocation which it allowed to continue, the "Peace of Clement IX" found a certain justification for its name in the period of relative calm which followed it, and which lasted until the end of the seventeenth century. Many minds were tired of the incessant strife, and this very weariness favoured the cessation of polemics. Moreover the Catholic world and the Holy See were at that time preoccupied with a multitude of grave questions, and through force of circumstances Jansenism was relegated to second place. Mention has already been made of the signs of a recrudescence of Gallicanism betrayed in the Four Articles of 1682, and in the quarrels of which the Régale was the subject. To this period also belongs the sharp conflict regarding the franchises, or droit d'asile (right of asylum), the odious privilege concerning which Louis XIV showed an obstinacy and arrogance which passed all bounds (1687). Moreover, the Quietist doctrines spread by de Molinos, and which seduced for a brief period even the pious and learned Fénelon as well as the relaxed opinions of certain moralists, furnished matter for many condemnations on the part of Innocent XI, Alexander VIII, and Innocent XII. Finally, another impassioned debate had arisen which drew into the arena several groups of the most distinguished and best intentioned theologians, and which was only definitively closed by Benedict XIV, namely the controversy concerning the Chinese and Malabar Rites. All these combined causes had for a time distracted public attention from the contents and the partisans of the "Augustinus". Besides, "Jansenism" was beginning to serve as a label for rather divergent tendencies, not all of which deserved equal reprobation. The out-and-out Jansenists, those who persisted in spite of everything in upholding the principle of necessitating grace and the consequent errors of the five propositions, had almost disappeared with Pascal. The remainder of the really Jansenist party without committing itself to a submission pure and simple, assumed a far more cautious demeanour. The members rejected the expression "necessitating grace", substituting for it that of a grace efficacious "in itself", seeking thus to identify themselves with the Thomists and the Augustinians. Abandoning the plainly heretical sense of the five propositions, and repudiating any intention to resist legitimate authority, they confined themselves to denying the infallibility of the Church with regard to dogmatic facts. Then, too, they were still the fanatical preachers of a discouraging rigorism, which they adorned with the names of virtue and austerity, and, under pretext of combating abuses, openly antagonized the incontestable characteristics of Catholicism especially its unity of government, the traditional continuity of its customs, and the legitimate part which heart and feeling play in its worship. With all their skilful extenuations they bore the mark of the levelling, innovating, and arid spirit of Calvinism. These were the fins Jansénistes. They formed thenceforth the bulk of the sect, or rather in them the sect properly so called was summed up. But apart from them, though side by side with them, and bordering on their tendencies and beliefs, history points out two rather well-defined groups known as the "duped Jansenists" and the "quasi-Jansenists". The first were in good faith pretty much what the fins Jansénistes were by system and tactics: they appear to us as convinced adversaries of necessitating grace, but no less sincere defenders of efficacious grace; rigorists in moral and sacramental questions, often opposed, like the Parlementarians, to the rights of the Holy See; generally favourable to the innovations of the sect in matters of worship and discipline. The second category is that of men of Jansenist tinge. While remaining within bounds in theological opinions, they declared themselves against really relaxed morality against exaggerated popular devotions and other similar abuses. The greater number were at bottom zealous Catholics, but their zeal, agreeing with that of the Jansenists on so many points, took on, so to speak, an outer colouring of Jansenism, and they were drawn into closer sympathy with the party in proportion to the confidence with which it inspired them. Even more than the "duped" Jansenists they were extremely useful in screening the sectarians and in securing for them, on the part of the pastors and the multitude of the faithful, the benefit either of silence or of a certain leniency. But the error remained too active in the hearts of the real Jansenists to endure this situation very long. At the beginning of the eighteenth century it manifested itself by a double occurrence which revived all the strife and trouble. The discussion began afresh with regard to the "case of conscience" of 1701. A provincial conference was supposed to inquire whether absolution might be given to a cleric who declared that he held on certain points the sentiments "of those called Jansenists", especially that of respectful silence on the question of fact. Forty doctors of the Sorbonnet -- among them some of great renown, such as Natalis Alexander -- decided affirmatively. The publication of this decision aroused all enlightened Catholics, and the "case of conscience" was condemned by Clement XI (1703), by Cardinal de Noailles, Archbishop of Paris, by a large number of bishops, and finally by the faculties of theology of Louvain, Douai, and Paris. The last-named, however as its slowness would indicate, did not arrive at this decision without difficulty. As for the doctors who signed, they were terrified by the storm they had let loose, and either retracted or explained their action as best they might, with the exception of the author of the whole movement, Dr. Petitpied, whose name was erased from the list of the faculty. But the Jansenists, though pressed hard by some and abandoned by others, did not yield. For this reason Clement XI, at the request of the Kings of France and Spain, issued 16 July 1705, the Bull "Vineam Domini Sabaoth" (Enchiridion, 1350) in which he formally declared that respectful silence was not sufficient for the obedience due to the constitutions of his predecessors. This Bull, received with submission by the assembly of the clergy of 1705, in which only the Bishop of Saint-Pons obstinately refused to agree with the opinion of his colleagues, was afterwards promulgated as a law of the State. It may be said to have officially terminated that period of half a century of agitation occasioned by the signing of the formulary. It also terminated the existence of Port-Royal des Champs, which up to that time had remained a notorious centre and hotbed of rebellion. When it was proposed to the religious that they should accept the new Bull, they would consent only with this clause: "that it was without derogating from what had taken place in regard to them at the time of the peace of the Church under Clement XI". This restriction brought up again their entire past, as was clearly shown by their explanation of it, and therefore made their submission a hollow pretence. Cardinal de Noailles urged them in vain; he forbade them the sacraments, and two of the religious died without receiving them, unless it were secretly from a disguised priest. As all measures had failed, it was high time to put an end to this scandalous resistance. A Bull suppressed the title of the Abbey of Port-Royal des Champs, and reunited that house and its holdings to the Paris house. The Court gave peremptory orders for a prompt execution, and, despite all the means of delay contrived and carried out by those interested, the pontifical sentence had its full effect. The surviving choir religious were scattered among the convents of the neighbouring destroyed dioceses (29 October 1709). This separation had the desired good results. All the rebellious nuns ended by submitting, save one, the mother prioress, who died at Blois without the sacraments, in 1716. The Government wishing to eradicate even the trace of this nest of errors, as Clement XI called it, destroyed all the buildings and removed elsewhere the bodies buried in the cemetery. During the disputes concerning the "case of conscience", a new book came cautiously on the scene another "Augustinus", pregnant with storms and tempests, as violent as the first. The author was Paschase Quesnel, at first a member of the French Oratory, but expelled from that congregation for his Jansenistic opinions (1684), and since 1689 a refugee at Brussels with the aged Antoine Arnauld whom he succeeded in 1696 as leader of the party. The work had been published in part as early as 1671 in a 12mo volume entitled "Abrégé de la morale de l'Evangile, ou pensées chrétiennes sur le texte des quatres évangélistes". It appeared with the hearty approbation of Vialar, Bishop of Châlons, and, thanks to a style at once attractive and full of unction which seemed in general to reflect a solid and sincere piety, it soon met with great success. But in the later development of his first work, Quesnel had extended it to the whole of the New Testament. He issued it in 1693, in an edition which comprised four large volumes entitled, "Nouveau testament en francais avec des réflexions morales sur chaque verset". This edition, besides the earlier approbation of Vialar which it inopportunely bore, was formally approved and heartily recommended by his successor, de Noailles, who, as subsequent events showed, acted imprudently in the matter and without being well-informed as to the contents of the book. The "Réflexions morales" of Quesnel reproduced, in fact, the theories of the irresistible efficaciousness of grace and the limitations of God's will with regard to the salvation of men. Hence they soon called forth the sharpest criticism, and at the same time attracted the attention of the guardians of the Faith. The Bishops of Apt (1703) Gap (1704), Nevers, and Besancon (1707) condemned them, and, after a report from the Inquisition, Clement XI proscribed them by the Brief "Universi dominici" (1708) as containing the propositions already condemned and as manifestly savouring of the Jansenist heresy". Two years later (1710) the Bishops of Lucon and La Rochelle forbade the reading of the book. Their ordinance, posted in the capital, gave rise to a conflict with Noailles, who, having become cardinal and Archbishop of Paris, found himself under the necessity of withdrawing the approbation he had formerly given at Chalons. However, as he hesitated, less through attachment to error than through self love, to take this step, Louis XIV asked the pope to issue a solemn constitution and put an end to the trouble. Clement XI then subjected the book to a new and very minute examination, and in the Bull "Unigenitus" (8 September, 1713) he condemned 101 propositions which had been taken from the book (Enchiridion, 1351 sq.). Among these were some propositions which, in themselves and apart from the context, seemed to have an orthodox sense. Noailles and with him eight other bishops, though they did not refuse to proscribe the book, seized this Pretext to ask explanations from Rome before accepting the Bull. This was the beginning of lengthy discussions the gravity of which increased with the death of Louis XIV (1715), who was succeeded in power by Philippe d'Orléans. The regent took a much less decided stand than his predecessor, and the change soon had its effect on various centres, especially on the Sorbonne, where the sectaries had succeeded in winning over the majority. The faculties of Paris, Reims, and Nantes, who had received the Bull, revoked their previous acceptance. Four bishops went even farther, having recourse to an expedient of which only heretics or declared schismatics had hitherto bethought themselves, and which was essentially at variance with the hierarchical concept of the Church; they appealed from the Bull "Unigenitus" to a general council (1717). Their example was followed by some of their colleagues, by hundreds of clerics and religious, by the Parlements and the magistracy Noailles, for a long time undecided and always inconsistent, ended by appealing also, but "from the pope obviously mistaken to the pope better informed and to a general council". Clement XI, however, in the Bull "Pastoralis officii" (1718), condemned the appeal and excommunicated the appellants. But this did not disarm the opposition, which appealed from the second Bull as from the first Noailles himself published a new appeal, no longer chiefly to the pope "better informed", but to a council, and the Parlement of Paris, suppressed the Bull "Pastoralis". The multiplicity of these defections and the arrogant clamour of the appellants might give the impression that they constituted, if not a majority, at least a very imposing minority. Such, however, was not the case, and the chief evidence of this lies in the well-established fact that enormous sums were devoted to paying for these appeals. After allowing for these shameful and suggestive purchases, we find among the number of the appellants, one cardinal, about eighteen bishops, and three thousand clerics. But without leaving France, we find opposed to them four cardinals, a hundred bishops, and a hundred thousand clerics, that is, the moral unanimity of the French clergy. What is to be said, then, when this handful of protesters is compared to the whole of the Churches of England, the Low Countries, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Naples, Savoy, Portugal, Spain, etc., which, on being requested to pronounce, did so by proscribing the appeal as an act of schism and foolish revolt? The polemics, however, continued for several years. The return to unity of Cardinal de Noailles, who submitted without restriction in 1728 six months before his death, was a telling blow to the party of Quesnel. Henceforth it steadily grew less, so that not even the scenes that took place at the cemetery of Saint-Médard, of which mention is made below. restored it. But the Parlements. eager to de clare themselves and to apply their Gallican and royalist principles, continued for a long time to refuse to receive the Bull "Unigenitus". They even made it the occasion to meddle in scandalous fashion in the administration of the sacraments, and to persecute bishops and priests accused of refusing absolution to those who would not submit to the Holy See. VI. THE CONVULSIONARIES We have reviewed the long series of defensive measures contrived by the Jansenists rejection of the five propositions without rejection of the "Augustinus", explicit distinction between the question of right and the question of fact; restriction of ecclesiastical infallibility to the question of right; the tactics of respectful silence, and appeal to a general council. They had exhausted all the expedients of a theological and canonical discussion more obstinate than sincere. Not a single one of these had availed them anything at the bar of right reason or of legitimate authority. They then thought to invoke in their behalf the direct testimony of God Himself, namely, miracles. One of their number, an appellant, a rigorist to the point of having once passed two years without communicating, for the rest given to a retired and penitent life, the deacon Francois de Paris had died in 1727. They pretended that at his tomb in the little cemetery of Saint-Médard marvellous cures took place. A case alleged as such was examined by de Vintimille, Archbishop of Paris, who with proofs in hand declared it false and supposititious (1731). But other cures were claimed by the party, and so noised abroad that soon the sick and the curious flocked to the cemetery. The sick experienced strange agitations, nervous commotions, either real or simulated. They fell into violent transports and inveighed against the pope and the bishops, as the convulsionaries of Cévennes had denounced the papacy and the Mass. In the excited crowd women were especially noticeable, screaming, yelling, throwing themselves about, sometimes assuming the most astounding and unseemly postures. To justify these extravagances, complacent admirers had recourse to the theory of "figurism". As in their eyes the fact of the general acceptance of the Bull "Unigenitus" was the apostasy predicted by the Apocalypse, so the ridiculous and revolting scenes enacted by their friends symbolized the state of upheaval which, according to them, involved everything in the Church. They reverted thus to a fundamental thesis such as has been met with in Jansenius and St-Cyran, and which these latter had borrowed from the Protestants. A journal the "Nouvelles Ecclesiastiques", had been founded in 1729 to defend and propagate these ideas and practices, and the "Nouvelles" was profusely spread, thanks to the pecuniary resources furnished by the Boîte à Perrette, the name given later to the capital or common fund of the sect begun by Nicole, and which grew so rapidly that it exceeded a million of money. It had hitherto served chiefly to defray the cost of appeals and to support, in France as well as in Holland, the religious, men and women, who deserted their convents or congregations for the sake of Jansenism. The cemetery of Saint-Médard, having become the scene of exhibitions as tumultuous as they were indecent, was closed by order of the court in 1732. The oeuvre des convulsions, as its partisans called it, was not, however, abandoned. The convulsions reappeared in private houses with the same characteristics, but more glaring. Henceforth with few exceptions they seized only upon young girls, who, it was said, possessed a divine gift of healing. But what was more astonishing was that their bodies, subjected during the crisis to all sorts of painful tests, seemed at once insensible and invulnerable; they were not wounded by the sharpest instruments, or bruised by enormous weights or blows of incredible violence. A convulsionary, nicknamed "la Salamandre", remained suspended for more than nine minutes above a fiery brazier, enveloped only in a sheet, which also remained intact in the midst of the flames. Tests of this sort had received in the language of the sect the denomination of secours, and the secouristes, or partisans of the secours, distinguished between the petits-secours and the grands-secours, only the latter being supposed to require supernatural force. At this point, a wave of defiance and opposition arose among the Jansenists themselves. Thirty appellant doctors openly declared by common consent against the convulsions and the secours. A lively discussion arose between the secouristes and the anti-secouristes. The secouristes in turn were soon divided into discernantes and melangistes, the former distinguishing between the work itself and its grotesque or objectionable features, which they ascribed to the Devil or to human weakness, while the latter regarded the convulsions and the secours as a single work coming from God, in which even the shocking elements had purpose and significance. Without entering further into the details of these distinctions and divisions, we may ask how we are to judge what took place at the cemetery of Saint-Médard and the matters connected therewith. Whatever may have been said on the subject, there was absolutely no trace of the Divine seal in these happenings. It is needless to recall St. Augustine's principle that all prodigies accomplished outside the Church, especially those against the Church, are by the very fact more than suspicious: "Praeter unitatem, et qui facit miracula nihil est". Two things only call for remark. Several of the so-called miraculous cures were made the subject of a judicial investigation, and it was proved that they were based only on testimonies which were either false, interested, preconcerted, and more than once retracted, or at least valueless, the echoes of diseased and fanatic imaginations. Moreover, the convulsions and the secours certainly took place under circumstances which mere good taste would reject as unworthy of Divine wisdom and holiness. Not only were the cures, both acknowledged and claimed, supplementary of one another, but cures, convulsions, and secours belonged to the same order of facts and tended to the same concrete end. We are therefore justified in concluding that the finger of God did not appear in the whole or in any of its parts. On the other hand, although fraud was discovered in several cases, it is impossible to ascribe them all indiscriminately to trickery or ignorant simplicity. Critically speaking, the authenticity of some extraordinary phenomena is beyond question, as they took place publicly and in the presence of reliable witnesses, particularly anti-secourist Jansenists. The question remains whether all these prodigies are explicable by natural causes, or whether the direct action of the Devil is to be recognized in some of them. Each of these opinions has its adherents, but the former seems difficult to uphold despite, and in part perhaps because of, the light which recent experiments in suggestion, hypnotism, and spiritism have thrown on the problem. However this may be, one thing is certain; the things here related served only to discredit the cause of the party which exploited them. Jansenists themselves came at length to feel ashamed of such practices. The excesses connected with them more than once forced the civil authorities to intervene at least in a mild way; but this creation of fanaticism succumbed to ridicule and died by its own hand. VII. JANSENISM IN HOLLAND AND THE SCHISM OF UTRECHT Injurious as Jansenism was to religion and the Church in France, it did not there lead to schism properly so called. The same does not hold good of the Dutch Low Countries, which the most important or most deeply implicated of the sectaries had long made their meeting place, finding there welcome and safety. Since the United Provinces had for the most part gone over to Protestantism, Catholics had lived there under the direction of vicars Apostolic. Unhappily these representatives of the pope were soon won over to the doctrines and intrigues of which the "Augustinus" was the origin and centre. De Neercassel, titular Archbishop of Castoria, who governed the whole church in the Netherlands from 1663 to 1686, made no secret of his intimacy with the party. Under him the country began to become the refuge of all whose obstinacy forced them to leave France and Belgium. Thither came such men as Antoine Arnauld, du Vaucel, Gerberon, Quesnel, Nicole, Petitpied, as well as a number of priests, monks, and nuns who preferred exile to the acceptance of the pontifical Bulls. A large number of these deserters belonged to the Congregation of the Oratory, but other orders shared with it this unfortunate distinction. When the fever of the appeals was at its height, twenty-six Carthusians of the Paris house escaped from their cloister during the night and fled to Holland. Fifteen Benedictines of the Abbey of Orval, in the Diocese of Trier, gave the same scandal. Peter Codde, who succeeded Neercassel in 1686, and who bore the title of Archbishop of Sebaste, went further than his predecessor. He refused to sign the formulary and, when summoned to Rome, defended himself so poorly that he was first forbidden to exercise his functions, and then deposed by a decree of 1704. He died still obstinate in 1710. He had been replaced by Gerard Potkamp, but this appointment and those that followed were rejected by a section of the clergy, to whom the States-General lent their support. The conflict lasted a long time, during which the episcopal functions were not fulfilled. In 1723 the Chapter of Utrecht i.e. a group of seven or eight priests who assumed this name and quality in order to put an end to a precarious and Painful situation, elected, on its own authority, as archbishop of the same city, one of its members, Cornelius Steenhoven, who then held the office of vicar-general. This election was not canonical, and was not approved by the pope. Steenhoven nevertheless had the audacity to get himself consecrated by Varlet, a former missionary bishop and coadjutor Bishop of Babylon, who was at that time suspended, interdicted, and excommunicated. He thus consummated the schism, interdicted likewise and excommunicated, he died in 1725. Those who had elected him transferred their support to Barchman Wuitiers, who had recourse to the same consecrator. The unhappy Varlet lived long enough to administer the episcopal unction to two successors of Barchman, van der Croon and Meindarts. The sole survivor of this sorry line, Meindarts, ran the risk of seeing his dignity become extinct with himself. To prevent this, the Dioceses of Haarlem (1742) and Deventer (1757) were created, and became suffragans of Utrecht. But Rome always refused to ratify these outrageously irregular acts, invariably replying to the notification of each election with a declaration of nullification and a sentence of excommunication against those elected and their adherents. Yet, in spite of everything, the schismatical community of Utrecht has prolonged its existence until modern times. At present it numbers about 6000 members in the three united dioceses. It would scarcely be noticed if it had not, in the last century, made itself heard by protesting against Pius IX's re-establishment of the Catholic hierarchy in Holland (1853), by declaring itself against the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception (1854) and Papal Infallibility (1870), and lastly, after the Vatican Council, in allying itself with the "Old Catholics", whose first so-called bishop it consecrated. VIII. DECLINE AND END OF JANSENISM During the second half of the eighteenth century the influence of Jansenism was prolonged by taking on various forms and ramifications, and extending to countries other than those in which we have hitherto followed it. In France the Parlements continued to pronounce judgments, to inflict fines and confiscations, to suppress episcopal ordinances, and even to address remonstrances to the king in defence of the pretended right of the appellants to absolution and the reception of the last sacraments. In 1756 they rejected a very moderate decree of Benedict XIV regulating the matter. A royal declaration confirming the Roman decision did not find favour in their eyes, and it required all the remaining strength of the monarchy to compel them to register it. The sectaries seemed by degrees to detach themselves from the primitive heresy, but they retained unabated the spirit of insubordination and schism, the spirit of opposition to Rome, and above all a mortal hatred of the Jesuits. They had vowed the ruin of that order, which they always found blocking their way, and in order to attain their end they successively induced Catholic princes and ministers in Portugal, France, Spain, Naples, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies the Duchy of Parma, and elsewhere to join hands with the worst leaders of impiety and philosophism. The same tendency was displayed in the work of Febronius, condemned (1764) by Clement XIII; and, instilled into Joseph II by his councillor Godefried van Swieten, a disciple of the revolted church of Utrecht, it became the principle of the innovations and ecclesiastical upheavals decreed by the sacristan-emperor (see FEBRONIANISM). It raged in similar fashion in Tuscany under the government of the Grand Duke Leopold, brother of Joseph II; and found another manifestation in the famous Synod of Pistoia (1786), the decrees of which, at once the quintessence of Gallicanism and of the heresy of Jansenism, were reproved by the Bull of Pius VI, "Auctorem fidei" (1794). On French soil the remains of Jansenism were not completely extinguished by the French Revolution, but survived in some remarkable personalities, such as the constitutional Bishop Grégoire, and in some religious congregations, as the Sisters of St. Martha, who did not return in a body to Catholic truth and unity until 1847. But its spirit lived on, especially in the rigorism which for a long time dominated the practice of the administration of the sacraments and the teaching of moral theology. In a great number of French seminaries, Bailly's "Théologie", which was impregnated with this rigorism, remained the standard textbook until Rome in 1852 put it on the Index "donec corrigatur". Among those who even prior to that had worked energetically against it, chiefly by offering in opposition the doctrines of St. Alphonsus, two names are deserving Of special mention: Gousset, whose "Théologie morale" (1844) had been preceded by his "Justification de la theologie morale du bienheureux Alphonse-Marie Liguori" (2nd ed., 1832); Jean-Pierre Berman, professor at the seminary of Nancy for twenty-five years (1828-1853), and author of a "Theologia moralis ex S. Ligorio" (7 vols., 1855). Such is, in outline, the historical account of Jansenism, its origin, its phases, and its decline. It is evident that, besides its attachment to the "Augustinus" and its rigorism in morals, it is distinguished among heresies for crafty proceedings, chicane and lack of frankness on the part of its adherents, especially their pretence of remaining Catholics without renouncing their errors, of staying in the Church despite the Church itself, by skilfully eluding or braving with impunity the decisions of the supreme authority. Such conduct is beyond doubt without a parallel in the annals of Christianity previous to the outbreak of Jansenism in fact, it would be incredible if we did not in our own day find in certain groups of Modernists examples of this astonishing and absurd duplicity. The deplorable consequences, both theoretical and practical, of the Jansenist system, and of the polemics to which it gave rise, may readily be gathered from what has been said, and from the history of the last few centuries. J. FORGET Abraham Janssens Abraham Janssens Flemish painter, b. at Antwerp about 1573; d. probably in the same place about 1631. He is also known as Janssens Van Nuyssen, and several of his pictures are signed with this name, which it is believed he adopted from his mother's family with the object of distinguishing himself from other members of the Janssens family, contemporary artists. He was a pupil of Jan Snellinck in 1585, according to some writers, but it is believed that this date is a little too early, as, according to the accepted tradition, Janssens would then have been only twelve years old. The first date that we know for certain respecting him is that of his admission as a teaching master into the Guild of St. Luke, which was in 1601, and in the following year he married, and eventually had a family. One of his daughters, Anna, married Jan Breughel the younger, the son of "Velvet" Breughel, and the second of his sons, named Abraham like his father, became a painter, and was admitted a member of the Guild of Painters in 1636. A story was started by Houbraken to the effect that Janssens was a bitter opponent of Rubens, but Houbraken's work is the only authority for this legend, and the author appears to have had a spite against Janssens, and to have said everything that was possible to injure his character. Janssens was a contemporary of Rubens, and a man who appears to have been very much respected in Antwerp, spoken of in terms of friendship and affection by other artists, and recognized as a man of great genius, taking a high position in the very first rank. It seems to be most unlikely that Houbraken's story is a truthful one, especially as there is no evidence whatever in other works to support it. The best of Janssens' pictures are to be seen at Antwerp, especially in the churches of the Carmelites and St. Charles, and in the cathedral, the painting of "The Entombment" in the Carmelite church being one of his very finest productions. There are three important paintings by him in the Antwerp Museum, two in the cathedral at Ghent, one in the cathedral at Bruges, a remarkable mythological scene representing Venus and Jupiter in Brunswick, and a fine picture of St. Cecilia at Cologne. Other galleries containing works by this important artist are those of Berlin, Brussels, Cassel, and Vienna. In at least two of his pictures he worked in collaboration with Snyders, the flowers and fruit in his picture of Pomona at Berlin, and the animals in his representation of Atalanta in the same gallery, having been painted by his friend. In splendour of colouring and in vigour of composition he was surpassed in his day only by Rubens, and was recognized in Antwerp as a man of profound talent and great skill. Many of his pictures were engraved. HOUBRAKEN, De Groote Schouburgh der Nederlantsche (Amsterdam, 1718); KRAMM, De Lerens en Werken der Hollandsche (Amsterdam, 1857); ROMBOUTS, Le Liggeren et autres Archives, etc. (Paris, 1864). GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON Johann Hermann Johann Hermann Janssens Catholic theologian, b. at Maeseyck, Belgium, 7 Dec., 1783; d. at Engis, 23 May, 1853. After completing his theological studies in Rome he was appointed professor in the College of Fribourg, Switzerland, in 1809. While in this position, which he held until 1816, he composed his "Hermeneutica," which, however, was not published until 1818, after he had been appointed professor of Scripture and dogmatic theology in the ecclesiastical seminary of Liège. His teaching in this institution was taxed with heterodoxy, and in 1823 he was removed and made pastor of Engis. Shortly afterward, and against the will of his ecclesiastical superiors, he accepted the chair of anthropology and metaphysics in the philosophical college of Louvain. He retained this position until the Revolution of 1830, when the college was suppressed. He then retired to Engis, where he composed a history of the Netherlands (3 vols., Liège, 1840), written from the Protestant standpoint. Outside of Belgium he is chiefly known through his first publication, "Hermeneutica Sacra seu Introductio in omnes et singulos libros sacros Veteris et Novi Foederis." A French translation of this work, the original of which had reached its nineteenth edition in 1897, was published by Pacaud as early as 1828. A fifth edition of this translation, edited by Glaire and Sionnet, was published in Paris in 1855. VIGOUROUX, Dictionnaire de la Bible, s.v.; Biographie Nationale, X (Brussels, 1888-1889), p. 145. JAMES F. DRISCOLL St. Januarius St. Januarius Martyr, Bishop of Beneventum. St. Januarius is believed to have suffered in the persecution of Diocletian, c. 305. With regard to the history of his life and martyrdom, we know next to nothing. The various collections of "Acts", though numerous (cf. Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina, n. 4115-4140), are all extremely late and untrustworthy. Bede (c. 733) in his "Martyrologium" has epitomized the so-called "Acta Bononiensia" (see Quentin, "Les Martyrologes historiques", 76). To this source we may trace the following entry in the present Roman Martyrology, though the reference to the miracle of the liquefaction is an addition of much later date. "At Pozzuoli in Campania [the memory] of the holy martyrs Januarius, Bishop of Desiderius of Cahors, Saint Beneventum, Festus his deacon, and Desiderius lector, together with Socius deacon of the church of Misenas, Proculus deacon of Pozzuoli, Eutyches and Acutius, who after chains and imprisonment were beheaded under the Emperor Diocletian. The body of St. Januarius was brought to Naples, and there honourably interred in the church, where his holy blood is kept unto this day in a phial of glass, which being set near his head becomes liquid and bubbles up as though it were fresh." In the Breviary a longer account is given. There we are told that "Timotheus, President of Campania," was the official who condemned the martyrs, that Januarius was thrown into a fiery furnace, but that the flames would not touch him, and that the saint and his companions were afterwards exposed in the amphitheatre to wild beasts without any effect. Timotheus declaring that this was due to magic, and ordering the martyrs to be beheaded, the persecutor was smitten with blindness, but Januarius cured him, and five thousand persons were converted to Christ before the martyrs were decapitated. Then, as the Breviary lesson continues, "the cities of these coasts strove to obtain their bodies for honourable burial, so as to make sure of having them advocates with God. By God's will, the relics of Januarius were taken to Naples at last, after having been carried from Pozzuoli to Beneventum and from Beneventum to Monte Vergine. When they were brought thence to Naples they were laid in the chief church there and have been there famous on account of many miracles. Among these is remarkable the stopping of eruptions of Mount Vesuvius, whereby both that neighbourhood and places afar off have been like to be destroyed. It is also well known and is the plain fact, seen even unto this day, that when the blood of St. Januarius, kept dried up in a small glass phial, is put in sight of the head of the same martyr, it is wont to melt and bubble in a very strange way, as though it had but freshly been shed." It is especially this miracle of the liquefaction which has given celebrity to the name of Januarius, and to this we turn our attention. Let it at once be said that the supposition of any trick or deliberate imposture is out of the question, as candid opponents are now willing to admit. For more than four hundred years this liquefaction has taken place at frequent intervals. If it were a trick it would be necessary to admit that all the archbishops of Naples, and that countless ecclesiastics eminent for their learning and often for their great sanctity, were accomplices in the fraud, as also a number of secular officials; for the relic is so guarded that its exposition requires the concurrence of both civil and ecclesiastical authority. Further, in all these four hundred years, no one of the many who, upon the supposition of such a trick, must necessarily have been in the secret, has made any revelation or disclosed how the apparent miracle is worked. Strong indirect testimony to this truth is borne by the fact that even at the present time the rationalistic opponents of a supernatural explanation are entirely disagreed as to how the phenomenon is to be accounted for. What actually takes place may be thus briefly described: in a silver reliquary, which in form and size somewhat suggests a small carriage lamp, two phials are enclosed. The lesser of these contains only traces of blood and need not concern us here. The larger, which is a little flagon-shaped flask four inches in height and about two and a quarter inches in diameter, is normally rather more than half full of a dark and solid mass, absolutely opaque when held up to the light, and showing no displacment when the reliquary is turned upside down. Both flasks seem to be so fixed in the lantern cavity of the reliquary by means of some hard gummy substance that they are hermetically sealed. Moreover, owing to the fact that the dark mass in the flask is protected by two thicknesses of glass it is presumably but little affected by the temperature of the surrounding air. Eighteen times in each year, i.e. (1) on the Saturday before the first Sunday in May and the eight following days, (2) on the feast of St. Januarius (19 Sept.) and during the octave, and (3) on 16 December, a silver bust believed to contain the head of St. Januarius is exposed upon the altar, and the reliquary just described is brought out and held by the officiant in view of the assembly. Prayers are said by the people, begging that the miracle may take place, while a group of poor women, known as the "zie di San Gennaro" (aunts of St. Januarius), make themselves specially conspicuous by the fervour, and sometimes, when the miracle is delayed, by the extravagance, of their supplications. The officiant usually holds the reliquary by its extremities, without touching the glass, and from time to time turns it upside down to note whether any movement is perceptible in the dark mass enclosed in the phial. After an interval of varying duration, usually not less than two minutes or more than an hour, the mass is gradually seen to detach itself from the sides of the phial, to become liquid and of a more or less ruby tint, and in some instances to froth and bubble up, increasing in volume. The officiant then announces, "Il miracolo é fatto", a Te Deum is sung, and the reliquary containing the liquefied blood is brought to the altar rail that the faithful may venerate it by kissing the containing vessel. Rarely has the liquefaction failed to take place in the expositions of May or September, but in that of 16 December the mass remains solid more frequently than not. It is of course natural that those who are reluctant to admit the supernatural character of the phenomenon should regard the liquefaction as simply due to the effects of heat. There are, they urge, certain substances (e.g. a mixture of spermaceti and ether) which have a very low boiling point. The heat produced by the hands of the officiant, the pressing throng of spectators, the lights on the altar, and in particular the candle formerly held close to the reliquary to enable the people to see that the mass is opaque, combine to raise the temperature of the air sufficiently to melt the substance in the phial--a substance which is assumed to be blood, but which no one has ever analysed. Further, ever since the early years of the eighteenth century, sceptical scientists, by using certain chemical preparations, have reconstructed the miracle with more or less of success; that is to say, they have been able to exhibit some red substance which, though at first apparently solid, melted after an interval without any direct application of heat. None the less, it may be said with absolute confidence that the theory of heat affords no adequate explanation of the phenomena observed. For more than a century careful observations of the temperature of the air in the neighbourhood of the relic have been made on these occasions and the records have been kept. It is certain from the scientific memoirs of Professors Fergola, Punzo, and Sperindeo that there is no direct relation between the temperature, and the time and manner of the liquefaction. Often when the thermometer has stood at 77° Fahrenheit or even higher, liquefaction has been delayed for as much as twenty or even forty minutes, while on the other hand the contents of the phial have sometimes liquefied in considerably less time than this when the thermometer remained as low as 60 or 65 degrees. Moreover, the heat theory by no means accounts for another more remarkable fact observed for quite two hundred years past. The mass in melting commonly increased in volume, but when it solidifies again it does not necessarily return to its original bulk. Sometimes the whole phial is seen to be occupied, at other times hardly more than half. This has led a Neapolitan scientist of modern times, Professor Albini, to suggest a new physical theory derived from observing the behaviour of a viscous fluid such as partly congealed honey. He conjectures that the unknown substance in the phial consists of some highly divided solid matter which is partly held in suspension by a disproportionately small quantity of liquid. When at rest, the liquid sinks to the bottom of the phial, while the solid particles form a sort of crust not easily displaced when the vessel is turned upside down. This cohesion is however overcome by repeated movements, such as those that the reliquary experiences when the moment of liquefaction is impatiently waited for. Further, such a viscous fluid easily cakes upon the walls of the containing vessel, and admits large air bubbles which cause the deceptive appearance of a change of volume. Professor Albini claims to have reproduced all the phenomena with a compound made of powdered chocolate and the serum of milk. On the other hand, those who have studied closely the process of liquefaction of the contents of the phial declare that such an explanation is absolutely impossible. Moreover, there seem to be well-attested instances of liquefaction taking place both in the case of this and other similar relics of blood, when the reliquary has been standing by itself without any movement whatsoever. Accordingly, the suggestion has also been made (see Di Pace, "Ipotesi scientifica sulla Liquefazione", etc., Naples, 1905) that the phenomenon is due to some form of psychic force. The concentration of thought and will of the expectant crowd and specially of the "aunts of St. Januarius" are held to be capable of producing a physical effect. Against this, however, must be set the fact that the liquefaction has sometimes taken place quite unexpectedly and in the presence of very few spectators. Probably the most serious difficulty against the miraculous character of the phenomenon is derived from the circumstance that the same liquefaction takes place in the case of other relics, nearly all preserved in the neighbourhood of Naples, or of Neapolitan origin. These include relics which are affirmed to be the blood of St. John the Baptist, of St. Stephen the first martyr, of St. Pantaleone, of St. Patricia, of St. Nicholas of Tolentino, of St. Aloysius Gonzaga, and others. In the case of the alleged liquefaction of the so-called "Milk of Our Lady" (see Putignani, S.J., "De Redivivi Sanguine S. Januarii", Naples, 1723, I, 90) or of the fat of St. Thomas Aquinas (see Magnoni Valenti, "Discorso istorico" 1772, 47) we have probably a pure fiction, but the phials traditionally associated with the names of St. John the Baptist, St. Stephen, and St. Pantaleone undoubtedly still exhibit on the respective feast days of these saints phenomena exactly analogous to those shown in the case of the more famous relic of St. Januarius. Further, it is asserted by eyewitnesses of scientific credit and high respectability that a block of basalt at Pozzuoli, reputed to bear traces of the blood of St. Januarius, grows vividly red for a short time in May and September at the hour when the miracle of the liquefaction takes place in Naples (se Cavène, "Célèbre Miracle de S. Janvier", 1909, 277-300). Three other points attested by recent investigators seem worthy of special note. + It now appears that the first certain record of the liquefaction of the blood of St. Januarius dates from 1389 (see de Blasiis, "Chronicon Siculum incerti auctoris", Naples, 1887, 85), and not from 1456, as formerly supposed. + In 1902 Professor Sperindeo was allowed to pass a ray of light through the upper part of the phial during liquefaction and examine this beam spectroscopically. The experiment yielded the distinctive lines of the spectrum of blood. This, however, only proves that there are at any rate traces of blood in the contents of the phial (see Cavène, "Le Célèbre Miracle", 262-275). + Most remarkable of all, the apparent variation in the volume of the relic led in 1902 and 1904 to a series of experiments in the course of which the whole reliquary was weighed in a very accurate balance. It was found that the weight was not constant any more than the volume, and that the weight of the reliquary when the blood filled the whole cavity of the phial exceeded, by 26 grammes, the weight when the phial seemed but half full. This very large difference renders it impossible to believe that such a substantial variation in weight can be merely due to an error of observation. We are forced to accept the fact that, contrary to all known laws, a change goes on in the contents of this hermetically sealed vessel which makes them heavier and lighter in a ratio roughly, but not exactly, proportional to their apparent bulk (Cavène, 333-39). The reality of the miracle of St. Januarius has repeatedly been made the subject of controversy. It has had much to do with many conversions to Catholicism, notably with that of the elder Herder. Unfortunately, however, allegations have often been made as to the favourable verdict expressed by scientific men of note, which are not always verifiable. The supposed testimony of the great chemist, Sir Humphry Davy, who is declared to have expressed his belief in the genuineness of the miracle, seems to be a case in point. Though in many respects uncritical, the best account of the miracle of St. Januarius is that given by CAVENE, Le Célèbre Miracle de S. Janvier (Paris, 1909). From the historical side fuller details may be found in TAGLIALATELA, Memorie Storicocritiche del Culto e del Sangue di S. Gennaro (Naples, 1896). Among recent works may be mentioned: JANUARIO, Il Sangue di S. Gennaro (Naples, 1902); two articles by SILVA and SPERINDEO in the Ommagio della Rivista di Scienze e Lettere, published for the centenary of 1905; also SPERINDEO, Il Miracolo di S. Gennaro (3rd ed., Naples, 1908); THURSTON in the Tablet, 22 and 29 May, 1909, followed by a correspondence in the same journal. Of earlier date are PUNZO, La Teca di S. Gennaro (Naples, 1880); IDEM, Indagini ed osservazioni sulla Teca (Naples, 1890); ALBINI in Rendiconti dell' Accademia delle Scienze fisiche e matematiche (Società Reale di Napoli), series II, vol. IV (1890), 24-27; Acta SS., 19 Sept. There is also an excellent article by LECANU in MIGNE, Dictionnaire des Prophéties et des Miracles (1852), 1010-1016. The older books, such as those of PUTIGNANI, TUTINI, FALCONE, etc., are too numerous to mention, and they are for the most part very uncritical. The various "Acts" of St. Januarius have been edited by SCHERILLO in Atti Accad. Archeol. Napoli, VIII (1876), pt. I, 147-330. For further bibliography, see CHEVALIER, Bio-Bibl. HERBERT THURSTON Japan Japan AREA AND POPULATION Japan, called in the language of the country Nihon or Nippon (Land of the Rising Sun), and Dai Nihon or Dai Nippon (Great Japan), is situated north-west of the Pacific Ocean and east of the Asiatic Continent. It lies between 199°20' and 156°32' E. long. (meridian of Greenwich) and between 21°62' and 50°56' N. lat. It consists of six large islands, Honshiu or Hondo, Kinsui, Shikoku, Hokkaido (Yezo), Taiwan or Formosa, and the southern part of Karafu (Sakhalin). There are besides about six hundred small islands, among which Sado, Oki, Tsushima, Iki, Awaji, and the four archipelagos of the Pescadores, Chishima (Kuriles), Ogasawara, Shima (Bonin), and Okinawa (Riu-kin) deserve mention. The word Japan is the collective name of the whole territory, exclusive of Formosa and Karafuto. The total area amounts to 162,655 sq. miles. On 31 March, 1908, the total population of Japan was 49,092,000 inhabitants; that of Formosa 3,155,005; and that of the Ainus (aborigines) 17,632. The population is divided according to castes into the Kwazoku (nobles), heads of families, 902; members of families, about 4600; Shizoku (former knights or Samurai), heads of families 439,194; members of families 1,728,650; Heimin (private citizens), heads of families, 8,285,448; members of families 47,358,760. The number of the population increases rapidly. In 1876 it was 34,338,000; in 1886, 38,507,000; in 1896, 42,708,000; in 1907, 49,092,000, of which 24,839,000 were men, and 24,252,000 were women. The density is 415 to the sq. mile, exclusive of Hokkaido, where it is twenty-three to the square mile. Number of married persons, 16,458,308; births in the year 1907, 1,599,231; children born living, 1,457,039; children born dead, 142,092; illegitimate births: boys, 60,445, girls, 60,702. Number of marriages, 361,260; divorces, 60,179; deaths, 1,012,855. Recipients of passports to foreign countries, 43,627; Japanese resident abroad, the civil condition of whom is registered at the consulate, 234,134; in China, 34,006; in Corea, 81,754; in the United States, 20,080; in Hawaii and the Philippines, 73,974; in Europe, 694; the remainder in various countries. Number of foreigners resident in Japan, 18,908; Chinese, 12,273; Coreans, 459; Englishmen, 2293; Americans from the United States, 1624; Germans 664; French, 498; Russians, 194; Portuguese, 197; the remainder belong to various nationalities. PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY Seas and Straits The seas which surround Japan are the Pacific Ocean on the east, the Sea of Okhotsk on the North, the Sea of Japan on the west, and the China Sea on the south. The straits separating the principal islands are the Strait of Soya, or La Pérouse between Hokkaido and the Sakhalin, the strait of Tsugaru between the Great Island Honshiu and Hokkaido, and the Strait of Shimonoseki between Honshiu and Kiusiu. Coasts, Gulfs, and Bays The coasts are very irregular, the gulfs and bays are very numerous. On the Pacific Ocean are the gulfs of Sagami and Tosa, the bays of Tokio, Suruga, Ise, Omi, Tsuchiura, Seto, etc; on the Sea of Japan, the Bay of Fukuoaka, Wakasa, Kagoshima. Yatsushiro, Amagusa, Shimabara, etc. Lakes The largest lake is Biwa, which is about 180 miles in circumference, 36 1/2 miles long, and 12 1/2 miles wide. According to tradition Lake Biwa was formed by an earthquake in 286 B.C. Renowned for the beauty of its scenery, its praises have often been sung by poets. After Lake Biwa, the best known are Lake Suwa in Shinano, Lake Hakone, on the summit of the mountain of the same name, Lake Chiusenji in Shimotsuke, west of Nikko, 15 1/2 miles in circumference, 4375 feet above sea-level. The cascade of Kegon, one of the most beautiful and renowned of Japan, is on this lake. Rivers The slopes of the mountains being so close to the sea, the watercourse are not very long. They are for the most part only torrents, few of them capable of carrying boats, but they are utilized for rafting and thus supplement the roads. Only 15 are 40 ri or more long, the longest being 110 ri in length. (The ri is almost equal to 2 1/2 miles). Mountains In Japan the mountains cover two-thirds of the surface of the soil. The country is traversed by two chains of mountains, one a part of Sakhalin Island, the other south-east of China crossing Formosa. These two chains meet in the middle of the Great Island (Honshiu), dividing it into two parts which present striking contrasts as much from the political as from the geographical point of view. The highest peaks are situated at the intersection of these two chains, about the thirty-fifth parallel, which has caused tourists to give them the name of the Japanese Alps. The highest are Niitake in Formosa (12,850 feet), and Fuji (12,395 feet) in Honshiu. This last mountain must have been formed by the same earthquake which hollowed out Lake Biwa (286 B.C.). It is a volcano subject at times to terrible eruptions. On account of its regular outline and its majestic beauty it has furnished an inexhaustible source of inspiration to Japanese artists, poets, painters, etc. Valleys Although very mountainous the country is not devoid of valleys, the principal ones being those of Etchigo, Sendai, and Quanto, with Tokio and Yokohama, and a population of 6,000,000 souls, of Mino and Awari (1,150,000 souls), of Kinai, with Kyoto, Osaka, and Kobe (2,600,000 souls), of Tsukusi in Kiusiu. The oil mines of this valley furnish 67% of the total production of the mines of Japan. Volcanoes Three chains of volcanoes exist in Japan. The Kuriles, Fuji, and Kirishima contain 200 volcanoes, of which 100 are still active. The principal ones are Tarumi, Noboribetsu, Komagatake, Agatsuma, Bandai, Kausatsu, Kaimon, Sakaurajima, Fuji, Kirishima, Asama, and Aso. This last, situated north-east of Higo, numbers five peaks, the highest of which reaches an altitude of nearly one mile. It is perhaps the largest volcano in the world, its craters having an extent of 15 miles from north to south, 10 miles from east to west. It was in eruption in 1884, 1889, and 1896. Earthquakes Their number is proportionate to that of volcanoes. From 1883 to 1897 there were 17,750, that is 1365 per year, nearly 3 1/2 per day. From 1596 to 1877 Japan was visited by 100 more or less disastrous earthquakes. According to minute researchers made by a commission of scholars, the number of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions which have caused more or less damage from the beginning of historic times to the present day must equal 2006. One of the most terrible was that of 1855 at Tokio, in which more than 100,000 persons perished and the greater part of the city was destroyed. Mineral Springs As compensation for the damage caused by the volcanoes Japan has a large number of mineral springs. There are at least 100 which, because of ease of access and their medicinal qualities, are much frequented. Climate, Typhoons During the cold season, which begins in October and ends in April, Japan is visited by the north and the west wind, the atmospheric pressure being lower on the Pacific Ocean than on the continent. The contrary is true from May to October, because the wind then comes from the south and east. This difference in atmospheric pressure gives rise to numerous typhoons, which often cause great disasters. To mention only that of 1902, the number of persons killed equalled 3639, vessels lost 3244, houses destroyed or damaged, 695,062. Total loss, 29,742,081 yen. Rain, Snow Japan is one of the most rainy countries in the world. The average yearly rainfall is about 61 inches. The average number of rainy or snowy days per year is 150. There are 89 meteorological stations, where six observations are made daily, at two, six, and ten o'clock, morning and evening (135° E. of Greenwich time). IMPERIAL HOUSE Dynasty (Teishitshu) The form of the Japanese Government is an hereditary and constitutional monarchy. A single dynasty has reigned in Japan since the foundation of the empire. The present emperor is the one hundred and twenty-second descendant of Jimmu Tenno, first emperor of Japan. His own name is Mitsuhito; he has no family name since he is supposed to be descended directly from the race of gods. Born 3 November, 1852, he succeeded his father, Komei Tenno, 13 Feb., 1867, and was crowned 12 Oct., 1868. On 28 December the same year he married the Princess Haruko, third daughter of Kuge Ichijo Tadaka, a noble of the first rank, b. 28 May, 1850. Yoshihito Hiyu no miya, son of the emperor, b. 31 August, 1879, was proclaimed heir apparent on 31 August, 1887. On 10 May, 1900, he married Sadako, fourth daughter of Duke Kujo, by whom he has three sons. Branches of the Imperial Family (Kozuko) There are fourteen branches of the imperial family: Fushimi, Arisugawa, Jan-in, Higashi-Fushimi, Kwacho, Yamashina, Kaya, Kuni, Nashimoto, Kita-Shirakawa, Komatsu, Takeda, Asaka, Higashi-Kuni. The first four families have the title of Shinno (princes of the blood), and constitute the four branches from whom must be chosen the heir to the throne, if the emperor die without issue. The others have the title O (princes). The first, when they are of age, have by right a seat in the house of Peers. The others may only sit there by order of the emperor. These last may also succeed a nobleman or be adopted by him. All are by right a portion of the imperial household. They may be neither arrested nor summoned before a court without the command of the emperor, nor marry without his permission, nor ally themselves with any save the family designated by him. If they commit an act unworthy of their rank the emperor has the right to punish them, and even deprive them of their title of prince. If they are wasteful of their property, they may be interdicted and forced to submit to the appointment of an administrator of their property. Estates of the Crown According to the present data the crown possesses 12,135 acres of built land, representing a value of 62,090,830 yen; 5, 272,745 acres of forest valued at 123,809,642 yen; 300,770 acres of diverse territory estimated at 2,319,808 yen. Its bonds and stocks represent a gross sum of 30,000,000 yen, while the amount of its treasure is unknown. Crown Laws In the Constitution is inserted a collection of laws known as the Code of the Imperial House (Koshitsu Tempan), in twelve chapters, which govern the Crown. This code regulates the succession to the throne, and the coronation ceremonies, fixes the majority of the emperor, the prince imperial, and the various members of the imperial family. It contains laws concerning the regency, the family council, the governor to be assigned to an emperor in his minority, the expenses of the court, possible disputes between members of the emperor's family, the disciplinary measures to be taken against delinquents. Ministry of the Imperial Household The reform of Kaikwa has created a Kunaikwan (government of the palace), which in 1702 was changed into the Kunaisho (ministry of the palace). The minister had the title of Kunaikyo and was charged with the collection of imposts (in the provinces), with the possession of the Crown, etc. He had eight ministers under his jurisdiction. After the Restoration, the Kunaisho was retained, but underwent two modifications, one in 1870, the other in 1889. To-day the Kunaisho is charged with the affairs of the emperor's household. A minister is at the head charged with the general administration and all the employés of the ministry are under his immediate jurisdiction. He has control of the nobility, regulates the civil and religious ceremonies, distributes the favours, presents, or rewards of the emperor, notifies those interested of the decrees raising them to a dignity or an office, and is the executor of all the regulations of the imperial household. He is assisted by a vice-minister and fifteen councillors, all chosen by the emperor. The chief of these are the chamberlain, the keeper of the seal, the empress's steward, the master of ceremonies, the director of the bureau of domains, and the director of the bureau of nobility. The number of employés of the imperial household is 2534; salaries, 1,003,805 yen. Decorations In Japan there are six orders of decoration conferred as award of merit: (1) Order of the Chrysanthemum (Kikuwasho), created in 1876, reserved to sovereigns and members of princely families; (2) Order of Paulownia (Tokwasho), created in 1876, granted to princes and very exalted personages; (3) Order of the Rising Sun (Kyokujitsusho), created in 1875, created for civil and military services; (4) Order of the Sacred Treasure (Zuihosho), created in 1888 to reward civil and military services; 8 classes; (5) Order of the Crown (Hokwonsho), created in 1888, reserved to women; 8 classes; (6) Order of the Golden Kite (Kinshisho), created in 1890, rewards extraordinary military feats, and entitles to a pension. In recognition of meritorious deeds which, however, do not deserve a decoration, the Government awards certificates, medals, and cups of gold, silver, or wood. The number of Japanese thus decorated or rewarded reaches into the millions. On 31 March, 1908, the number of persons decorated and entitled to a pension was 70,822. Pensions furnished by the government, 9,0630,000 yen. Number of decorations distributed in 1903, 3914; in 1905, 36,357; in 1907, 37,602, not counting the decoration of the Golden Kite. Decorations of the Golden Kite in 1904, 2316; in 1905, 27,649; in 1906, 73,810; in 1907, 1,305,018. This shower of decorations was caused by the war with Russia. The number of foreigners decorated by the Japanese was, on 31 March, 1907, 417, and that of Japanese decorated by foreign governments, 542. Titles of Nobility The class of nobles (Kwasoku) comprises the ancient nobles of the court (Kuge), the ancient lords of the provinces (Daimio), and those who have been ennobled since the Restoration, or the new nobility (Shin-Kwasoku). Graduated titles were created in 1884 for these nobles of various degrees, in Japanese, Ko, Ko, Haku, Shi, and Dan, corresponding to duke, marquess, count, viscount, and baron. Nobility is hereditary, and on 31 March, 1908, this class consisted of 15 dukes (Ko), 36 marquesses (Ko), 100 counts (Haku), 375 viscounts (Shi), and 376 barons (Dan), that is, 902 families comprising 4600 members, which form the Japanese aristocracy. Rank at Court Besides the titles of nobility there are purely honorary dignities, forming a sort of court hierarchy. This hierarchy was established in Japan in the reign of the Empress Suiko (A.D. 603). In 682 the number of degrees was raised to forty-eight; in 702 it was fixed at thirty. At the Restoration this hierarchy was retained but very much simplified. At present there are eight degrees each, except for the first, being divided into two, which gives a total of fifteen. These titles or dignities (I-Kai or Kurai) are awarded to nobles, to functionaries of high rank, or to citizens who, while not belonging to these classes, have rendered signal service to the nation. These dignities carry with them certain rights, e.g., that of assisting at the emperor's reception on a certain day of the year. They are conferred only on Japanese. The number of persons honoured with these titles was, in 1907, 50,906, among them 113 women. Grades of Civil Functionaries and Military Officials The former are called Bunkwan and the latter Bukwan. Both are divided into four classes, Shinnin, Chokunin, Sonin, and Hannin. The Shinnin, who form the highest class, receive their investiture from the hand of the emperor himself. The decree of promotion bears the seal of the empire and is countersigned by the president of the council. The Chokunin are appointed by a decree of the emperor, bearing the seal of the empire. The Sonin are appointed by the cabinet upon presentation by the ministers. The Hannin are appointed by their respective ministers. Civil and military officials of the rank of Shinnin, 46; civil officials of the rank of Chokunin, 307; Sonin, 7015; Hannin, 51,952. Army and navy: all the generals and admirals have the rank of Chokunin, all the other officers have that of Sonin, and all non-commissioned officers that of Hannin. For the number see subtitles Army; Navy. The Shinnin number 46 civil or military officials. The statistics for the Shinnin make no distinction between civil and military officials for this exalted degree only. CONSTITUTION OF THE EMPIRE On his succession to the throne the emperor promised to establish a national Assembly for the purpose of discussing the affairs of the country. Although proceeding from the free will of the sovereign, the project of a Constitution, before being put into execution, encountered many obstacles and provoked violent conflicts between the Government and the democratic party. The various phases of these conflicts may be summarized as follows: In 1873 Itagaki and his followers addressed a petition to the Government in which they called upon it to carry out the sovereign's wishes, and in 1880 a campaign was organized throughout the country for the promotion of the rights of the people. In 1881 Itagaki and his followers organized the Liberal Party and vigorously urged forward the movement in favour of the establishment of a parliament. In the same year the emperor promised to promulgate the Constitution within ten years. Finally on 11 February, 1889, the constitution was promulgated and the Diet was convoked in November of the next year. Prerogatives of the Emperor The chief rights accorded to the emperor in the Constitution are: to convoke, open, close, and suspend the Parliament; to dissolve the Chamber of Deputies; to issue ordinances which have the force of law, in urgent circumstances when the diet is not sitting and on condition that they be submitted to it in the next session, to give orders for the execution of the laws, to maintain peace and promote the welfare of the people, to assume command of the forces of sea and land and to regulate the organization of both these services, to declare war, make peace, conclude treaties, proclaim a state of siege, to grant titles of nobility, rank at court, decorations, and other honorary titles, to declare amnesty, to commute penalties, and to rehabilitate. Rights of the People The rights granted to the people are as follows: Every Japanese subject without distinction of class may be promoted to any civil or military rank or public office. No Japanese subject may be arrested, held, or punished except according to law. Except in cases provided for by law, every Japanese dwelling is inviolable and is not subject to any domiciliary visit. Secrecy of mailed letters and rights of property are inviolable. The Constitution further grants liberty of religious belief in all that is not prejudicial to peace and order and the duties of a subject, freedom of speech, of the press, of public assembly, of association, and the right to present petitions in a respectful manner. Government For the management of state affairs the emperor employs several ministers, at the present time nine in number, viz., ministers of foreign affairs, of the interior, of justice, of finance, of war, of the navy, of public instruction, of agriculture and commerce, and of communications. Privy Council (Sumitsu-in) The emperor is also assisted by a privy council created in 1888 and composed of a president, vice-president, and fifteen members chosen from among the highest functionaries of at least forty years of age. The president of the cabinet and all the members are councillors ex officio. The privy council gives its opinions concerning questions submitted by the emperor, but is not entitled to make proposals, to decide as last resort, nor to exercise executive power. It gives advice with regard to treaties to be concluded with other powers, in urgent cases, in quarrels which may arise between the Government and the Chambers, in fine in all circumstances in which the supreme power is expected to intervene. Parliament The emperor shares legislative power with two large political bodies, the Chamber of Peers and the Chamber of Deputies. The chamber of Peers enjoys certain privileges. The emperor may suspend but not dissolve it. The duration of the commission of peers is seven years, that of deputies four years. The peers, being appointed by the emperor or by right of birth, are such for life. All the deputies must be re-elected every four years. The chambers discuss and vote on selected laws, the budget, taxes, etc., but their decisions do not go into effect until they have received the sanction of the emperor. The Chamber of Peers is composed of the members of the imperial family, of all dukes and marquesses over twenty-five, of a certain number of counts, viscounts, and barons who have attained their twenty-fifth year and who are elected by their peers, of members aged at least thirty appointed for life by the emperor because of their services or learning, and lastly of forty-five members aged at least thirty, elected from among the fifteen most influential citizens of each district which returns them. Their election must be confirmed by the emperor. The number of these two categories must not exceed that of the members of the nobility. In 1908 the Chamber of Peers was composed as follows: members of the imperial family, 13; dukes, 10; marquesses 28; counts 17; viscounts, 69; barons, 55; appointed for life by the emperor, 124; chosen from amongst the citizens paying the largest taxes, 45. Total, 361. In the upper chamber there is no political party properly so called; the peers are merely divided into groups, generally composed of members of the same class. The Chamber of Deputies is composed of two kinds of members, the first returned by the cities having at least 30,000 inhabitants, the others by the districts. Each city and department forms an independent district. To be an elector it is necessary to have attained the age of twenty-five and to pay a minimum of ten yen in direct contribution. One may be a deputy without paying the contribution but it is necessary to have attained at least thirty. Those who are neither eligible or electors are outlaws, bankrupts, those whose property has been confiscated, those who have lost civil rights or who have been sentenced to prison, soldiers in active service, pupils in the public or private schools, professors in the primary schools, ministers of any religion whatever, contractors of government work, officials charged with intervening in the elections, the employés of the ministry of the imperial household, judges, attorneys, collectors, police employés, and general councillors. At present the deputies are divided into four parties: (1) the Government Party (Seiyukwai), which in 1900 replaced the old Liberal Party of Itagaki (1881); (2) the Progressive Party (Shimpoto), or opposition (1882), more or less divided in sentiment; (3), the United Party, formed of old imperialists, opportunists, and deserters from the Progressive Party; (4) the New Association (Yushinkwai) or Advanced Party, among whom there are a number of Socialists. The number of deputies (end of March, 1908), 379; number of electors, 1,583,676; number who cast their votes, 1,353,301; unable to write the candidate's name 3338. Number of deputies in Governmental Party, 167; Progressives, 94; United Party, 68; New Association, 36; nobles (former Samurai), commoners, 273. Diplomatic Corps in Foreign Lands Embassies, 7, viz. to England, the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Austria, and Russia. Legations, 8; to Spain, Belgium, Holland, Sweden, China, Siam, Mexico, Brazil. Staff, 90. Consulates Consuls general, 11; consuls and vice-consuls, 31; staff, 365. Civil officials and employees of the Government, 152,159; annual salaries, 44,787,112 yen; government engineers, 9492; employés under their supervision, 17,941, total 27,458; salaries, 9,638,546 yen. Tax bureaus, 18; staff, 8443; annual salaries 2,122,561 yen. Pensions and Grants Pensions and grants to retired officials, widows, or orphans; persons assisted or pensioned, 206,860. Total amount: 15,847,280 yen. POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY AND LOCAL ADMINISTRATION Japan is divided into ten large regions comprising eighty-eight provinces. There are: (1) Kinai (or Go Kinai) 5 provinces; (2) Tokaido, 15 provinces; (3) Tosando, 13 provinces; (4) San-indo, 8 provinces; (5) Hokurokudo, 7 provinces; (6) Sanyodo, 8 provinces; (7) Nankaido, 6 provinces; (8) Saikaido, 8 provinces; (9) Hokkaido, 10 provinces; (10) Taiwan, 3 provinces. Before the Restoration Japan was divided into fiefs (han) administered by daimios. The han established by degrees in the course of the twelfth century were regularly organized by Yoritomo (1192-99). Under the Ashikaga it was no longer the will of the emperor or the shogun but the force of arms which designated the rulers. Tokugawa Ieyasu estimated the number of han at more than 300. They were divided into three classes, according to the importance of their revenues, the Dai-han (large fiefs) being worth upwards of 400,000 koku of rice, the Chu-han (medium fiefs), from 100,000 to 400,000 koku, and the Sho-han (small fiefs), upwards of 100,000 koku. After the Restoration Japan was divided into departments (ken) and prefectures (fu). The number of these varied several times. To-day for the convenience of the administration the country is divided into three fu, 43 ken, and two special governments (cho), those of Hokkaido and Formosa, comprising altogether 660 districts (gun or kori), 63 municipalities (shi), 1138 towns (cho or machi), and 11,801 villages (son or mura). The three fu (prefectures) are Tokio. Osaka, and Kyoto. Among the municipalities sixteen have more than 50,000 inhabitants and less than 100,000, three more than 100,000 and less than 200,000, and six a population exceeding 200,000. These six cities are Tokio, 1,811,655 inhabitants, Osaka, 995,945, Kyoto, 380,568, Yokohama, 326,065, Nagoya, 288,369, and Kobe, 285,002. At the head of each department is a prefect assisted by a council of prefecture, which represents the central government, while the general council represents the rights and interests of the people. The general council exercises over the finances of the department a control similar to that which the parliament exercises over the finances of the State. They regulate the distribution of taxes and vote on the needs of the departments. All the citizens residing in a department and who pay a direct yearly tax of three yen have the right to vote for the election of councillors. Payment of a tax of ten yen is necessary for eligibility. The term of office is four years. At the head of each district is a sub-prefect, at the head of each village or town is a mayor assisted by a council. The departments, districts, towns, and villages have a special budget administered by the general council, the district council, the municipal council, and increased by local revenues independent of the taxes raised by the Government. These departments, districts, towns, villages may contract loans with the authorization of the minister of finance. For loans payable in less than three years they are not obliged to secure this authorization. For the financial year 1907-08 the total of the budgets for the department and municipalities were as follows: receipts, 173,004,523 yen; expenditures, 166,614,817 yen; fund for public relief, 34,884,370; total amount of debt, 89,266, 115 yen. Ten years earlier (1897) the receipts amounted to 100,588,000 yen; expenses, 88,817,000 yen; debt, 16,350,000 yen. LEGISLATION For many years Japan had no legal code, the moral law and local custom taking its place. In 604, in the reign of the Empress Suiko, Shotoku Taishi promulgated a code of law in seventeen chapters borrowed from China. This is the earliest code of which mention is made in history. Later the Emperor Mamu (696-707) appointed a commission of scholars to draw up a new code, and the work was completed and promulgated in 701. It is called the code of the era of Taiho (Taiho-ryo), and save for some modifications was in force until the Restoration. At this time intercourse with foreigners and the study of laws used in European countries brought home to the Japanese the necessity of a new code, more in harmony with their new situation. With the aid of foreign legists, they undertook this work of codification, which they brought to a successful issue at the end of twenty years. The collection of laws thus drawn up form six codes: the Constitution, the civil code, the criminal code, the commercial code, and the codes of civil and criminal procedure. For the application of this new legislation a judiciary organization was created very similar to that which exists in France. It comprises tribunals of justices of the peace (Ku-Saibasho), lower courts (Chiho-Saibasho), courts of appeals (Koso-in), and a court of cassation (Taishin-in). The Constitution published February, 1889, established the irremovability of the magistrates, who can only be suspended by special law. The tribunals number 358; courts of cassation, 1; courts of appeal, 7 (Tokio, Osaka, Nagoya, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Miyaga, and Hakodate); lower courts (district courts), 49 (at least one to a department); courts of justices of the peace (sub-district courts), 301. Staff of the tribunals, 11,826; judges, 1278; attorneys, 426; registrars, 4140; wardens, 1727; lower employés and agents, 4257; bailiffs, 520; barristers, 2037. The courts of justices of the peace alone have had to judge 133,186 cases; the lower courts, 24,465; the courts of appeal, 3684; and the supreme court, 659. Marriage The law exacts the completion of seventeen years for a man and fifteen for a woman. The consent of the parents is required for males under thirty, and for females under twenty-five. Minors must secure the consent of a guardian and of a family. No person who already had a spouse may remarry, and the penalty for so doing is two years in prison. An adulterer is forbidden to marry the partner in the sin. Marriage between blood relations is forbidden within all degrees of the direct line, and in the collateral line within the third degree inclusive. Marriage between relations (affinities) is forbidden, within all degrees in the direct line, even after divorce, but in collateral line there is no impediment. All marriages contracted through mistaken identity, fraud, or violence can be annulled with three months following their celebration. The woman may not marry till six months after the dissolution or annulment of the first marriage. Husband and wife must live together, the law not admitting separation of body. The fact of the marriage should be inscribed on the register of the civil Government, and in default of this formality the marriage does not exist before the law, and is without effect. Formerly women could not possess property but now they are accorded this right. The law regulates the conjugal partnership of goods, but husband and wife are at liberty to make a contract. The husband is obliged to provide for the support of the family and to defray the expenses of the children's education. He has the right to administer the property of his wife and to collect the profits, but he is not entitled either to sell it or to give it as security, or to lend it without consent. In Japan, marriage is always arranged by an intermediary. The law stipulates nothing with regard to the ceremony, which is left to the choice of those concerned. The peasants follow the customs of the country, the chief of which involves the exchange of cups of wine by the betrothed pair. The Buddhist or Shintoist priests (bonzes or Kamushi) have no share in the celebration of marriage. The Christians marry according to the rites of their religion. Politeness demands that the newly wedded pair pay a visit in the course of a month to all who assisted at the ceremony. Divorce The Japanese law allows divorce, and this divorce annuls all the effects of marriage except the impediment of affinity. Divorce may be granted in to ways, privately, or by court sentence. The chief causes for divorce are: (1) bigamy; (2) adultery (for a woman); (3) notorious adultery for a man; (4) crimes of forgery, petty larceny, robbery with violence, fraudulent possession, receiving a bribe, obscene acts, and all crimes involving a prison sentence of three years; (5) ill-treatment or grievous injury of the other party or of his father or mother; (6) ill-treatment or grievous injury received from the relations of the other party; (7) abandonment of one of the parties by the other with evil intent; (8) ignorance for three years of whether the other party is living or dead. Wills Every one may dispose of his possessions by will, provide the will is submitted to certain conditions. Those only are incapacitated of making a will who are of unsound mind or who have not attained the age of fifteen. Japanese law recognizes natural heirs and every clause injurious to their rights is null. As to form, Japanese law recognizes three kinds of wills, olographic, authentic, and secret. An olographic will (Jihitsu-shosho) is one which the testator writes, dates, and signs with his own hand, and to which he affixes his seal. An authentic will (Kosei-shosho) is dictated by the testator with formalities prescribed by law in the presence of at least two witnesses, written by a notary (Kosho-nin), who reads the will to the testator and the witnesses. If it is approved the testator and the witnesses should then sign it and affix their seal. The secret will (Himitsu-shosho) is signed and sealed by a testator and presented by him to a notary in the presence of at least two witnesses. The testator declares that it is his will and gives the name and address of him who drew it up. The notary records on the envelope the report of this presentation, whereupon the testator, the witnesses, and the notary sign and affix their seals. Besides these wills Japanese law recognizes other which have only a temporary existence and cease with the circumstances that gave rise to them, e.g., military wills, naval wills, wills made in a time of contagious disease or at the point of death, if the sick person recovers. To make an act legal every Japanese must affix his seal (jitsun-in) to that act. A copy (in-kan) should be deposited at the surrogate's office. For foreigners the signature is sufficient. The will goes into effect immediately on the death of the testator; if it is conditional, as soon as the conditions are realized. But to put it into execution, the executor must have it signed by the court. The testator may always revoke his will in whole or in part. When the same person has made two wills the second prevails. Anyone is free to reject a will made in his favour. The share reserved to the natural heirs in the direct line is one-half of the property, that of the other heirs, one-third. Prisons (Kangoku) In the present penal system, prisons are divided into two chief classes, civil and military. Civil prisons comprise six categories: (1) criminal or convict prisons for those sentenced to deportation or banishment (three); (2) temporary prisons in which are confined those sentenced to deportation or banishment until such a time as they shall be transferred to their final destination (three); (3) departmental prisons for those sentenced to simple detention and compulsory labour (at least one for each department); (4) detentive prisons, destined to receive prisoners who have been indicted and accused persons until the law has decided their case; (5) houses of correction reserved for minors under twenty and for deaf-mutes; (6) jails, for those sentenced to thirty days' imprisonment by police magistrates. These jails are annexed to the police station. The prisons are under the jurisdiction of the minister of justice, who appoints the general inspectors and all the employés. Number of civil prisons in the year 1908, 56; bridewells, 92; general inspectors, 56; wardens, 620; engineers and interpreters, 29; physicians, 198; chaplains and instructors, 232; pharmacists, 42; keepers of the first class 7907; of the second class, 300; women servants, 383; employés of various kinds, 230. Total, 9997. Inmates of the penitentiary establishments at the end of 1907: detentive prisons, men, 4008; women, 203; houses of detention, men, 46,175; women, 2550; houses of correction, men, 738. women, 69. Total, 53,743. the total number of persons sentenced in 1907, men, 114,236; women, 16,748. Police (Kaisatsu) The police service as it exists to-day was organized at the beginning of the present reign according to the English system. It is divided into two main sections, the administrative police (Gyosie Kaisatsu), and the judiciary police (Shiho Kaisatsu). In the department it is subject to the prefect, at Tokio to the prefecture of police (Keishicho). It has its courts, which have the power to judge offenses for which the penalty does not exceed thirty days' imprisonment. On 31 March, 1908, the police department numbered: chief police stations or bureaus, 713; branch stations, 618; city station houses, 1841; rural station houses, 12,648; inspectors or superintendents (Keibu), 1861; police agents (Junsa) 33,885. Crimes, offenses, and cases in which the police have had to intervene in 1907: robberies accompanied by violence, 1239; without violence 267,030; swindlings, 28,876; total number of robberies, 297, 145. Violent deaths: suicides, 8906; murders, 1236; sudden deaths, 1387; victims of accidents and others, 14,015. Total, 25,544. Fires, involuntary, 12,462; incendiary, 858; caused by lightning or by unknown causes, 2174. Total, 15,494. Number of houses burned, 36,669. Public reunions, indoors, 587; numbers of orators, 1863; in the open air, 87; orators, 55. Total numbers of arrests made by police for crimes, offenses, or infractions of the law, 707,261. Hygiene The organization of the hygienic service dates from 1872. It began with the organization of a medical bureau, which was suspended in 1875 and replaced by a bureau of health. In 1879 a central board and local boards of public health were established and the service was extended to all the departments. In 1899 it was extended to all towns and villages and private committees were formed. The chief regulations relative to hygiene are: the cleaning of houses and drains, which should be done twice yearly under police supervision; the building and improvement of hospitals, prisons, schools, and all public institutions; the locations of cemeteries; burial; vaccination, etc. The hygiene service is within the jurisdiction of the police who are charged with enforcing its regulations. Hospitals and Medical Bodies Before the Restoration Japan had five hospitals located at Nagasaki, Saga, Fukui, Kanazawa, and Osaka. The first in point of time was Nagasaki, founded in 1861. On 31 March, 1908, the number of hospitals was 870, 5 founded by the government, 205 by the departments, and 660 by private citizens. To all these hospitals, private as well as public, is attached a force of women-nurses, who must be at least eighteen years of age and provided with a diploma. Throughout the empire there are: doctors, 38,776; midwives, 26,387; druggists, 29,318; chemists, 2370. In 1907 the number of persons inflicted with contagious disease was 71,532; typhus, 27,988; dysentery, 24,942; deaths from contagious diseases, 19,536. PUBLIC INSTRUCTION Until the Shogunate of the Tokugawa education was left entirely to the Buddhist priests. Under the Tokugawa (1603-1868) it was confided to lay teachers and during this period of 265 years the Chinese classics were the basis of instruction. But in this aristocratic country knowledge was a privilege together with nobility, and there were no public schools save for the sons of the Samurai. However, the lower classes were no wholly abandoned to ignorance. Farmers, mechanics, and merchants received an education befitting their condition in the schools connected with the temples, known as Teragoya, and in private schools. To-day freedom to learn is granted in Japan to all degrees of the social scale. Instruction is compulsory for six to twelve years, and non-religious. At the head of public instruction is a minister assisted by a board and corps of inspectors. Schools are divided into primary schools in which classes are included the infant schools and the schools for deaf-mutes and the blind, secondary schools, high schools, universities, ordinary normal schools, higher normal schools, special schools, technical schools, and various. Primary Schools Primary schools are divided into two classes, common and high schools. The duration of the first is six years, and as the instruction is compulsory, attendance at this school is required from six to twelve years. The certificate of completion of this term secures admittance into the secondary schools. The higher course lasts two years and is optional. Number of primary schools, 27,269; teachers, 116,070; pupils, 6,601,620; average number of children receiving instruction, 96.5%. Private schools, only 249. Infant schools, 361. Women attendants, 984; children, 32,885. Deaf-mute and blind institutions, 31; teachers, 168; pupils, 1532. The secondary schools for boys were founded as a preparation for the high schools. Graduates of these schools are qualified to obtain position under the Government, according to their abilities, without passing a preliminary examination. The duration of the course is six years. Number of schools, 281; founded by the Government and the municipalities, 228; private, 58; teachers 5336; pupils, 108,531. Secondary Schools for Girls The duration of the course is from four to five years at choice. To the regular courses may be added special courses for the study of foreign languages or some womanly art, and supplementary courses for pupils desiring to perfect themselves in a particular branch. These courses should not exceed two or three years. Number of schools, 114; public, 98; private, 16; teachers, 1770; pupils, 35,876. The higher schools are a preparation for the university. The course lasts three years and is divided into three classes which differ among themselves. the instruction in each class corresponds to the career to which the pupil is destined. Number of schools, 7, all founded by the government and under its supervision. They are located at Tokio, Sendai, Kyoto, Kanazawa, Okayama. Kumamoto, and Kagoshima; teachers, 272; pupils 4888. Imperial Universities There are two of these, one at Tokio, and one at Kyoto. The University of Tokio comprises besides the University Hall the faculties of law, medicine, literature, science, agriculture and engineering. Japanese professors, 166; foreigners, 15; Japanese students, 5050; foreigners, 39. The University of Kyoto comprises besides the University Hall, the faculties of law, medicine, literature, science and engineering. Japanese professors, 166; foreign professors, 4; students, 1507. Besides these universities there are about forty public or private schools which assume the name of universities, but for entrance to which it is not necessary to have a diploma from the higher schools. The two most important are the university of Waseda, from 5000 to 6000 students, and that of Kei-o-gijiku, 1100 students. The former was founded by Okuma in 1882, and the second by Fukuzawa in 1865. Normal Schools Each department is obliged to have at least one normal school. The course is four years for boys, and three for girls. Preparatory courses and courses of pedagogy may be added according to circumstances to the regular courses. The expenses of education are defrayed by the departments, but graduates are obliged to teach for eight years. Number of normal schools, 67; teaching staff, 1112 (men, 980, women, 132); students 18,928 (boys, 14,176, girls 4752). higher normal schools: for boys, 2; teachers 212; students 2456; for girls 1; teachers, 95; students, 858. Special Schools Medicine and pharmacy, 10; statistics, law, political economy, 12; literature and religion, 26; other schools, 2. Total: schools, 50; professors 1537; students, 27,573. Technical Schools, and Schools Preparatory thereto Schools of agriculture, 142; professors, 1151; students, 17,390; preparatory schools, 3785; professors, 1162; students, 149,225. Fishery schools, 11; professors, 64; students, 811; preparatory schools, 103; professors, 48; students, 3344. Schools of arts and crafts, 35; professors 599; students, 6398; supplementary schools, 155; professors, 240; students, 8365. Schools of commerce, 70; professors, 1087; students, 20,685; supplementaries, 167; professors, 225; students, 10,541. Merchant marine, 9; professors, 127; students, 2008; supplementaries, 1; professor, 1; students, 27. Schools of apprenticeship or of foremen, 326; professors, 3402; students, 51,929. Total: schools, 4804; professors, 8106; students 270,723. In 1899 the number of technical schools was 227; professors, 1245; students, 23,095. miscellaneous schools, 2092; professors, 7619; students 142,695. Establishments Founded and Maintained by the Government Under the jurisdiction of the minister of public instruction are: the two universities of Tokio and Kyoto, the seven high schools, the two higher normal schools for boys, and that for girls. There are besides one high school of agriculture and aboriculture (professors, 32; students, 244); five high schools of arts and crafts (professors, 139; students, 1502); four high schools of commerce (professors, 109; students, 2477); five high schools of medicine (professors 116, students, 2693); one school of foreign languages in which are taught English, French, German, Russian, Italian, Spanish, Chinese, Corean, Hindustani, Malayan, and Mongolian (Japanese professors, 32; foreign, 12; students, 648); 1 school of fine arts (professors, 52; students 440); 1 school of music (Japanese professors, 49; foreign, 9; pupils, 540); 1 school for deaf mutes and the blind (professors, 20; students, 320); 4 schools of pedagogy (professors, 15; students, 87). Under the Jurisdiction of the Imperial Household Schools for the nobility, 1 for boys (professors, 86, students, 531); 1 for girls (professors, 60; students, 618). Dependent on the minister of communications, 1 naval school of commerce (professors, 48; students, 495). Dependent on the ministry of war: 1 high school of war; one school of practical artillery and engineering; one military school; one central military public school at Tokio; five other public schools outside of Tokio; school for scouts; cavalry school; school of sharpshooting; commissariat school; school of military music (professors, 624; students, 4111). Dependent on the ministry of marine: high school of marine; naval school; school of mechanics; medical school; school of accountants; school of naval construction, etc. (professors, 213; students, 902). Total number of professors in schools under Government supervision, 2748; students, 32,879. In 1907 the expenditure for schools under the supervision of the departments and districts reached 44,855,568 yen. The receipts equalled 9,888, 543 yen. Deficit, 35,080,543 yen. The property of the public schools (grounds, buildings, books, instruments, etc) represent a sum of 122,563,491 yen; special funds a sum of 21,516,652 yen. The number of libraries (1907) equalled 127, containing 1,464,717 volumes. Number of visitors, 949,798. Books issued within the year, 28,319; journals and reviews, 1988. An academy (Gakushi-kwai-in) was founded at Tokio by imperial decree in 1890. Placed under the jurisdiction of the minister of public instruction, it is composed of forty members, chosen from among the most learned of the country. Fifteen are appointed by the emperor, the remaining twenty-five by the minister at the nomination of the former. They discuss the questions proposed by the minister of public instruction and give their advice. They meet once a month and treat scientific questions. The hall is open to the public. ARMY From the beginning of the feudal system until its abolition (1192-1868), that is, for a period of nearly 700 years, military service was the exclusive privilege of the Samurai. This privilege was abolished after the Restoration. To-day every Japanese without distinction of caste is liable to be called upon to bear arms. Japan has adopted the European system for its armies. Conscription was inaugurated in 1872. The drawing of lots takes place at the age of twenty. The average annual number of recruits is 120,000 men; infantry, 68,000; cavalry 3900; artillery, 7500; siege artillery, 3000; field artillery, 600 (divisions and imperial guard). Sappers and miners, 2600; commissariat, 2000; railroad and telegraph corps, 700; train, 20,000. Adding to this those who are assigned to special services, we reach the figure of 120,000 men. Exemptions A son whose father is sixty years of age is exempt from service, if the latter has no means of support. A reprieve is granted to students who have a diploma from the secondary schools and to students who reside in a foreign country (except those who are in the Asiatic countries near Japan). The term of service may be shortened by a year of voluntary service, and for this it is necessary to be provided with a diploma from the secondary schools. After their year of service the volunteers are passed into the reserves with the grade of non-commissioned officer. They are obliged to defray all the expenses of the barracks. Professors in the primary schools are bound only to six month's service, at the expiration of which they are passed into the territorial forces. Organization The army is divided into active army, army of reserve, and territorial army. The duration of service in the active army is two years; in the reserve, four and a half years; in the territorial army, ten years. The two years' service, inaugurated in 1908, necessitated a supplementary expenditure of 170,000,000 yen, to be assessed in ten years. The number of divisions during the Russo-Japanese war was raised from twelve to sixteen. At present there are eighteen, not counting the division of the imperial guard. In time of war Japan can put in the field an army of 1,000,000 men. Officers and officials affiliated with the active army: generals, 16; general of divisions, 33; brigadier-generals, 96; colonels, 233; lieutenant-colonels, 353; commandants, 1008; captains, 3426; lieutenants, 3976; sub-lieutenants, 3208; affiliated officers, 1710; total, 14,085; salaries, 9,402,576 yen. Councils of war are established in the army to judge the soldiers. Where a state of siege has been proclaimed their jurisdiction extends to all citizens without exception. There are eighteen of these, one to a division. Cases judged in 1907, 1993. To each division are attached a prison and a hospital. Soldiers committed to prison (1907), 2311; released, 2269. Sick persons cared for in the hospitals, 78,599; deaths, 357. In 1877 the constabulary (gendarmerie) was created according to the French system. It constitutes the police force of the armies of land and sea, and shares the duties of the administrative and judicial police. The constables wear a military uniform and carry a sword and a pistol. The constabulary forms eighteen companies, attached to the eighteen divisions of the army, and commanded by a brigadier-general. It numbers only 2500 men. In 1907 it intervened in 2082 cases, and assisted 66 sick or wounded persons. NAVY Under the government of the Tokugawa the lack of stimulation and the complete rupture of relations with the outside world caused the navy to be completely neglected. In 1871 a vessel presented by the King of Holland and some ships purchased abroad by the Government of the shogun and the daimios of Tosa and Satsuma constituted the imperial fleet. Of all the services organized under the present reign none has undergone such rapid development as that of the navy, as is shown by the following table: + 1871 -- 17 ships, 6,000 tons + 1894 -- 33 ships, 61,000 tons + 1904 -- 76 ships, 258,251 tons, 518,040 horsepower + 1907 -- 126 ships, 506,093 tongs, 1,045,383 horsepower This list does not include the 77 torpedoes weighing 7258 tons. This prodigious development of the Japanese navy in recent years is due to three projects of expansion voted successively by the Chambers, the first (1903) requiring an extraordinary expenditure of 115,000,000 yen; the second (1905) 175,000,000 yen; the third (1907), 76,000,000 yen. There are five maritime prefectures: Yoko-Suka, Kure, Sassebo, Maizuru, and Port Arthur; three naval stations, Takeshiki, the Pescadores, and Aminato. The fleet is divided into three squadrons. On 31 March, 1908, it was composed as follows: armoured battleships, 15, tonnage varying from 10,960 to 19,900 tons; armoured cruisers of the first class, 13, from 7700 to 14,600 tons; armoured cruisers of the second class, 10, from 3700 to 6630 tons; armoured cruisers of the third class, 8, from 2439 to 3420 tons; armoured coast-defense boats, 12; armoured gunboats, 6; torpedo gunboats, 2; dispatch boats, 5; destroyers, 55, from 350 to 381 tons; torpedoes, 77; total tonnage 7258 tons. The navy is recruited by conscription and volunteer services, more than half the naval forces being volunteers. The number of recruits varies greatly each year. In 1902 there were 4130; 1905, 9583; 1906, 5839; 1907, 8682. There were more than 780 students; in all, 63,733 men. But in 1895 the force was 17,140; in 1899, 28,710; in 1904, 45,999. In 1907 the courts-martial judged 756 cases. Seamen committed to prison, 730; released, 562. Marine hospitals, 5; sick persons cared for during the year, 191. JAPANESE RELIGIONS Shintoism Shintoism [literally, "way of the gods" (Kami)] is properly the religion of Japan, born on the very soil and without foreign admixture. It has neither dogmas, nor moral codes, nor sacred books, and is summed up in a rather confused mixture of nature-worship and veneration of ancestors. Philosophical analysis discovers a basis of pantheism. Shintoist mythology first speaks of five gods called Koto-Amatsu-Kami. The first three are the creators of heaven and earth, and they are Ame-no-minaka-nushi, who existed immobile at the time of the creation; Takami-misubi, and Kami-busubi, agents in the Creation. The other two, Umashi-ashrabi-Hikoji and Ami-no-Tokotachi, have no clearly determined rôle. After them come seven generations of heavenly spirits (Tenjin shichi-dai), namely, Kuni-Tokotachi, Kuni-Satsuchi, Toyokunnu; then the four couples, Uijini and Suijini, Otonoji and Otomabe, Omotaru and Kashikone; finally Izanagi and Izanami, the special creators of Japan and of a number of gods, the gods of water, wind, trees, mountains, rivers, roads, thunder, rain, etc. Of Izanagi and Izanami were born Amaterasu, Tsukiyomi, and Susano-o. Amaterasu became the god of the sun, Tsukiyomi that of the moon, and Susano-o, the god of the earth. Amaterasu sent her grandson, Ninigi-no-mikoto, to reign over Japan, and he was the great-grandfather of Jimmu Tenno, the first emperor. From Amaterasu to Jimmu Tenno there are five generations called terrestrial spirits (Chijui-go-dai), who succeeded the seven generations of heavenly spirits. Hence, according to Shintoist mythology, the emperor is not only the high priest, he is the representative and direct descendant of divinity, and as such the duty devolves upon him of celebrating the worship of the gods who are his ancestors and of offering to heaven as supreme mediator the prayers and sacrifices of the subjects whom he governs. At first the only temple was the palace of the emperor, and the ceremonies consisted chiefly of ablutions and purifications. The temple of Ise was the first erected outside the palace, and an imperial princess was charged with the sacred treasures there contained. The treasures, which were transmitted by Amaterasu to her descendants, were the Mirror, the Sword, and the precious Stone. Shintoism remained in this state of simplicity until the introduction of Buddhism in 552. It was soon supplanted by the new religion, which brought with it more profound metaphysics, a more exalted moral code, and more solemn ceremonies. A few conservatives attempted to resist, but the bonzes won the day by what they called Rio-bu-Shinto, a system according to which Shintoism and Buddhism should form one and the same religion. Thenceforth, save for a few private ceremonies at the palace and the grand temples of Ise and Izumo, the two religions were but one. This state of things lasted until the eighteenth century, when the works of Kamo Mabuchi and several others brought about a reaction in favour of the national religion against Buddhism and Confucianism, both foreign importations. The Restoration completed what had begun, and since 1868 Shintoism and Buddhism have been entirely separate from each other. Together with the gods of its mythology Shintoism adores several of the emperor and famous men of Japan. It also pays honour to the spirits of soldiers who died for the imperial cause. In several towns temples called Shokon-sha (temples where souls are invoked) are erected in their honour. Shintoism is divided into ten branches which differ only in their ceremonial details, the moral code of all being reduced to the single principle: follow the inspiration of your own heart and obey the emperor. Number of temples (miya or jinja) 190,436; staff: administrative heads of sects, 12; heads or rectors of temples, 16,365; priests (preachers) 74,347; priestesses, 4428; seminary students (March, 1908) 259; boys, 250, girls, 9. Japanese especially professing Shintoism, about 19,000,000. National Feasts (1) Shihohai, a ceremony celebrated in the palace on the first day of the year, from 3 to 5 A. M. The emperor turns successively to each of the cardinal points, venerates the tomb of his ancestors and prays for the prosperity of his reign and preservation from every calamity during the year. (2) Genshi-sai. -- On 3 January the emperor himself makes offerings to heaven and his ancestors, and adores in the three sanctuaries of the palace: Kashi-kodoko, in which is venerated the sacred mirror, one of the three emblems of the imperial dignity; Koreiden, in which are honoured the names of the emperor's ancestors; Shinden, in which the gods are adored. (3) Komei-tenno-sai, a feast celebrated in the palace on 31 January in honour of the names of the father of the reigning emperor. (4) Kigensetsu, 11 Feb., in memory of the enthronization of Jimmu Tenno, founder of the empire (660 B.C.). (5) Jimmu-tenno-sai (13 April), anniversary of the death of Jimmu Tenno. (6 and 7) Shunki-korei-si and Shuki-korei-si, equinoctial feats, celebrated in the palace in honour of the names of the emperors, the first on 22 March, the second on 24 September. (8) Kanname-sai (17 Oct.) offering of the new rice to the ancestors of the imperial family (feast of the palace). (9) Niiname-sai (23 Nov.), on which the emperor offers new rice to the gods, and afterwards eats it himself. (10) Tencho-setsu, the emperor's birthday. These ten feasts are observed throughout the country, and the Japanese subjects are commanded to display the national flag. Buddhism Buddhism was introduced into Japan in A.D. 552. The King of Kudara (Corea) sent Buddhist statutes and books as a present to the Emperor Kimmei. Two years later Tonei and Doshin, the two first bonzes Japan had seen, came from the same country. They found a powerful protector in Soga-no-Iname, who built in his own residence the first temple (Mukuhara or Kogen-ji), but they also encountered determined adversaries who claimed that the introduction of a new religion would be an injury to the gods of Shinto, who were the fathers and protectors of the country. Thenceforth there were two parties, the strife between whom lasted thirty-five years to end in 587 with the triumph of Buddhism. Upheld by Prince Shotoku Taishi (572-621), the new doctrine made rapid progress. Shortly after his death various sects arose in succession, viz: Jojitsu and Sauron (625), Hosso (653), Gusha (660), Kegon (739), and Ritsu (754). These are the six sects of the era of Nara. They were followed by the three sects of the era of Hei-ankyo (Kyoto): Tendai (806), Singon (806), and Yuzei-nembutsu (1124). Finally the period of Kamakura witnessed the rise of five others: Jodo (1174), Zen (1192), Shin or Montoshu (1224), Nichiren or Hokkeishu (1253), and Ji (1275). Three of these sects, Jojitsu, Sauron, and Gusha, no longer exist. The others are divided into several branches. There are at present twelve principle sects and thirty-nine branches. Owing to the cleverness of the bonzes and the spread of the doctrines of Rio-bu-Shinto, the Buddhist and Shintoist religions existed in harmony for centuries and the ministers of both religions officiated alternately in the same temples. But at the restoration, Buddhism, having ceased to be recognized as the national religion, was obliged to restore the Shintoist temples in its possession. Thenceforth the two religion, although more or less confused in practice, became officially strangers to each other, and Buddhism, despite efforts that have been made to restore its philosophical and theological teachings, is decadent in Japan. In 1908 there were in the whole empire 109,740 temples (tera); administrative heads of temples, 52; superiors of temples, 53,120; bonzes (preachers) 70,755; bonzesses, 1199. Various employés: men, 45,554; women, 3404; seminary students, boys, 9269; girls, 449. Japanese especially professing Buddhism, about 29,000,000. Rio-bu-Shinto or Sinbutsu-kongo (fusion of Shintoism and Buddhism) practically ceasing to exist in 1868, this theory has also ceased to be believed. It consisted as follows; about the beginning of the ninth century, Buddhism had made great progress in Japan; nevertheless the people resigned themselves with difficulty to the worship of other gods than those of Shintoism, the gods of the country. Then the bonzes evolved the theory that the tutelary deities of Japan were but temporary manifestations (gongen), of the Buddhist divinities, whose fatherland (honchi) was India, but who had appeared in Japan, leaving there traces (suijaku) of their passage. The result of this theory was the fusion of the two religions. Buddhist Feasts and Customs Among all the sects are observed 8 April, the birthday of Shaka, the founder of Buddhism; 8 February, the day of his death; and the feasts of the two equinoxes. Among the Motoshu: in November, Ho-on Ko, the feast of thanksgiving, and the death of Shinran Shonin, founder of the sect. Among the Hokkeishu, E-shi-ki, the death of Nichiren, founder of the sect. In every Japanese house is a domestic altar, called by the Buddhists Butsudan, by the Shintoist, Kamidana. Many wealthy houses have a special room or a small temple built apart within the enclosure. In the Butsudan is placed by the Montoshu the statue of Amida, by the Jodoshu that of Shaka, by the Hokkeishu, that of Nichiren, by the Shingonshu, that of Fudo (the Immovable). In the Kamidana, the Shintoists place the statue of Amiterasu, to which they offer sacred wine (Miki) on the first, fifteenth, and eighteenth of each month. As flowers, the Buddhists use the water-lily, the Shintoists the branches of a pale-leaved tree called Sasaki. There are also in every house the I-hai, wooden tablets or shelves on which are written the posthumous names of the parents and ancestors of the family. A lamp is lit every day before this domestic altar, at least in the evening, frequently also in the morning. At Buddhist funerals is burned a sacred word (shikimi), a foreign tree brought from India with this custom, and whose flower is a violent poison. On returning from the cemetery, salt is sprinkled on the garments of those who took part in the ceremony, in order to purify them. Confucianism Introduced into Japan in 285, Confucianism was received without opposition owing to its resemblance to Shintoism, then the only religion practiced. But after the introduction of Buddhism it fell into disfavour and did not recover until the seventeenth century when Ieyasu caused the Chinese classics to be printed for the first time. Henceforth, being taught by learned masters such as Fujiwara Seikwa, Hayashi Doshun, etc., it became the code of the Samurai and exercised a profound influence in Japan during the shogunate of the Tokugawa. After the Restoration the European system of public instruction was adopted, Confucianism was again abandoned, as well as the Chinese classics which had been the basis of teaching for 250 years. But it cannot be denied that the origin of a number of ideas still in favour among the upper classes may be traced to Confucianism. Bushido (Way of the Samurai, Knighthood) The principles of loyalty and honour which the Samurai are obliged to obey are called Bushido. This code has borrowed from Buddhism stoical endurance, scorn of danger and death, from Shintoism the religious veneration of fatherland and sovereign, from Confucianism a certain literary and artistic culture and the social culture called "the five relations of men among themselves" (go rin). From this compound results the code of the perfect knight, which may be summed up in three sayings: the Samurai has not two words, he serves not two masters; he gives his blood for duty. The Bushido was born with the nation, it developed by degrees as the warrior class grew in influence, and it reached the most complete expansion at the beginning of the Shogunate of the Tokugawa. Then a change took place: hitherto illiterate and even glorifying in his ignorance, the Samurai turned to literary culture and neglected the military calling; decadence followed, and at the Restoration he had lost his ancient prestige. To-day the Samurai no longer form a class apart, but the spirit and influence of the Bushido are more or less preserved among the people. CEMETERIES There are two kinds of cemeteries, those connected with the temples and the public cemeteries, those which belong to the municipalities. In the first, the "parishioners" of the temples have the right to be interred, in the second, all persons without distinction of class or religion. The local administration grants permission to establish new cemeteries, to abolish or to change the old, etc., but their inspection and control belong to the police. Every cemetery must have a superintendent (Kanrisha), without whose permission no burial may take place. It is forbidden to bury the dead anywhere save in the cemeteries. Formerly it was necessary to enlist the services of a Shintoist or Buddhist priest (bonze or kannushi) for every burial, but this law was abolished in 1884, and the presence of a priest is no longer necessary. If he is summoned he should perform the ceremony according to the right of his religion. The formalities to be fulfilled are: the obtaining of a physician's certificate proving the death, the presentation of this certificate to the civil official, and the securing from the police authorization for burial. Internment may only take place twenty-four hours after the death; the grave must be six feet deep. Those who neglect to bury a dead person or who profane a tomb are liable to fine and imprisonment. Cemeteries are exempt from taxation. Cremation is permitted in Japan, It takes place in a special oven called a Kwasoba. Persons dying of a contagious disease must be cremated, others being left free. As regards cemeteries and burials, the Christian communities are subject to the same laws and enjoy the same advantages as the pagan sects. They are allowed to have a separate cemetery, which most of them have. As to foreigners, according to Article ii of the treaty concluded with the different powers, "European persons dying in Japan enjoy the right to be buried according to their religious customs in conveniently located cemeteries, which should be established in case they do not exist, and carefully maintained". PUBLIC ASSISTANCE Regulations concerning public relief were promulgated in 1899. They stipulated that each department should organize a minimum fund of 560,000 yen for relief in case of accidents (floods, typhoons, earthquakes, etc.). The Government in turn pledged itself to give yearly for ten years a sum proportionate to that collected in the departments. Besides this a sum is reserved each year to assist the poor and foundlings. At the end of March, 1908, the accident fund equalled a sum of 34,844,370 yen. Numbers of persons assisted in 1907, 13,894; number of children helped, 2086; cost, 47,016 yen. BENEVOLENT ORGANIZATIONS The chief of these are: (1) the Tokio yoiku-in (asylum for the infirm and orphans) an establishment founded in 1872; number of infirm and orphans sheltered in 1907, 3376; receipts 121,875 yen; expenses, 122,227 yen; funds remaining at end of year, 378,908 yen; (2) the Tokio Sugamo byo-in (insane asylum), founded in 1879; physicians, 9; keepers, 145; inmates, 634; receipts, 30,700 yen; expenses, 78,830 yen; (3) the Tokio jikei byo-in (charity hospital) founded in 1182 [sic]; sick persons received at the hospital in 1907, 768; sick persons treated outside by the hospital; (4) Fukuden-kai Ikuji-in (orphanage), a private establishment; orphans assisted, 150; (5) Tokio Kankwai-in (house of correction) private establishment, founded in 1885; children received, 69. To these establishments, the only ones mentioned in the official statistics, must be added about 100 other charitable organizations (orphanages, asylums, leper hospitals, infant asylums, houses of refuge for those discharged from prison, etc.), founded by private citizens, the Buddhist sects, Catholic and Protestant missions. The Catholic and Protestant missionaries have been the promoters of these benevolent works in Japan, the Buddhist having merely followed their example. The last-named have founded in all 15 orphanages, 3 schools, and 8 asylums or hospitals. The Shintoists have not a single benevolent work to their credit. RED CROSS SOCIETY In 1877 during the civil war of Satsuma, a society was founded in Japan on the model of the Red Cross under the name of Hakuaisha (philanthropic society). In 1886, Japan having given its adhesion to the convention of Geneva, the philanthropic society changed its name to that of the Red Cross of Japan (Nihon sekijujisha). The Red Cross Society is under the patronage of the royal household which gives to the work an annual contribution of 20,000 yen. Besides this the empress gives 5000 yen to the Red Cross hospital. The Society built two hospital ships for use in time of war. Every Japanese or foreigner who gives yearly from three to twelve yen, or twenty-five yen at a time, is an ordinary member of the Red Cross; anyone who gives 200 yen is a special member, and anyone who gives 1000 yen is an honorary member. Number of ordinary members, 1257; special members, 10,139; honorary members, 42; correspondents, 8090. At the beginning of 1908 the Red Cross was composed as follows: staff managers 5; physicians, 291; dispensers, 16; employés, 90; head nurses 262; nurses, 2071; pupil-nurses, 691; litter-bearers, 132; funds, 9,755,417 yen. CHRISTIANITY IN JAPAN Catholicism On 15 August, 1549, St. Francis Xavier arrived in Japan, at the port of Kagoshima in Kiusiu, with two companions and three neophytes. By the boldness of his preaching, his sanctity, and his miracles, he renewed the marvels of the Apostolic age. He preached at Hirado, Yamaguchi, Bungo, and Funai, but he was unable to see the emperor or enter Miako (Kyoto). He set out for China on 20 November, 1551. In Japan there were then 3000 faithful, the feudal regime being favourable to evangelization. Ordinarily, when a prince was converted a portion of his subjects followed him. The celebrated Nobunaga (1565), the terrible enemy of the bonzes, was kindly disposed towards the Christians and a friend of the missionaries. When he died (1582) there were 200,000 faithful and 250 churches. The three Christian princes of Bunga, Arima, and Omura sent an embassy to Europe, which was sent out, on 20 Feb., 1582, reached Lisbon on 10 May, 1584, and Rome 23 March, 1585. The ambassadors witnessed the coronation of Sixtus V and were created knights and patricians. Hideyoshi, the successor of Nobunaga, at first favoured the Christians, but being prejudiced by the bonzes, he later believed that the missionaries were spies and proscribed the Christian religion, but refrained from slaying the Christians (1587). The missionaries hid themselves and remained, and within ten years they baptized 65,000 persons (1587-97), making a total of 300,000 faithful, and 134 religious. In 1593 three Spanish Franciscans having been sent as ambassadors by the king of Spain, they were well-received by Hideyoshi. A Spanish vessel, the "San Felipe", having run aground within the province of Tosa, the captain was foolish enough to say that the missionaries had been sent to prepare for the conquest of the country. Thereupon Hideyoshi became afraid and angry, and on 9 December, 1596, nine religious were arrested and orders were given to draw up a list of Japanese Christians. All gladly made ready for death. On 5 February, 1597, twenty-six were crucified at Nagasaki, and died preaching and singing to the end. After the death of Hideyoshi in 1598 peace reigned for fifteen years. Christians multiplied and the Faith manifested itself in all manner of good works; 130 Jesuits, some secular priests, and about 30 religious of the orders of St. Francis, St. Dominic, and St. Augustine worked side by side. In 1609 and 1613 Dutch and English Protestants arrived who were envious of the Spanish and Portuguese Catholics. In 1613 persecution recommenced. In that year the prince of Sendai, Date Masamune, sent Asahura Roku-yemon on an embassy to Pope Paul V and the King of Spain, the Franciscan Sotelo accompanying him. In the following year (1614) the edict of destruction was published by the new master of the empire Ieyasu Tokugawa, the first shogun of that name. It was decreed that Catholicism be abolished, and this edict was renewed by Hidetada in 1616, the successor of Ieyasu. The result was horrible. In 1622 took place what was called the "great martyrdom", fifty-two chosen Christians being martyred on the same day (2 Sept.) at Nagasaki, twenty-seven being decapitated, and the remainder being burned alive. In the following year, under Iemitsu, the persecution waxed still more furious and extended throughout the empire. The cruelty and refinement of the tortures are unparalleled even in the early history of the Church. The exact number of the victims is unknown. In 1637 the province of Azima, 37,000 Christians, driven to extremities, revolted, shut themselves up within the fortress of Shimbara, and were slain to the last one. In 1640 four Portuguese ambassadors who had gone from Macao to Nagasaki were called upon to apostatize, and when they refused they were put to death without further trial. Thirteen of their followers were sent back to Macao with this warning: "While the sun warms the earth let no Christian be so bold as to enter into Japan. Let this be known to all men. Though it were the King of Spain in person or the God of the Christians or Shaka himself [Buddha], whosoever will disobey this prohibition will pay for it with his head." Thus Japan was closed, and remained so for two centuries, during which time the persecution did not cease. A price was set on the head of foreign and native Christians. Each year every Japanese was called upon to trample the cross under foot. Some Dutch merchants consented to separate themselves from the Christian population and allow themselves to be confined as prisoners in Nagasaki on the Island of Deshima, in order to carry on business with the Japanese. In 1642 five Jesuits embarked by stealth for Japan where they died after frightful tortures. They were followed in 1643 by five others who met the same fate, and an attempt on the part of the Dominicans of the Philippines (1647) was not more fortunate. If other attempts were made to enter this tomb it is not known. The last known is the Abbé Sidotti, an Italian missionary who in 1708, at the age of forty, landed unaccompanied on the Japanese coast. Delivered to the governor of Nagasaki by the Prince of Natsuma, he was first examined in that town, and then, at the command of the Shogun, conducted to Yedo and condemned to perpetual imprisonment in a place which is still called "Chirishitan Zaka" (Hill of the Christians). While there he baptized his two jailers and died after five years of captivity (1715). The learned Arai Hakuseki, government interpreter in the examination of Sidotti, wrote his history ("Sei yo Kibun", European history), which was reprinted in the "Missions Catholiques", 1884. However, in spite of persecution some vague and infrequent signs seemed to indicate that all the Christians of Japan had not perished. The Corean missionaries several times attempted to assure themselves of this, but without success, for since 1838 it had been impossible to enter "the mysterious empire" from any side. Interest in the Japanese mission, however continued to increase, and in April, 1844, Père Forcade was sent to Japan as a missionary. He stayed at Okinawa in the Riu-kiu islands with the Chinese catechist Ko as a companion. He was followed by Pères Leturdu, Adnet, Furet, Murmet, Gerard and Mounicou of the Société des Missions Etrangères of Paris. They waited for fourteen years, on the Riu-kiu or at Hong-Kong, seeking by every means to gain entry into Japan. During fourteen years of labour and sufferings they baptized two Japanese. Finally a treaty was signed between France and Japan, 8 October, 1858, and ratified 22 September, 1859. The missionaries were free to reside in open ports, and have there a church for the service of foreigners. Père Girard was provisionally named superior of the mission, and for the ratification of the treaty he went as interpreter to Yedo with the Consul-general, de Bellecourt. The three ports of Hakodate, Kanagawa-Yokahama, and Nagasaki were soon occupied. The labour in these places was difficult and the sojourn there dangerous, for prejudice against foreigners and Christians had not disappeared. Père Mermet built a house and a church at Hakodate and Père Furet did the same at Nagasaki. At first they taught French in order to make friends and prepare for the future. In the new church at Nagasaki on 17 March, 1865, occurred an ever-memorable event, when fifteen Christians made themselves known to Père Petitjean, assuring him that there were a great many others, about 50,000 in all being known. It is easy to imagine the joy which greeted this discovery after more than two centuries of waiting and patience. There were three marks by which these descendants of martyrs recognized these new missionaries as the successors of their ancient fathers: the authority of the Pope of Rome, the veneration of the Blessed Virgin, and the celibacy of the clergy. In the following year (1866) Père Petitjean was named Vicar Apostolic of Japan. The extreme ardour of the Christians attracted attention and aroused the old hatred. In July, 1867, persecution recommenced; 40,000 faithful of Urakami near Nagasaki were exiled to various provinces. The same proscription was extended to other towns; everywhere the choice was apostasy or exile, and the greater number courageously expressed their faith. There was no bloodshed, but the trials were severe. About a third of the exiles died or did not return. During this time they continued to labour in the seaports. In March, 1873, while the Japanese embassy was travelling through Europe, the exiles were restored to their homes, prosecution ceased in Japan, and the regime of tolerance began. Henceforth the Government was silent regarding religion and disturbed no one provided public order was not troubled. In May, 1876, Japan was divided into two vicariates Apostolic, South and North; Mgr. Petitjean was made Vicar Apostolic of the South, Mgr. Osouf, of the North. About 1878 the missionaries were permitted by means of an official passport to travel more than ten leagues from the port into the interior of the country. Then a certain number of them became itinerant, and by their means the Gospel was preached with admirable success in nearly all the towns and villages in the space of fifteen years. Prejudices diminished, conversions multiplied, and opinions inclined toward liberty. On 11 August, 1884, an official decree proclaimed that there was no longer a state religion. On 12 Sept., 1885, a letter written from Leo XIII to the Emperor of Japan was received with great honour, and on 18 December of the same year, a representative of the emperor assisted respectfully at the ceremony of the funeral service for Alphonso XII, King of Spain. In March, 1888, the Vicariate Apostolic of central Japan was created, with Mgr. Midon as Vicar Apostolic. Finally on 11 Feb., 1889, came the promulgation of the new Constitution of the empire and authentic recognition of religious liberty. In the following year (1890), on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the discovery of the Christians, the first synod of the bishops of Japan was held at Nagasaki. During six weeks occurred the incomparable festivals by which the Church of Japan celebrated in transports of joy and gratitude the miracle of her resurrection. In April, 1891, the vicariate Apostolic of Hakodate was created with Mgr. Berlioz as vicar Apostolic. On 15 June the same year the ecclesiastical hierarchy was established with an Archbishop of Tokio and three suffragans, namely, namely the bishops of Nagasaki, Osaka, and Hakodate. With liberty the zeal of the Japanese for religion decreased and conversions became less frequent. However, Catholic education, benevolent, and journalistic works developed and grew unmolested, and moreover, the numerical progress has never been interrupted. In 1860 there were two missionaries in Japan; in 1870, one vicar Apostolic, 40 missionaries, 27 religious (nuns), and 23,000 Christians; in 1890, 79 missionaries, 15 native priests, 27 Marianists, 59 nuns, and 42,387 Christians; in 1900, 1 archbishop and 3 bishops, 115 missionaries, 32 native priests, 62,694 Christians, 93 religious men, and 389 religious women (foreigners and natives). Writing has joined to preaching by word of mouth. A Catholic review, "Kyoto Bambo", founded in 1881, continued under various names until the present time, explains religion, solves current objections, and gives news of interest to the Christians. Nearly everything relevant to Christian life, education, philosophy and theology has been treated in more than a hundred works. Several lesser works and two large dictionaries for the study of the Japanese language have also been issued by the missionaries (a French-Japanese dictionary by M. Raguet; a Japanese-French by Lemaréchal; a Japanese grammar by M. Balet. The "Mélanges", another review founded in 1904 and written in French, studies Japanese matters and gives a quarterly summary of the press. Two noteworthy benevolent works have also been established by the missionaries, the leper hospital of Gotemba, founded by M. Testewaide and that of Kumamoto by M. Corre. The missionaries were soon joined by numerous and valuable assistants. In 1873 came the Dames de St-Maur. They first founded an orphanage at Yokohama, and another at Tokyo in 1875; as many as 700 persons were assisted here at one time. At present they have an orphanage and three schools, one of them at Shizuoka, for the middle classes, and a course in foreign languages and arts for the higher classes, with 180 pupils. In 1877 came the Sisters of the Infant Jesus of Chauffailles. They have orphanages and private schools at Osaka, Kobe, Kyoto, Nagasaki, and Okayama. The Sisters of St. Paul of Chartres came in 1878; they have primary or boarding schools at Hakodate, Tokio, Sendai, Morioka, and Yatsushiro, with more than 800 pupils. In 1888 the Marianist Fathers established themselves at Tokio. Their progress was slow and laborious, but uninterrupted. They have at present primary and secondary school with 802 pupils, of whom 71 are Catholic and 29 catechumens; and a foreign language course for adults with 100 pupils. Of these 802 pupils, 140 are sons of generals, admirals, superior officers, ambassadors, ministers, consuls, deputies, senators. There are 19 European teachers and 26 Japanese. Five Marianist fathers conducted courses at the university, the school for nobles, the school for man=CFvres, the school of cadets, and that of the military intendance. They have besides at Nagasaki a commercial school (1892) with 380 pupils; at Osaka (1898) a commercial school with 498 pupils; at Yokohama (1902) a higher primary school with commercial courses for foreigners or Eurasians of all nationalities, with 120 pupils. In all these schools student and graduate societies for piety, zeal, friendship, sport, etc. are flourishing. The native religious are recruited chiefly from among the ancient Christians of Kiusiu; a house for this purpose was opened in April, 1910, at Urakami. In 1896 Trappists of four different nationalities came to Hokkaido. Within twelve years, despite difficulties of all sorts, of a total of about 1000 acres, comprising mountains and ravines, they had cleared and made valuable about 620 acres and formed a Christian colony of more than a hundred persons. The Trappistines came from France in 1898. Their start was painful. But they now have no difficulty in securing recruits from among the ancient Christians of Nagasaki. They are engaged in the cheese industry, and development, at first despaired of, has been rapid. In 1905 the whole of the Island of Shikoku was given to the Spanish Dominicans. This is the fifth ecclesiastical division of Japan, with 300 Christians. The Franciscans returned in 1906. They are at Sapporo and Hakodate, and are 9 in number, 5 Germans, 2 Canadians, an Englishman, and a Frenchmen, engaged in teaching languages and in the ministry. The Fathers of the Divine Word of Steyl came in 1907. They consisted of seven Germans and one Austrian. They teach German, English, French, and Chinese, and preach the Gospel. On 1 January, 1908, the religious of the Scared Heart, 12 in number, English, Belgian, and French, opened a house for higher education at Tokio; on 1 July the servants of the Holy Ghost, five in number, from Germany and Austria came to Akita, where they have a kindergarten, boarding school, school of dress-making, and one of French and German languages. On 1 September 7 Franciscan sisters from France, Mexico, and Italy came to Sapporo, where they established sewing and embroidery classes, a school of housekeeping, and a dispensary. Sisters of the same congregation care for the lepers at Kumamoto. Finally on 17 October three Jesuit Fathers, English, German, and French, established themselves at Tokio for higher education and journalism. Thus the Catholic Church, one in faith, with its religious bodies of every country and name, has in Japan a truly universal character. Protestantism Protestantism appeared in Japan in 1859 at the opening of the country. The first arrivals were the American Episcopalians, the best known of whom was Channing Moore Williams. Shortly afterwards came the Presbyterians: James Curtis Hepburn followed by Mr. Werbeck (1861) and Mr. Thompson (1863). They halted first at Yokohama. Their religious reunions were called "prayer-meetings" (Kito-kwai). The first Japanese baptism took place in 1864. Protestant missionaries were also at Nagasaki prior to discovery of the old Christians (1865) and to them the Christians of Urakami addressed themselves before going to the Catholic Church. The first Japanese Protestant church was organized in 1872, after the last persecution, and inaugurated in 1875. Until that time only ten baptisms had been administered. During these early years the work of evangelization was almost impossible, and the time of the missionaries was chiefly employed in the translation of the Holy Scriptures. That of the New Testament was completed in 1880, and that of the Old Testament in 1887. A number of them were also employed in teaching either in schools founded by themselves or as professors in the Japanese schools. Their aim was to attack the pagan error at its very root by means of instruction, and also to have a right to live in the interior of the country, which was hitherto forbidden to foreigners. In 1876 a kind of university called Dashisha was founded at Kyoto, the ceded funds being founded by several American missions. The intention was to form Christians who would be solidly instructed in their religion and men capable of embracing any career. This celebrated school was very prosperous under the rector, Nijima Jo; it had as many as 1500 students, but having been declared independent several years since, has lost much of its importance. An event of considerable importance in 1877 was the union of the hitherto divided forces of the American and Scotch Presbyterians; the Dutch Reformed Mission, the Presbyterian Mission, and the Scotch Presbyterian Mission. Their association formed the United Church of Christ in Japan (Nippon Cristo Ichi Kyokwai). They were afterwards joined by the German Reformed Mission (1886), the South Presbyterian Mission (1887), and the Cumberland Presbyterian Mission (1890). In a General Assembly held at Tokio in 1891 the Articles of Faith and the constitution of a new church were drawn up. Its new name was the Nihon Cristo Kyokwai (Church of Christ in Japan). The chief Protestant College in Tokio belongs to this United Church, and instruction is here given according to the spirit of Protestant Christian religion and morality. During the period of religious tolerance the missionaries flocked to Japan and baptisms multiplied rapidly. The desire to learn English attracted to them many young Japanese. In December, 1889, the total number of Japanese converted to Protestantism was 31,181; foreign missionaries, 527; native ordained ministers, 135. There were 274 churches, more than half of which were self-supporting. The contributions for Japanese Christians for 1889 amounted to 53,503 yen. Several religious organizations, especially that of Christian Youth, were flourishing. In the above number are included the Episcopalian church of America, governed for more than thirty years by Bishop Williams, and the Established Church of England, whose first bishop in Japan was Dr. Poole (1883). These two churches have agreed to work in concert and the constitution uniting them was drawn up in February, 1888. This was the foundation of a new church under the name Nihon-Sei-Ko-Kwai (The Holy Catholic Church of Japan). Hierarchically constituted, it has divided all of Japan, including Formosa, into six districts; it number 13,384 baptized Christians; 228 foreign missionaries, clerics, or laymen or women; and 295 Japanese assistants. These are the chief denominations. The total number of missionaries given by Protestant statistics for 1908 is 789 foreigners, including women, and 1303 Japanese, ordained or not, men or women. The number of practical church members is 57,830; not practical, 10,554; churches, 408; young men in the schools, 3604; young women, 5226; Sunday schools, 1066, with 84,160 children; publishing houses, 7; volumes issued during the year, 1,974,881. The property of the different mission, schools, churches etc. is valued at 3,536,315 yen. Contributions of Christians for 1907 equalled 274,608 yen, and expenditures for the Japanese churches and the work of evangelization amounted to 448,878 yen, not including the salaries of the missionaries and their expenses. In the above are not included the Unitarians, who mingle with all denominations; the Independent Christians who are not attached to any church; the Methodist Episcopalians, who have a Japanese bishop, the Rev. Honda; several Japanese neo-Christian sects who are wholly independent either in government or in doctrine. They are eclectics who aim to adopt Christianity to the ideas and spirit of Japan, and thus to found a new and special Japanese religion. Up to the present time Protestantism in Japan has been chiefly American, but now it seems about to become Japanese. According as the Japanese churches become self-supporting, their tendency is to free themselves from the authority of foreigners. There is an evolution of religious ideas; many Christian works have been imitated by them, but faith in even the fundamental dogmas seems to disappear. Russian Missions The Russian Mission, or Orthodox Church of Russia in Japan, dates from 1861. A hospital had been previously built at Hakodate for Russians and Japanese. A Basilian monk, the Rev. Nicolai, was attached to it as chaplain with a church near the hospital. The hospital having been destroyed by fire, the church remained, and the Rev. Nicolai stayed as a missionary, at Hakodate, where he baptized a number of Japanese; this was the beginning. In 1870 the Russian minister to Japan obtained from the Japanese the grant of a special territory as a branch of the Russian legation, which territory was at Surugadai at the very centre of Tokio and one of the most advantageous sites in the capital. Here Fr. Nicolai established his residence and the centre of the Orthodox Church. He began by training well-instructed men and native assistants, for which purpose he had an ordinary college and a school of philosophy and theology; later on he also had a special school for young women. He preached his religion by means of carefully trained catechists and priests. Since 1881 he has also had a religious review, published twice monthly, and a publication committee installed at his house has published all the most necessary books. In 1886 Fr. Nicolai was consecrated bishop in Russia, and in 1890 he completed the erection of his cathedral, a truly magnificent monument, one of the sights of the capital. Bishop Nicolai enjoys a great personal esteem; for the most part alone, he has founded and governed by himself everything pertaining to his mission. During the Russo-Japanese war the situation was very delicate, but the Christians, at least the greater number of them, did not abandon him. Even during this time he continued all his undertakings unmolested, his house being guarded without by Japanese soldiers. Previously he received from the Holy Synod 95,000 yen yearly, but since the Russo-Japanese War, these and other resources from Russia have greatly diminished, while on the other hand the price of everything in Japan has increased. The bishop was compelled to diminish also his expenses, to dismiss a part of his staff, and to exhort the Christians to contribute more generously to support their church. But after the victories of the Japanese over the Russian armies it is not easy to conceive of even the Japanese, though Christians, as members of a church hitherto supported by the Russian Government. That is why the leaders among these Christians, after having agreed among themselves, declared to "Archbishop" Nicolai their intention of being supported entirely by themselves and being independent of Russia. And as Russia has its national church they wished to have also their Japanese National Church (June, 1909). Little has been written concerning the work of the Russians in Japan; even in Russia almost nothing has been published. According to one Protestant reckoning, the Orthodox church numbers 30,166 baptized Christians; according to another only 13,000 (the last figure denotes perhaps those who are practical). There are 37 native priests and 139 catechists. Expenses for church and evangelization in 1907 amounted to 55,279 yen; contributions of Christians, 10,711 yen; Churches or places of preaching, 265. Among the Russians, as among Protestants, and in fact everywhere throughout Japan, the tendency of mind is toward independence. Laws Concerning Religion and Schools (1) According to the constitution of the empire, every Japanese is free to believe and to profess the religion he prefers, provided he does not disturb the public order, and that he observes the other laws of the country. Religious manifestations and assemblies, ordinary and extraordinary are permitted, provided the police are informed and all disorder be avoided. In national ceremonies where Christians and pagans mingle, practical difficulties sometimes arise which are inevitable because of the mixture of religions. Local differences also occur, though somewhat rarely, owing to popular prejudice or the dispositions of a few, but in principle and before the law all religions are equal. (2) Any Japanese or foreigner is free to found a school, provided he observes the laws and regulations laid down by the Japanese Board of Education concerning hygiene, qualifications of teachers, matters to be taught, etc. There are official schools for popular education, such as the primary and middle or high schools for boys and girls (shogakko, chugakko, and Koto-jogakko), and non-official or private schools, which may also be primary or others at choice. But the diplomas issued at private schools have no official value, at least no value equal to that of the schools which are formally recognized by the ministers of public instruction. A school for which this recognition is desired must conforms to the same regulations and control as the government schools and be in no way inferior to them. Public inspection regularly takes place only in official or recognized schools. (3) In the so-called schools of "popular education" which are official or recognized, no religion is taught during hours of class. All religions are free, none is imposed. In private unrecognized schools religious instruction is permitted during hours of class. Each school may profess its own. However, popular instruction in Japan is not atheistic; it gives as the basis for private or social morality primitive history or Japanese mythology, which assigns the origin of all things to the gods or ancestors of the country. But higher education in general inclines strongly towards materialism. (4) For the possession and administration of their goods, churches and schools may, if they so desire, cause themselves to be recognized as juridical persons, and as such possess movable and immovable property. On this point Christian communities or establishments are subject to the same laws as the others. Each juridical person is represented by a responsible council who sends the Government an inventory of the goods, the annual accounts of administration, the amount of purchases or sales, the condition of the staff, if it be a mission, the number of priests and faithful, if a school, that of masters and students, the precise location of churches and residences, the names of the titulars and their charges if any. Churches, benevolent foundations, etc are dependent on the ministry of the interior; schools, on the ministry of public instruction. The aim of this legislation with these regulations is to place the juridical persons under the protection of the law. Taxes Schools pay no taxes. churches and all houses serving as residents for those attached to these churches (priest's house, that of the catechists, that of the servants, etc.) are also exempt from taxation. These enjoy all the privileges granted to the pagan temples; houses of revenue, if there are any, are subject to the common law and pay the tax. Days of Rest Schools, government employés, and bank employés are free from Saturday (noon) until Monday. This custom has been introduced since the coming of the foreigners, but has not yet been adopted among the people. Labourers work on Sunday, their days of rest being the first and fifteenth of the month. HISTORY Ethnology Much obscurity surrounds the origin of the Japanese people. The primitive population, besides being very sparse, appears to have belonged wholly to the people called Ainos. Beyond a doubt these came from the Asiatic continent by way of the North. They were conquered by other immigrants more powerful than themselves who came from the South. The best of these Ainos seemed to have accepted the civilization of their masters and became united with them,. and from the fusion of these two races are descended the Japanese of to-day. The most refractory tribes were driven farther and farther north, and in the end abandoned the Great Island, confining themselves in Yezo (Hokkaido) and Sakhalin, where they show a tendency to decrease and disappear. They are small and strong, with long hair and beards. Their language is quite different from that of the Japanese. Their garments, which are shorter than that of the Japanese, are made of the bark of trees. In general they are mild-natured and simple-manners. They live by the chase and fishing, making use of the harpoon to catch seals, and slaying bears with stakes and poison arrows. They adore the god of the mountain and the bear, whom they believe to be his son. Each year they sacrifice a bear with great solemnity. They believe also in good and evil geniuses and worship several of the divinities and personages of Japan. General Division The history of Japan is divided naturally into three chief periods. The first (autocratic period) which extends from the beginning to the shogunate of Kamakura, embraces eighteen centuries (660 B.C. - A.D. 1192), during which time the authority was in the hands of the emperors. The second begins with the shogunate of Minamoto (1192), and ends with that of the Tokugawa (1968). Lastly, the third, beginning with the imperial Restoration, witnessed Japan's complete modification of her secular institutions, the Europeanization of her administration, and saw the country take her place among the great nations of the world. Autocratic Period (600 B.C.-A.D. 1192) According to Japanese tradition, in the seventh century B.C., a tribe, probably of Malayan origin, which had landed and established itself at Kiusiu, advanced towards the north and after some years of warfare chose the region of Yamato as a place to settle. Hasamu-no-mikoto, the chief of these adventurers, became the first Emperor of Japan (Jimmu Tenno). His enthronization, assigned to 660 B.C., is considered as the foundation of the empire, and the beginning of a dynasty which was to reign for twenty-five centuries. After a gap of 500 years in the national annals we find a rough sort of civilization during the reign of Sujin (97-30 B.C.) and Suinin (29 B.C. - 70 A.D.). Then comes the famous legend of the hero Yamatokakeru (131-190). His son merely ascended the throne (192-200). His widow, the Empress Jingo, ruled after him. The Japanese chronicles attribute to her the conquest of three small kingdoms which lay south of Corea. She was succeeded by her fourth son, Ojin (201-310). During his reign, two Corean scholars, Ajiki and Wani, came to Japan, bringing with them Chinese literature and Confucianism (285). Ojin's son, Nintoku, governed for eighty-seven years (313-399). During the whole of his reign the country was at peace, but after him bloody scenes were multiplied in the imperial family until direct descendants were wiped out. A branch laterally descended for Ojin ascended the throne. Under the fourth sovereign of this branch (Kimmei, 552) Buddhism was brought to Japan by bonzes from Corea. The introduction of Buddhism brought about radical changes in ideas and customs. Prince Shotoku (573-621) favoured its progress, but it was the Emperor Kotoku (645-54), who by his famous reform of the Taikwa era, accomplished the great political and religious revolution which transformed Japan. Everything was then modelled on the Chinese form of government, and save for a few modifications this system remained in force until the restoration (1868). In the following century the Empress Gemmei (708-14) transferred the capital to Nara, where it remained for seventy-five years (708-785). The fiftieth emperor, Kwammu (782-805), built the city of Kyoto (794), which was the residence of the court until the imperial Restoration. The Fujiwara then became powerful. They exercised the regency (sessho) during the minority of the sovereign, then, under the title Kwampaku, continued to govern even after he had attained his majority. However, the effeminate nobles of the palace neglected the career of arms and gave themselves up to frivolous pastimes. Because of this decadence of the imperial authority, frequent revolts took place which the court was powerless to repress, and for this purpose, called on military clans. Their power became more and more formidable, two families especially, the Taira and the Minamoto, acquiring great influence. Both wished to secure the preponderance of power, and for thirty-five years their rivalry filled the country with bloodshed. Finally the Minamoto overcame and completed annihilated their adversaries (1185). The victorious Minamoto, Yoritomo, then raised to the throne a four-year-old child and assumes the title of Sei-i Taishogun. A new era had begun in the history of Japan; feudalism was inaugurated. Age of Feudalism It is subdivided into three parts: the Kamakura period (1192-1338); the Ashikaga period (1338-1573); and the Tokugawa period (1603-1868). Kamakura Period (1192-1338) Having been named Shogun, Yoritomo installed himself at Kamakura, which he made his capital. After this he undertook the administrative reorganization, which was to concentrate all authority in his hands. Unfortunately for his plans, he died before this was accomplished (1199). His two sons, Yorii and Sanetomo, allowed the power to pass to their mother's clan, that of Hojo. These last, who were descended from the Taira, dared not assume the shogunal dignity, but they succeeded under the title of Shukken (regents) in retaining the power for a century which was the most prosperous in the history of Japan. About this time, the only invasion with which Japan had been threatened, that of the Mongols, was frustrated through the energy of Hojo Tokimune, and by a providential storm which destroyed the enemy's fleet (1281). However, decadence manifested itself among the Hojo, family dissensions increased, weakening the usurped authority and preparing the way for a restoration of the imperial power. The Emperor Go Daigo (1319-1339) was the instrument of this work of restoration. Assisted by faithful followers he began the struggle, and in less than two years the supremacy of Kamakura was at an end (1333). But rivalries arose among the generals. The clan of Ashihaga, descended from Minamoto, rose in revolt, its head, Takauji, assumed the title of shogun, raised to the throne an emperor of his own choosing, and thus founded a new dynasty of shoguns which retained its power for more than two centuries. Ashikaga Period (1338-1573) The dethroned emperor defended himself courageously. His son and grandsons continued the struggle, and for more than fifty-six years was seen the singular phenomenon of two emperors at one time. In 1392 a compromise was effected between the rival powers which put an end to the schism. The first Ashikaga shoguns knew how to restrain within reasonable limits their warlike spirit, developed by many years of war, but their weaker successors passed all bounds. From the civil war of the era of Onin (1467) the troubles never ceased, and for a century the empire was a prey to the horrors of intestinal strife. the shogun were henceforth no more than toys in the hands of their chief feudatories. When the shogunate of the Ashikagas was on the verge of ruin, a petty daimio of the province of Owari profited by the anarchy to increase his dominion. At his death (1549) his fifteen-year-old son, Oda Nobunaga, came into possession of his inheritance. It was about this time, during the reign of Go-Nara-tenno (1527-1557), that Europeans appeared for the first time in Japan. The honour of being the first to penetrate into the country was reserved for a Portuguese named Fern=8Bo Mendes Pinto (1542). Seven years later, 15 August, 1549, St. Francis Xavier landed at the port of Kagoshima. Man of genius that he was, Nobunaga conceived his project of concentrating into the hands of a single master the power which the daimio disputed to the injury of the nation. Having defeated the most turbulent and subjugated the others to his will, he deposed the last Ashikaga shogun and seized the reins of government, but he was treacherously slain by a vassal who owed everything to him, and died leaving his work uncompleted. The succession fell to a soldier of fortune named Hideyoshi, who succeeded in removing the sons of his former master. Being incapable of aspiring to the dignity of a shogun, he assumed the highest of the titles of the civil hierarchy, that of Kwampaku. Later, in 1592, he took the title of Taiko (Sovereign Lord) under which name he is known in history. Blinded by ambition, he conceived the project of taking possession of Corea, but despite some successes, this campaign ended in disaster. Hideyoshi did not long survive his failure; he died in 1598. Before his death he had charged five chief daimios with the guardianship of his son, Hideyori, who was still a child. Among the five was one who could not be content with second rank. This was Tokugawa Ieyasu (1543-1616), a descendant of the Minamoto. After the death of Hideyoshi he withdrew from his colleagues and made war against them. The famous victory which he won in the plain of Sekigahara assured him a supremacy which his family retained for two centuries and a half. Three years after his triumph, Ieyasu received the title of shogun (1603). Tokugawa Period (1603-1868) Two years after this Ieyasu transmitted the shogunate to his son, withdrew to Sumpu (Shizuoka), and before his death, witnessed the annihilation at Osaka (1615) of the descendants of Hideyoshi. After a period of great troubles, Ieyasu inaugurated a powerful feudal regime, and gave to Japan a political and social constitution which was upheld almost till 1868. According to this constitution, the emperor was nominally master of all the territory, even the shogun asking investiture of him. But this investiture was a mere fiction. The office of the shogun being hereditary, the titular possessed effective power, and disposed at will of land and even of the posts of the emperor's court. Socially Japan was divided into eight hereditary and closed classes: kuge (court nobles), daimio, hatamoto, samurai, labourers, artisans, merchants, eta (a kind of pariah). Only the first four, the so-called privileged classes, had the right to bear arms. Before dying Ieyasu had assured the power of his family. His immediate successors, Hidetada (1605-22), and Iemitsu (1623-51), continued his work and made still heavier the iron yoke which he had imposed on his country. Hidetada forbade every Japanese under most severe penalties to leave his native land, and it was he who discontinued all intercourse with foreigners, except the Dutch, the Chinese, and the Corean. Iemitsu completely closed the country to foreign commerce, forbade the construction of boats which would allow of long trips (1636), caused to be put to death ambassadors who came to Macao to request liberty of travel (1640), restricted to the Island of Deshima (Nagasaki) the Dutch who were authorized to maintain relations with Japanese, and passed the law which required the daimio to reside part of the time at Yedo, and part on their estates, when they were to leave their wives and children at the capital as hostages. Ietsugu, Tsunayoshi, Ienobu, Ietsugu, Yoshimune, Ieshige, Iehara (1651-1786) merely continued the policies of their predecessors, namely the breaking off of all intercourse with the outside world, ferocious prosecution of Christians, strict watch of the slightest proceedings of the daimio and Samurai, skillful spying of the Court of Kyoto, Draconian laws concerning the press, teaching, Confucianism, etc., such were the principles of the shogun government. Nevertheless under the administration of Ienara (1786-1837) the foreign powers began to endeavour to enter into communication with Japan; but all their advances were repulsed, and the country remained more strictly closed than ever. At the age of forty-five Ieyoshi succeeded his father (1837-1858). Each year foreign vessels appeared in greater number ion sight of Japan, but order was given to fire on those which approached the shore. Ii Noasuke, who was then minister, confided the defense of the country to Tokugawa Nari-aki, Prince of Meto (1852), and the emperor ordered public prayers in the Buddhist and Shintoist temples. Finally on 8 July, 1853, a fleet from the United States cast anchor in the Bay of Uraga. Commodore Perry, who commanded it, delivered to the shogun (14 July) a message from President Fillmore, proposing friendly relations and a treaty of commerce with Japan. He returned 12 February, 1854, and after long conferences the Bakufu (government of the shogun) signed a provision treaty which opened the ports of Shimoda and Hakodate to United States vessels (31 March, 1854). Mr. Townsend Harris, who was sent as minister plenipotentiary arrived at Shimoda in August, 1856, and concluded a definitive treaty (28 July, 1858) with the shogun Iesada (1853-58), who died shortly afterwards. His successor, Iemoshi (1958-66), signed similar treaties with Holland (Donker Curtius, 19 August, 1858), Russia (Poutiatiine, 20 August), England (Lord Elgin, 27 August), and France (Baron Gros, 9 October). These treaties opened to foreign commerce the ports of Hakodate, Yokohama, Nagasaki, Niigata, and Kobe, and the cities of Yedo and Osaka. However, the news that the shogun had concluded these treaties with the Powers caused a profound sensation at the court of Kyoto. Public opinion also showed itself much opposed to the opening up of the country. The prime minister of the shogun, Ii Noasuke Kamon no Kami, was assassinated (21 March, 1860) and plots against the foreigners multiplied. The Bakufu determined to send an embassy to the Powers to beg them to suspend their treaties (2 January, 1862). Meanwhile the emperor had confided the protection of Kyoto to the daimio of Tosa at Satsuma and had forbidden the shogun to come to the capital. The shogun pledged himself to take the field against the foreigners within a month. On a day fixed by the emperor, Mori Motonori, daimio of Chosa, opened fire on an American vessel which passed through the strait of Shimonoseki, and within a few days some French and Dutch ships met with the same treatment. The French squadron, under the command of Admiral Jaurès, bombarded the forts of Shimonoseki (15 July, 1863), and England sent Admiral Kuper to bombard the town of Kagoshima (15 August 1863). The following year (7 September, 1864), the combined fleets of France, England, and Holland took and destroyed all the forts and military magazines of Shimonoseki. The power of the shogun was on the decline. Nagato and Satsuma joined forces against him. In July, 1866, he commenced hostilities, but his forces were defeated. Shortly afterwards he died suddenly at Osaka. His death was followed almost immediately by that of Emperor Komei (13 Feb., 1867). Hitotsubashi succeeded Iemochi, and took the name of Keiki. He was the fifteenth and last Tokugawa shogun. Dismayed by the task which confronted him, Keiki gave in his resignation, 15 October, 1867, and the shogunate was suppressed, 5 January, 1868. The partisans of the shogun revolted and wished to restore his authority, but their troops were constantly defeated by those of the imperial army. After a brilliant defence Enomoto capitulated at Hakodate, 27 July, 1869. This was the end of the civil war. The imperial restoration was an accomplished fact. Imperial Restoration On his ascension to the throne, the emperor transferred the seat of his government to Yedo, which received the name Tokio (capital of the East) and became the capital of the empire. The whole government system was completely changed. Even as formerly the Japanese had copied china, so now they set themselves to imitate Europe. Foreign specialists, engineers, soldiers, seamen, professors, priests, business men, bankers, etc. were summoned, and thanks to their co-operation all branches of services received an organization similar to that established among the European nations. The chief events of this period may be summarized as follows: In 1868, abolition of the shogunate and restoration of the imperial authority; 1869, Yedo became the capital of the Empire under the name Tokio; end of the resistance of the partisans of the shogun; 1871, abolition of the fiefs of the daimio and division of Japan into departments; 1872, law establishing conscription; first national exposition at Tokio; 1873, adoption of the Gregorian calendar; abolition of the edicts of persecution against Christianity; creation of primary schools; 1974, insurrection of Saga; Formosa expedition; 1875, Japan cedes to Russia its rights over the Island of Sakhalin (Karafuto) in exchange for the Kurile or Kourile Islands (Chishima); 1876, treaty with Corea; Samurai forbidden to carry two swords; riots of Kumamoto (Higo) and at Hagi (Nagato); 1877, insurrection of Satsuma; Japan's entrance into the Universal Postal Union; 1879, annexation of Riu-kiu Islands; adhesion of Japan to International Telegraphic Union; 1880, creation of provisional assemblies; 1881, promise of a constitution for 1890; organization of political parties; 1883, first tramways; creation of an official journal (Kwampo); 1884, creation of the five titles of nobility. viz., Ko, Ko, Haku, Shi, Dan (duke, marquess, count, viscount, baron); 1885, establishment of the council of ministers (Naikaku); foundation of the navigation company, Yusen Kwaisha; Treaty of Tien-tsin with China; 1888, creation of privy council (sumit-suin); 1889, promulgation of the Constitution; prohibition of dueling; 1890, first session of Parliament; foundation of an academy (Tokio Gakushikwai-in); 1891, plot of Tsuda Sanzo against the Csarevitch Nicholas III; 1894, war with China; 1895, treaty of Shimonoseki, 18 April, ratified at Che-fu, 8 May; intervention of Russia, France, Germany; withdraw from Liao-tung peninsula; China cedes Formosa and the Pescadores, pays an indemnity of 200,000,000 taels, and opens several ports to Japanese commerce; 1896, civil and commercial codes put into operation; 1897, adoption of the gold standard; 1899, treaties concluded with the Powers carried into effect; suppression of the consular jurisdiction; liberty granted for foreigners to traverse and settle in the country, but the right of possessing private estates was denied to them; 1900, promulgation of the law concerning co-operative societies; co-operation of Japan in the suppression of the Boxers; 1902, treaty of alliance with England (12 August); 1904, war with Russia (8 Feb.); 1905, new treaty of alliance with England (12 August); Peace of Portsmouth, trouble in Tokio on this occasion, burning of police stations and of ten Christian churches; by Treaty of Portsmouth, Russia ceded to Japan the southern part of the Sakhalin and the adjacent islands; the lease of Port Arthur, Talien Wan, and the adjacent territory, and the railroad between Chang-chun and Port Arthur, with all its branches. It is recognized at the same time by anticipation the protection of Japan over Corea; treaty with China; 1907, treaty with France (June); deposition of the King of Corea (8 July); Corea placed under the protection of Japan; a president general sent by the Japanese government administers the affairs of the country; agreement with Russia (30 July); trouble with the United States; 1908, United States squadron visits Japan. LITERATURE AND ARTS Literature Archaic Period, previous to A.D. 700 The only work composed during this period is the "Kyujiki" (Annals of Antiquity), which has been lost. Nara Period (710-784) The chief works which appeared during this period are: the "Kojiki" (712), record of ancient matters; "Nihonki" (Chronicles of Japan) stories and legends of the early times; "Manyoshu" (collection of a myriad leaves), a collection of ancient poems, composed about 750; it contains more than 4000 pieces, the greater number being tanka (poems of 31 syllables); held in great esteem by connoisseurs, it constitutes at present a valuable source of philological, historical, and archeological information. Classic Period (Hei-an, 800-1186) This period is the golden age of Japanese literature. A remarkable fact is that the two greatest works were written by women; they were "Genji monogatari", composed in the tenth century by Murasaki Shikibu, maid of honour at the court, and "Makura No Soshi" (Tales of a Vigil), a classical work in twelve volumes, composed by Sei Shonagon, a lady of the imperial court. After these two works the most celebrated are "Kokinshu" (a collection of ancient and modern poems); "Tosa nikki", an account of a journey; "Taketori monogatari", tales of a bamboo-gatherer; "Ise monogatari", Story of Ise. The period of Hei-an witnessed important progress in the art of writing, the invention of phonetic writing called kana, and the alphabet as it is at present, in forty-eight syllables. Kamakura Period (1192-1338) Principal works: "Gempei seisui ki" (history of the grandeur and decline of the Minamoto and the Taira); "Heiki monogatari" (account of the Taira family); "Hogen monogatari" (history relating the war of Hogen), a classic work, and may other less important books. This epoch produced an anthology entitled "Hyakunin isshu" (the hundred-bodied head); this is a collection of a hundred tanka (poems of 31 syllables) by a hundred different men, and was very popular. The time between 1332 and 1603 was singularly barren of literary productions. Three principal works belong to this period: "Jinkoshoto-ki" (history of the true succession of the divine emperors) "Taihei-ki" (tale of peace); "Tsurezure kusa", a collection of sketches and anecdotes, a classic work composed in the fourteenth century, which occupies a very high place in Japanese literature. To this period belong the No, lyrical dramas, and the Kyogen, comedies. In ancient times the only public representations were the sacred dances called the kagura, at the gate of the temples, in honour of the gods. To these in the fourteenth century was added a spoken dialogue which was the origin of the No. The Kyogen was a sort of comic piece performed between the No. Yedo or Tokugawa Period This period embraces a greater number of subjects than the others. One of the earliest works of the time is the "Taiko-ki" (History of Taiko Hideyoshi), 1625. The study of Chinese books was then given the place of honour. The chief promoter of this movement was Fujiwara Seikwa, who founded a school of Confucianism, and left a number of disciples, the most famous of whom is Hayashi Razan, also called Doshun (1583-1657). Arai Hakuseki (1656-1725) is also numbered among the most learned in Chinese (Kangakusha). Then came Ibara Seikwaku, founder of a school of popular literature; Chikamatsu Monzaemeon, Japan's most famous dramatic writer, who composed ninety-seven joruri (dramas); Basho (1644-94); and Keuchu (1640-1701); Kado Azumamaro (1669-1736) opened at Kyoto a school in which he combatted the Chinese ideas then in favour; the most distinguished of his disciples was Mabuchi, who left numerous works which are now indispensable to those who study the ancient Japanese language; Motoori Norinaga (1730-1801), the greatest of the Wagakusha (scholars of Japanese literature) and one of the most remarkable men Japan has produced; he published fifty-five works in more than 180 volumes; Hirata Atsutane, one of the most learned writers of Japan (1776-1843). Kyokutei, Bakin, Tanehiko, Jippensha, Ikku, and Tmenaga Shusui are renowned as romance writers. Rai Sanyo (1780-1832) is distinguished as a historian, his two chief works being the "Nihongwai-shi" and the "Nihon seiki" which are of great value for the study of Japanese history. Another important work of the Yedo period is the "Dainihonshi", a great history in 243 volumes, written by a commission of scholars. Restoration Period (1868-1909) During this period a veritable passion for European learning took possession of the nation. Many young men went to Europe and America to study. Soon a group of writers gave translations and original works in response to a general demand for ideas concerning European learning, customs, law, and institutions. The most distinguished of these authors was Fukuzawa Yukichi, founder of the School of Keio-gijiku. The most noteworthy works are: "Kaikoku shimatsu" (1888) by Shimada Saburo, a collection of documents treating of the opening of the country; "Shorai no Nihon" (Japan of the Future) by Tokutomi Ichiro; commentary on the constitution by the Marquis Ito; the "Kyoikkugaku" (The Science of Education), by Nose Ei. The best known novelists are: Tsubuchi Yuzo, Sudo Nansui, Osaka Tokutaro, and, the most celebrated of all, Koda Nariyuki. Among poetic works is the "Shintaishiho", or reform of Japanese versification, in imitation of European poetry, published by Toyama Masakatsu, in collaboration with Yatabe Ryokichi and Inoue Tetsujiro. Painting Among the arts painting has always held the first place in Japan. In the beginning, when relations with Corea and China were not yet established, the fine arts were wholly in a state of infancy. During the reign of Kimmei Tenno (A.D. 540) the Chinese arts were introduced. Painting and sculpture entered Japan with Buddhism and Confucianism, and the cultivation of the fine arts began. The oldest extant picture was made during the reign of the Empress Suiko (593-628) and is preserved in the temple of Horyuji, near Nara. Several pictures of the Nara period (710-784) are in the temples of Yakushiji and at Nara. The most celebrated painters of the Hei-an period (800-1186) are: Kudara no Kwanari (853) of Corean descent; the bonze Kukai of Kobo daishi a religious painter; Kose Kanoaka (885-897), founder of the most ancient Japanese school. Koseryu (Kose genre), also called the primitive or Buddhist school; Fujiwara Motomitsu (1097) founder of the Yamatoru School (Japanese genre); Toba Sojo (1053-1114), a bonze, author of the humorous genre which is called after him Toba-e. During the Kamakura Period (1192-1338), in the thirteenth century, appeared a celebrated painter, a descendant of the powerful family of Fujiwara, Fujiwara Tsunetaka, who founded the Tosa School, derived from the Japanese Yamatoryu School, of which it became the principal branch. This school avoided Chinese influence, and applied itself to representing the scenes of the legends and history of Japan. In the beginning of the fifteenth century (Ashakaga Period, 1332-1603) Josetsu founded a school of painting according to the Chinese principles. Among his pupils were Sesshu, Shubun, and Kano Masanobu. Sesshu (1420-1503) is regarded as one of the greatest painters of the Chinese school. Kano Masanobu (1453-1490) gave his name to the school of Kanoryu, which proceeded from the Chinese school of Josetsu, and is subdivided into several branches. Kano Masanobu is the most famous representative of this school. At the end of the fifteenth century all Japanese painting belonged more or less to these two artistic sources, Tosa and Kano. The Tosu school represents Japanese art almost without foreign admixture; that of Kano belongs to Chinese influence. Yedo Period (1603-1868) Ogata Korin (1661-1716) created a manner a painting which was, so to speak, intermediary between the two schools of Kano and Tosa, uniting the decorative principles of both. The school which he founded is called by his name, Korin-ha. It was the first to employ gold and silver powder in painting. Sakai Hoitsu is the best known representative of the Korin School. Maruyama Okyo, founder of the school of this name, rejected the hitherto received principles and undertook a reform based on the observation of nature. With him idealism tended to disappear, and realism began. His principal disciples were Sosen, Rasetsu, Genki and Sojun. About the middle of the seventeenth century, Iwasa Matabei inaugurated a new style of painting. He aimed above all at reproducing the scenes of ordinary life. It is called the popular and realistic school (Ukiyo-e). The most celebrated painter of this school was Hokusai (1760-1849), who marks the end of the evolution of Japanese independence of every school, system, and convention. Except for Kikuchi Yosai (1788-1878), who completes the list of great stylists, everything centres around Hokusai, everything is inspired by his manner and his genius. At his death an irreparable decadence began. Japan imitated, it no longer created. To-day it is in a period of transition in art as in all other things. The classic school is disappearing by degrees, and popular art is without character or brilliancy. The struggle continues between Japanese and European art. In the interest of the arts and with a view to promoting them there are three societies and five special reviews. Ceramics Japanese pottery dates from the remotest antiquity, but the progress of ceramics compared with the other arts was very slow. The primitive pottery of Japan had for many centuries an embryonic and barbaric character. In the thirteen century, Karo Shirozaemon, known by the name of Toshiro, introduced the processes used in China, and introduced the first Seto workshops. The productions of Seto dominated the industry until the seventeenth century. Then appeared Ninsei, an artist of genius who was the real creator of national ceramics, and who even to-day is regarded as the greatest ceramist Japan ever produced. Through him the Chinese, Corean, and Japanese elements were blended, and from their mixture emerged a national art. In recent years the making of porcelain has undergone considerable development owing to the demand from abroad. The chief species of porcelain are: Seto (Owari), 4300 workmen, annual output 1,300,000 yen; Mino, 3800 workmen, annual output 1,000,000 yen; Arita (Saga), workmen 2000; Kutani (Kaga), 1200 workmen, output 220,000 yen; Kyomizu (Kyoto) one of the most important manufactories of Japan; Tokonami (Owari), output 320,000 yen; Tobi (Iyo), output 150,000 yen; Fujina or Izumo, output 120,000 yen; Hasami (Nagasaki), output 100,000 yen; Satsuma, output 40,000 yen, much esteemed by foreigners. The history of the arts of Japan would fill a large volume. Sculpture, engraving, carving, bronze, lacquer-work, enamels, metal-work, alloy, are the principle branches in which the Japanese have excelled and produced truly remarkable work. FINANCES From the earliest times large storehouses (okura) were built to receive the objects sent as presents or taxes to the court. At the reform of Taikwa (645) a ministry was constituted having at its head an Okura-kyo (minister of finance). He was charged with the collection of duties, the distribution of pensions, the verification of measurements, etc. In 1885 the name Okura-sho was given to the ministry of finance. The minister of finance is charged with the resources of the State. He has under his jurisdiction three bureaus, that of accounts (Shukeikyoku), that of taxes (Shuzeikyoku), and that of administration of finances (Rizaiktoku). The budget of receipts and expenses is drawn up yearly. Each minister prepares his own according to the needs of his department. These private budgets are arranged by the minister of finance, while at the same time means are devised to meet the expenses. This project is discussed at a council of the ministers, afterwards submitted to the Chamber of Deputies, who discuss it and give a decision, then to the Chamber of Peers who reject or approve it. If the new budget is rejected, that of the previous year is adhered to. Lastly, the budget must always be submitted to the sanction of the emperor. The annual average of the ordinary and extraordinary expenses of the Japanese army and navy in 1894-95, and during the years which followed the Treaty of Shomonoseki, was 104,524,000 yen; in 1908-09 they rose to 188,537,365 yen. Public Debt The amount of the public debt on 31 December, 1907, was 2,276,346,452 yen; interior debt, 1,110,645,228 yen; foreign debt 1,165,701,224 yen. The annual interest of the interior debt is 5%, that of the foreign debt 4%, 4 1/2%, and 5%. Money and Bank Bills The ingots of gold, silver, and brass received at the treasury since the foundation in 1870 equal the sum of 1,058,550,262 yen. Money put in circulation since that time, 707,810,261 yen. Amount of money in country, 31 December, 1907, 167,551,001 yen; amount of paper money, 369,984,111 yen. Banks Before the Restoration in 1868 there did not exist a single Japanese bank properly so called. The new Government soon grasped the importance of this institution for the development of commerce and industry. Commissions were sent sent abroad to study the various banking systems in use and to adopt that best suited to the country. Consequently a law of November,1872, inaugurated in Japan the system of the plurality of banks of issue. But the results obtained having been purely negative, the system was modified in a more liberal sense (August,1897 [sic; 1879?]). A large number of new banks were then founded, but this time there resulted such a fever of speculation, such a decline in paper money and government revenues, that the banks of issue had to be radically changed. In 1882 it was decided that in the future there should be no more banks of issue and that a central bank, the Bank of Japan, should alone have the privilege. The Bank of Japan was then charged with withdrawing from circulation by degrees the notes issue by the State and the 143 national banks in existence in 1882. The latter were transformed by degrees into ordinary banks, and in 1889 only one national bank remained, that of Japan, which to-day centralizes all Japanese fiduciary circulation. Founded in 1882 with a capital of 10,000,000 yen, it has increased this to 30,000,000 and has a reserve fund of 21,500,000 yen. It is authorized to issue notes whose value it holds in reserve in gold and silver money and in ingots; moreover, it has the privilege of putting into circulation as much as 120,000,000 yen. Japanese fiduciary circulation by decennial periods: 1879, 55,500,000; 1880, 159,366,000; 1890, 162,015,000; 1900, 228,570,000; 1907, 369,884,000 yen. The number of special banks, ordinary banks, and savings banks at present equals 2194, with 2367 branches. Together they have paid-up capital of 444,204,000 yen; reserve funds, 139,630,000 yen; net benefits, 86,712,000; dividends, 34,893 yen. The most important ordinary banks are Mitsui, Mitsubishi, the Third, the Fifteenth, and the One Hundredth bank. In 1893 there were in Japan only 732 establishments of credit, possessing a paid-up capital of 84,512,848 yen. In the space of fourteen years the number of these establishments has increased by 1432, and their paid-up capital equals 2,601,392,000 yen. In 1907 deposits alone reached 80,484,648,000 yen, and sums withdrawn, 80,555,844,000 yen. In fourteen years business has increased 39 times. Finally, in the course of 1907, the amount of sums deposited in banks, by the State and private individuals, equalled 27,237,717,000 yen. Bank Interest In 1900 the interest on fixed deposits varied from 5% to 6%. For ten years it has oscillated between 5% and 7%. Banks lend only at 12%. The discount is 3%. BUSINESS CORPORATIONS Until 1892 there was no law regulating the establishment and workings of companies collective in action and name. In 1893 the chapter of the new business code concerning companies was rendered obligatory. In consequence every business association had to secure from the Government the necessary authorization to form and commence operations. The code having been modified in 1899, necessary authorization was suppressed and companies might be freely formed under condition of conformity with the revised code. At the end of 1894 the nominal capital of all the companies formed since 1875 did not exceed 245,251,624 yen. Immediately after the war with China, and in the single year of 1896, 1178 new companies were formed representing a capital of 334,421,463 yen. On 31 Dec., 1907, the reserve funds of all these companies equalled 254,992,738 yen. In fourteen years the number of companies has doubled, and their capital has been trebled. Insurance Companies In 1881 there was not a single insurance company in Japan constituted after the European model. An attempt at maritime insurance in 1881 was without success, as there was no law regulating this sort of enterprise. But the publication of a new code definitively fixed the legislation in this respect. Since that time (1893) the insurance companies have greatly developed. Electric Light Companies (31 Dec., 1907) Number of Companies, 84; stockholders, 14,105; length of lines, 1016 ri (2468 miles); length of wires, 3750 ri; private houses lighted with electricity, 207,587; electric lamps, 836,640; public lamps in cities, 18,650; receipts, 8,308,061 yen; expenses, 4,928,383 yen; net profit, 3,894,200 yen. In 1897 there were 41 companies; 29,701 private houses lighted; public lamps, 2335; net profit, 614,999 yen. Clearing-houses In 1896 there were two clearing-houses organized according to the principles operating in the United States, one at Tokio, the other at Osaka. During that year (1896) the two establishments liquidated 647,239 notes, representing a value of 538,834,000 yen. In 1907, four new clearing-houses were in operation at Kyoto, Yokohama, Kobe, and Nagasaki. The liquidation operations dealt with 6,948,485 notes, representing a value of 7,124,059,761 yen. On 31 March, 1908, the number of exchanges, 50; stockholders, 8448; brokers, 971; authorized capital, 12,851,456 yen; paid-up capital, 10,291,000 yen. Receipts 7,015,388 yen; expenses, 4,448,531 yen. Net profit, 2,566,857 yen. COMMERCE Foreign In 1907 the foreign commerce of Japan was twenty times greater than in 1875, and since the Russo-Japanese war, three years ago, it has increased one-third. Average per person: 1875, 1.43 yen; in 1907, 18 yen. Japan also maintains commercial relations with the following countries: the French colonies of India, the Russian colonies of Asia, Siam, Switzerland, Russia, Austria-Hungary, Dutch Indies, Sweden, Norway, Spain, Turkey, Denmark, Portugal, Mexico, Peru, Egypt, the Philippines, Hawaii, etc. The greatest amount of Japanese merchandise has been exported to China and the United States, while British India, England, and Germany have profited most by the new order of things in Japan. Within thirty-four years, that is since 1873, Japan's export trade has increased 23 times. Chief Exports and Imports with Their Value in Yen Exports: raw silk, silk waste, handkerchiefs, pongees, 158,876,000 yen; cottons, cloths, napkins, 48,986,000 yen; chemical matches, 9,446,000 yen; fancy floor mattings, 5,743,000 yen; porcelains and crockery, 7,216,000 yen; lacquered articles, 1,643,000 yen; plaited work, 5,001,000 yen; umbrellas (European shape), 1,613,000 yen; cigarettes, 2,055,000 yen; tea, 12,618,000 yen; rice, 3,664,000 yen; dried cuttle fish, 2,401,000 yen; sea-weed, 709,000 yen; fish oil, 2,975,000 yen; camphor, 5,026,000 yen; crude and refined copper, 29,262,000 yen; oil, 19,052,000 yen; vegetable wax, 1,070,000 yen. Imports: raw and spun cotton, prints, velvets, 131,718,000 yen; woolens, muslin, cloth, 24,878,000 yen; hemp, 3,569,000 yen; machines, 27,699,000 yen; locomotives and wagons, 29,933,000 yen; iron bars, 26,445,000 yen; rails, 3,828,000 yen; iron nails, iron, and steel, 11,172,000 yen; dry indigo, 5.876,000 yen; paper, 7,436,000 yen; sole leather, 3,933,000 yen; brown and white sugar, 19,864,000 yen; rice, 30,931,000 yen; beans, lentils, 10,405,000 yen; meal, 6,212,000 yen; petroleum, 14,324,000 yen; tortoise shell, 21,042,000 yen. The chief markets for silk are the United States, France, and Italy; for cotton and copper, China. In 1907 there entered the Japanese ports 10,932 steam ships, tonnage, 19,801,425 tons; Japanese steamships, 6734 (8,770,491 tons); Chinese steamers, 52 (57,659 tins); English steamers, 2269 (6,267,638 tons); German steamers, 673 (1,840,000 tons); United States steamers, 377 (1,618,462 tons); Norwegian steamers, 348 (386,311 tons); Russian steamers, 172 (324,050 tons); Austrian steamers, 140 (154,425 tons); Danish steamers, 24 (64,753 tons); other nationalities, 143 (317,636 tons). Domestic Commerce Museums. Japan possesses eleven commercial museums, two of which (those of the Government and the industrial association) are at Tokio; the others are at Sapporo, Osaka, Kobe, Nagasaki, Miye, Nagoya, Gifu, Kanazawa, and Toyama. At the end of March, 1906, the Government Museum at Tokio contained 61,670 specimens, 31,674 of which were of foreign origin.Visitors in 1907, 57,111, of whom 1625 were foreigners. Chambers of Commerce On 31 March, 1908, there were 386 chambers of commerce. Ordinary councillors, 1589; special councillors, 250; number of matters regulated during the year, 11,651; expenses 231,200 yen. Two commercial agencies have been founded, one at Tokio in 1896, the other at Osaka in 1901. The number of adherents (banks, firms, etc.) is 1395 for the first; 1308 for the second. There are also four large merchandise warehouses, two at Tokio, one at Osaka, and one at Yokohama. Number of invention patents issued in 1907, 3155; number of designs patented, 614; competitions, 262; objects exhibited, 310,362; contestants, 261,396; awards 55,741; expenses 149,924 yen. COMMUNICATIONS Roads Under the Tokugawa there were four chief roads (go-kaido); they went from Nihon-bashi (Bridge of Japan) to Yedo, and linked all the provonces with the capital of the shogun. These ancient roads are still in existence, but since the Restoration, the roads have been divided into national, departmental, and parochial. The State defrays the expense of the construction and maintenance of a national road, the departments that of the departmental roads, and the departments and towns that of the parochial roads. All the chief towns of the prefectures, the cities, and the villages are connected by roads, generally in good condition, and suitable for carriages. Rivers, Canals The rivers are numerous, but for the most part are only torrents, little suited for navigation; they are used chiefly for rafting. Numerous irrigation canals have been dug, some of which are reserved for the transportation of merchandise. The amount of the expenses for means of communication, roads, rivers, canals, highways of all kinds, construction or repair of bridges, harbours, bays, piers, damns, ponds, viaducts, in 1907 was 28,872,333 yen; 3,231,791 yen being borne by the state, the rest, 25,640,542 yen, by the local bodies. Damage caused by floods, 21,473,359; by typhoons, 303,622; by tidal waves, 80,867 yen. Railroads In 1872, the first railroad line was begun by the government, between Tokio and Yokohama, a distance of eighteen miles; in 1882, the length of the lines established was 114 miles. As early as 1883, companies were founded to exploit this industry; in 1906 the government lines had been extended by 1531 miles, those of the companies, 3253 miles. In the same year (1906) the Government decreed national ownership of the railways, since which time the lines of eighteen large private companies have been purchased, while twenty smaller companies have gone out of existence. On 31 March, 1909, the total length of the Government lines was 4712 miles; that of independent companies, 446 miles. Lines at present in course of construction, 1037 miles. The railways have cost the State: old lines, 168,250,000 yen; purchased lines, 476,318,800 yen; lines building, 18,500,000 yen; in all, 663,068,800 yen. Receipts, 81,995,171 yen; expenses 45,262,927 yen; net profit, 36,732,244 yen. Locomotives, 2074; passenger carriages, 5780; number of travellers, 143,260,792; tons of merchandise, 24,092,066. railways accidents, dead, 1664; injured 2321. In 1883 the net railway profit equalled 943,846; in 1893, 5,073,929 yen. Electric Car Companies Electric tramways appeared in Japan in 1895. On 31 March, 1908, there were eighteen companies. Two of these have not made public their accounts. The statements of the sixteen others are as follows: authorized capital, 77,824,673; net profit, 4,130,593 yen. Vehicles drawn by men, for passengers (jinricksha), 161,858; for merchandise, 1,488,494. Total of all vehicles in the country, 1,951,892. The chief transportation company (Naikaku Tsuun Kwaisha) in the interior of the country has transported 208,447,901 kwan; receipts, 6,181,277 yen. Postal Service, Telegraph, and Telephone Postal Service There was a postal service under the shogun, but it was defective, costly, and slow. In 1872 the government adopted the system in use in the United States. At first established between Tokio, Osaka, Kyoto, and Yokohama, the next year it was extended throughout the country. The tax varied according to the distance, but later it was made uniform. However, England maintained its three stations at Yokohama, Nagasaki, and Kobe until 1879. Since then both foreign and domestic postal service is carried on by Japanese. In 1908 there were 670 post-office stations; 55,197 post-boxes; postal employés, 35,409; postal articles received and distributed within the country, 1,377,635,468; sent abroad, 25,792,382; received from a broad, 24,552,407. International money orders sent, 15,517; value, 563,215 yen. International money orders received, 148,742; value, 11,615,851 yen. Telegraph As early as 1869 the government planned to adopt the telegraph. In did so in 1872. In 1879 Japan joined the International Telegraphic Union. At present a telegraphic network extends throughout the country and submarine cables connect Japan with all the great centres of the world. As early as 1900 experiments were made with a view to installing wireless telegraphy on all warships, and at present all the ships are so provided. Communications have been established between Nagasaki and Kelun (Formosa). On 31 March, 1908 the length of telegraph lines was 8692 ri; length of wires, 38,249 ri; public stations, 2815; telegraphs sent with the country, 26,113,174; abroad, 707,598; received from abroad, 873,639. Telephone The telephone was brought to Japan in 1887, and in the same year all the government offices were thus connected. The telephone went into general use in 1896. At present 66 towns are provided with telephone connexions; 26 have an interurban connection. Public stations, 421; length of telephone lines, 2100 ri; length of wires, 27,270 ri; subscribers, 75,229. The Government has the monopoly of telephones, and bears the expense of constructing and extending all the lines. Merchant Marine and Navigation While the country was closed to foreigners, no Japanese could build or own a vessel capable of sailing the high seas. There was then no navigation except along the coast, and on the waters in the interior of the country. In 1868 liberty was granted to the Japanese to have vessels and navigate as they pleased. The formation of the three companies: the Mitsubishi Kison Kwaisha (steam navigation) in 1877; the Kyodo Unyu Kwaisha (united transports) and the Osaka Shosen Kwaisha (commercial navigation) in 1882, marks the beginning of the Japanese merchant service of Japan. In 1885, after a distressing occurrence, the Mitsubishi and the Kyodo Kaisha united to form one company, Nipon Yusen Kwaisha (Japanese Mail Packet Company), and started a new era in the merchant service. In the beginning of 1896 the Government decided to grant privileges for the construction and navigation of vessels. Twenty yen per ton capacity and five yen per horsepower unit are allowed to each ship of 700 tons and upward, built in Japanese yards and constructed of native materials. The navigation premiums vary according to the life and capacity of the vessels. The total value of grants and subsidies paid annually by the treasury to the companies and native ship owners is not less than 12,000,000 yen. At the end of 1903 there were 205 ship-yards and 32 docks. On 31 March, 1908, there were 216 ship-yards docks, building small war vessels and large merchant ships. During the war with Russia the com[anies furnished the Government 71 ships weighing 250,000 tons. Japan being a maritime country, it is natural that its merchant service and international trade should develop simultaneously and in proportion; nevertheless, the rapidity and importance of the progress made in the last fifteen years are truly extraordinary. Japan has a great many important navigation companies. The Nippon Yushen Kwaisha has had regular service since 1896 for Europe, America, Australia, and the chief ports on the Sea of Japan. The Osaka Shosen serves the ports of China and Corea. The Toyo Kisen has a rapid service between Japan and San Francisco, the Oya Shosen between Tsuruga and Vladivostok. The chief docks and coaling stations are those of Hakodate, Uraga, Yokohama, Osaka, Kobe, and Nagasaki. Not including Formosa, there are twenty-eight ports of commerce, of which the most important are Yokohama, Osaka, Kobe, Moji, Nagasaki, Yokkaichi, Shimonoseki, Otura, Kuchinotsu, Wakamatsu, and Hakodate. For Yokohama and Kobe, the two chief ports of Japan, the maritime trade for 1895 equalled 242,293,844 yen; in 1907, 652,713,183 yen. Lighthouses, 140; signal lights, 19; buoys, 406; post indicators, 77; bell buoys, 4; boats, 624,728. Lawsuits, 433; ships lost, 196; salvages, 728; persons shipwrecked, 461; died at sea, 277; disappeared, 154. ECONOMICS Agriculture The total area of Japan (not including Formosa and Sakhalin) is 38,555,229 cho, divided as follows: (1) land belonging to the Crown, the State, the commons, etc., 21,394,805 cho; (2) to private owners, 14,272,339 cho; (3) main roads, parks, swamps, etc, 2,888,085 cho. The total area of arable land is only 6,120,519 cho, classified as follows: rice fields, 2,748,575; drained lands, 2,296,698 cho; various crops, 1,075,246 cho; in all 15.7% of the total area of the country. The area of taxed land is 13,981,687 cho, estimated on survey as worth 1,406,267,827 yen. But at present their real value is far in excess of this estimate. According to the most recent census the total number of families is 8,725,544. Of these 3,776,416 are occupied solely with agriculture; 1,638,216 families join agriculture with other work. The nature of the soil is unfavourable for tillage, but the Japanese have improved it by careful cultivation. In the valleys there is not a grain of earth which has not been made use of, and even the mountain sides have, by the exercise of patience, been cleared, often to a great height. Rice, which is the basis of Japanese diet, naturally holds the first place, but that produced by the country does not supply the demand, and even when the crop has been good it is necessary to import it. The wheat crop is also far from being sufficient. Tea is an important article of commerce; however, from 1897 to 1907 the area devoted to its cultivation decreased from 58,892 cho to 50,548, and the yield from 8,471,956 kwan to 7,047,193. Sugar cane has not found favourable soil in Japan, and each year this commodity has also to be purchased abroad for large sums. By a law of March, 1904, the Government reserves to itself the monopoly of tobacco. According to this law the peasant continues to cultivate the plant as formerly. The Government buys the leaves from the cultivator, and distributes them for preparation among the state manufacturers. The products of the soil are numerous and varied; nonetheless the processes of cultivation are still primitive. That is why the Government endeavours to popularize throughout the country the scientific principles in force in the agricultural countries in Europe and America, and with this object also it has founded a school of agriculture and institutions which award premiums for success in agriculture. Live Stock While labouring for the development of agriculture, the Government also encourages cattle breeding. With a view to improving the breeds of cows and horses it has established state pastures in which cows and bulls are raised and placed at the disposal of breeders. Number of bullocks and cows (31 March, 1908) 1,190,373; horses and mares, 1,465,466; goats, 78,251; swine, 284,708; sheep, 2769. Number of slaughter-houses, 1111; animals slaughtered: cows, 167,458; horses, 69,268; pigs, 138,858. Number of veterinary surgeons, 4500. Value of slaughtered animals: cows, 9,901,613 yen; horses, 1,531,000 yen; pigs, 1,875,000 yen. Quantity of milk, 173,540 koku; value, 5,080,471 yen. Forests Japan is rich in forests. They cover an area of 22,000,000 cho, that is six-tenths of the territory of the empire. Hitherto cultivation of the forests did not make great progress, ideas on this subject being very backward, but the Government carefully elaborated a plan of reform in the forest administration. According to a law passed in 1907 the Government may use its authority to prevent the destruction and to secure the re-wooding of forests belonging to the State, to private individuals, to the Shintoist and Buddhist temples. The law also supervises and regulates the periodic felling of trees. Forests are divided into four classes: forests belonging to the State, 7,222,518 cho; to the Crown, 2,109,098. cho; to the temples, 7,991,796 cho; to private owners 4,676,688 cho. Forest products in 1907: building wood 32,236,114 yen; firewood, 24,392,836 yen. The average annual of forest products varied for the past ten years between 50,000,000 and 60,000,000 yen. INDUSTRIES Fishing From the earliest times the fishing industry has been in a flourishing condition in Japan. Formerly fish was the sole gift made. Together with rice it forms the basis of Japanese diet, for which reason the Japanese Government has not ceased to encourage the industry of deep-sea fishing. Fishery schools have been founded, and prizes granted for fishing on the high seas; laws for the protection of fish have been for some time in force. In 1907, 3,200,000 persons (15% of the population) were engaged in fishing or some trade connected therewith. Number of fishing boats 420,000, of which a number did not exceed 30 feet in length. It is only recently that Japan had sought a market for its fish, salt, smoked, or preserved in oil. The Japanese prepare, chiefly from herrings and sardines, a fish oil, from which the exportation in 1907 had reached a figure of 2,975,235 yen. 20,727 fish ponds in which fish are fed produced the sum of 2,805,590 yen. Salt Pits The area occupied by salt-works equals 8,295 cho; 16,184 boilers are used in the manufacture of salt. Product in 1907, 5,578,142 koku, valued at about 10,000,000 yen for the jobbers. A law reserves to the Government the monopoly of the sale of salt. Salt is manufactured by private citizens, the Government purchases it, and sells it again to the merchants, all at a fixed rate. 122,132 persons labour at the manufacture of salt. Mines Before 1868 the working of the mines was in a most rudimentary condition and their output was very mediocre. In order to improve and develop this branch of industry the Government sent for foreign engineers and utilized the mineral resources. Later on most of these miners were sold to private owners. In 1890 a law was published regarding the regimen of mines, which was replaced by another law in July, 1905. According to this new legislation those who desire to work mines are obliged to have a permit either of investigation or of exploitation to be issued by the minister of agriculture and commerce. For the administration of mines the country is divided into five large districts, each having a bureau for the inspection of mines. Japanese subjects and every civilian may acquire mining privileges. Foreigners may be admitted as members or stockholders in mining companies. From this it will be seen that within eleven years the extent of mines with a view to exploitation has more than trebled. The total product of the mines has more than trebled within eleven years. From 1805 to 1907 the copper output increased from 5,000,000 to 29,000,000 yen, and that of oil from 5,000,000 to 19,000,000 yen. Number of mine workers, 1898, was 132,731; in 1906, 187,922; accidents (1907): fatal, 765; serious, 426; slight, 6092. Manufactures Very early Japan had its industries and the traditions on this point have not been lost. Artistic bronzes, lacquers, porcelains, and paper are still among the riches and glories of this country. Nevertheless, subsequent to 1868 a transformation took place, and a new era began for Japanese industry. Formerly the work had been done by hand in the family, but now began the reign of the factory and the machine. In order to encourage private workers to use machinery, the Government itself built model workshop and manufactories. Besides, to hasten the development of the industry, the Government has often organized national expositions in the important cities of the empire, it has always taken part in foreign expositions, has instituted a bureau of industrial experiments, founded technical schools, encouraged the formation of industrial associations and sent students abroad to learn the operation of factories. It has also made special laws for the efficacious protection of industrial property. Workshops, Factories, and Arsenals Founded by the State Royal printing establishments, with typographical workshops and paper-mill; a mint with a branch; 5 tobacco factories; military arsenals at Tokio and Osaka; naval arsenals at Yokosuka, Kure, Sasebo, and Maizuru; marine arsenal at Tokio; powder factory at Shimose; marine preparatory schools at Takshiki, Ominato, and Mako; 1 steel foundry; two factories for the manufacture of material for telegraphs and lighthouses; 13 railroad workshops, etc. Number of machines for all Government manufactories, 1075; horse and steam power, 118,353; workers, men and women, 130,545 (men, 107,776; women, 22,769). Besides these, 62,324 day labourers are also employed; average daily wages: men, 55 sen. Japanese industry began to soar at the time of the war with China. The Japanese decided to add to their characteristic of being a warlike people that of being an industrial people. The most properous inductries are those of silk and cotton. In 1907 the number of silk mills was 4758; besides, 392,581 families occupied with this industry. Thr quanmtity of silk thus obtained (insluding waste) equals 2,299,688 kwan. In1895 it amounted to 2,299,688 kwan. Silk is the chief article of export from Japan. The following is the progress within five years. In 1901, silk tissues smanufactuired in japan reprtesented a value of 68,988,381 yen; in 1906 they rose to 88,994,617. And within eleven years the export figures have risen from 48,000,000 to 158,000,000 yen. Cotton Industry This also has made notable progress. From 1894 to 1906, thenumber of spinning mills rose from 45 to 83, with an increase of capital of 27,304,500 yen (the capital rose from 13,001,000 yen to 40,000,000 yen). The average number of spindles rose from 476,123 to 1,441,934 yen. At the samew time the output of spun cotton rose from 14,000,000 yen to 53,000,000 yen; and that of woven cotton from 49,000,000 yen to 84,000,000 yen. In 1907 all the materials manufactured in Japan. silk cotton, hemp, and woollens represented a value of 222,549,995 yen. The manufacture of sake (rice wine) equalled 4,405,860 koku; beer, 201,144 koku; shoyu (fish sauce), 2,074,008 koku. Metallurgy In this branch, despite all the efforts of the Government, the results have not fulfilled expectations. However the increase in iron and steel imports which have risen from 7,695,000 yen (1895) to 32,269,000 yen (1906) is a proof of development. Handiwork In 1906 the daily salary of handworkers was, for men, maximum, 96 sen; minimum sen; average 68 sen; for women, the average is 25 sen. On the history of Japan and the situation of the country:--GRIFFIS, The Mikado's Empire (New Tork, 1890); IMPERIAL JAPANESE COMMISSION, History of the Empire of Japan (Chicago, 1893); Japan Year Book (Tokio, 1907); BOSQUET, Le Japon de nos jours (Paris, 1877); DE LA MAZELIâRE, Essai sur l'histoire du Japon; PAPINOT, Dict. d'Histoire et de Géographie du Japon (Yokohama, 1906); ASTON, Littérature Japonaise (Paris, 1902); GONSE, L'Art Japonaise (Paris, 1885); TEISAN, Notes sur L'Art Japopnaise (Paris, 1906); Japanese Code (Tokio, 1908); THâRY, La situation économique et financière du Japon (Paris, 1907); SHIMODA, Nihon Katei hyakkwa (Japanese Enclyclopedia) (Tokio, 1906); HANABUSA, Nihon Teikoku nenkan (General Statistics of the Empire of Japan) (Tokio, 31 Dec., 1908); MINISTRY OF FINANCES. Financial and economic yearbook of Japan (Tokio, 1908). On Catholicism, Protestantism, and the Russian Schism:-- The Christian Movement in Japan (Tokio, 1908); DELPLACE, Le Catholicisme au Japon 1540-93 (Mechlin, 1908); CHARLEVOIX, Histoire du Japon (Paris, 1704); PAGâS, Histoire de la Religion chrétienne au Japon 1598-1651 (Paris, 1869); MARNAS, Le religion de Jésus ressuscitée au Japon (Lyons, 1896); Report of the Society of Foreign Missions (Paris, 1909); TAKAMATRU, Shukyo Horei (Ordinances concerning religion) (Tokio, 1895). JUSTIN BALETTE/FRANÇOIS LIGNEUL Karl Ernst Jarcke Karl Ernst Jarcke Born 10 November, 1801, at Danzig, Prussia; died 27 December, 1852, at Vienna. He belonged to a Protestant merchant family. He took up the study of jurisprudence, and became at an early age professor of criminal law at Bonn and later in Berlin. His scholarly attachments were especially revealed in his "Handbuch des gemeinen deutschen Strafrechts" (3 vols., 1827-30). Longing for faith and overcome by the conclusively and immensity of Catholic dogma, as he found it disclosed in the decrees of the Council of Trent, he embraced the Catholic Faith at Cologne in 1824. After the outbreak of the Revolution of July in Paris, he wrote an anonymous political brochure, "Die franzosische Revolution von 1830". It met the emphatic approval of the circle of friends of the then Crown Prince (later King Frederick William IV), which was composed of men of anti-revolutionary views, influenced by Romanticism and by Haller. Jarcke assumed the editorship of the periodical "Politische Wochenblatt", founded by these men in 1831 to promote their ideas. In 1832 Metternich called him to the State Chancery in Vienna to succeed the late Friedrich Gentz. He accepted the call, but continued an active collaborator of the weekly journal. The residence in Vienna did not satisfy him. In 1837 he broke with his Berlin friends on the subject of the "Cologne Occurrence" -- the imprisonment of the Archbishop of Cologne -- of which they approved but which he condemned. In 1838 he founded with Phillips the "Historisch-politische Blatter" to support Catholic interests in Germany. When Metternich was overthrown in 1848 Jarcke left Vienna, but returned there when order was restored, and died shortly after. His ideal was the "Germanic State" of the Middle Ages; at its head an hereditary monarch, all claims of the princes on their subjects to be regulated by treaties, the state to be occupied only with the defence in war and the administration of justice; in domestic affairs entirely unrestricted opportunities for development within the confederacy. Of "political necessities", "measures for the welfare of the state", and of a "constitution" Jarcke wished to know nothing, except perhaps of a restriction of the royal prerogative by an advisory popular assembly, which however must be representative of the professions and the interests at stake, not merely founded on a general or property qualification franchise. In his articles on the relations between Church and State he combated especially the Protestant and Liberal views. In seeming contradiction to his anti-revolutionary year of 1848, and he took a willing part in the Catholic movement which began at that time. MARTIN SPAHN Pauline-Marie Jaricot Pauline-Marie Jaricot Foundress of the Society of the Propagation of the Faith and the Association of the Living Rosary, born at Lyons, 22 July, 1799; died there, 9 January, 1862. At the age of seventeen she began to lead a life of unusual abnegation and self-sacrifice, and on Christmas Day, 1816, took a vow perpetual virginity. In order to repair the sins of neglect and ingratitude committed against the Sacred Heart of Jesus, she established a union of prayer among pious servant girls, the members of which were known as the " Réparatrices du Sacré-Coeur de Jésus-Christ". During an extended visit to her married sister at Saint-Vallier (Drôme), she succeeded in effecting a complete transformation in the licentious lives of the numerous girls employed by her brother-in-law. It was among them and the "Réparatrices" that she first solicited offerings for the foreign missions. Her systematic organization of such collections dates back to 1819 when she asked each of her intimate friends to act as a promoter by finding ten associates willing to contribute one cent of a week to the propagation of the Faith. One out of every ten promoters gathered the collections of their fellow-promoters; through a logical extention of this system, all the offerings were ultimately remitted to one central treasurer. The Society for the Propagation of Faith at its official foundation (3 May, 1822) adopted this method, and easily triumphed over the opposition which had sought from the very start to thwart the realization of Pauline Jaricot's plans. In 1826 she founded the Association of the Living Rosary. The fifteen decades of the Rosary were divided among fifteen associates, each of whom had to recite daily only one determined decade. A second object of the new foundation was the spread of good books and articles of piety. An undertaking of Pauline's in the interest of social reform, though begun with prudence, involved her in considerable financial difficulties and ended in failure. The cause of her beatification and canonization has been introduced at Rome. N. A. WEBER St. Jarlath St. Jarlath Patron of the Archdiocese of Tuam, born in Connaught about 445; died 26 December, (al., 11 Feb.), about 540. Having studied under St. Benen (Benignus), he founded a college at Cloonfush, near Tuam, which soon attracted scholars from all parts of Ireland. The fame of Cloonfush is sufficiently attested by two of its pupils, St. Brendan of Ardfert, and St. Colman of Cloyne. But, great teacher as he was, he went, through humility, to avail himself of the instruction of St. Enda at Arran about 495. He removed to Tuam about the second decade of sixth century. St. Jarlath is included in the second order of Irish saints, and on that account he must have lived to the year 540. The "Felire" of Aengus tells us that he was noted for his fasting, watching, and mortification. Three hundred times by day and three hundred times by night did this saint bend the knee in prayer, and he was also endowed with the gift of prophecy. His feast is kept on 6 June, being the date of the translation of his relics to a church specially built in his honour, adjoining the cathedral of Tuam. His remains were encased in a silver shrine, whence the church--built in the thirteenth century--was called Teampul na scrín, that is the church of the shrine, a perpetual vicarage united to the prebend of Kilmainemore in 1415. W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD Jaro Jaro Diocese in the Philippine Islands, formerly a part of the Diocese of Cebú, was made a separate diocese on 27 May, 1865. It comprises the islands of Panay and Negros; the Romblon, Palawan, and Jolo groups, and in the island of Mindanao the Provinces of Zamboanga, Cottabato, and Davao. The Catholic population is over a million. Here and there throughout the diocese are some Aglipayan schismatics, and in Mindanao and the Jolo group a large number of Mohammedans and some pagans. In 1909 there were forty-five native priests, about forty friars (Augustinians and Recollects), twenty Mill Hill missioners, and about ten Jesuits. In Jaro itself there is a diocesan seminary in charge of the Lazarists. Eighty of its students are preparing for the priesthood and the rest for secular careers. In the city of Iloilo the Augustinians conduct a college for lay students. In the towns of Jaro, Iloilo, Zamboanga, and Dumaguete are academies for young ladies, conducted respectively by Spanish and native Sisters of Charity, native Sisters of the Holy House of Mary, and French Sisters of St. Paul of Chartres. The leper settlement of Culion, under government control, is attended by Jesuit priests and brothers, and by the Sisters of St. Paul of Chartres. The churches and parochial residences are generally large, solidly constructed stone buildings, Spanish in architecture. Many of them are very beautiful. Owing to the withdrawal of the Spanish friars at the outbreak of the revolution against Spain (1898), and the present scarcity of priests, some parishes are still vacant. The native language, spoken throughout the greater part of the diocese, is Visayan. But in the island of Mindanao the language spoken is a mixture of Spanish and several native dialects. The educated classes, besides speaking their native dialect, also speak Spanish. Since the American occupation the school children are being taught English. The diocese is the centre of the sugar-growing industry, and the planters have always had a predilection for education and culture. Many of the most prominent Filipinos in professional, commercial, and political life are from these parts. Formerly the bishops were Spaniards. Since 1898 an American bishop presides over the diocese. The first was the Rt. Rev. Frederick Zadok Rooker, consecrated on 14 July, 1903, at Rome; d. in 1907. Bishop Rooker was born in New York, 19 Sept., 1861, and made his first studies at Albany and at Union College; later he entered the American College at Rome, and obtained in the College of Propaganda the degrees of Doctor of Philosophy and Doctor of Theology. He was ordained to the priesthood in 1888, and acted as vice-rector of the American College from 1889 to 1894. In 1895 he became secretary of the Apostolic Delegation then recently established at Washington, and held that office until his consecration as Bishop of Jaro. JAMES P. MCCLOSKEY Pierre de Jarric Pierre de Jarric Missionary writer, born at Toulouse in 1566; d. at Saintes, 2 March, 1617. He entered the Society of Jesus, 8 December, 1582. For many years he was professor of philosophy and moral theology at Bordeaux. As his desire to belong to the missionaries of the order was not fulfilled, he wished at least to use his pen for the good of the missions. The result was a very important production for that time, "Histoire des choses plus memorables advenues tant ez Indes orientales, que autres païs de la descouverte des Portugois", etc. The second part appeared about 1610, the third in 1614. The work is still a useful one, gives a comprehensive picture of the missionary enterprises of the Jesuits up to 1610, chiefly within the sphere of Portuguese interests, and contains numerous valuable data on colonial history, geography, and ethnography, gathering from Spanish and Portuguese reports, and from the works of Father Luis de Guzman ("Hist. de las Missiones que han hecho los religiosos de la Compañia de Jesús", Alcalá, 1601, reprinted at Bilboa, 1892), and of Father Ferdinand Guerreiro (Relação Annal das cousas que fizeram os Padres da companhia de Jesus na India e Japão, Brazil, Angola, Cabo Verde, Guiné", Evora, 1603, and Lisbon, 1605-07). By the dedication of the second part to Louis XIII Jarric wished to call royal attention to the colonizing and Apostolic achievements of Spain and Portugal, and thus incite the French king to similar efforts. This work was frequently reprinted and widely circulated, particularly in a Latin translation by Martino Martinez III (Cologne, 1615-16). Sommervogel, Biblioth. de la C. de J.; Hurter, Nomenclator. A. HUONDER Jason Jason A Greek name adopted by many Jews whose Hebrew designation was Joshua (Jesus). In the Old Testament, it is applied to three or four persons connected with the period of the Machabees. I. JASON, THE SON OF ELEAZAR In 161 B.C., he was sent to Rome by Judas Machabeus to secure an alliance offensive and defensive (I Mach., viii, 177 sqq.). II. JASON The father of the Antipater who was one of the ambassadors sent by Jonathan, in 144 B.C. to renew the former treaty with the Roman (I Mach., xiv, 22). This Jason is perhaps to be identified with Jason, the son of Eleazar. III. JASON OF CYRENE A Jewish historian who lived in the second century B.C., and whose work is made know to us by the Second Book of Machabees, which professes to be its direct "Epitome" (II Mach., ii, 24, 27, 32). Jason's work, divided into five books, dealt, apparently in great detail, with the history of the Machabees and the wars of the Jews against Antiochus Epiphanes, and his son Eupator (II Mach., ii, 20 sqq.). In the "Epitome" five parts may still be distinguished, corresponding probably to the five books of Jason, and ending respectively with iii, 40; vii, 42; x, 9; xiii, 26; xv, 37. Jason composed his work in Greek, not long after 160 B.C., at which date the Second Book of the Machabees closes its narrative. He was thus contemporary with the events which he chronicled. IV. JASON, THE HIGH-PRIEST This unworthy son of Simon the Just purchased at great price from Antiochus Epiphanes the deposition of his brother Onias III from the high-priesthood. During the three years of his own pontificate, he did all in his power to corrupt the faith and morals of the youth of Jerusalem (II Mach., iv, 7-17). On the occasion of the games celebrated at Tyre, in honour of Hercules, he sent a Jewish deputation with a large sum of money which he intended to be spent on pagan sacrifices; at the request of his envoys, however, it was devoted to building galleys. He was finally supplanted by Menelaus, his own envoy to Antichus, took refuge among the Ammonites (II Mach., iv, 23-26), captured Jerusalem next year, but had to soon flee again among the Ammonites, wandered in different places, and ultimately died miserably at Sparta. FRANCIS E. GIGOT Jassus Jassus A titular see of Caria, and suffragan of Aphrodisias. The city was founded by colonists from Argos at an unknown date, and was re-established after a war with the natives of Caria by the people of Miletus. It is situated at the inner end of a gulf, on an islet now connected with the continent by a narrow strip of land; according to Polybius its walls were ten stadia in circumference. Its fisheries (Strabo, XIX, ii, 21) are yet famous. During the Peloponnesian War Jassus was taken by the Lacedaemonians, and later it was captured by Philip of Macedon, who was compelled by the Romans to return it to King Ptolemy of Egypt. Numerous Greek inscriptions found among its ruins aid in the reconstruction of its domestic history. Four of its bishops are known: Themistius in 421, Flacillus in 451, David in 787, and Gregory in 878 (Lequien, "Oriens Christianus", I, 913). The see is mentioned in the "Nova Tactica", tenth century (Gelzer, "Georgii Cyprii descriptio orbis romani", nos. 340, 1464), and more recently in the "Notitiae Espiscopatuum". It is now called Asin-Kaleh, and is a small town in the sanjak of Mentéché and the Turkish province of Smyrna. In 1835 Texier visited it and found it completely ruined and deserted, its walls of white marble, also theatres, several burial sites, and mausolea still standing; since then the Turks have carried away most of the material for building purposes. Spon and Wheler, Voyages, I (Amsterdam, 1679), 1273; Chandler, Travels in Asia Minor, 226; Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, II (London, 1878), 5; Waddington, Inscriptions d'Asie mineure, n. 251-312; Texier, Asie mineure (Paris, 1862), 632-37; Bulletin de correspondance hellenique, V, 491-506; VIII, 454-58; XI, 213-18; XIII, 23-37; XIV, 614; XV, 545-48. S. VAILHÉ Jassy Jassy (Jassiensis). Diocese in Rumania. The town of Jassy stands in a very fertile plain on the River Bahluiu, a tributary of the Pruth, and has 80,000 inhabitants. Among its most remarkable monuments are the church of the Three Saints and the monastery of the Three Hierarchs. Although the more or less independent principality of Moldavia was established about 1348, Jassy did not become its capital until the sixteenth century, but subsequently remained such until 1859, when Wallachia was united with Moldavia to constitute the Kingdom of Rumania. Its name Jassy (Ruman, Iasi, pronounced Yash) seems to be derived from the Slavonic Askytorg, found for the first time in a Russian geography of the fourteenth century (Xénopol, "Histoire des Roumains de la Dacie trajane", I, 236, note). Often occupied by the Russians, Poles, and Austrians, it is principally celebrated for the religious conferences held there in 1642 between the Greek and the Russian Church, and for the treaty of 1792 concluded between Porte and Russia. The Latin Diocese of Jassy dates from 27 June, 1884. Thanks to the labours of the Franciscan and Dominican friars, Urban V was able to establish in 1370 at Sereth the seat of the diocese, transferred to Bacau at the beginning of the fifteenth century. Abandoned in 1497 on account of the Moslem persecutions, the See of Bacau was re-established in 1611, and had a succession of twenty prelates until 1789, when it was suppressed. The Catholics of Moldavia were then placed under the spiritual direction of Apostolic prefects, generally chosen from the Conventuals in charge of the mission. In 1884 Leo XIII raised to a diocese the Apostolic Vicariate of Moldavia, with Jassy as residence. This see has about 90,000 Catholics, of which a few hundred are Uniats (Rumanians, Ruthenians, and even Armenians). There are 50 priests, 11 of which number are secular, and 39 regular (Conventuals and Jesuits); 28 parishes with as many churches, and 94 chapels without resident priests; 11 chapels for male or female religious; a theological seminary at Jassy and two preparatory seminaries at Jassy and at Halaucesti; several day-schools for boys and girls; two boarding-schools for girls directed at Jassy and Galatz by Sisters of Notre Dame of Sion, 143 in number. The Orthodox metropolitan see, whose bishop sometimes recognized the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian patriarchs of Achrida and sometimes that of the Greek patriarchs of Constantinople, was established about 1392. Since the proclamation of Rumanian ecclesiastical autonomy the Orthodox Bishop of Jassy depends on the metropolitan primate at Bucharest. Jorga, Hist. de l'Eglise roumaine, II (Bucharest, 1909), 324, 335-7, in Romanic; Xenopol, Hist. des Roumains de la Dacie trajane (Paris, 1896); Echos d'Orient (Paris). VI. 46-50; VII, 321-8; VIII, 5-12, 72-7, 129-37; Missiones Catholicoe (Rome, 1907), 121-3. S. VAILHÉ Juan de Jauregui Juan de Jáuregui A Spanish painter and poet, born at Seville c. 1570, or, according to some, as late as 1583; died at Madrid c. 1640-1. His family, a northern one, was apparently of noble rank, and he was early enrolled as a knight in the Order of Calatrava. He made a sojourn in Rome, and there, judging by what he says in his "Discourse on Painting", he studied the old masters and formed his own pictorial methods. At all events, report has it that he became distinguished as a portrait painter. A current interpretation of a passage in the prologue to the "Novelas ejemplares" of Cervantes makes him out to have painted a likeness of the famous novelist. As a poet, Jáuregui began as a disciple of the Sevillian bard, Herrera. In point of fact, he adheres in many of his compositions too closely to the manner of his model, and hence a lack of originality in them. Notable among his poetic endeavors in his versions in blank verse of Tasso's "Aminta". It is deemed one of the best foreign renderings of that eminent pastoral play. First published in Italy, in 1607, it was included in the collected "Rimas" of Jáuregui put forth at Seville in 1618. In the same volume appeared various poetical pieces, among them a specimen of a translation of Lucas, and certain religious lyrics. In the earlier stages of his career, Jáuregui was a stern opponent of Gongorism and its stylistic excesses, as he clearly shows in his "Discurso poético contra el hablar culto y estilo obscuro", but he later succumbed to the influence of this noxious manner, amply illustrating its peculiarities in his poem "Orfeo" (Madrid, 1624) and even defending it in a special dissertation. Of the "Pharsalia" of Lucas, already attempted by him in his youth, he made, late in life, a complete version, which, however, was not published until 1684, and is over free in its rendering of the original. J.D.M. FORD Ven. Anne-Marie Javouhey Venerable Anne-Marie Javouhey Foundress of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny, born at Chamblanc, Diocese of Dijon, 11 November, 1779; died 15 July, 1851. In 1819 the scope of the new congregation, which had been founded for the alleviation of the miseries consequent on the Revolution, was extended to embrace foreign mission work, and in 1822 Mother Javouhey herself established a house of the sisters at Goree, in West Africa. After two years in Senegal and vicinity, she passed to the British colony of St. Mary's, Gambia, devoting herself without stint to the victims of a pestilence then raging. On her return to Senegal she received the co-operation of the French Government in her first project for evangelizing negroes, by which a certain number were to be educated in Europe and sent back as missionaries to their people. The meagre results, due chiefly to the number of deaths caused by the difficulty of acclimatization, showed the plan to be impracticable, and it was abandoned. French Guiana, however, was to be the scene of Mother Javouhey's most important missionary work. The French Government, after unsuccessful attempts at colonizing the rich interior of this country, appealed to the foundress of the Sisters of the St. Joseph, who were already established there. Having submitted her plans for approval and received full authoruty, Mother Javouhey set out for Guiana in 1828, with 36 sisters and 50 emigrants, and soon had organized a self-supporting colony, in which all the useful arts were practised. In 1835, two years after her return to France, again at the request of the Government, she once more went to Guiana to take charge of 520 African negroes, formerly in government service at Cayenne, whom the authorities wished reclaimed for civilization and Christianity before being granted their freedom. Harassed as she was by opposition, and even calumny, her success with the negro colony, due largely to her personal influence with the colonists, was so great that when emancipation was granted there were no such scenes of disorder as marked similar occassions in other colonies. The majority of the blacks had become Christians and had learned the ways of civilization and the value of manual labour. Long before this Mother Javouhey had established a leper colony on the banks of the Accarouary. Even the Indians came within the sphere of her influence; whole tribes were instructed in the Faith and asked for baptism. On her return to France, in 1843, Mother javouhey found fresh trials awaiting her, including, ecclesiastical opposition. Nevertheless she continued to direct the establishment of new mission houses of her order in all parts of the world, in addition to over thirty foundations in the various dioceses of France. When the news of the death of "the mother of the blacks" reached French Guiana, there was general grief, and most of the inhabitants of her colonies went into mourning as for a personal bereavement. The cause of Mother Javouhey's beatification was introduced 11 February, 1908. F. M. RUDGE Jealousy Jealousy Jealousy is here taken to be synonymous with envy. It is defined to be a sorrow which one entertains at another's well-being because of a view that one's own excellence is in consequence lessened. Its distinctive malice comes from the opposition it implies to the supreme virtue of charity. The law of love constrains us to rejoice rather than to be distressed at the good fortune of our neighbour. Besides, such an attitude is a direct contradiction of the spirit of solidarity which ought to characterize the human race and, especially, the members of the Christian community. The envious man tortures himself without cause, morbidly holding as he does, the success of another to constitute an evil for himself. The sin, in so far as it defies the great precept of charity, is in general grievous, although on account of the trifling matter involved, as well as because of the lack of deliberation, it is often reputed to be venial. Jealousy is most evil when one repines at another's spiritual good. It is then said to be a sin against the Holy Ghost. It is likewise called a capital sin because of the other vices it begets. Among its progeny St. Thomas (II-II:36) enumerates hatred, detraction, rejoicing over the misfortunes of one's fellow, and whispering. Regret at another's success is not always jealousy. The motive has to be scrutinized. If, for instance, I feel sorrow at the news of another's promotion or rise to wealth, either because I know that he does not deserve his accession of good fortune, or because I have founded reason to fear he will use it to injure me or others, my attitude, provided that there is no excess in my sentiment, is entirely rational. Then, too, it may happen that I do not, properly speaking, begrudge my neighbour his happier codition, but simply am grieved that I have not imitated him. Thus if the subject-matter be praiseworthy, I shall be not jealous but rather laudably emulous. JOSEPH F. DELANY St. John Vianney St. Jean-Baptiste-Marie Vianney Curé of Ars, born at Dardilly, near Lyons, France, on 8 May, 1786; died at Ars, 4 August, 1859; son of Matthieu Vianney and Marie Beluze. In 1806, the curé at Ecully, M. Balley, opened a school for ecclesiastical students, and Jean-Marie was sent to him. Though he was of average intelligence and his masters never seem to have doubted his vocation, his knowledge was extremely limited, being confined to a little arithmetic, history, and geography, and he found learning, especially the study of Latin, excessively difficult. One of his fellow-students, Matthias Loras, afterwards first Bishop of Dubuque, assisted him with his Latin lessons. But now another obstacle presented itself. Young Vianney was drawn in the conscription, the war with Spain and the urgent need of recruits having caused Napoleon to withdraw the exemption enjoyed by the ecclesiastical students in the diocese of his uncle, Cardinal Fesch. Matthieu Vianney tried unsuccessfully to procure a substitute, so his son was obliged to go. His regiment soon received marching orders. The morning of departure, Jean-Baptiste went to church to pray, and on his return to the barracks found that his comrades had already left. He was threatened with arrest, but the recruiting captain believed his story and sent him after the troops. At nightfall he met a young man who volunteered to guide him to his fellow-soldiers, but led him to Noes, where some deserters had gathered. The mayor persuaded him to remain there, under an assumed name, as schoolmaster. After fourteen months, he was able to communicate with his family. His father was vexed to know that he was a deserter and ordered him to surrender but the matter was settled by his younger brother offering to serve in his stead and being accepted. Jean-Baptiste now resumed his studies at Ecully. In 1812, he was sent to the seminary at Verrieres; he was so deficient in Latin as to be obliged to follow the philosophy course in French. He failed to pass the examinations for entrance to the seminary proper, but on re-examination three months later succeeded. On 13 August, 1815, he was ordained priest by Mgr. Simon, Bishop of Grenoble. His difficulties in making the preparatory studies seem to have been due to a lack of mental suppleness in dealing with theory as distinct from practice -- a lack accounted for by the meagreness of his early schooling, the advanced age at which he began to study, the fact that he was not of more than average intelligence, and that he was far advanced in spiritual science and in the practice of virtue long before he came to study it in the abstract. He was sent to Ecully as assistant to M. Balley, who had first recognized and encouraged his vocation, who urged him to persevere when the obstacles in his way seemed insurmountable, who interceded with the examiners when he failed to pass for the higher seminary, and who was his model as well as his preceptor and patron. In 1818, after the death of M. Balley, M. Vianney was made parish priest of Ars, a village not very far from Lyons. It was in the exercise of the functions of the parish priest in this remote French hamlet that as the "curé d'Ars" he became known throughout France and the Christian world. A few years after he went to Ars, he founded a sort of orphanage for destitute girls. It was called "The Providence" and was the model of similar institutions established later all over France. M. Vianney himself instructed the children of "The Providence" in the catechism, and these catechetical instructions came to be so popular that at last they were given every day in the church to large crowds. "The Providence" was the favourite work of the "curé d'Ars", but, although it was successful, it was closed in 1847, because the holy curé thought that he was not justified in maintaining it in the face of the opposition of many good people. Its closing was a very heavy trial to him. But the chief labour of the Curé d'Ars was the direction of souls. He had not been long at Ars when people began coming to him from other parishes, then from distant places, then from all parts of France, and finally from other countries. As early as 1835, his bishop forbade him to attend the annual retreats of the diocesan clergy because of "the souls awaiting him yonder". During the last ten years of his life, he spent from sixteen to eighteen hours a day in the confessional. His advice was sought by bishops, priests, religious, young men and women in doubt as to their vocation, sinners, persons in all sorts of difficulties and the sick. In 1855, the number of pilgrims had reached twenty thousand a year. The most distinguished persons visited Ars for the purpose of seeing the holy curé and hearing his daily instruction. The Venerable Father Colin was ordained deacon at the same time, and was his life-long friend, while Mother Marie de la Providence founded the Helpers of the Holy Souls on his advice and with his constant encouragement. His direction was characterized by common sense, remarkable insight, and supernatural knowledge. He would sometimes divine sins withheld in an imperfect confession. His instructions were simple in language, full of imagery drawn from daily life and country scenes, but breathing faith and that love of God which was his life principle and which he infused into his audience as much by his manner and appearance as by his words, for, at the last, his voice was almost inaudible. The miracles recorded by his biographers are of three classes: + first, the obtaining of money for his charities and food for his orphans; + secondly, supernatural knowledge of the past and future; + thirdly, healing the sick, especially children. The greatest miracle of all was his life. He practised mortification from his early youth. and for forty years his food and sleep were insufficient, humanly speaking, to sustain life. And yet he laboured incessantly, with unfailing humility, gentleness, patience, and cheerfulness, until he was more than seventy-three years old. On 3 October, 1874 Jean-Baptiste-Marie Vianney was proclaimed Venerable by Pius IX and on 8 January, 1905, he was enrolled among the Blessed. Pope Pius X proposed him as a model to the parochial clergy. [ Note: In 1925, Pope Pius XI canonized him. His feast is kept on 4 August.] SUSAN T. OTTEN St. Jean-Gabriel Perboyre St. Jean-Gabriel Perboyre Missionary and martyr, born at Puech, Diocese of Cahors, France, 6 January, 1802; martyred at Ou-Tchang-Fou, China, 11 September, 1840. Jean-Gabriel was one of eight children born to Pierre Perboyre and Marie Rigal. By reason of his piety, he was the model of his companions during his childhood. While acting as companion to his younger brother, in the preparatory seminary of Moutauban, he felt the Divine call to the priesthood, and after obtaining the consent of his father to take the step, he entered the noviciate of the Congregation of the Mission, in the seminary of Montauban, December, 1818. On the feast of the Holy Innocents, 1820, he made the four vows of the Vincentians. He was raised to the priesthood, 23 September, 1825, in the chapel of the Sisters of Charity, by Bishop Dubourg, of New Orleans, and on the following day he said his first Mass. Shortly after, he was sent to the seminary of Saint-Flour to teach dogmatic theology, and two years later, he was appointed superior of the preparatory seminary of Saint-Flour. His great sanctity and marvellous success induced his superiors, in 1832, to appoint him subdirector of the novitiate in Paris. He continued in this office until 1835, when he had sought and begged and prayed for, permission to go to China, there to preach, to suffer, and to die. He left Havre on 21 March, and on 29 August, 1835, arrived at Macao, where he spent some time studying the Chinese language. On 21 December, 1835, he began his journey to Ho-Nan, the mission assigned him. In January, 1838, he was transferred to the mission of Hou-Pé, in which, as in that of Ho-Nan, he laboured zealously and with great success. In September, 1839, the persecutions against Christians broke out in Hou-Pé, and Jean-Gabriel was one of the first victims. The events leading to his death bear a striking resemblance to the Passion and Death of Christ. A neophyte, like another Judas, betrayed Jean-Gabriel for thirty ounces of silver. He was stripped of his garments and clothed with rags, bound, and dragged from tribunal to tribunal. At each trial, he was treated inhumanly, tortured both in body and in soul. Finally, he was taken to Ou-Tchang-Fou, and after unparalleled tortures, was condemned to death. The sentence was ratified by an imperial edict, and on 11 September, 1840, Jean-Gabriel was led to death with seven criminals. The holy priest was strangled to death on a cross. [Jean-Gabriel was declared Venerable by Gregory XVI in July, 1843, beatified by Leo XIII on 9 November, 1889, and canonized by John Paul II on 2 June, 1996. His feast is celebrated on 11 September. -- Ed.] JOSEPH S. GLASS St. Jeanne de Valois St. Jeanne de Valois Queen and foundress of the Order of the Annonciades, b. 1464; d. at Bourges, 4 Feb., 1505. Daughter of one king and wife of another, there are perhaps few saints in the calendar who suffered greater or more bitter humiliations than did Madame Jéhanne de France, the heroic woman usually known in English as St. Jane of Valois. A daughter of Louis XI by his second wife, Charlotte of Savoy, she was hated from birth by her father, partly because of her sex and partly on account of her being sickly and deformed. Sent away to be brought up by guardians in a lonely country château, and deprived not only of every advantage due to her rank, but even of common comforts and almost of necessities, it was the intense solitude and abjectness of her life that first made Jeanne turn to God for consolation, and that gave her very early a tender and practical devotion to the Blessed Virgin. She is said to have had a supernatural promise that some day she would be allowed to found a religious family in honour of Our Lady. The mysteries of the Annunciation and Incarnation, as set forth in the Angelus, were her great delight. For political purposes of his own, Louis XI compelled Jeanne to marry Louis, Duke of Orleans, his second cousin, and heir presumptive to the throne. After her marriage, the princess suffered even more than before, for the duke hated the wife imposed upon him, and even publicly insulted her in every possible way. She, imagining virtues in her husband that did not exist, loved him tenderly, and when he got into disgrace and was imprisoned exerted herself to mitigate his sufferings and to get him freed. No sooner, however, was the duke, on the death of Charles VIII, raised to the throne of France as Louis XII, than he got his marriage with Jeanne annulled at Rome, on the ground that it was invalid, from lack of consent, and from the fact that it had never been consummated (see ALEXANDER VI); and the saint's humiliations reached their climax when she found herself, in the face of all France, an unjustly repudiated wife and queen. But the two special virtues in which Jeanne had resolved to imitate the Blessed Virgin were silence and humility; hence, though she bravely contested the matter while it was of any use, she accepted the verdict, when it came, without a complaint, merely thanking God that it left her free to serve His Mother as she had always hoped to do, by founding an order for her service. She was made Duchess of Berry, and given that province to govern. Going to live at Bourges, its capital, she fulfilled all her duties as ruler with strict conscientiousness and tender care for her subjects' welfare. In 1500, in conjunction with her Franciscan director, Gilbert Nicolas, Jeanne founded the Order of the Annonciades, an order for prayer and penance, whose chief rule was to imitate the virtues of Mary, as shown in the Gospels. The rejected queen found happiness at last in devoting herself to this work; and towards the end of her life, she took the vows herself, gave up her wedding ring, which she had hitherto worn, and wore the habit under her clothes. In spite of bad health and constant suffering, she had done much bodily penance all her life, besides giving many hours to prayer. Up to her death she prayed incessantly for her heartless husband, and left as a legacy to her order the duty of constant prayer for his soul as well as her father's and brother's. Jeanne died as she had lived, and was lamented by her spiritual daughters and all her people. Many miracles, especially of healing, followed her death. In 1514, Leo X allowed the Annonciades to honour her by a special office. Benedict XIV pronounced her Blessed, and extended her cult throughout France; but, though the process of canonization had been introduced in 1614, owing to various delays and hindrances, she has never been actually canonized, though universally known as a saint. FLAVIGNY, Une Fille de France; la Bienheuruse Jé (Paris, 1896); BUCHBERGER, Kirchliches Handlexicon, s.v. Johanna v. Valois; CHEVALIER, Bio-Bibl., s.v. F.M. CAPES Edmond Jeaurat Edmond Jeaurat (EDME JEAURAT) French engraver, b. at Vermenton, near Auxerre, 1688; d. at Paris, 1738. He was the elder brother of Etienne Jeaurat, the painter, and the son of an engraver or worker in metal, who on a visit to Paris took his eldest boy with him, and apprenticed him to Bernard Picart. Here Edmond spent many years, and when he left his master's studio he wandered away to Holland, and for a few years studied the art of the Dutch painters, earning his living by engraving a few plates after the chief paintings in Amsterdam and The Hague. On returning to Paris he came into contact with his younger brother whom he had not seen for many years, and employed himself in engraving Etienne's paintings, quickly acquiring celerity in execution and a considerable notoriety for accurate and delightful work. He was employed by Monsieur de Crozat to engrave the pictures for his famous collection. In Paris he married the sister of the artist Le Clerc, and many of his engravings represented the religious pictures painted by his brother-in-law, La Clerc the younger. He had two sons, one Nicholas Henry, a painter, usually known as Jeaurat de Bertry or Berty, the other SÈbastien, who devoted himself to science. There is a fine collection of his engravings in the British Museum, London, and they can also be studied in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris. His finest work is probably "Achilles discovered among the Daughters of Lycomedes", dated 1713, and there are also engravings by him from works by Poussin, Veronese, and Watteau. Descamps, La Vie des Peintres (Paris, 1753); Le Carpentier, Galerie des Peintres CÈlèbres (Rouen, 1815); De Crozat, Receuil d'Etampes (Paris, 1736); Mariette, Abecedario (Paris, 1746); Dussieux, Les Artistes français à l'Etranger (Paris, 1856). GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON Jedburgh Jedburgh (Eighty-two different spellings of the name are given in the "Origines Parochiales Scotiæ"). Augustinian abbey, in the town of the same name (capital of Roxburghshire, Scotland), established as a priory by David I, King of Scots, in 1118, and colonized by Canons Regular of St. Augustine from the Abbey of St-Quentin, at Beauvais, France. Fordun gives 1147 as the year of foundation, but this seems to have been the date of the erection of the priory into an abbey, when prior Osbert (styled in the Melrose chronicle "primus abbas de Geddeworth") was raised to the abbatial dignity. Jedburgh soon became one of the greatest Scottish monasteries, deriving importance from its proximity to the castle (now entirely destroyed), which was the favourite residence of many of the Scottish kings. Lands, churches, houses, and valuable fisheries, on both sides of the border, were bestowed on the abbey by David I, Malcolm IV, William the Lion, and other royal and noble benefactors; and Alexander III chose to be married in the abbey church to Yolande de Dreux in 1285, by which year the monastic buildings, including the great church, were probably complete. An opulent abbey so near the English border as Jedburgh was sure to suffer much in the constant wars between England and Scotland. About 1300 the monastery became uninhabitable, owing to repeated attacks made on it, and the community was dispersed. Later on it recovered its prosperity for a time, but in the century and a half preceding the Reformation it was devastated, plundered, and occasionally set on fire, at least four times by the invading English. In 1559 (John Horne being abbot) the abbey was suppressed, and its possessions confiscated by the Crown. A Protestant church was afterwards constructed within the nave and used until 1875, when a new church was built by the Marquess of Lothian, whose family has possessed the lordship of Jedburgh continuously since 1622. Practically the whole of the domestic buildings of Jedburgh Abbey have disappeared; but the magnificent church is still wonderfully entire. The oldest part is the early Norman choir, of which the two western bays remain; and the nave, 129 feet long, is a very stately and impressive example of Early English work. The decorated north transept (fourteenth century) is the burial-place of the Kers of Fernihurst, now represented by the Marquess of Lothian. The massive central tower is still quite perfect. The total length of the church (inside) is 218 feet. Origines Parochiales Scotiæ, I (Edinburgh, 1850), 366-386; Watson, Jedburgh Abbey (Edinburgh, 1894); Saturday Review, LIV. 437-440; Wordsworth, Tour in Scotland, ed. Shairp (1874); Gordon, Monasticon, I (Glasgow, 1868), 249-258; Morton, Monastic Annals of Teviotdale (Edinburgh, 1832); Jeffrey, History and Antiquities of Roxburghshire (4 vols., 1857-64); Wyntoun, Orygynale Cronykil of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1872-79). D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR Jehovah (Yahweh) Jehovah (Yahweh) The proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name, the glorious and terrible name, the hidden and mysterious name, the name of the substance, the proper name, and most frequently shem hammephorash, i.e. the explicit or the separated name, though the precise meaning of this last expression is a matter of discussion (cf. Buxtorf, "Lexicon", Basle, 1639, col. 2432 sqq.). Jehovah occurs more frequently than any other Divine name. The Concordances of Furst ("Vet. Test. Concordantiae", Leipzig, 1840) and Mandelkern ("Vet. Test. Concordantiae", Leipzig, 1896) do not exactly agree as to the number of its occurrences; but in round numbers it is found in the Old Testament 6000 times, either alone or in conjunction with another Divine name. The Septuagint and the Vulgate render the name generally by "Lord" (Kyrios, Dominus), a translation of Adonai--usually substituted for Jehovah in reading. I. PRONUNCIATION OF JEHOVAH The Fathers and the Rabbinic writers agree in representing Jehovah as an ineffable name. As to the Fathers, we only need draw attention to the following expressions: onoma arreton, aphraston, alekton, aphthegkton, anekphoneton, aporreton kai hrethenai me dynamenon, mystikon. Leusden could not induce a certain Jew, in spite of his poverty, to pronounce the real name of God, though he held out the most alluring promises. The Jew's compliance with Leusden's wishes would not indeed have been of any real advantage to the latter; for the modern Jews are as uncertain of the real pronunciation of the Sacred name as their Christian contemporaries. According to a Rabbinic tradition the real pronunciation of Jehovah ceased to be used at the time of Simeon the Just, who was, according to Maimonides, a contemporary of Alexander the Great. At any rate, it appears that the name was no longer pronounced after the destruction of the Temple. The Mishna refers to our question more than once: Berachoth, ix, 5, allows the use of the Divine name by way of salutation; in Sanhedrin, x, 1, Abba Shaul refuses any share in the future world to those who pronounce it as it is written; according to Thamid, vii, 2, the priests in the Temple (or perhaps in Jerusalem) might employ the true Divine name, while the priests in the country (outside Jerusalem) had to be contented with the name Adonai; according to Maimonides ("More Neb.", i, 61, and "Yad chasaka", xiv, 10) the true Divine name was used only by the priests in the sanctuary who imparted the blessing, and by the high-priest on the Day of Atonement. Phil ["De mut. nom.", n. 2 (ed. Marg., i, 580); "Vita Mos.", iii, 25 (ii, 166)] seems to maintain that even on these occasions the priests had to speak in a low voice. Thus far we have followed the post-Christian Jewish tradition concerning the attitude of the Jews before Simeon the Just. As to the earlier tradition, Josephus (Antiq., II, xii, 4) declares that he is not allowed to treat of the Divine name; in another place (Antiq., XII, v, 5) he says that the Samaritans erected on Mt. Garizim an anonymon ieron. This extreme veneration for the Divine name must have generally prevailed at the time when the Septuagint version was made, for the translators always substitute Kyrios (Lord) for Jehovah. Ecclus., xxiii, 10, appears to prohibit only a wanton use of the Divine name, though it cannot be denied that Jehovah is not employed as frequently in the more recent canonical books of the Old Testament as in the older books. It would be hard to determine at what time this reverence for the Divine name originated among the Hebrews. Rabbinic writers derive the prohibition of pronouncing the Tetragrammaton, as the name of Jehovah is called, from Lev., xxiv, 16: "And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die". The Hebrew participle noqedh, here rendered "blasphemeth", is translated honomazon in the Septuagint, and appears to have the meaning "to determine", "to denote" (by means of its proper vowels) in Gen., xxx, 28; Num., i, 17; Is., lxii, 2. Still, the context of Lev., xxiv, 16 (cf. verses 11 and 15), favours the meaning "to blaspheme". Rabbinic exegetes derive the prohibition also from Ex., iii, 15; but this argument cannot stand the test of the laws of sober hermeneutics (cf. Drusius, "Tetragrammaton", 8-10, in "Critici Sacri", Amsterdam, 1698, I, p. ii, col. 339-42; "De nomine divino", ibid., 512-16; Drach, "Harmonic entre l'Eglise et la Synagogue", I, Paris, 1844, pp. 350-53, and Note 30, pp. 512-16). What has been said explains the so-called qeri perpetuum, according to which the consonants of Jehovah are always accompanied in the Hebrew text by the vowels of Adonai except in the cases in which Adonai stands in apposition to Jehovah: in these cases the vowels of Elohim are substituted. The use of a simple shewa in the first syllable of Jehovah, instead of the compound shewa in the corresponding syllable of Adonai and Elohim, is required by the rules of Hebrew grammar governing the use of shewa. Hence the question: What are the true vowels of the word Jehovah? It has been maintained by some recent scholars that the word Jehovah dates only from the year 1520 (cf. Hastings, "Dictionary of the Bible", II, 1899, p. 199: Gesenius-Buhl, "Handwörterbuch", 13th ed., 1899, p. 311). Drusius (loc. cit., 344) represents Peter Galatinus as the inventor of the word Jehovah, and Fagius as it propagator in the world of scholars and commentators. But the writers of the sixteenth century, Catholic and Protestant (e.g. Cajetan and Théodore de Bèze), are perfectly familiar with the word. Galatinus himself ("Areana cathol. veritatis", I, Bari, 1516, a, p. 77) represents the form as known and received in his time. Besides, Drusius (loc. cit., 351) discovered it in Porchetus, a theologian of the fourteenth century. Finally, the word is found even in the "Pugio fidei" of Raymund Martin, a work written about 1270 (ed. Paris, 1651, pt. III, dist. ii, cap. iii, p. 448, and Note, p. 745). Probably the introduction of the name Jehovah antedates even R. Martin. No wonder then that this form has been regarded as the true pronunciation of the Divine name by such scholars as Michaelis ("Supplementa ad lexica hebraica", I, 1792, p. 524), Drach (loc. cit., I, 469-98), Stier (Lehrgebäude der hebr. Sprache, 327), and others. + Jehovah is composed of the abbreviated forms of the imperfect, the participle, and the perfect of the Hebrew verb "to be" (ye=yehi; ho=howeh; wa=hawah). According to this explanation, the meaning of Jehovah would be "he who will be, is, and has been". But such a word-formation has no analogy in the Hebrew language. + The abbreviated form Jeho supposes the full form Jehovah. But the form Jehovah cannot account for the abbreviations Jahu and Jah, while the abbreviation Jeho may be derived from another word. + The Divine name is said to be paraphrased in Apoc., i, 4, and iv, 8, by the expression ho on kai ho en kai ho erchomenos, in which ho erchomenos is regard as equivalent to ho eromenos, "the one that will be"; but it really means "the coming one", so that after the coming of the Lord, Apoc., xi, 17, retains only ho on kai ho en. + the comparison of Jehovah with the Latin Jupiter, Jovis. But it wholly neglects the fuller forms of the Latin names Diespiter, Diovis. Any connection of Jehovah with the Egyptian Divine name consisting of the seven Greek vowels has been rejected by Hengstenberg (Beitrage zur Einleiung ins Alte Testament, II, 204 sqq.) and Tholuck (Vermischte Schriften, I, 349 sqq.). To take up the ancient writers: + Diodorus Siculus writes Jao (I, 94); + Irenaeus ("Adv. Haer.", II, xxxv, 3, in P. G., VII, col. 840), Jaoth; + the Valentinian heretics (Ir., "Adv. Haer.", I, iv, 1, in P.G., VII, col. 481), Jao; + Clement of Alexandria ("Strom.", V, 6, in P.G., IX, col. 60), Jaou; + Origin ("in Joh.", II, 1, in P.G., XIV, col. 105), Jao; + Porphyry (Eus., "Praep. evang", I, ix, in P.G., XXI, col. 72), Jeuo; + Epiphanius ("Adv. Haer.", I, iii, 40, in P.G., XLI, col. 685), Ja or Jabe; + Pseudo-Jerome ("Breviarium in Pss.", in P.L., XXVI, 828), Jaho; + the Samaritans (Theodoret, in "Ex. quaest.", xv, in P. G., LXXX, col. 244), Jabe; + James of Edessa (cf.. Lamy, "La science catholique", 1891, p. 196), Jehjeh; + Jerome ("Ep. xxv ad Marcell.", in P. L., XXII, col. 429) speaks of certain ignorant Greek writers who transcribed the Hebrew Divine name II I II I. The judicious reader will peceive that the Samaritan pronunciation Jabe probably approaches the real sound of the Divine name closest; the other early writers transmit only abbreviations or corruptions of the sacred name. Inserting the vowels of Jabe into the original Hebrew consonant text, we obtain the form Jahveh (Yahweh), which has been generally accepted by modern scholars as the true pronunciation of the Divine name. It is not merely closely connected with the pronunciation of the ancient synagogue by means of the Samaritan tradition, but it also allows the legitimate derivation of all the abbreviations of the sacred name in the Old Testament. II. MEANING OF THE DIVINE NAME Jahveh (Yahweh) is one of the archaic Hebrew nouns, such as Jacob, Joseph, Israel, etc. (cf. Ewald, "Lehrbuch der hebr. Sprache", 7th ed., 1863, p. 664), derived from the third person imperfect in such a way as to attribute to a person or a thing the action of the quality expressed by the verb after the manner of a verbal adjective or a participle. Furst has collected most of these nouns, and calls the form forma participialis imperfectiva. As the Divine name is an imperfect form of the archaic Hebrew verb "to be", Jahveh means "He Who is", Whose characteristic note consists in being, or The Being simply. Here we are confronted with the question, whether Jahveh is the imperfect hiphil or the imperfect qal. Calmet and Le Clere believe that the Divine name is a hiphil form; hence it signifies, according to Schrader (Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament, 2nd ed., p. 25), He Who brings into existence, the Creator; and according to Lagarde (Psalterium Hieronymi, 153), He Who causes to arrive, Who realizes His promises, the God of Providence. But this opinion is not in keeping with Ex., iii, 14, nor is there any trace in Hebrew of a hiphil form of the verb meaning "to be"; moreover, this hiphil form is supplied in the cognate languages by the pi'el form, except in Syriac where the hiphil is rare and of late occurrence. On the other hand, Jehveh may be an imperfect qal from a grammatical point of view, and the traditional exegesis of Ex., iii, 6-16, seems to necessitate the form Jahveh. Moses asks God: "If they should say to me: What is his [God's] name? What shall I say to them?" In reply, God returns three several times to the determination of His name. First, He uses the first person imperfect of the Hebrew verb "to be"; here the Vulgate, the Septuagint, Aquila, Theodotion, and the Arabic version suppose that God uses the imperfect qal; only the Targums of Jonathan and of Jerusalem imply the imperfect hiphil. Hence we have the renderings: "I am who am" (Vulg.), "I am who is" (Sept.), "I shall be {who] shall be" (Aquila, Theodotion), "the Eternal who does not cease" (Ar.); only the above-mentioned Targums see any reference to the creation of the world. The second time, God uses again the first person imperfect of the Hebrew verb "to be"; here the Syriac, the Sumaritan, the Persian versions, and the Targums of Onkelos and Jerusalem retain the Hebrew word, so that one cannot tell whether they regard the imperfect as a qal or a hiphil form; the Arabic version omits the whole clause; but the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Targum of Jonathan suppose here the imperfect qal: "He Who Is, hath sent me to you" instead of "I Am, hath sent me to you: (Vulg.); " ho on sent me to you" (Sept.); "I am who am, and who shall be, hath sent me to you" (Targ. Jon.). Finally, the third time, God uses the third person of the imperfect, or the form of the sacred name itself; here the Samaritan version and the Targum of Onkelos retain the Hebrew form; the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Syriac version render "Lord", though, according to the analogy of the former two passages, they should have translated, "He Is, the God of your fathers, . . . hath sent me to you"; the Arabic version substitutes "God". Classical exegesis, therefore, regards Jahveh as the imperfect qal of the Hebrew verb "to be". Here another question presents itself: Is the being predicated of God in His name, the metaphysical being denoting nothing but existence itself, or is it an historical being, a passing manifestation of God in time? Most Protestant writers regard the being implied in the name Jahveh as an historical one, though some do not wholly exclude such metaphysical ideas as God's independence, absolute constancy, and fidelity to His promises, and immutability in His plans (cf. Driver, "Hebrew Tenses", 1892, p. 17). The following are the reasons alleged for the historical meaning of the "being" implied in the Divine name: + The metaphysical sense of being was too abstruse a concept for the primitive times. Still, some of the Egyptian speculations of the early times are almost as abstruse; besides, it was not necessary that the Jews of the time of Moses should fully understand the meaning implied in God's name. The scientific development of its sense might be left to the future Christian theologians. + The Hebrew verb hayah means rather "to become" than "to be" permanently. But good authorities deny that the Hebrew verb denotes being in motion rather than being in a permanent condition. It is true that the participle would have expressed a permanent state more clearly; but then, the participle of the verb hayah is found only in Ex., ix, 3, and few proper names in Hebrew are derived from the participle. + The imperfect mainly expresses the action of one who enters anew on the scene. But this is not always the case; the Hebrew imperfect is a true aorist, prescinding from time and, therefore, best adapted for general principles (Driver, p. 38). + "I am who am" appears to refer to "I will be with thee" of v. 12; both texts seems to be alluded to in Os., i, 9, "I will not be yours". But if this be true, "I am who am" must be considered as an ellipse: "I am who am with you", or "I am who am faithful to my promises". This is harsh enough; but it becomes quite inadmissible in the clause, "I am who am, hath sent me". Since then the Hebrew imperfect is admittedly not to be considered as a future, and since the nature of the language does not force us to see in it the expression of transition or of becoming, and since, moreover, early tradition is quite fixed and the absolute character of the verb hayah has induced even the most ardent patrons of its historical sense to admit in the texts a description of God's nature, the rules of hermeneutics urge us to take the expressions in Ex., iii, 13-15, for what they are worth. Jahveh is He Who Is, i.e., His nature is best characterized by Being, if indeed it must be designated by a personal proper name distinct from the term God (Revue biblique, 1893, p. 338). The scholastic theories as to the depth of meaning latent in Yahveh (Yahweh) rest, therefore, on a solid foundation. Finite beings are defined by their essence: God can be defined only be being, pure and simple, nothing less and nothing more; not be abstract being common to everything, and characteristic of nothing in particular, but by concrete being, absolute being, the ocean of all substantial being, independent of any cause, incapable of change, exceeding all duration, because He is infinite: "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, . . . who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty" (Apoc., i, 8). Cf. St. Thomas, I, qu. xiii, a. 14; Franzelin, "De Deo Uno" (3rd ed., 1883, thesis XXIII, pp. 279-86. III. ORIGIN OF THE NAME JAHVEH (YAHWEH) The opinion that the name Jahveh was adopted by the Jews from the Chanaanites, has been defended by von Bohlen (Genesis, 1835, p. civ), Von der Alm (Theol. Briefe, I, 1862, pp. 524-27), Colenso (The Pentateuch, V, 1865, pp. 269-84), Goldziher (Der Mythus bei den Hebräern, 1867, p. 327), but has been rejected by Kuenen ("De Godsdienst van Israel", I, Haarlem, 1869, pp. 379-401) and Baudissin (Studien, I, pp. 213-18). It is antecedently improbable that Jahveh, the irreconcilable enemy of the Chanaanites, should be originally a Chanaanite god. It has been said by Vatke (Die Religion des Alten Test., 1835, p. 672) and J.G. Müller (Die Semiten in ihrem Verhältniss zu Chamiten und Japhetiten, 1872, p. 163) that the name Jahveh is of Indo-European origin. But the transition of the Sanscrit root, div--the Latin Jupiter-Jovis (Diovis), the Greek Zeus-Dios, the Indo-European Dyaus into the Hebrew form Jahveh has never been satisfactorily explained. Hitzig's contention (Vorlesungen über bibl. Theol., p. 38) that the Indo-Europeans furnished at least the idea contained in the name Jahveh, even if they did not originate the name itself, is without any value. The theory that Jahveh is of Egyptian origin may have a certain amount of a priori probability, as Moses was educated in Egypt. Still, the proofs are not convincing: + Röth (Die Aegypt. und die Zoroastr. Glaubenslehre, 1846, p. 175) derives the Hebrew name from the ancient moon-god Ih or Ioh. But there is no connection between the Hebrew Jahveh and the moon (cf. Pierret, "Vocabul. Hiérogl.", 1875, p. 44). + Plutarch (De Iside, 9) tells us that a statue of Athene (Neith) in Sais bore the inscription: "I am all that has been, is, and will be". But Tholuck (op. cit., 1867, pp. 189-205) shows that the meaning of this inscription is wholly different from that of the name Jahveh. + The patrons of the Egyptian origin of the sacred name appeal to the common. Egyptian formula, Nuk pu nuk but though its literal signification is "I am I", its real meaning is "It is I who" (cf. Le Page Renouf, "Hibbert Lectures for 1879", p. 244). As to the theory that Jahveh has a Chaldean or an Accadian origin, its foundation is not very solid: + Jahveh is said to be a merely artificial form introduced to put meaning into the name of the national god (Delitzsch, "Wo lag das Paradies", 1881, pp. 158-64); the common and popular name of God is said to have been Yahu or Yah, the letter I being the essential Divine element in the name. The contention, if true, does not prove the Chaldean or Accadian origin of the Hebrew Divine name; besides the form Yah is rare and exclusively poetic; Yahu never appears in the Bible, while the ordinary full form of the Divine name is found even in the inscription of Mesa (line 18) dating from the ninth century B.C. + Yahu and Yah were known outside Israel; the forms enter into the composition of foreign proper names; besides, the variation of the name of a certain King of Hammath shows that Ilu is equivalent to Yau, and that Yau is the name of a god (Schrader, "Bibl. Bl.", II, p. 42, 56; Sargon, "Cylinder", xxv; Keil, "Fastes", I. 33). But foreign proper names containing Yah or Yahu are extremely rare and doubtful, and may be explained without admitting gods in foreign nations, bearing the sacred name. Again, the Babylonian pantheon is fairly well known at present, but the god Yau does not appear in it. + Among the pre-Semitic Babylonians, I is a synonym of Ilu, the supreme god; now I with the Assyrian nominative ending added becomes Yau (cf. Delitzsch, "Lesestücke", 3rd ed., 1885, p. 42, Syllab. A, col. I, 13-16). Hommel (Altisrael. Ueberlieferung, 1897, pp. 144, 225) feels sure that he has discovered this Chaldean god Yau. It is the god who is represented ideographically (ilu) A-a, but ordinarily pronounced Malik, though the expression should be read Ai or Ia (Ya). The patriarchal family employed this name, and Moses borrowed and transformed it. But Lagrange points out that the Jews did not believe that they offered their children to Jahveh, when they sacrificed them to Malik (Religion semitique, 1905, pp. 100 sqq.). Jer., xxxii, 35, and Soph., i, 5, distinguish between Malik and the Hebrew God. Cheyne (Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel, 1907, pp. 63 sqq.) connects the origin of Jahveh with his Yerahme'el theory; but even the most advanced critics regard Cheyne's theory as a discredit to modern criticism. Other singular opinions as to the origin of the sacred name may be safely omitted. The view that Jahveh is of Hebrew origin is the most satisfactory. Arguing from Ex., vi, 2-8, such commentators as Nicholas of Lyra, Tostatus, Cajetan, Bonfrère, etc., maintain that the name was revealed for the first time to Moses on Mount Horeb. God declares in this vision that he "appeared to Abraham . . . by the name of God Almighty; and my name Adonai [Jahveh] I did not shew them". But the phrase "to appear by a name" does not necessarily imply the first revelation of that name; it rather signifies the explanation of the name, or a manner of acting conformable to the meaning of the name (cf. Robion in "la Science cathol.", 1888, pp. 618-24; Delattre, ibid., 1892, pp. 673-87; van Kasteren, ibid., 1894, pp. 296-315; Robert in "Revue biblique", 1894, pp. 161-81). On Mt. Horeb God told Moses that He had not acted with the Patriarchs as the God of the Covenant, Jahveh, but as God Almighty. Perhaps it is preferable to say that the sacred name, though perhaps in a somewhat modified form, had been in use in the patriarchal family before the time of Moses. On Mt. Horeb God revealed and explained the accurate form of His name, Jahveh. + The sacred name occurs in Genesis about 156 times; this frequent occurrence can hardly be a mere prolepsis. + Gen., iv, 26, states that Enos "began to call upon the name of the Lord [Jahveh]", or as the Hebrew text suggests, "began to call himself after the name of Jahveh". + Jochabed, the mother of Moses, has in her name an abbreviated form Jo (Yo) of Jahveh. The pre-Mosaic existence of the Divine name among the Hebrews accounts for this fact more easily than the supposition that the Divine element was introduced after the revelation of the name. + Among the 163 proper names which bear an element of the sacred name in their composition, 48 have yeho or yo at the beginning, and 115 have yahu or yah and the end, while the form Jahveh never occurs in any such composition. Perhaps it might be assumed that these shortened forms yeho, yo, yahu, yah, represent the Divine name as it existed among the Isralites before the full name Jahveh was revealed on Mt. Horeb. On the other hand, Driver (Studia biblica, I, 5) has shown that these short forms are the regular abbreviations of the full name. At any rate, while it is not certain that God revealed His sacred name to Moses for the first time, He surely revealed on Mt. Horeb that Jahveh is His incommunicable name, and explained its meaning. Besides the works referred to in the text, the reader may consult: RELAND, Deeds Excreitationum (Utrecht, 1707); SCHRADER in SCHENKEL'S Bibel Lexicon, s. v. Jahve; PHAT, Dict. de la Bible, s.v. Jehovah; ROBERTSON SMITH in Brit. and Foreign Evan. Review (January, 1876), gives a summary of recent discussion of the subject; OEHLER, Real-Encyclopadie, S.V. Jehova. A.J. MAAS Jehu Jehu The derivation of the name is uncertain. By some it is translated "Yahweh is he". I. Jehu (Sept. 'Ioú), a prophet, described in III Kings, xvi, 1, as the son of Hanani, and as prophesying against Baasa, the then reigning King of Israel. Hanani is probably to be identified with the prophet of that name mentioned in II Par., xvi, 7. It is uncertain whether Jehu belonged to the Southern or Northern Kingdom, but, at all events, his ministry seems to have been exercised chiefly in the latter. He appears later in the reign of Josaphat, King of Juda, whom he reproaches for his alliance with Achab (cf. II Par., xix, 2-3). He outlived Josaphat, and wrote the history of his reign (II Par., xx, 34). II. Jehu,, the tenth King of Israel, 884 to 856, or 865 to 828, son of Josaphat, son of Namsi; his tribe is not mentioned. According to Josephus (Antiq., IX, vi, 1) he was chief commandant of the army of Joram, his predecessor. For his sudden elevation to the royal power and his bloody reign see IV Kings, ix, x. The Prophet Elias had previously received a command from the Lord to anoint Jehu king over Israel (III Kings, xix, 16), but the order was only carried out by Eliseus, his successor. While Joram, King of Israel, was still convalescing in Jezrahel from a wound, Eliseus sent "one of the sons of the prophets" to Jehu's headquarters in Ramoth Galaad with orders to anoint him king and announce to him his mission of Divine vengeance against the wicked house of Achab. Jehu was immediately acclaimed king by his brother officers, and he forthwith set out in his chariot with his followers for Jezrahel, where Ozochias, King of Juda, was visiting his ally Joram. They fled, but Joram was killed by an arrow from the bow of Jehu, and Ozochias, being mortally wounded, died shortly after in Mageddo. Entering the town of Jezrahel, Jehu perceived the Queen Jezabel at a window of her palace, and he bade her attendants to cast her down headlong and she was trampled under the hoofs of the horses (III Kings, xxi, 23). Consistently with his programme of vengeance, Jehu caused the seventy sons of Achab who resided in Samaria to be put to death, and likewise all of the chief men and friends and priests of the house of Achab, as well as forty-two men of the brethren of Ozochias. He abolished the worship of Baal and slew its priests and followers, but he maintained the worship of the golden calves erected by Jeroboam. He was commended by Yahweh for his conduct towards the house of Achab, but nevertheless he is counted among the unfaithful rulers. Brief allusion is made to his defence of Israel against the incursions of the Syrians. On the occasion of Salmanasar's invasion in 842, Jehu sent a delegation to meet the Assyrian conqueror, with rich presents. This fact is recorded in one of the cuneiform inscriptions of Salmanasar, where Jehu is called the son of Amri (Humrii), doubtless through a mistake on the part of the Assyrian annalist, who naturally considered Jehu as a lineal descendant of Amri, the founder of Samaria, since he occupied the throne of that dynasty. The same event is pictorially set forth on the Nimrod obelisk. III. Jehu (Sept. 'Ieoú), son of Obed, of the tribe of Juda (I Par., ii, 38). IV. Jehu, son of Josabia, of the tribe of Simeon (I Par., iv, 35). V. Jehu, (Sept. 'Ieoúl), one of David's heroes, of the tribe of Benjamin, native of Anathoth (I Par., xii, 3). Vigoroux, Dict. de la Bible, s. v.; Hastings, Dict of the Bible, s. v.; Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, IX, vi, 1. JAMES F. DRISCOLL Jemez Pueblo Jemez Pueblo An Indian pueblo situated upon the north bank of the river of the same name about twenty miles north-west of Bernalillo, New Mexico. Its inhabitants, of Tanoan Shoshonean stock, are all that remain of an important tribe occupying some ten villages in the same region when first known to the Spaniards in 1541. The name comes from their Keran neighbours. They themselves call their town Walatoa, "Bear Village". The Jemez country was first entered by Coronado in 1541, and was visited later by Espejo (1583) and Oñate (1598). Through the efforts of the Franciscan Father Martín de Arvide the tribe was induced, about 1618, to concentrate in two villages, in each of which a mission was established. Somewhat later one of these was abandoned for a new station, San Juan (de los Jemez). Twice the Jemez, in connection with some other Indians, conspired against the Spaniards, but the risings were speedily suppressed, until the outbreak of the general Pueblo rebellion in 1680, when the Jemez rose in both villages, killing one of the missionaries. At last, in 1694, General Vargas stormed their pueblo, killing nearly 100 of the inhabitants and carrying off nearly 400 prisoners. The village was also destroyed, reducing the tribe to the single pueblo of San Diego. In 1696 they again revolted, killing the resident Franciscan missionary, and fled west to the Navaho. After some years of exile they returned and built the pueblo in which they now reside. In 1728 and 1780-1 they suffered heavily from smallpox. They number now about 500, including the remnant of the kindred Pecos tribe. Both a government and a Franciscan day-school are kept among them. In culture and general characteristics the Jemez resemble the other Pueblos. Bancroft, Hist. Arizona and New Mexico; Bandelier, Archeol. Inst. Papers; Hodge, Handbook; Winship, Coronado Expedition in Fourteenth Rpt. Bur. Am. Ethnol., for which see Indians, American. JAMES MOONEY Ven. Philipp Jeningen Ven. Philipp Jeningen Born at Eichstätt, Bavaria, 5 January, 1642;d, at Ellwangen, 8 February, 1704. Entering the Society of Jesus, 19 January, 1663, he became a most successful popular missionary at the shrine of Our Lady of Schönenberg, near Ellwangen in Swabia, made famous by the Jesuits, and to which Jeningen, through the renown of his holiness, drew pilgrims from near and far. For many years he went forth on missions in the entire neighbouring country, his burning zeal achieving wonderful results. He is yet remembered as the "Apostle of the Ries". Pergmayer, Vita . . . Philippi Jeningen . . . (Ingolstadt and Munich, 1763); Hausen, Leben . . . Philipp Jeningen . . . (Dillingen, 1766; Ratisbon, 1873); Piscalar, Aus dem Lebendes ehrw. Philipp Jeningen . . . (Paderborn, 1859); Der ehrw. P. Philipp Jeningen . . . von einem Priesterder Dioz. von Rottenburg (Ellwangen, 1908); Beschreibung der laueretanischen Kapelle und Kirche auf dem Schönenberg (Ellwangen, 1870); a life in MS. at the Jesuit College at Feldkirch; a collection of letters in the archives of the German province. ANTHONY HUONDER Silvester Jenks Silvester Jenks Theologian, born in Shropshire, c. 1656; died in December, 1714. He was educated at Douai College, where he was professor of philosophy from 1680 to 1686. He was later a preacher in ordinary to James II. At the Revolution of 1688 he fled to Flanders. On his return to England he laboured as a missionary in or near London and was appointed by the chapter Archdeacon of Surrey and Kent. In 1711 he was elected by Propaganda Vicar Apostolic of the Northern District (13 August, 1713), but died of paralysis before his consecration. Among his works are: "A Contrite and Humble Heart" (Paris, 1692); "Practical Discourses on the Morality of the Gospel" (1699); "The Blind Obedience of a Humble Penitent the Best Cure for Scruples" (1699, republished, London, 1872); "The Whole Duty of a Christian" (1707); "A Short Review of the Book of Jansenius" (1710). A portrait engraved by le Pouter in 1694 is prefixed to a Paris edition of "A Contrite and Humble Heart". Dodd, Church History, III (Brussels, 1739-42); Bowen, introduction to God's Safe Way of Obedience (London, 1872); Brady, Annals of the Catholic Hierarchy (London, 1877); Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s.v.; Cooper in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v. EDWIN BURTON Sir Patrick Alfred Jennings Sir Patrick Alfred Jennings An Australian statesman, b. at Newry, Ireland, 1831; d. July, 1897. He received his education, which included a training in engineering and surveying, in his native town, went to Victoria in 1852, and settled in the St. Arnaud district, where he filled various public offices. In 1863 he went to New South Wales, and engaged in pastoral pursuits in the Riverina district. Four years later he was appointed to the Legislative Council of New South Wales from which he resigned in 1869 and stood as a candidate for the Legislative Assembly, to which he was elected. In 1874 he was honoured by Pius IX with the Order of St. Gregory the Great, and in 1876 was made a Knight Commander of the Order of Pius IX and St. Gregory the Great. In 1876 he represented New South Wales and other states at the Philadelphia Exhibition. He was created C.M.G. in 1879, and in the following year K.C.M.G. For a few months in 1883 he was Vice-President of the Executive Council and colonial treasurer for a short period in 1885. In the following February Sir Patrick became premier and colonial treasurer, but resigned these offices in 1887. On revisiting Ireland in 1887 he was made an honorary LL.D. of Dublin University. In the same year he went to Rome, and received the Grand Cross of Pius IX from Leo XIII. He was called to the Legislative Council in 1890, was a member of the Senate of Sydney University a Fellow of St. John's (Catholic) College, and trustee of the Sydney Art Gallery. From 1891 until his death he led a somewhat retired life, but took a keen interest in benevolent and social movements. HEATON, Australion Dictionary of Dates (Sydney, 1879); MENNELL, Dictionary of Australasian Biography (London, 1892); Men of the Time (13th ed., London, 1891). JOHN W. KENNEDY Jephte Jephte One of the judges of Israel. The story of Jephte is narrated in chapters xi and xii of the Book of Judges. He was a warrior of Galaad and the son of a harlot. His father's name was Galaad, who having a wife and other children, these latter thrust out Jephte from the family and he fled to the land of Tob in Eastern Syria. Here he became the leader of a band of "needy men" and robbers who followed him as their prince. At this juncture the Israelitish territory east of the Jordan was invaded by the Ammonites, and the elders of Galaad, being in sore need of a leader to conduct the defence, saw themselves forced to go to Tob and ask Jephte to return and be their prince. After expressing surprise that they should make him such an offer, considering the treatment he had received in his native city, he yielded to their entreaties, but insisted on the condition that, should he be victorious over the Ammonites, his own countrymen would remain faithful to their word and recognize him as their prince. The elders made a solemn promise, and Jephte returned with them to the land of Galaad, where he was made chief by popular acclamation. Before beginning his campaign, Jephte made a vow to the Lord, saying: "If thou wilt deliver the children of Ammon into my hands, whosoever shall first come forth out of the doors of my house, and shall meet me when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, the same will I offer a holocaust to the Lord." After a rather long negotiation with the King of the Ammonites as to Israel's right of possession of the land of Galaad, Jephte led his forces against the invaders and "smote them from Aroer till you come to Mennith, twenty cities, and as far as Abel, which is set with vineyards, with a very great slaughter: and the children of Ammon were humbled by the children of Israel" (Judges, xi, 33). On his triumphant return to his home in Maspha, the first person to come forth to meet him is his only daughter, accompanied by a chorus of women. On beholding her he is stricken with alarm and dismay, remembering his rash vow, but he declares that he has opened his mouth to the Lord and cannot do otherwise than fulfil it. The daughter expresses a noble and generous resignation to her fate, but asks a respite of two months that she may "bewail her virginity" in the mountains with her companions. At the expiration of the two months "she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed." Whence arose a custom that from year to year the daughters of Israel used to assemble together and lament during four days the daughter of Jephte the Galaadite. The obvious import of the narrative is that the daughter of Jephte was offered up as a human sacrifice, and in fact, such has been the unanimous interpretation of it in Jewish, as well as in early Christian, tradition. Some modern apologists, however, shocked by the idea that a judge upon whom came "the spirit of the Lord" (xi, 29) could commit so barbarous an act, have endeavoured to prove that the words of Jephte's vow should not be taken literally, but as referring to perpetual celibacy to which his daughter was to be condemned. The arguments to this effect, which are far from convincing, may be found in Vigouroux, "Dictionnaire de la Bible", s.v. They ignore the barbarous ethical condition of the Israelites at that relatively remote epoch-a condition which is evident from other narratives in the same Book of Judges (v.g. that of ch. xix). That human sacrifice was expressly forbidden by the Mosaic Law does not help the argument, for, even granting that the Law then existed at all otherwise than in embryo, which is at least very doubtful, it is plain from the historical books referring to this and subsequent periods that its prescriptions were constantly ignored by the Jewish people. That such rash vows with their dire consequences, and even human sacrifices, were not things unheard of in that stage of Israel's history, may be gathered from such passages as I Kings, xiv, 24 sqq.; II Kings, xxi, 6-9; IV Kings, xvi, 3; etc. After the conquest of the Ammonites Jephte became involved in a severe conflict with the neighbouring tribesmen of Ephraim who arrogantly complained that they had not been invited to take part in the expedition. Jephte retorted that they had been called upon to assist him but had declined, and the result was a fierce struggle between Ephraim and the men of Galaad in which the latter were victorious. They obtained strategic control of the fords of the Jordan by which the fleeing Ephraimites were obliged to return homeward, and when the fugitives appeared, each one was asked to pronounce the word "shibboleth" (an ear of corn), and if according to the Ephraimitic dialect it was pronounced "sibboleth" the man was immediately put to death. That forty-two thousand Ephraimites were slain on that occasion may be an exaggeration or possibly a change of the text. After a judgeship of six years Jephte died and was buried in his city of Galaad. Palis in Vigoroux, Dict. de la Bible, s.v. Jephté; Cooke in Hastings, Dict. of the Bible, s.v. Jephthah. JAMES F. DRISCOLL Jeremias Jeremias [Hebrew Irmeyah; often in the paragogic form Irmeyahu, especially in the Book of Jeremias-meaning, possibly, "whom Jehovah appoints" (see Gesenius, "Lexicon", s.v.); Sept. Ieremias], the name of seven or eight men, besides the prophet, mentioned in the Old Testament:- (1) Jeremias of lobna (A.V. Libnah, II Kings, xxiii, 31), of the tribe of Juda. he was the father of Amital, or Hamutal, one of the wives of Josias and mother of Kings Joachaz (IV Kings, xxiii, 31) and Sedecias (IV Kings, xxiv, 18). Cf. Jer., lii, 1-Gr. text. (2) Jeremias, Jeremia [D.V., I Par., v, 24 (A.V. Jeremiah, Chron.); Sept. Ieremia], a chief of the half tribe of Manasses east of the Jordan, about the time of the Assyrian deportation under Thelgathphalnasar (A.V. Tiglath-pileser). (3) Jeremias, one of the Benjamite bowmen and slingers who repaired to David's assistance at Siceleg (A.V. Ziklag) during the persecution by Saul (I Par., xii, 4). (4) Jeremias (A.V. and R.V. Jeremiah), a valiant warrior of the tribe of Gad, fifth in rank of those who went over to David when he had withdrawn into the desert of Juda to escape capture at the hands of Saul (I Par., xii, 10). (5) Jeremias, the tenth in reputation of the Gadite braves who threw in their lot with David's small army when he lay hid in the wilderness (I Par., xii, 13). (6) Jeremias, son of Habsanias (R.V. Habazziniah), and father of Jezonias (A.V. and R.V. Jaazaniah). The last-mentioned seems to have been the head of the Rechabites (Jer., xxxv, 3) in the time of th prophet. (7) Jeremias, a priest who returned with Zorobabel and Josue to Jerusalem [II Esd. (A.V. Nehem.), xii, 1] after the Babylonian Captivity-about 536 b.c.. His name was given to one of the twenty-two courses [II Esd., xii, 1-7-Vig., op. cit. below, here reckons only twenty-one; cf. Gr. text (Neemias), where the name is written Ieremia. Hattus is omitted in v. 2, and a lacuna occurs after the Sechenias of v. 3 as far as v. 7], into which were divided the four families of priests (I Esd., ii, 36-9). (8) Jeremias, head of one of the priestly families, who, together with the other leaders of the people, subscribed to the sacred covenant renewed in the time of Nehemias (about 444 b.c.). A comparison of the priestly list given in II Esd., x, 2-8, with the enumeration of xii, 1 sq., will show the name of Jeremias (Ieremia) placed in close juxtaposition to that of Saraias (Saraia), and both are mentioned, in either case, amongst the first three. For these and similar reasons some have been led, despite the seeming difficulties, chiefly chronological, to identify that Jeremias who "went up with Zorobabel" and the homonymous priest who swore on behalf of his brethren that "they would walk in the law of God". ERMONI in VIG., Dict. de la Bible, s.v. Jérémie; MOSS in HAST., Dict. of the Bible, s.v. Jeremiah. P.J. MACAULEY Jeremias Jeremias ( the Prophet.) Jeremias lived at the close of the seventh and in the first part of the sixth century before Christ; a contemporary of Draco and Solon of Athens. In the year 627, during the reign of Josias, he was called at a youthful age to be a prophet, and for nearly half a century, at least from 627 to 585, he bore the burden of the prophetic office. He belonged to a priestly (not a high-priestly) family of Anathoth, a small country town northeast of Jerusalem now called Anatâ; but he seems never to have performed priestly duties at the temple. The scenes of his prophetic activity were, for a short time, his native town, for the greater part of his life, the metropolis Jerusalem, and, for a time after the fall of Jerusalem, Masphath (Jer., xl, 6) and the Jewish colonies of the Dispersion in Egypt (Jer., xliii, 6 sqq.). His name has received varying etymological interpretations ("Lofty is Jahwah" or "Jahweh founds"); it appears also as the name of other persons in the Old Testament. Sources for the history of his life and times are, first, the book of prophecies bearing his name, and, second, the Books of Kings and of Paralipomenon (Chronicles). It is only when taken in connection with the history of his times that the external course of his life, the individuality of his nature, and the ruling theme of his discourses can be understood. I. PERIOD OF JEREMIAS The last years of the seventh century and the first decades of the sixth brought with them a series of political catastrophes which completely changed national conditions in Western Asia. The overthrow of the Assyrian Empire, which was completed in 606 by the conquest of Ninive, induced Nechao II of Egypt to attempt, with the aid of a large army, to strike a crushing blow at the ancient enemy on the Euphrates. Palestine was in the direct route between the great powers of the world of that era on the Euphrates and the Nile, and the Jewish nation was roused to action by the march of the Egyptian army through its territory. Josias, the last descendent of David, had begun in Jerusalem a moral and religious reformation "in the ways of David", the carrying out of which, however, was frustrated by the lethargy of the people and the foreign policy of the king. The attempt of Josias to check the advance of the Egyptians cost him his life at the battle of Mageddo, 608. Four years later, Nechao, the conqueror at Mageddo, was slain by Nabuchodonosor at Carchemish on the Euphrates. From that time Nabuchodonosor's eyes were fixed on Jerusalem. The last, shadowy kings upon the throne of David, the three sons of Josias-Joachaz, Joakim, and Sedecias-hastened the destruction of the kingdom by their unsuccessful foreign policy and their anti-religious or, at least, weak internal policy. Both Joakim and Sedecias, in spite of the warnings of the prophet Jeremias, allowed themselves to be misled by the war party in the nation into refusing to pay the tribute to the King of Babylon. The king's revenge followed quickly upon the rebellion. In the second great expedition Jerusalem was conquered (586) and destroyed after a siege of eighteen months, which was only interrupted by the battle with the Egyptian army of relief. The Lord cast aside his footstool in the day of his wrath and sent Juda into the Babylonian Captivity. This is the historical background to the lifework of the Prophet Jeremias: in foreign policy an era of lost battles and other events preparatory to the great catastrophe; in the inner life of the people an era of unsuccessful attempts at reformation, and the appearance of fanatical parties such as generally accompany the last days of a declining kingdom. While the kings from the Nile and the Euphrates alternately laid the sword on the neck of the Daughter of Sion, the leaders of the nation, the kings and priests, became more and more involved in party schemes; a Sion party, led by false prophets, deluded itself by the superstitious belief that the temple of Jahweh was the unfailing talisman of the capital; a fanatically foolhardy war party wanted to organize a resistance to the utmost against the great powers of the world; a Nile party looked to the Egyptians for the salvation of the country, and incited opposition to the Babylonian lordship. Carried away by human politics, the people of Sion forgot its religion, the national trust in God, and wished to fix the day and hour of its redemption according to its own will. Over all these factions the cup of the wine of wrath gradually grew full, to be finally poured from seven vessels during the Babylonian Exile laid upon the nation of the Prophets. II. MISSION OF JEREMIAS In the midst of the confusion of a godless policy of despair at the approach of destruction, the prophet of Anathoth stood as "a pillar of iron, and a wall of brass". The prophet of the eleventh hour, he had the hard mission, on the eve of the great catastrophe of Sion, of proclaiming the decree of God that in the near future the city and temple should be overthrown. From the time of his first calling in vision to the prohetic office, he saw the rod of correction in the hand of God, he heard the word that the Lord would watch over the execution of His decree (i, 11 sq.). That Jerusalem would be destroyed was the constant assertion, the ceterum censeo of the Cato of Anathoth. He appeared before the people with chains about his neck (cf. xxvii, xxviii) in order to give a drastic illustration of the captivity and chains which he foretold. The false prophets preached only of freedom and victory, but the Lord said: "A liberty for you to the sword, to the pestilence, and to the famine" (xxxiv, 17). It was so clear to him that the next generation would be involved in the overthrow of the kingdom that he renounced marriage and the founding of a family for himself (xvi, 104), because he did not wish to have children who would surely be the victims of the sword or become the slaves of the Babylonians. His celibacy was consequently a declaration of his faith in the revelation granted him of the destruction of the city. Jeremias is thus the Biblical and historical counterpart of Cassandra in the Homeric poems, who foresaw the fall of Troy, but found no credence in her own house, yet was so strong in her conviction that she renounced marriage and all the joys of life. Along with this first task, to prove the certainty of the catastrophe of 586, Jeremias had the second commission to declare that this catastrophe was a moral necessity, to proclaim it in the ears of the people as the inevitable result of the moral guilt since the days of Manasses (IV Kings, xxi, 10-15); in a word, to set forth the Babylonian Captivity as a moral, not merely a historical, fact. It was only because the stubborn nation had thrown off the yoke of the Lord (Jer., ii, 20) that it must bow its neck under the yoke of the Babylonians. In order to arouse the nation from its moral lethargy, and to make moral preparation for the day of the Lord, the sermons of the preacher of repentance of Anathoth emphasized this causal connection between punishment and guilt, until it became monotonous. Although he failed to convert the people, and thus to turn aside entirely the calamity from Jerusalem, nevertheless the word of the Lord in his mouth became, for some, a hammer that broke their stony hearts to repentance (xxiii, 29). Thus, Jeremias had not only "to root up, and to pull down", he had also in the positive work of salvation "to build, and to plant" (i, 10). These latter aims of the penitential discourses of Jeremias make plain why the religious and moral conditions of the time are all painted in the same dark tone: the priests do not inquire after Jahweh; the leaders of the people themselves wander in strange paths; the prohets prophesy in the name of Baal; Juda has become the meeting-place of strange gods; the people have forsaken the fountain of living water and have provoked the Lord to anger by idolatry and the worship of high places, by the sacrifice of children, desecration of the Sabbath, and by false weights. This severity in the discourses of Jeremias makes them the most striking type of prophetic declamation against sin. One well-known hypothesis ascribes to Jeremias also the authorship of the Books of Kings. In reality the thought forming the philosophical basis of the Books of Kings and the conception underlying the speeches of Jeremias complement each other, inasmuch as the fall of the kingdom is traced back in the one to the guilt of the kings, and in the other to the people's participation in this guilt. III. LIFE OF JEREMIAS A far more exact picture of the life of Jeremias has been preserved than of the life of any other seer of Sion. It was an unbroken chain of steadily growing outward and inward difficulties, a genuine "Jeremiad". On account of the prophecies, his life was no longer safe among his fellow-citizens of Anathoth (xi, 21 sqq.), and of no teacher did the saying prove truer that "a prophet hath no honour in his own country". When he transferred his residence from Anathoth to Jerusalem his troubles increased, and in the capital of the kingdom he was doomed to learn by corporal suffering that veritas parit odium (truth draws hatred upon itself). King Joakim could never forgive the prophet for threatening him with punishment on account of his unscrupulous mania for building and for his judicial murders: "He shall be buried with the burial of an ass" (xxii, 13-19). When the prophecies of Jeremias were read before the king, he fell into such a rage that he threw the roll into the fire and commanded the arrest of the prophet (xxxvi, 21-26). Then the word of the Lord came to Jerermias to let Baruch the scribe write again his words (xxxvi, 27-32). More than once the prophet was in prison and in chains without the word of the Lord being silenced (xxxvi, 5 sqq.); more than once he seemed, in human judgment, doomed to death, but, like a wall of brass, the word of the Almighty was the protection of his life: "Be not afraid . . . they shall not prevail: for I am with thee, saith the Lord, to deliver thee" (i, 17-19). The religious opinion he maintained, that only by a moral change could a catastrophe in outward conditions prepare the way for improvement, brought him into bitter conflict with the political parties of the nation. The Sion party, with its superstitious condfidence in the temple (vii, 4), incited the people to open revolt against Jeremias, because, at the gate and in the outer court of the temple, he prophesied the fate of the holy place in Silo for the house of the Lord; and the prophet was in great danger of violent death at the hands of the Sionists (xxvi; cf. vii). The party friendly to Egypt cursed him because he condemned the coalition with Egypt, and presented to the King of Egypt also the cup of the wine of wrath (xxv, 17-19); they also hated him because, during the siege of Jerusalem, he declared, before the event, that the hopes placed on an Egyptian army of relief were delusive (xxxvi, 5-9). The party of noisy patriots calumniated Jeremias as a morose pessimist (cf. xxvii, xxviii), because they had allowed themselves to be deceived as to the seriousness of the crisis by the flattering words of Hananias of Gabaon and his companions, and dreamed of freedom and peace while exile and war were already approaching the gates of the city. The exhortation of the prophet to accept the inevitable, and to choose voluntary submission as a lesser evil than a hopeless struggle, was interpreted by the war party as a lack of patriotism. Even at the present day, some commentators wish to regard Jeremias as a traitor to his country-Jeremias, who was the best friend of his brethren and of the people of Israel (II Mach. xv, 14), so deeply did he feel the weal and woe of his native land. Thus was Jeremias loaded with the curses of all parties as the scapegoat of the blinded nation. During the siege of Jerusalem he was once more condemned to death and thrown into a miry dungeon; this time a foreigner rescued him from certain death (xxxvii-xxxix). Still more violent than these outward battles were the conflicts in the soul of the prophet. Being in full sympathy with the national sentiment, he felt that his own fate was bound up with that of the nation; hence the hard mission of announcing to the people the sentence of death affected him deeply; hence his opposition to accepting this commission (i, 6). With all the resources of prophetic rhetoric he sought to bring back the people to "the old paths" (vi, 16), but in this endeavour he felt as though he were trying to effect that "the Ethopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots" (xiii, 23). He heard the sins of his people crying to heaven for vengeance, and forcibly expresses his approval of the judgment pronounced upon the blood-stained city (cf. vi). The next moment, however, he prays the Lord to let the cup pass from Jerusalem, and wrestles like Jacob with God for a blessing upon Sion. The grandeur of soul of the great sufferer appears most plainly in the fervid prayers for his people (cf. especially xiv, 7-9, 19-22), which were often offered directly after a fiery declaration of coming punishment. He knows that with the fall of Jerusalem the place that was the scene of revelation and salvation will be destroyed. Nevertheless, at the grave of the religious hopes of Israel, he still has the expectation that the Lord, notwithstanding all that has happened, will bring His promises to pass for the sake of His name. The Lord thinks "thoughts of peace, and not of affliction", and will let Himself be found of those who seek (xxix, 10-14). As He watched to destroy, so will He likewise watch to build up (xxxi, 28). The prophetic gift does not appear with equal clearness in the life of any other prophet as alike a psychological problem and a personal task. His bitter outward and inward experiences give the speeches of Jeremias a strongly personal tone. More than once this man of iron seems in danger of losing his spiritual balance. He calls down punishment from heaven upon his enemies (cf. xii, 3; xviii, 23). Like a Job among the prophets, he curses the day of his birth (xv, 10; xx, 14-18); he would like to arise, go hence, and preach instead to the stones in the wilderness: "Who will give me in the wilderness a lodging place . . . and I will leave my people, and depart from them?" (ix, 2; Heb. text, ix, 1). It is not improbable that the mourning prophet of Anathoth was the author of many of the Psalms that are full of bitter reproach. After the destruction of Jerusalem, Jeremias was not carried away into the Babylonian exile. He remained behind in Chanaan, in the wasted vineyard of Jahweh, that he might continue his prophetic office. It was indeed a life of martyrdom among the dregs of the nation that had been left in the land. At a later date, he was dragged to Egypt by emigrating Jews (xi-xliv). According to a tradition first mentioned by Tertullian (Scorp., viii), Jeremias was stoned to death in Egypt by his own countrymen on account of his discourses threatening the coming punishment of God (cf. Heb., xi, 37), thus crowning with martyrdom a life of steadily increasing trials and sorrows. Jeremias would not have died as Jeremias had he not died a martyr. The Roman Martyrology assigns his name to 1 May. Posterity sought to atone for the sins his contemporaries had committed against him. Even during the Babylonian Captivity his prophecies seem to have been the favourite reading of the exiles (II Par., xxxvi, 21; I Esd., i, 1; Dan., ix, 2). In the later books compare Ecclus., xlix, 8 sq.; II Mach., ii, 1-8; xv. 12-16; Matt., xvi, 14. IV. CHARACTERISTIC QUALITIES OF JEREMIAS The delineation in II and III of the life and task of Jeremias has already made plain the peculiarity of his character. Jeremias is the prophet of mourning and of symbolical suffering. This distinguishes his personality from that of Isaias, the prophet of ecstasy and the Messianic future, of Ezechiel, the prophet of mystical (not typical) suffering, and of Daniel, the cosmopolitan revealer of apocalyptic visions of the Old Covenant. No prophet belonged so entirely to his age and his immediate surroundings, and no prophet was so seldom transported by the Spirit of God from a dreary present into a brighter future than the mourning prophet of Anathoth. Consequently, the life of no other prophet reflects the history of his times so vividly as the life of Jeremias reflects the time immediately preceeding the Babylonian Captivity. A sombre, depressed spirit overshadows his life, just as a gloomy light overhangs the grotto of Jeremias in the northern part of Jerusalem. In Michelangelo's frescoes on the ceilings of the Sistine chapel there is a masterly delineation of Jeremias as the prophet of myrrh, perhaps the most expressive and eloquent figure among the prophets depicted by the great master. He is represented bent over like a tottering pillar of the temple, the head supported by the right hand, the disordered beard expressive of a time of intense sorrow, and the forehead scored with wrinkles, the entire exterior a contrast to the pure soul within. His eyes seem to see blood and ruins, and his lips appear to murmur a lament. The whole picture strikingly portrays a man who never in his life laughed, and who turned aside from scenes of joy, because the Spirit told him that soon the voice of mirth should be silenced (xvi, 8 sq.). Equally characteristic and idiosyncratic is the literary style of Jeremias. He does not use the classically elegant language of a Deutero-Isaias or an Amos, nor does he possess the imagination shown in the symbolism and elaborate detail of Ezechiel, neither does he follow the lofty thought of a Daniel in his apocalyptic vision of the history of the world. The style of Jeremias is simple, without ornament and but little polished. Jerome speaks of him as "in verbis simplex et facilis, in majestate sensuum profundissimus" (simple and easy in words, most profound in majesty of thought). Jeremias often speaks in jerky, disjointed sentences, as if grief and excitement of spirit had stifled his voice. Nor did he follow strictly the laws of poetic rhythm in the use of the Kînah, or elegiac, verse, which had, moreover, an anacoluthic measure of its own. Like these anacoluthæ so are also the many, at times even monotonous, repetitions for which he has been blamed, the only individual expressions of the mournful feeling of his soul that are correct in style. Sorrow inclines to repetition, in the manner of the prayers on the Mount of Olives. Just as grief in the East is expressed in the neglect of the outward appearance, so the great representative of elegiac verse of the Bible had neither time nor desire to adorn his thoughts with a carefully chosen diction. Jeremias also stands by himself among the prophets by his manner of carrying on and developing the Messianic idea. He was far from attaining the fullness and clearness of the Messianic gospel of the Book of Isaias; he does not contribute as much as the Book of Daniel to the terminology of the gospel. Above all the other great prophets, Jeremias was sent to his age, and only in very isolated instances does he throw a prophetic light in verbal prophecy on the fullness of time, as in his celebrated discourse of the Good Shepherd of the House of David (xxiii, 1-5), or when he most beautifully, in chapters xxx-xxxiii, proclaims the deliverance from the Babylonian Captivity as the type and pledge of the Messianic deliverance. This lack of actual Messianic prophecies by Jeremias has its compensation; for his entire life became a living personal prophecy of the suffering Messias, a living illustration of the predictions of suffering made by the other prophets. The suffering Lamb of God in the Book of Isaias (liii, 7) becomes in Jeremias a human being: "I was as a meek lamb, that is carried to be a victim" (Jer., xi, 19). The other seers were Messianic prophets; Jeremias was a Messianic prophecy embodied in flesh and blood. It is, therefore, fortunate that the story of his life has been more exactly preserved than that of the other prophets, because his life had a prophetic significance. The various parallels between the life of Jeremias and of the Messias are known: both one and the other had at the eleventh hour to proclaim the overthrow of Jerusalem and its temple by the Babylonians or Romans; both wept over the city which stoned the prophets and did not recognize what was for its peace; the love of both was repaid with hatred and ingratitude. Jeremias deepened the conception of the Messias in another regard. From the time the prophet of Anathoth, a man beloved of God, was obliged to live a life of suffering in spite of his guiltlessness and holiness from birth, Israel was no longer justified in judging its Messias by a mechanical theory of retribution and doubting his sinlessness and acceptableness to God because of his outward sorrows. Thus the life of Jeremias, a life as bitter as myrrh, was gradually to accustom the eye of the people to the suffering figure of Christ, and to make clear in advance the bitterness of the Cross. Therefore it is with a profound right that the Offices of the Passion in the Liturgy of the Church often use the language of Jeremias in an applied sense. V. THE BOOK OF THE PROPHECIES OF JEREMIAS A. Analysis of Contents The book in its present form has two main divisions: chapters i-xiv, discourses threatening punishment which are aimed directly against Juda and are intermingled with narratives of personal and national events, and chapters xlvi-li, discourses containing threats against nine heathen nations and intended to warn Juda indirectly against the polytheism and policy of these peoples. In chapter i is related the calling of the prophet, in order to prove to his suspicious countrymen that he was the ambassador of God. Not he himself had assumed the office of prophet, but Jahweh had conferred it upon him notwithstanding his reluctance. Chapters ii-vi contain rhetorical and weighty complaints and threats of judgment on account of the nation's idolatry and foreign policy. The very first speech in ii-iii may be said to present the scheme of the Jeremianic discourse. Here also appears at once the conception of Osee which is typical as well of Jeremias: Israel, the bride of the Lord, has degraded herself into becoming the paramour of strange nations. Even the temple and sacrifice (vii-x), without inward conversion on the part of the people, cannot bring salvation; while other warnings are united like mosaics with the main ones. The "words of the covenant" in the Thorah recently found under Josias contain threatenings of judgment; the enmity of the citizens of Anathoth against the herald of this Thorah reveals the infatuation of the nation (xi-xii). Jeremias is commanded to hide a linen girdle, a symbol of the priestly nation of Sion, by the Euphrates and to let it rot there, to typify the downfall of the nation in exile on the Euphrates (xiii). The same stern symbolism is expressed later by the earthen bottle which is broken on the rocks before the Earthen Gate (xix, 1-11). According to the custom of the prophets (III Kings, xi, 29-31; Is., viii, 1-4; Ezech. v, 1-12), his warnings are accompanied by forcible pantomimic action. Prayers at the time of a great drought, statements which are of much value for the understanding of the psychological condition of the prophet in his spiritual struggles, follow (xiv-xv). The troubles of the times demand from the prophet an unmarried and joyless life (xvi-xvii). The creator can treat those he has created with the same supreme authority that the potter has over clay and earthen vessels. Jeremias is ill-treated (xviii-xx). A condemnation of the political and ecclesiastical leaders of the people and, in connection with this, the promise of a better shepherd are uttered (xxi-xxiii). The vision of the two baskets of figs is narrated in chapter xxiv. The repeated declaration (ceterum censeo) that the land will become a desolation follows (xxv). Struggles with the false prophets, who take wooden chains off the people and lead them instead with iron ones, are detailed. Both in a letter to the exiles in Babylon, and by word of mouth, Jeremias exhorts the captives to conform to the decrees of Jahweh (xxvi-xxix). Compare with this letter the "epistle of Jeremias" in Baruch, vi. A prophecy of consolation and salvation in the style of a Deutero-Isaias, concerning the return of God's favour to Israel and of the new, eternal covenant, is then given (xxx-xxxiii). The chapters following are taken up largely with narratives of the last days of the siege of Jerusalem and of the period after the conquest with numerous biographical details concerning Jeremias (xxxiv-xlv). B. Literary Criticism of the Book Much light is thrown on the production and genuineness of the book by the testimony of chapter xxxvi; Jeremias is directed to write down, either personally or by his scribe Baruch, the discourses he had given up to the fourth year of Joakim (604 b.c.). In order to strengthen the impression made by the prophecies as a whole, the individual predictions are to be united into a book, thereby preserving documentary proof of these discourses until the time in which the disasters threatened in them should actually come to pass. This first authentic recension of the prophecies forms the basis of the present Book of Jeremias. According to a law of literary transmission to which the Biblical books are also subject- habent sua fata libelli (books have their vicissitudes)-the first transcript was enlarged by various insertions and additions from the pen of Baruch or of a later prophet. The attempts of commentators to separate these secondary and tertiary additions in different cases from the original Jeremianic subject-matter have not always led to as convincing proof as in chapter lii. This chapter should be regarded as an addition of the post-Jeremianic period based on IV Kings, xxiv, 18-xxv, 30, on account of the concluding statement of li: "Thus far are the words of Jeremias." Cautious literary criticism is obliged to observe the principle of chronological arrangement which is perceptible in the present composition of the book, notwithstanding the additions: chapters i-vi belong apparently to the reign of King Josias (cf. the date in iii, 6); vii-xx belong, at least largely, to the reign of Joakim; xxi-xxxiii partly to the reign of Sedecias (cf. xxi, 1; xxvii, 1; xxviii, 1; xxxii, 1), although other portions are expressly assigned to the reigns of other kings: xxxiv-xxxix to the period of the siege of Jerusalem; xl-xlv to the period after the destruction of that city. Consequently, the chronology must have been considered in the arrangement of the material. Modern critical analysis of the book distinguishes between the portions narrated in the first person, regarded as directly attributable to Jeremias, and those portions which speak of Jeremias in the third person. According to Scholz, the book is arranged in "decades", and each larger train of thought or series of speeches is closed with a song or prayer. It is true that in the book parts classically perfect and highly poetic in character are often suddenly followed by the most commonplace prose, and matters given in the barest outline are not seldom succeeded by prolix and monotonous details. After what has been said above concerning elegiac verse, this difference in style can only be used with the greatest caution as a criterion for literary criticism. In the same way, investigation, of late very popular, as to whether a passage exhibits a Jeremianic spirit or not, leads to vague subjective results. Since the discovery (1904) of the Assuan texts, which strikingly confirm Jer., xliv, 1, has proved that Aramaic, as the koine (common dialect) of the Jewish colony in Egypt, was spoken as early as the fifth and sixth centuries b.c., the Aramaic expressions in the Book of Jeremias can no longer be quoted as proof of a later origin of such passages. Also, the agreement, verbal or conceptual, of texts in Jeremias with earlier books, perhaps with Deuteronomy, is not in itself a conclusive argument against the genuineness of these passages, for the prophet does not claim absolute originality. Notwithstanding the repetition of earlier passages in Jeremias, chapters l-li are fundamentally genuine, although their genuineness has been strongly doubted, because, in the series of discourses threatening punishment to the heathen nations, it is impossible that there should not be a prophecy against Babylon, then the most powerful representative of paganism. These chapters are, indeed, filled with the Deutero-Isaian spirit of consolation, somewhat after the manner of Is., xlvii, but they do not therefore, as a matter of course, lack genuineness, as the same spirit of consolation also inspires xxx-xxxiii. C. Textual Conditions of the Book The arrangement of the text in the Septuagint varies from that of the Hebrew text and the Vulgate; the discourses against the heathen nations, in the Hebrew text, xlvi-li, are, in the Septuagint, inserted after xxv, 13, and partly in different order. Great differences exist also as to the extent of the text of the Book of Jeremias. The text of the Hebrew and Latin Bibles is about one-eighth larger than that of the Septuagint. The question as to which text has preserved the original form cannot be answered according to the theory of Streane and Scholz, who declare at the outset that every addition of the Hebrew version is a later enlargement of the original text in the Septuagint. Just as little can the difficulty be settled by avowing, with Kaulen, an a priori preference for the Masoretic text. In most cases the Alexandrian translation has retained the better and original reading; consequently, in most cases the Hebrew text is glossed. In a book as much read as Jeremias the large number of glosses cannot appear strange. But in other cases the shorter recension of the Septuagint, amounting to about 100 words, which can be opposed to its large lacunæ, as compared with the Masorah, are sufficient proof that considerable liberty was taken in its preparation. Consequently, it was not made by an Aquila, and it received textual changes in the literary transmission. The dogmatic content of the discourses of Jeremias is not affected by these variations in the text. VI. LAMENTATIONS In the Greek and Latin Bibles there are five songs of lament bearing the name of Jeremias, which follow the Book of the Prophecy of Jeremias. In the Hebrew these are entitled Kinôth. from their elegaic character, or the 'Ekhah songs after the first word of the first, second, and fourth elegies; in Greek they are called Threnoi, in Latin they are known as Lamentationes. A. Position and Genuineness of Lamentations The superscription to Lamentations in the Septuagint and other versions throws light on the historical occasion of their production and on the author: "And it came to pass, after Israel was carried into captivity, and Jerusalem was desolate, that Jeremias the prophet sat weeping, and mourned with this lamentation over Jerusalem, and with a sorrowful mind, sighing and moaning, he said". The inscription was not written by the author of Lamentations, one proof of this being that it does not belong to the alphabetical form of the elegies. It expresses, however, briefly, the tradition of ancient times which is also confirmed both by the Targum and the Talmud. To a man like Jeremias, the day on which Jerusalem became a heap of ruins was not only a day of national misfortune, as was the day of the fall of Troy to the Trojan, or that of the destruction of Carthage to the Carthaginian, it was also a day of religious inanition. For, in a religious sense, Jerusalem had a peculiar importance in the history of salvation, as the footstool of Jahweh and as the scene of the revelation of God and of the Messias. Consequently, the grief of Jeremias was personal, not merely a sympathetic emotion over the sorrow of others, for he had sought to prevent the disaster by his labours as a prophet in the streets of the city. All the fibres of his heart were bound up with Jerusalem; he was now himself crushed and desolate. Thus Jeremias more than any other man was plainly called-it may be said, driven by an inner force-to lament the ruined city as threnodist of the great penitential period of the Old Covenant. He was already prepared by his lament upon the death of King Josias (II Par., xxxv, 25) and by the elegiac songs in the book of his prophecies (cf. xiii, 20-27, a lament over Jerusalem). The lack of variety in the word-forms and in the construction of the sentences, which, it is claimed, does not accord with the character of the style of Jeremias, may be explained as a poetic peculiarity of this poetic book. Descriptions such as those in i, 13-15, or iv, 10, seem to point to an eye witness of the catastrophe, and the literary impression made by the whole continually recalls Jeremias. To this conduce the elegiac tone of the Lamentations, which is only occasionally interrupted by intermediate tones of hope; the complaints against false prophets and against the striving after the favour of foreign nations; the verbal agreements with the Book of Prophecy of Jeremias; finally the predilection for closing a series of thoughts with a prayer warm from the heart-cf. iii, 19-21, 64-66, and chapter v, which, like a Miserere Psalm of Jeremias, forms a close to the five lamentations. The fact that in the Hebrew Bible the Kinôth was removed, as a poetic work, from the collection of prophetic books and placed among the Kethúhîm, or Hagiographa, cannot be quoted as a decisive argument against its Jeremiac origin, as the testimony of the Septuagint, the most important witness in the forum of Biblical criticism, must in a hundred other cases correct the decision of the Masorah. Moreover, the superscription of the Septuagint seems to presuppose a Hebrew original. B. Technical Form of the Poetry of Lamentations (1) In the first four laments the Kînah measure is used in the construction of the lines. In this measure each line is divided into two unequal members having respectively three and two stresses, as for example in the introductory first three lines of the book. (2) In all five elegies the construction of the verses follows an alphabetical arrangement. The first, second, fourth, and fifth laments are each composed of twenty-two verses, to correspond with the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet; the third lament is made up of three times twenty-two verses. In the first, second, and fourth elegies each verse begins with a letter of the Hebrew alphabet, the letters following in order, as the first verse begins with Aleph, the second with Beth, etc.; in the third elegy every fourth verse begins with a letter of the alphabet in due order. Thus, with a few exceptions and changes (Pê, the seventeenth, precedes Ayin the sixteenth letter), the Hebrew alphabet is formed from the initial letters of the separate verses. How easily this alphabetical method can curb the spirit and logic of a poem is most clearly shown in the third lament, which, besides, had probably in the beginning the same structure as the others, a different initial letter to each of the original verses; it was not until later that a less careful writer developed each verse into three by means of ideas taken from Job and other writers. (3) As to the structure of the strophe, it is certain that the principle followed in some cases is the change of the person of the subject as speaker or one addressed. The first elegy is divided into a lament over Sion in the third person (verses 1-11), and a lament of Sion over itself (verses 12-22). In the first strophe Sion is the object, in the second, a strophe of equal length, the subject of the elegy. In 11 ^c, according to the Septuagint, the third person should be used. In the second elegy, also, the intention seems to be, with the change of strophe, to change from the third person to the second, and from the second to the first person. In verses 1-8 there are twenty-four members in the third person; in 13-19 twenty-one in the second person, while in 20-22, a strophe in the first person, the lament closes in a monologue. In the third lament, as well, the speech of a single subject in the first person alternates with the speech of several persons represented by "we" and with colloquy; verses 40-47 are clearly distinguished by their subject "we" from the preceeding strophe, in which the subject is one individual, and from the following strophe in the first person singular in verses 48-54, while the verses 55-66 represent a colloquy with Jahweh. The theory of the writer, that in the structure of Hebrew poetry the alternation of persons and subjects is a fixed principle in forming strophes, finds in Lamentations its strongest confirmation. (4) In the structure of the five elegies regarded as a whole, Zenner has shown that they rise in a steady and exactly measured progression to a climax. In the first elegy there are two monologues from two different speakers. In the second elegy the monologue develops into an animated dialogue. In the third and fourth elegies the cry of lamentation is louder still, as more have joined in the lament, and the solitary voice has been replaced by a choir of voices. In the firth lament a third choir is added. Literary criticism finds in the dramatic construction of the book a strong argument for the literary unity of Lamentations. C. Liturgical Use of Lamentations The Lamentations have received a peculiar distinction in the Liturgy of the Church in the Office of Passion Week. If Christ Himself designated His death as the destruction of a temple, "he spoke of the temple of his body" (John, ii, 19-21), then the Church surely has a right to pour out her grief over His death in those Lamentations which were sung over the ruins of the temple destroyed by the sins of the nation. For a general introduction to Jeremias and Lamentations see the Biblical Introduction of Cornely, Vigouroux, Girot, Driver, Cornill, Strack. For special questions of introduction: Cheyne, Jeremiah (1888); Martz, Der Prophet Jeremias von Anatot (1889); Erbt, Jeremia und seine Zeit (Göttingen, 1902); Gillies, Jeremiah, the Man and His Message (London, 1907); Ramsay, Studies in Jeremiah (London, 1907); Workman, The Text of Jeremiah (Edinburgh, 1889); Streane, The Double Text of Jeremiah (Cambridge, 1896); Scholz, Der masoretische Text und die Septuagintaübersetzung des B. Jeremias (Ratisbon, 1875); Frankl, Studien über die LXX und Peschito zu Jeremia (1873); Neteler, Gliederung der B. Jeremias (Münster, 1870). Commentaries on Jeremias issued in the last decades.-Catholic: Scholz (Würzburg, 1880); Trochon (Paris, 1883); Knabenbauer (Paris, 1889); Schneedorfer (Vienna, 1903). Protestant: Payne Smith in the Speaker's Commentary (London, 1875); Cheyne in Spence, Commentary (London, 1883-85); Ball (New York, 1890); Giesebrecht in Nowack, Handkommentar (Göttingen, 1894); Duhm in Marti, Kurzer Hand-Commentar (Tübingen and Leipzig, 1901); Douglas (London, 1903); Orelli (Munich, 1905). Commentaries on Lamentations:-Catholic: Seissenberger (Ratisbon, 1872); Trochon (Paris, 1878); SchÖnfelder (Munich, 1887); Knabenbauer (Paris, 1891); Minocchi (Rome, 1897); Schneedorfer (Vienna, 1903); Zenner, Beiträge zur Erklärung der Klagelieder (Freiburg im Br., 1905). Protestant: Raabe (Leipzig, 1880); Oettli (Nördlingen, 1889); LÖhr (Göttingen, 1891); Idem in Nowack, Handkommentar (Göttingen, 1893); Budde in Marti Kurzer Hand-Commentar (Freiburg im Br., 1898). For monographs see the latest commentaries and the bibliographies in the Biblical periodicals. M. FAULHABER Jericho Jericho Three cities of this name have successively occupied sites in the same neighbourhood. I. A city of Canaan taken and destroyed by Josue after the passage of the Jordan (Jos., vi). The establishment of the Israelites in the industries of the "City of Palm Trees" gave birth to the Jericho of Benjamin (Jos., xviii, 21), which was for some time dominated by Eglon, King of Moab (Judges, iii, 12), and in which David's emissaries hid themselves when they had been outraged by Hanon, King of the Ammonites (II Kings, X, 5). But when, under Achab, the Canaanite Jericho had been restored by Hiel the Bethelite (III Kings, xvi, 34), the Israelites installed themselves there. They were visited by Eliseus, who purified the waters of the spring (IV Kings, ii, 18-22). Three hundred and forty-five men of Jericho, returning from captivity, repopulated their native city (I Esd., ii, 34; 11 Esd., vii, 36). Having fallen into the hands of the Syrians, it was fortified by Bacchides, to protect Judea on the eastern side (I Mach., ix, 50). This Jericho was situated at Tell-es-Sulthàn, near the Fountain of Eliseus ('Ain-es-Sultàn), which flows at a distance of about two miles north-west of ez-Ribà, the modern Jericho. Excavations made in this tell in 1907-08 brought to light a rampart measuring some 840 yards in circuit, a citadel with double wall of the Canaanite period, Israelitish dwellings of the time of the Kings, and some post-exilic Jewish pottery (Mitteil. der deutschen Orient. Gesellschaft zu Berlin, December, 1908, no. 39; "Revue Biblique", 1909, 270-79). II. The ancient Jericho, near the spring, had entirely disappeared when Herod founded a new Jericho towards the point where the brook of the Kelt and the Jerusalem road emerge from the mountains. Protected by the fort of Cypros, it possessed royal palaces, vast reservoirs, a hippodrome, and an amphitheatre (Josephus, "Bell. Jud.", I, xxi, 14; xxxiii, 6, 8; "Antiq. Jud.", XVI, v, 2). Herod died there: his son Archelaus further embellished the palaces and caused new aqueducts to be built to bring water to the palm gardens (Antiq. Jud., XVII, xiii, 1). It was at the gates of this Jericho that Christ cured two blind men (Matt., xx, 29-34), only one--Bartimeus--according to Mark (x, 46) and Luke (xviii, 35), and saw the publican Zacheus (Luke, xix, 1-5). The Khìrbet Qaqûn, the Birket Mûsâ, a few artificial mounds, are the visible remains of the second Jericho, which, before being entirely destroyed, served for some days as a Roman camp (Bell. Jud., viii, 2; ix, 13). III. A third Jericho then came into existence in the gardens which the Fountain of Eliseus watered, and where, besides the palm, grew the henna, balm, myrrh (Bell. Jud., IV, viii, 3), the sycamore, banana, etc. According to the map of the Mâdabâ, it was an important city and a see suffragan to Cæsarea Maritima. Its known bishops are Januarius (325), Macer (381), Eleutherius (415), Joannes (518), Gregorius (536), Basilius (800) (Lequien, "Oriens Christianus", III, 646-50). Justinian set up here a great caravanserai (Procopius, "De Ædif.", v, 9). During the Crusades Jericho was a benefice attached to the Holy Sepulchre. The Byzantine city was succeeded by the present Ribà, which consists of a few hostelries for pilgrims and tourists, and some fifteen wattle huts inhabited by Ghawarneh Arabs. There is also a Greek church (called "the Sanctuary of Zacheus") served by two Orthodox monks, a Latin chapel, and a mosque. GEYER, Itinera Hierosolymitana (Vienna, 1898); CONDER AND KITCHENER, Survey of West Palestine, Mem., III (London, 1883); GuéRIN, Samarie, I (Paris, 1874): ROBINSON, Biblical Researches in Palestine, I (Boston, 1856); RELAND, Palæstina (Utrecht, 1714). F.M. ABEL Jeroboam Jeroboam (Sept. `Ieroboám), name of two Israelitish kings. (1) Jeroboam I was the first ruler of the Northern Kingdom after the schism of the Ten Tribes. He was a son of Nathan an Ephraimite, and his mother's name was Sarua. While still a young man he was placed by King Solomon over the tributes of Ephraim and Manasses (III Kings, xi, 28). In that capacity he superintended the labours of his tribesmen in the building of the fortress Mello in Jerusalem and of other public works, and he naturally became conversant with the widespread discontent caused by the extravagances which marked the reign of Solomon. Before the end of the latter's reign, Jeroboam received from the Prophet Abias an intimation that he was destined to be king over ten of the tribes which in punishment of the idolatry of Solomon were about to sever their allegiance to him and his house. At the same time it was promised that if Jeroboam were faithful to the Lord his house would be confirmed in authority over Israel (III Kings, xi, 38). Not satisfied to await the death of the king, the time set by the prophet for the fulfillment of the promise, Jeroboam instigated a revolt which was unsuccessful, and he was obliged to flee, taking refuge with King Sesac in Egypt, where he remained until the death of Solomon in 975 b.c. (or 938 according to the Assyrian chronology). After this event he returned to Palestine, and he was made leader of the delegation sent by dissatisfied element of the population to ask the new king Roboam to lighten the burdens which his father had placed upon them. No sooner had Roboam imprudently and harshly rejected their petition than ten of the tribes withdrew their allegiance to the house of David and proclaimed Jeroboam their king, only the tribes of Juda and Benjamin remaining faithful to Roboam. Jeroboam established his headquarters at Sichem, and soon added to the political also a religious schism. Fearing lest the pilgrimages to the temple in Jerusalem prescribed by the Law might be an occasion for the people of the Northern Kingdom to go back to their old allegiance, he determined to provide for them places of worship within their own boundaries, and for this purpose he set up two golden calves to be worshipped, one in Bethel and the other in Dan. He also built temples in the high places and had them served by priests drawn from the lowest of the people (III Kings, xii). The prophet Abias announced the Divine vengeance that was to come upon the house of Jeroboam because of these evil deeds (III Kings, xiv), and in the sequel of Israelitish history the worst doings of the kings are always referred to as like unto the wickedness of Jeroboam, the son of Nabat, who caused Israel to sin. He died in 954 (or in 917) after a reign of twenty-two years. (2) Jeroboam II was the twelfth successor of the preceeding and the fourth king of the dynasty of Jehu. He succeeded his father Joas in 824 (or 783) and reigned forty-one years. In 802 Rammanirar III, King of Assyria, undertook a campaign into the "West lands", and the Kingdom of Israel (Land of Amri), together with Syria and Phoenicia, was placed under a heavy tribute. Jeroboam, however, taking advantage of the weakened condition of Syria, reestablished toward the north and in other directions the ancient boundaries of Israel (IV Kings, xiv, 25). The military and patriotic successes of Jeroboam had been foretold by Jonas, son of Amathi (ibid.), and the Sacred Writer adds that the Lord saved the Israelites by the hand of Jeroboam, son of Joas. From the political standpoint, Jeroboam was an intelligent and energetic ruler, but with regard to his religious activities, his reign is resumed in these words: "He did that which was evil before the Lord. He departed not from all the sins of Jeroboam, son of Nabai who made Israel to sin" (IV Kings, xiv, 24). Evidences of the religious decay during his otherwise prosperous reign are found in the writings of the prophets Amos and Osee, his contemporaries, who frequently inveigh against idolatry and its many concomitant evils and moral degradation. Jeroboam II died in 783 (or 743). See LesÉtre in Vigouroux Dict. de la Bible, s. v.; Cooke in Hastings, Dict. Of the Bible, s.v. JAMES F. DRISCOLL St. Jerome St. Jerome Born at Stridon, a town on the confines of Dalmatia and Pannonia, about the year 340-2; died at Bethlehem, 30 September, 420. He went to Rome, probably about 360, where he was baptized, and became interested in ecclesiastical matters. From Rome he went to Trier, famous for its schools, and there began his theological studies. Later he went to Aquileia, and towards 373 he set out on a journey to the East. He settled first in Antioch, where he heard Apollinaris of Laodicea, one of the first exegetes of that time and not yet separated from the Church. From 374-9 Jerome led an ascetical life in the desert of Chalcis, south-west of Antioch. Ordained priest at Antioch, he went to Constantinople (380-81), where a friendship sprang up between him and St. Gregory of Nazianzus. From 382 to August 385 he made another sojourn in Rome, not far from Pope Damasus. When the latter died (11 December, 384) his position became a very difficult one. His harsh criticisms had made him bitter enemies, who tried to ruin him. After a few months he was compelled to leave Rome. By way of Antioch and Alexandria he reached Bethlehem, in 386. He settled there in a monastery near a convent founded by two Roman ladies, Paula and Eustochium, who followed him to Palestine. Henceforth he led a life of asceticism and study; but even then he was troubled by controversies which will be mentioned later, one with Rufinus and the other with the Pelagians. CHRONOLOGY The literary activity of St. Jerome, although very prolific, may be summed up under a few principal heads: works on the Bible; theological controversies; historical works; various letters; translations. But perhaps the chronology of his more important writings will enable us to follow more easily the development of his studies. A first period extends to his sojourn in Rome (382), a period of preparation. From this period we have the translation of the homilies of Origen on Jeremias, Ezechiel, and Isaias (379-81), and about the same time the translation of the Chronicle of Eusebius; then the "Vita S. Pauli, prima eremitae" (374-379). A second period extends from his sojourn in Rome to the beginning of the translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew (382-390). During this period the exegetical vocation of St. Jerome asserted itself under the influence of Pope Damasus, and took definite shape when the opposition of the ecclesiastics of Rome compelled the caustic Dalmatian to renounce ecclesiastical advancement and retire to Bethlehem. In 384 we have the correction of the Latin version of the Four Gospels; in 385, the Epistles of St. Paul; in 384, a first revision of the Latin Psalms according to the accepted text of the Septuagint (Roman Psalter); in 384, the revision of the Latin version of the Book of Job, after the accepted version of the Septuagint; between 386 and 391 a second revision of the Latin Psalter, this time according to the text of the "Hexapla" of Origen (Gallican Psalter, embodied in the Vulgate). It is doubtful whether he revised the entire version of the Old Testament according to the Greek of the Septuagint. In 382-383 "Altercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi" and "De perpetua Virginitate B. Mariae; adversus Helvidium". In 387-388, commentaries on the Epistles to Philemon, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to Titus; and in 389-390, on Ecclesiastes. Between 390 and 405, St. Jerome gave all his attention to the translation of the Old Testament according to the Hebrew, but this work alternated with many others. Between 390-394 he translated the Books of Samuel and of Kings, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Esdras, and Paralipomena. In 390 he translated the treatise "De Spiritu Sancto" of Didymus of Alexandria; in 389-90, he drew up his "Quaestiones hebraicae in Genesim" and "De interpretatione nominum hebraicorum." In 391-92 he wrote the "Vita S. Hilarionis", the "Vita Malchi, monachi captivi", and commentaries on Nahum, Micheas, Sophonias, Aggeus, Habacuc. In 392-93, "De viris illustribus", and "Adversus Jovinianum"; in 395, commentaries on Jonas and Abdias; in 398, revision of the remainder of the Latin version of the New Testament, and about that time commentaries on chapters xiii-xxiii of Isaias; in 398, an unfinished work "Contra Joannem Hierosolymitanum"; in 401, "Apologeticum adversus Rufinum"; between 403-406, "Contra Vigilantium"; finally from 398 to 405, completion of the version of the Old Testament according to the Hebrew. In the last period of his life, from 405 to 420, St. Jerome took up the series of his commentaries interrupted for seven years. In 406, he commented on Osee, Joel, Amos, Zacharias, Malachias; in 408, on Daniel; from 408 to 410, on the remainder of Isaias; from 410 to 415, on Ezechiel; from 415-420, on Jeremias. From 401 to 410 date what is left of his sermons; treatises on St. Mark, homilies on the Psalms, on various subjects, and on the Gospels; in 415, "Dialogi contra Pelagianos". CHARACTERISTICS OF ST. JEROME'S WORK St. Jerome owes his place in the history of exegetical studies chiefly to his revisions and translations of the Bible. Until about 391-2, he considered the Septuagint translation as inspired. But the progress of his Hebraistic studies and his intercourse with the rabbis made him give up that idea, and he recognized as inspired the original text only. It was about this period that he undertook the translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew. But he went too far in his reaction against the ideas of his time, and is open to reproach for not having sufficiently appreciated the Septuagint. This latter version was made from a much older, and at times much purer, Hebrew text than the one in use at the end of the fourth century. Hence the necessity of taking the Septuagint into consideration in any attempt to restore the text of the Old Testament. With this exception we must admit the excellence of the translation made by St. Jerome. His commentaries represent a vast amount of work but of very unequal value. Very often he worked exceedingly rapidly; besides, he considered a commentary a work of compilation, and his chief care was to accumulate the interpretations of his predecessors, rather than to pass judgment on them. The "Quaestiones hebraicae in Genesim" is one of his best works. It is a philological inquiry concerning the original text. It is to be regretted that he was unable to continue, as had been his intention, a style of work entirely new at the time. Although he often asserted his desire to avoid excessive allegory, his efforts in that respect were far from successful, and in later years he was ashamed of some of his earlier allegorical explanations. He himself says that he had recourse to the allegorical meaning only when unable to discover the literal meaning. His treatise, "De Interpretatione nominum hebraicorum", is but a collection of mystical and symbolical meanings. Excepting the "Commenta rius in ep. ad Galatas", which is one of his best, his explanations of the New Testament have no great value. Among his commentaries on the Old Testament must be mentioned those on Amos, Isaias, and Jeremias. There are some that are frankly bad, for instance those on Zacharias, Osee, and Joel. To sum up, the Biblical knowledge of St. Jerome makes him rank first among ancient exegetes. In the first place, he was very careful as to the sources of his information. He required of the exegete a very extensive knowledge of sacred and profane history, and also of the linguistics and geography of Palestine. He never either categorically acknowledged or rejected the deuterocanonical books as part of the Canon of Scripture, and he repeatedly made use of them. On the inspiration, the existence of a spiritual meaning, and the freedom of the Bible from error, he holds the traditional doctrine. Possibly he has insisted more than others on the share which belongs to the sacred writer in his collaboration in the inspired work. His criticism is not without originality. The controversy with the Jews and with the Pagans had long since called the attention of the Christians to certain difficulties in the Bible. St. Jerome answers in various ways. Not to mention his answers to this or that difficulty, he appeals above all to the principle, that the original text of the Scriptures is the only one inspired and free from error. Therefore one must determine if the text, in which the difficulties arise, has not been altered by the copyist. Moreover, when the writers of the New Testament quoted the Old Testament, they did so not according to the letter but according to the spirit. There are many subtleties and even contradictions in the explanations Jerome offers, but we must bear in mind his evident sincerity. He does not try to cloak over his ignorance; he admits that there are many difficulties in the Bible; at times he seems quite embarrassed. Finally, he proclaims a principle, which, if recognized as legitimate, might serve to adjust the insufficiencies of his criticism. He asserts that in the Bible there is no material error due to the ignorance or the heedlessness of the sacred writer, but he adds: "It is usual for the sacred historian to conform himself to the generally accepted opinion of the masses in his time" (P.L., XXVI, 98; XXIV, 855). Among the historical works of St. Jerome must be noted the translation and the continuation of the "Chronicon Eusebii Caesariensis", as the continuation written by him, which extends from 325 to 378, served as a model for the annals of the chroniclers of the Middle Ages; hence the defects in such works: dryness, superabundance of data of every description, lack of proportion and of historical sense. The "Vita S. Pauli Eremitae" is not a very reliable document. The "Vita Malchi, monachi" is a eulogy of chastity woven through a number of legendary episodes. As to the "Vita S. Hilarionis", it has suffered from contact with the preceding ones. It has been asserted that the journeys of St. Hilarion are a plagiarism of some old tales of travel. But these objections are altogether misplaced, as it is really a reliable work. The treatise "De Viris illustribus" is a very excellent literary history. It was written as an apologetic work to prove that the Church had produced learned men. For the first three centuries Jerome depends to a great extent on Eusebius, whose statements he borrows, often distorting them, owing to the rapidity with which he worked. His accounts of the authors of the fourth century however are of great value. The oratorical consist of about one hundred homilies or short treatises, and in these the Solitary of Bethlehem appears in a new light. He is a monk addressing monks, not without making very obvious allusions to contemporary events. The orator is lengthy and apologizes for it. He displays a wonderful knowledge of the versions and contents of the Bible. His allegory is excessive at times, and his teaching on grace is Semipelagian. A censorious spirit against authority, sympathy for the poor which reaches the point of hostility against the rich, lack of good taste, inferiority of style, and misquotation, such are the most glaring defects of these sermons. Evidently they are notes taken down by his hearers, and it is a question whether they were reviewed by the preacher. The correspondence of St. Jerome is one of the best known parts of his literary output. It comprises about one hundred and twenty letters from him, and several from his correspondents. Many of these letters were written with a view to publication, and some of them the author even edited himself; hence they show evidence of great care and skill in their composition, and in them St. Jerome reveals himself a master of style. These letters, which had already met with great success with his contemporaries, have been, with the "Confessions" of St. Augustine, one of the works most appreciated by the humanists of the Renaissance. Aside from their literary interest they have great historical value. Relating to a period covering half a century they touch upon most varied subjects; hence their division into letters dealing with theology, polemics, criticism, conduct, and biography. In spite of their turgid diction they are full of the man's personality. It is in this correspondence that the temperament of St. Jerome is most clearly seen: his waywardness, his love of extremes, his exceeding sensitiveness; how he was in turn exquisitely dainty and bitterly satirical, unsparingly outspoken concerning others and equally frank about himself. The theological writings of St. Jerome are mainly controversial works, one might almost say composed for the occasion. He missed being a theologian, by not applying himself in a consecutive and personal manner to doctrinal questions. In his controversies he was simply the interpreter of the accepted ecclesiastical doctrine. Compared with St. Augustine his inferiority in breadth and originality of view is most evident. His "Dialogue" against the Luciferians deals with a schismatic sect whose founder was Lucifer, Bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia. The Luciferians refused to approve of the measure of clemency by which the Church, since the Council of Alexandria, in 362, had allowed bishops, who had adhered to Arianism, to continue to discharge their duties on condition of professing the Nicene Creed. This rigorist sect had adherents almost everywhere, and even in Rome it was very troublesome. Against it Jerome wrote his "Dialogue", scathing in sarcasm, but not always accurate in doctrine, particularly as to the Sacrament of Confirmation. The book "Adversus Helvidium" belongs to about the same period. Helvidius held the two following tenets: + Mary bore children to Joseph after the virginal birth of Jesus Christ; + from a religious viewpoint, the married state is not inferior to celibacy. Earnest entreaty decided Jerome to answer. In doing so he discusses the various texts of the Gospel which, it was claimed, contained the objections to the perpetual virginity of Mary. If he did not find positive answers on all points, his work, nevertheless, holds a very creditable place in the history of Catholic exegesis upon these questions. The relative dignity of virginity and marriage, discussed in the book against Helvidius, was taken up again in the book "Adversus Jovinianum" written about ten years later. Jerome recognizes the legitimacy of marriage, but he uses concerning it certain disparaging expressions which were criticized by contemporaries and for which he has given no satisfactory explanation. Jovinian was more dangerous than Helvidius. Although he did not exactly teach salvation by faith alone, and the uselessness of good works, he made far too easy the road to salvation and slighted a life of asceticism. Every one of these points St. Jerome took up. The "Apologetici adversus Rufinum" dealt with the Origenistic controversies. St. Jerome was involved in one of the most violent episodes of that struggle, which agitated the Church from Origen's lifetime until the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553). The question at issue was to determine if certain doctrines professed by Origen and others taught by certain pagan followers of Origen could be accepted. In the present case the doctrinal difficulties were embittered by personalities between St. Jerome and his former friend, Rufinus. To understand St. Jerome's position we must remember that the works of Origen were by far the most complete exegetical collection then in existence, and the one most accessible to students. Hence a very natural tendency to make use of them, and it is evident that St. Jerome did so, as well as many others. But we must carefully distinguish between writers who made use of Origen and those who adhered to his doctrines. This distinction is particularly necessary with St. Jerome, whose method of work was very rapid, and consisted in transcribing the interpretations of former exegetes without passing criticism on them. Nevertheless, it is certain that St. Jerome greatly praised and made use of Origen, that he even transcribed some erroneous passages without due reservation. But it is also evident that he never adhered thinkingly and systematically to the Origenistic doctrines. Under these circumstances it came about that when Rufinus, who was a genuine Origenist, called on him to justify his use of Origen, the explanations he gave were not free from embarrassment. At this distance of time it would require a very subtle and detailed study of the question to decide the real basis of the quarrel. However that may be, Jerome may be accused of imprudence of language and blamed for a too hasty method of work. With a temperament such as his, and confident of his undoubted orthodoxy in the matter of Origenism, he must naturally have been tempted to justify anything. This brought about a most bitter controversy with his wily adversary, Rufinus. But on the whole Jerome's position is by far the stronger of the two, even in the eyes of his contemporaries. It is generally conceded that in this controversy Rufinus was to blame. It was he who brought about the conflict in which he proved himself to be narrow-minded, perplexed, ambitious, even timorous. St. Jerome, whose attitude is not always above reproach, is far superior to him. Vigilantius, the Gascon priest against whom Jerome wrote a treatise, quarrelled with ecclesiastical usages rather than matters of doctrine. What he principally rejected was the monastic life and the veneration of saints and of relics. In short, Helvidius, Jovinian, and Vigilantius were the mouthpieces of a reaction against asceticism which had developed so largely in the fourth century. Perhaps the influence of that same reaction is to be seen in the doctrine of the monk Pelagius, who gave his name to the principal heresy on grace: Pelagianism. On this subject Jerome wrote his "Dialogi contra Pelagianos". Accurate as to the doctrine of original sin, the author is much less so when he determines the part of God and of man in the act of justification. In the main his ideas are Semipelagian: man merits first grace: a formula which endangers the absolute freedom of the gift of grace. The book "De situ et nominibus locorum hebraicorum" is a translation of the "Onomasticon" of Eusebius, to which the translator has joined additions and corrections. The translations of the "Homilies" of Origen vary in character according to the time in which they were written. As time went on, Jerome became more expert in the art of translating, and he outgrew the tendency to palliate, as he came across them, certain errors of Origen. We must make special mention of the translation of the homilies "In Canticum Canticorum", the Greek original of which has been lost. St. Jerome's complete works can be found in P.L., XXII-XXX. LOUIS SALTET St. Jerome Emiliani St. Jerome Emiliani Founder of the Order of Somascha; b. at Venice, 1481; d. at Somascha, 8 Feb., 1537; feast, 20 July; son of Angelo Emiliani (popularly called Miani) and of Eleonore Mauroceni, joined the army, and in 1508 defended Castelnuovo against the League of Cambray. Taken prisoner and miraculously liberated, he made a pilgrimage to the shrine of Our Lady of Treviso, in fulfillment of a vow. He was then appointed podestà of Castelnuovo, but after a short time returned to Venice to supervise the education of his nephews. All his spare time was devoted to the study of theology and to works of charity. After his ordination to the priesthood in 1518, the hospitals and the hovels of the poor were his favourite resorts. In the year of plague and famine (1528), he seemed to be everywhere, and showed his zeal especially for the orphans, whose number had so greatly increased. He rented a house for them near the church of St. Rose and, with the assistance of some pious laymen, ministered to their wants. To his charge was also committed the hospital for incurables, founded by St. Cajetan. In 1531 he went to Verona and induced the citizens to build a hospital; at Brescia he erected an orphanage, at Bergamo one for boys and another for girls. Here also he founded the first home for fallen women who wished to do penance. Two priests, Alessandro Besuzio and Agostino Bariso, now joined him in his labours of charity, and in 1532 Jerome founded a religious society, placing the motherhouse at Somascha, a secluded hamlet between Milan and Bergamo. In the rule, Jerome puts down as the principal work of the community the care of orphans, poor, and sick, and demands that dwellings, food and clothing shall bear the mark of religious poverty. Jerome fell a martyr to his zeal; contracting a disease at Bergamo, he died at Somascha. He was beautified by Benedict XIV in 1747, and canonized by Clement XIII in 1767. The Office and Mass in his honour were approved eight years later. His biography was first written by Scipio Albani (1600); another by Andreas Stella (1605). The best was written by Aug. Tortora (Milan, 1620; in "Acta SS.", Feb., II, 217 sq.). After the death of Jerome his community was about to disband, but was kept together by Gambarana, who had been chosen superior. He obtained the approval (1540) of Paul III. In 1547 the members vainly sought affiliation with the Society of Jesus; then in 1547-1555 they were united with the Theatines. Pius IV (1563) approved the institution, and St. Pius V raised it to the dignity of a religious order, according to the Rule of St. Augustine, with solemn vows, the privileges of the mendicants, and exemption. In 1569 the first six members made their profession, and Gambarana was made first superior general. Great favour was shown to the order by St. Charles Borromeo, and he gave it the church of St. Mayeul at Pavia, from which church the order takes its official name "Clerici regulares S. Majoli Papiae congregationis Somaschae". Later the education of youth was put into the programme of the order, and the colleges at Rome and Pavia became renowned. It spread into Austria and Switzerland, and before the great Revolution it had 119 houses in the four provinces of Rome, Lombardy, Venice, and France. At present the order has ten houses in Italy two of which are in Rome. The general resides in Rome at S. Girolamo della Carita. HEIMBUCHER, Orden u. Kongregationen (Paderborn, 1908), III, 275; KIENLE in Kirchenlex., s.v. Somasker; Holsten-Brockie, Cod. Regul., III, 199 sqq.; HUBERT, Der hl. Hieronymus Aemiliani (Mainz, 1895). FRANCIS MERSHMAN Jerusalem (Before A.D. 71) Jerusalem (Before A.D. 71) 08344aat.gif This article treats of the "City of God", the political and religious centre of the People of Israel, with its destruction by the Romans after it had become the scene of the Redemption. This part of the subject will be divided as follows: + Names + Topography + History + Development of the City and its Chief Monuments I. NAMES According to Jewish tradition (Josephus, "Antiq. Jud.", I, x, 1; Targum Onkelos, Gen., xiv, 18), Jerusalem was originally called Salem (Peace), and was the capital of King Melchisedech (Gen., xiv, 18). This tradition is confirmed by the cuneiform tablets discovered in 1888 at Tell Amarna, in Egypt (see below, under III. History). Five of these letters, written at Jerusalem about the year 1400 B.C., inform us that the city was then called U-ru-sa-lim. It figures in Assyrian inscriptions under the name of Ur-sa-li-im-mu. According to the Assyrian syllabaries, uru and ur signify "city" (Hebrew ir). In several of the Tell Armana Tablets the word salim is used in the sense of "peace". Ursalim, therefore, means "City of Peace". The Psalmist, too, connects Salem with Sion: "He hath his tabernacle in Salem, and his abode upon the mountain of Sion" [Ps. lxxv (lxxvi), 3]. When the Israelites came into the Land of Promise, Jerusalem was in the power of the Jebusites, and bore the name of Jebus. The Hebrews, however, were not ignorant of its ancient name; they often called it Jerusalem (Jos., x, 1; Judges, xix, 10; II Kings, v, 6, etc.). In other passages of the Bible it is called Jerusalem (I Par., iii, 5; Jer., xxvi, 18; Esther, ii, 6, etc.). The Septuagint. writes its name Ierousalem. Under the hellenizing influences which invaded Palestine, Salem became Solyma (Antiq. Jud., I, x, 2), and Jerusalem ta Ierosolyma (The Holy Solyma) (I Mach., i, 14, 20; II Mach., i, 10; Bell. Jud., VI, x, etc.). The New Testament employs sometimes the Septuagint form and sometimes that of Machabees, which the Vulgate renders by Jerusalem and Jerosolyma. The Syriac Version gives Uris lem, a form more nearly approaching the Assyrian. When the Emperor Hadrian rebuilt the city, A.D. 136, he gave it the name of AElia Capitolina. From the Mohammedan conquest of Palestine, in the seventh century, until our own times, the Arabs have called it El Quds, "The Holy" --the ir haq qodes, or "Holy City", of II Esd., xi, 18 (cf. Matt., iv, 5, etc). Among all other people the name Jerusalem has continued in use until now. II. TOPOGRAPHY A. Geographical Position Jerusalem is situated in latitude 31° 46' 45" N. and longitude 35° 13' 25" E. of Greenwich, about 32 English miles in a straight line from the Mediterranean on the west, and 13 from the Dead Sea on the east. It stands on the crest of a chain of mountains which traverses Palestine from north to south, and the highest point of which, at the northwest corner of the city, is 2577 feet above the level of the Mediterranean, and 3865 above that of the Dead Sea. Owing to this difference of level the western slope of these mountains, towards the Plain of Sephela, which extends to the Mediterranean, is gentle, while that to the east is very steep. A girdle of high hills surrounds the city, forming a sort of natural rampart. On the north is Mt. Scopus (2705 feet), next to it, on the east, the Mount of Olives (2665 feet), beyond which again is the Mount of Offence (2410 feet) (III Kings, xi, 7; IV Kings, xxiii, 13). To the south is the Mount of Evil Counsel (2549 feet), which forms the eastern boundary of the Plain of Raphaim, and next, on the southwest, comes a hill (2557 feet) to which no name has been given. Towards the northwest the city is more exposed; at some distance in that direction it is dominated by the Nebi Samwil, the ancient Maspha, which has an altitude of 2935 feet. Notwithstanding the difficulty of access in its natural situation, Jerusalem is the centre of a network of ancient roads which connect it, on the east, with Jericho and the Jordan; on the south, with Hebron and Gaza; on the west, with Jaffa and Caesarea; on the north, with Samaria and Galilee. It was, however, situated beyond the great military and commercial highways between Egypt and Assyria. B. Site; Hills and Valleys The ancient city occupied the same position as the present, except that its southern extremity has remained outside of the walls since the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 136). Thanks, however, to systematic operations undertaken by English, American, and German engineers, much of the old southern wall has been brought to light. While, in many places, masses of ruins have changed the appearance of the ground, excavations and vertical borings, made within the last fifty years, have, nevertheless, enabled the explorers to construct sufficiently-exact maps of the primitive configuration. The ground on which Jerusalem stands, within this ring of surrounding mountains, is by no means uniform in character: on three sides-the east, south, and west-it stands upon terraced heights bordered by deep valleys which give it the appearance of a promontory jutting out to the south. The city itself is furrowed with ravines which cut it up into a number of little hills. The longest of these valleys measures scarcely two miles and a half; they have all been formed by erosion, due to torrential rainfall, in the quaternary period. To the north of the city they take the shape of mere depressions in the soil, then, as they descend, sinking rapidly in the calcareous rock of which the mountains are formed, they soon become deep gorges, all coming together at the southeast angle of the city, at a depth of about 600 feet below their starting-point. The two principal hills rise on the southwest and the east respectively. The former of these hills is called Mount Sion because, according to Josephus (Antiq. Jud., XVI, vii, 1), Eusebius, and all the authors, Jewish and Christian, who have followed them, the city of Jebus, or Sion-the City of David-stood there. This view, however, is contested by certain modern Palestinologists, who would locate Sion upon the northern declivity of the second of these hills, Mount Moria (II Par., iii, 1), where stood the Temple of Jehovah. (a) Mount Sion is bounded on the west by a valley which begins near the old pool called Birket Mamilla (see below, under D), about 1000 feet to the northwest of the hill itself. This valley, following a southeasterly direction as far as the Jaffa Gate, the ancient gate of the gardens (Gennath) (Bell. Jud., V, iv, 2), then turns to the south and forms a great reservoir of water called the Birket es Sultan, by means of a massive dam, which was rebuilt in the twelfth and the sixteenth centuries. This is the Fountain of the Dragon (tannin) which Nehemias came to when he went out of the city by the western gate (D.V., "dragon fountain ", II Esd., ii, 13). Josephus calls it the Pool of the Serpent (Bell. Jud., V, iii, 2); the Hebrew word tannin simplifies both "dragon" and "serpent". This valley is called by the natives Wadi Rababi; in the Bible it goes by the name of Ge Hinnom, or Ge Ben Hinnom, "Valley of Ennom" (in A.V., Hinnom) or "of the son of Ennom"-an unknown personage (Jos., xv, 8; xviii, 16; II Esd., xi, 30; Jer., xix, 2). Below the Birket es Sultan, it turns to the east, passes below Halcedama (q.v.), and connects with the Valley of Cedron. At the junction of the two valleys are the rich plantation forming "the king's garden" (or, in D.V., "the king's guard") mentioned in IV Kings, xxv, 4; Jer., xxxix, 4; II Esd., iii, 15. Also at the mouth of the Valley of Hinnom is situated Topheth, the high place where Achaz and Manasses set up the worship of Baal-Moloch (II Par., xxviii, 3; xxxiii, 6). The good King Josias defiled this execrable place, scattering human bones over it (II Par., xxxiv, 3-5), in spite of which Joakim restored there the infamous worship of Moloch. From the unholy fires which were kept burning there for nearly a century and a half-those fires through which the apostate Jews caused their children to pass, in order to consecrate, or immolate, them to Moloch-Ge Hinnom (in Aramaic, Gehenanm) received the name of Geenna tou pyros, "Gehenna of the Fire", and became the emblem of hell (in Greek text, Matt., v, 22, 29, 30; Mark, ix, 43, 45). The Valley of Cedron, from Hinnom as far as the Dead Sea, is still called Wadi en Nar, "Valley of Fire". On the north, Mount Sion is bounded by a valley, now largely filled in, which goes down in a straight line from the Jaffa Gate eastward to the foot of Mount Moria. On the slope of this valley is a large reservoir called in Arabic Birket Hammam el Batrak, "Pool of the Baths of the Patriarch", and in the itineraries of the pilgrims "Pool of Ezechias". Josephus calls it Amygdalon, a name which, according, to Conder, may with good reason be derived from ham migdalon, "facing the great tower", since the pool faces the Tower of Phasael. This valley, like all those which pass through the city, has no proper name in the Bible; neither has it in Arabic; it is conventionally known as the Transverse Valley. A third valley begins outside the Damascus Gate (Bab el Amoud) and descends southward, with a slight deflection to the east, dividing the city in two; until it joins the Valley of Hinnom. After passing the opening of the Transverse Valley, it forms a gorge of some depth separating Mount Sion from Mount Moria. Its rocky bed has found by the English engineers 69 feet below the actual surface of the ground near the Wailing Place, and 85 feet from the southwest angle of the Temple. It encloses, towards its extremity, the Pool of Siloe, which receives through a subterranean channel the waters of the Virgin's Fountain that flow through the hollow of Cedron. A little farther on, the valley has been dammed with a wall 233 feet in length, which, retaining the whole rainfall of the valley, formed the reservoir called by Nehemias "the king's pool" (in D.V., "the king's aqueduct", II Esd., ii, 14). In Scripture this valley figures under the name of Nahal, "ravine", or "torrent of winter" (II Esd., ii, 15). Josephus in one place designates it "the wide valley" (Bell. Jud., V, iv, 1), and the Arabs call it simply El Wad, "the valley". In works on the Holy Land it also bears the designation of "the central valley ". Surrounded on all sides by these deep ravines, Mount Sion presents a quadrilateral surface measuring about 2600 feet from north to south and 2000 feet from east to west. It is the largest of the hills of Jerusalem, the highest, and the only one completely isolated. Its highest point reaches an altitude of 2558 feet, and rises 531 feet above its base at the southeastern angle. Its surface is considerably varied, being, indeed, divided by a small depression which branches off from the middle of the Transverse Valley and descends obliquely to the Pool of Siloe. Mount Sion thus consists of two lofty connected plateaux, one (the lower) stretching westward, the other (the shorter) to the northwest. The former is fairly uniform and measures 2300 feet in length from north to south, and 920 feet in breadth. After sinking about 100 feet towards the northwest, the ground rises about 20 feet and forms a rounded eminence opposite to the Temple, terminating in a precipice 195 feet above the former bed of EI Wad. (b) Mount Moria, or the Eastern Hill, is a narrow promontory connected with Mount Bezetha, the highest point of which is the Hill of Jeremias, with an altitude of 2556 feet. This tongue of land terminates on the south in a point near the Pool of Siloe; El Wad encloses it on its western side, and the Valley of Cedron on its eastern. Upon its highest crest (2443 feet) was the domain of Ornan (Areuna), the Jebusite, where Solomon built the Temple and his palaces. This is the summit called Moria; south of the royal quarter, the hill (2300 to 2050 feet) bears the name of Ophel (II Par., xxvii. 3). Cedron, which, since the third century after Christ, has also been called the Valley of Josaphat begins near the so-called Tombs of the Judges, and descends, under the name of Wadi ed Djoz (Valley of Walnuts), southeast to the foot of Scopus, thence south, becoming a deep gorge separating Mount Moria from the Mount of Olives and the Mount of Offence. At a point 1300 feet beyond the northeast angle of the city, it is crossed by a bridge which has replaced one of the Jewish period. This older Jewish bridge gave access, on the right, to a staircase cut in the rock and leading up to the north side of the Temple, and, on the left, to a similar staircase leading up to the Mount of Olives. To the left of the bridge is the Garden of Gethsemani (see GETHSEMANE), with the Tomb of the Blessed Virgin, from which the Arabs call this part of Cedron Wadi sitti Mariam, or "Valley of the Lady Mary". Next come, on the same side, two fine monuments of the Graeco-Roman-Judaic style (second to first century B.C.) excavated in the rock. The first of these has been called, since the fourth century after Christ, the Tomb of Absalom; the second, the Tomb of the Prophet Zacharias. Between the two is a grandiose Jewish tomb of the same period, belonging to the family of Beni Hezir. A little farther on, upon the side of the Mount of Offence, is to be seen a rock-hewn tomb of Egyptian architecture. Upon the same slope is perched the village of Silwan, the houses built against long rows of sepulchres, most of them cut in a vast bank of calcareous rock, popularly known as Ez Zehwele. Opposite, at the foot of Ophel, a flight of thirty-two steps descends to a grotto, in which is a spring of slightly brackish water. This spring presents the phenomenon of a natural (subterranean) syphon producing an intermittent flow; only at intervals-from three to six times a day-does the water rush down, with a strange humming noise, from a cleft in the rock. The water of this spring is conveyed to the Pool of Siloe by a winding tunnel. The Arabs call the fountain Ain Sitti Mariam, in honour of the Blessed Virgin, and also Ain Oumm Daradj, "Fountain of the Mother of the Stairs"; its Biblical name is, according to some, En Rogel; according to others, the Upper Gihon (see below, under D). Cedron now begins to widen, and is covered with rich gardens, the "king's gardens" mentioned in the Bible. It receives the Hinnom, together with EI Wad and the little valley which descends obliquely from Mount Sion. Its descent in a course of about two and a half miles is 550 feet, but in the latter half of this distance it is encumbered with fifteen to fifty feet of rubbish. To the north of Mount Moria one more valley begins outside the Gate of Herod (Bab Zahira), passes to the south-southeast, under the northeastern angle of the platform of the Temple, and ends at the bridge of Cedron. The numerous pools in this depression, near St. Anne's church, the traditional birthplace of the Blessed Virgin, have been excavated. Here should be located the Probatic Pool, or Pool of Bethsaida (A.V. Bethesda), with the five porches (John, v, 2). The locality of the Birket Israil, a reservoir 359 feet long by 126 feet wide, has also been determined, to the north, against the outer wall of the Temple. (c) Mount Gareb (in D.V., "the hill Gareb"-Jer., xxxi, 39) stretches between the Transverse Valley, on the south, and the upper course of El Wad, on the east. It rises somewhat abruptly towards the northwest but offers no particularly prominent height except the rock of Calvary (2518 feet). In A.D. 70, Gareb was still covered, outside the walls, with gardens watered by springs (Bell. Jud., V, ii, 2). There is still discussion as to whether Sion, the City of David, occupied the traditional Mount Sion or Ophel; but all admit that before the reign of Ezechias (727 B.C.) the city of Jerusalem extended over both hills, within the limits of "the first walls." III. HISTORY The history of Jerusalem is to a certain degree indistinguishable from that of Israel. It will suffice here to call attention to the most memorable occurrences in the city. A. From its Origin to its Conquest by David As seen above, Jerusalem is the ancient Salem, the capital of Melchisedech, king and priest of the Most High. Learning of the return of Abraham (then called Abram), who had been victorious over Chodorlahomor and his allies, Melchisedech came before the patriarch (Heb., vii, 1)" in the vale of Save, which is the king's vale" (Gen., xiv, 17). The king's vale is the Valley of Cedron, which begins to the north of the city (II Kings, xviii, 18; Antiq. Jud., I, x, 2.-Cf. IV Kings, xxv, 4; Jer., xxxix, 4). Like all the land of Chanaan, Jerusalem had been for many centuries in subjection to Chaldea; after Abraham's time it passed under the domination of Egypt. About the year 1400, while Israel was dreaming of liberation from the Egyptian yoke, certain Cossean peoples, called Khabiri, invaded Palestine, probably at the instigation of the Chaldeans or the Hethites, and took possession of the strongholds. Abd Hiba, king of U-ru-sa-lim, seeing his capital menaced, dispatched six letters in succession to his suzerain, Amenophis III, imploring succour. But in vain; Egypt herself was then undergoing a crisis. It was probably at this period that Jerusalem fell into the power of the Jebusites, who called it Jebus. When the Hebrews came into the Land of Promise, the King of Jebus was Adonisedec (Lord of Justice)--a name which, both in form and sense, recalls Melchisedech (King of Justice). Although Adonisedec perished in the coalition of the five kings of Chanaan against Isra el (Jos., x, 26; xii, 10), Jerusalem, thanks to its strong position, long maintained its independence. In the distribution of the land among the children of Israel, it was assigned to the descendents of Benjamin. The boundary between this tribe and that of Juda run from En Schems, on the Jericho road, to En Rogel, in the Valley of Cedron, then, following "the valley of the son of Ennom" (Jos., xv, 7, 8) or "of the children of Ennom" (Jos., xviii, 15, 16) of the Judges, Juda and Benjamin had tried to gain possession of it, but in vain, although they put its inhabitants to the sword and gave the city to the flames (Judges, i, 8); the city here spoken of is, as Josephus remarks (Antiq. Jud., v, ii, 2), only the lower city or suburbs. Jerusalem remained (Judges, xix, l2) independent of Israel until the reign of David. B. From David to the Babylonian Captivity Having become king over the Twelve Tribes of Israel, David contemplated making Jerusalem the political and religious centre of God's people. He assembled all the forces of the nation at Hebron, and advanced against Jebus. After long and painful efforts, "David took the castle of Sion" and "dwelt in the castle, and called it, the city of David: and built round about from Mello and inwards" (II Kings, v, 7, 9). This was about the year lO58 B.C. The king then caused cedar wood to be brought from Lebanon, and workmen from Tyre, to build him a palace. Soon after, the Ark of the Covenant was solemnly brought into the city of David and placed in a tabernacle. The king one day beheld the destroying angel soaring above Mount Moria, ready to strike the Holy City. The Lord stayed his arm, and David, in thanksgiving, bought the threshing-floor which was upon the summit of the hill, the property of Areuna (A.V. Araunah), or Ornan, the Jebusite, and there built an altar, upon which he offered holocausts (II Kings, xxiv; I Par., xxi). Thenceforward Mount Moria was destined to receive the temple of the Most High. David prepared the material and left the execution of the project to his son. In the fourth year of his reign, Solomon began the building of the Temple, under the direction of artificers sent by Hiram. King of Tyre. Hiram also supplied cedar wood and cypress wood; 70,000 men were employed in transporting wood from Joppe (Jaffa) to Jerusalem and 80,000 more in quarrying stone in the neighbourhood and shaping it. The splendid monument was completed, as to its essential details, in seven years and a half, and with great pomp the Ark of the Covenant was brought from the City of David to the new sanctuary (II Kings, vi). The buildings were erected upon a great platform, constructed by means of immense containing walls. To the west rose the Holy of Holies, surrounded by a series of chambers in several tiers, in front of which, to the east, was a monumental facade, or pylon, formed by two lofty connected towers. Opposite to this entrance rose two great columns of bronze, like obelisks. Towards the east was the great court of the priests, square, surrounded with porches, and enclosing the altar of holocausts, the "sea of brass", and other utensils for sacrifices. This court was surrounded by others which were also enriched with galleries and superb buildings (see TEMPLE OF JERUSALEM). Solomon next devoted thirteen years to erecting, south of the Temple, "the house of the Forest of Lebanon", his royal palace, with that of his queen, Pharaoh's daughter, as well as the buildings destined for his numerous family, for his guard, and for his slaves. He then connected the Temple and the new royal quarter with the City of David by a wall of enclosure, fortified the Millo (in D.V., Mello--III Kings, ix, 15), and "filled up the gulf of the City of David" (III Kings, xi, 27). The people began to murmur under taxation and forced labour. Insurrection broke out when the proud Roboam, son of Solomon, began his reign (981-65). Ten tribes revolted from him to form the Kingdom of the North, or of Israel, and Jerusalem ceased to be anything more than the capital of the tribes of Benjamin and Juda. At the invitation of Jeroboam, who was elected sovereign of the new kingdom, Sesac (Seshonq, in Juda (976), took Jerusalem, and plundered the immense treasures of the Temple and the royal palace (III Kings, xiv, 25, 26). Asa (961-21) and Josaphat (920-894) enriched the Temple after their numerous victories over the neighbouring peoples. Under Joram (893-888) the Philistines, in alliance with the Arabs of the South, in their turn pillaged the Temple and slew or carried off all the sons of the king except the youngest, Ochozias, or Joachaz, the child of Athalia (II Par., xxi, 16, 17). On his murder, Athalia had her grandsons put to death, and seized the power. Joas alone, a child of one year, was saved from the massacre by the High-Priest Joiada and secretly reared in the Temple. At the age of six he was proclaimed king by the people, and Athalia was stoned to death. Joas (886-41) restored the Temple and abolished the worship of Baal; but later on, he allowed himself to be perverted, and caused the Prophet Zacharias, the son of Joiada, his preserver, to be put to death. He himself perished by the hands of his servants (IV Kings, xii; II Par., xxii). Under Amasias the Israelites of the North vanquished those of the South. attacked Jerusalem, and "broke down the wall of Jerusalem from the gate of Ephraim to the gate of the corner, four hundred cubits". The treasures of the Temple and of the royal palace were carried away to Samaria (IV Kings, xiv, 13, 14). Ozias, or Azarias (811-760), repaired the breech and fortified the wall with strong towers (II Par., xxvi, 9). His son Joatham (759-44), a wise and good king, strengthened the city by building "the high gate of the house of the Lord, and on the wall of Ophel he worked much"--south of the royal quarter (II Par., xxvii, 3; IV Kings, xv, 35). While the Kings of Syria and Israel were marching against Jerusalem, God sent the Prophet Isaias to King Achaz (743-27), who was at "the conduit of the upper pool". There the Prophet foretold to him the repulse of the enemy and at the same time announced to him that the Messias Emmanuel, should be born of a virgin (Is., vii, 3-14). Achaz used the wealth of the Temple to pay tribute to Theglathphalasar, King of Assyria, whose protection he had sought against the Kings of Israel and Syria; he was impious enough to substitute the worship of Baal-Moloch for that of Jehovah. Ezechias (727-696) hastened to abolish the worship of idols. Alarmed by the fall of the Kingdom of Israel (721), he erected a second wall to protect the suburbs which had come into existence to the north of Mount Sion and the Temple. He made an alliance with Egypt and with Merodach Baladan, King of Babylon, and refused to pay tribute to Assyria. Upon this, Sennacherib, King of Nineve, who was at war with Egypt, invaded Palestine from the south, and sent his chief officers from Lachis to Jerusalem, with a numerous army, to summon the king to surrender at discretion. But, upon the advice of Isaias, the king refused to surrender. To cut off the enemy's water, he dammed the spring of the Upper Gihon and brought the stream to the west of the City of David (II Par., xxxii, 3, 4, and 30). An Assyrian tablet (Taylor's Prism, col. 3) reports that Sennacherib, after vanquishing the Egyptians at Altaka and taking forty-six cities of Judea, shut up Ezechias in Jerusalem "like a bird in a cage" (Cuneiform Inscriptions of W. Asia, I, PI. 39). This agrees with the Bible narrative; just as he was about to assault Jerusalem, Sennacherib waa informed that Tharaca, King of Ethiopia, was advancing against him, and forthwith, leaving the Holy City, he set out for Egypt; but his army was miraculously destroyed by pestilence (IV Kings, xviii, 13; xix, 35-37; II Par., xxxii. 9-22; Is., xxxvi and xxxvii). Sennacherib organized another army at Nineve and vanquished Merodach Baladan of Babylon, Ezechias's suzerain. Thus it was that, according to the Assyrian inscriptions, Manasses, son of Ezechias (695-45) found himself a tributary of Assaradon and of Assurbanipal, Kings of Ninive (Prism of Assaradon, op. cit., III, p. 16; G. Smith, "History of Assurbanipal", p. 30). Manasses afterwards tried to shake off the Ninivite yoke. In 666 Assurbanipal's generals came to Jerusalem, put the king in chains, and carried him to Babylon, which was in vassalage to Ninive (II Par., xxxiii, (9-11). Manasses, however, soon obtained his liberty and returned to Jerusalem, where he repaired the evils he had caused. He also restored the city walls built by his father (II Par., xxxiii, 12-16). Amon, one of the worst kings of Juda, was assassinated after a reign of two years. Josias, his son (641-08), guided by the Prophet Jeremias, destroyed the idolatrous altars and restored the Temple (621). Upon this occasion the High Priest Helcias found in a hall of the sanctuary an old copy of the Law of Jehovah given by Moses (IV Kings, xxii, 8-14; II Par., xxxiv, 14-21). ln 608 the Pharaoh, Nechao II, marched against Assyria. Actuated by a scruple of conscience, the good king attempted to bar the way against his suzerain's adversary, and met his death at the battle of Mageddo (IV Kings, xxiii, 29, 30). Joachas, or Sellum, his successor, after reigning three months, was deposed by Nechao, and sent as a captive to Egypt, while Eliacim, to whom the conqueror gave the name of Jehoiakim (D.V. Joakim), was put in his place (607-600). In 601 Nabuchodonosor (Nebuchadnezzar) entered Judea to consolidate his father's power. He carried away as captives to Babylon certain notables of Jerusalem, together with the young Prophet Daniel. Joakim revolted against the Babylonian yoke, but his son Joachin (Jehoiachin), surrendered to Nabuchodonosor. The city was given over to pillage and 10,000 inhabitants, including the king, were carried off to Babylon (IV Kings, xxiiv, 1-16; cf. also II Par., xxxvi, 1-10). Sedecias, third son of Josias, succeeded his nephew (596-587). Urged by the Egyptian party, he, too, rebelled against his suzerain. Nabuchodonosor returned to Syria and sent his general, Nabuzardan, against Jerusalem with a formidable army. The city surrendered after a siege of more than eighteen months. The Temple, the royal palaces, and other principal buildings were given to the flames, and the city was dismantled. The sacred vessels, with everything else of value, were carried away to Babylon; the Ark of the Covenant alone could be hidden by the Jews. Sedecias, who, at the last moment, had fled with his army by the southern gate, was overtaken in the plain of Jordan, and his eyes were put out. The high priest, the chief military officers, and the notables of the land were massacred, and the remainder of the inhabitants were transported to Babylon with their blind king. Only husbandmen and the poor were left in the country, with a Jewish governor named Godolias (Gedaliah), who took up his residence at Maspha (IV Kings, xxiv, 18-20; xxv; II Par., xxxvi, 11-21). C. From the Return out of Captivity to the Roman Domination In 536 B.C. Cyrus, King of Persia, authorized the Jews to return to Palestine and rebuild the Temple of the Lord (I Esd., i, 1-4). The first convoy, consisting of 42,000 Jews, was dispatched under the leadership of Zorobabel, a prince of Juda. They hastened to restore the altar of holocausts, and in the second year the foundations were laid for another temple, which, however, owing to the difficulties raised by the Samaritans and other neighbouring peoples, was not completed until the sixth year of the reign of Darius (514). The old men could not restrain their tears when they saw the unpretentious character of the new building. In 458, under Artaxerxes I, Esdras came to Jerusalem with 1500 Jews as governor of Judea and completed the political and religious restoration of Israel. Thirteen years later Nehemias, with the authorization of Artaxerxes, completely restored the Holy City. By the victory of Issus and the capture of Tyre, Alexander the Great, King of Macedon, became master of Western Asia. In 332 he marched against Jerusalem, which had remained faithful to Darius III. The High-Priest Jaddus, believing that resistance would be useless, went out to meet the great conqueror, and induced him to spare the Jews (Antiq. Jud., XI, viii, 3-6). After Alexander, Jerusalem suffered much from the long struggle between the Seleucids of Syria and the Ptolemies of Egypt. Palestine fell to Seleucus Nicanor; but in 305 Ptolemy Soter gained entrance into Jerusalem on a Sabbath Day by stratagem, and carried away a number of Jews to Egypt (Antiq. Jud., XII, i, 1). A century later (203) Antiochus the Great again tore the Holy City from the grasp of Egypt. When, in 199, it fell once more into the power of Scopas, a general of Ptolemy Epiphanes, the Jews helped the troops of Antiochus, who had just defeated Scopas's army, to definitively drive the Egyptian garrison out of the citadel of Jerusalem (Antiq. Jud., XII, iii, 3). The Seleucids conceived the unfortunate idea of introducing hellenistic-that is, pagan-notions and manners among the Jewish people, especially the sacerdotal and civil aristocracy. The high-priesthood had become a venal office; Jason was supplanted by Menelaus, and Menelaus by Lysimachus. These unworthy priests at last took up arms against each other, and blood flowed freely on several occasions in the streets of Jerusalem (II Mach., iv). Under pretence of stifling these turmoils, Antiochus Epiphanes in 170 entered the Holy City, stormed the fortifications of the Temple, plundered it of its most sacred vessels, massacred 40,000 persons, and carried off as many more into bondage (I Mach., i, 17-25; II Mach., v, 11-23). Two years later he sent his general Apollonius to suppress the Jewish religion by force and replace it at Jerusalem with Greek paganism. The city was dismantled, and the Acra, the citadel which commanded the Temple and served as a garrison for the Syrians and an asylum for renegade Jews, was reinforced. The statue of the Olympian Jupiter was set up in the Temple of the Most High, while a cruel and bloody persecution everywhere broke out against those Jews who were faithful to their traditions (I Mach., i, 30-64; II Mach,, v, 25, 26; vi, 1-11). The priest Mathathias of Hasmon and his five sons known as the Machabees, organized an heroic resistance. Judas, succeeding on the death of his father (166), gained four victories over the Syrian armies, occupied Jerusalem (164), purified the Temple, strengthened the fortifications, and erected a new altar of holocausts. He also repaired the walls of the city. but could not gain possession of the citadel (Acra) which was held by a Syrian garrison. After various repulses and victories he made an alliance with the Roman Empire (I Mach., viii). Jonathas succeeded and maintained the struggle with no less heroism and success. He built a wall between the upper city and the Acra, as a barrier against the Syrians. Simon took the place of his brother when Jonathas fell by treachery (142). Three years later, he drove out the Syrian garrison of Acra, razed the fortress, and even levelled the hill on which it had stood-a gigantic undertaking which occupied the entire population for three years (Antiq. Jud., XVIII, vi, 6; Bell. Jud., V, iv, 1). Demetrius II and after him Antiochus Sidetes finally recognized the independence of the Jewish people. Simon, with two of his sons, was assassinated by his son-in-law, and his third son, John Hyrcanus I (135-06), succeeded him on the throne. Antiochus Sidetes, with a formidable army, came to besiege Jerusalem, but consented to withdraw for a ransom of 500 talents, and Hyrcanus took that sum from the treasures of the royal sepulchre (Antiq. Jud., XIII, viii, 24; Bell. Jud., I, ii, 5). Hyrcanus I was succeeded by his son Aristobulus I, who combined the title of pontiff with that of king, reigning however only one year. His brother and successor, Alexander Jannaeus (105-78), considerably enlarged the boundaries of the kingdom by his many brilliant victories. Upon his death Alexandra, his widow, took the reins of government into her hands for nine years, after which she entrusted the high-priesthood and the kingship to her son Hyrcanus II (69), but his brother Aristobulus took up arms to dispute the possession of the throne. By virtue of the alliance with Rome which Simon had entered into, Pompey, the Roman general, came from Damascus to Jerusalem, in 65 B.C., to put an end to the civil war. The partisans of Hyrcanus opened the gates of the city to the Romans, but those of Aristobulus entrenched themselves within the fortifications of the Temple, and could not be dislodged until after a siege of three months. Their resistance was at last overcome on a Sabbath Day; as many as 12,000 Jews were massacred, and Aristobulus was driven into exile. Pompey restored Hyrcanus to the high-priesthood, with the title of ethnarch, and declared Jerusalem a tributary of Rome (Antiq. Jud., XIV, iv, 1-4; Bell. Jud., I, vii, 1). D. Under the Roman Domination; until A.D. 70 Caesar authorized Hyrcanus to rebuild the walls that had been demolished by Pompey; but in 48 B.C. he appointed Antipater, the Idumean, governor of Palestine, and the latter, four years afterwards, obtained the appointment of his eldest son, Phasael, as prefect of Jerusalem, and of his youngest son, Herod, as governor of Galilee. When Antipater died (43), Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus II, seized the throne, sent Hyrcanus II into exile among his allies, the Parthians and imprisoned Phasael, who killed himself in despair (Antiq. Jud., XIV, xiii, 5-10; Bell. Jud., I, xiii, 1-10). Herod fled to Rome, where the Senate proclaimed him King of the Jews (40). But it was three years before he wrested Jerusalem from Antigonus, and only after bringing conflagration and bloodshed upon the city. Antigonus, the last of the Hasmonean dynasty, was condemned to death (Antiq. Jud., XIV, xiv, 4; xvi, 1; Bell. Jud., I, xiv, 4; XVIII) In 24 B.C., Herod the Great built himself a splendid castle upon the site of the Tower of Baris, or of Birah (II Esd., ii, 8), named it Antonia, in honour of Mark Antony, and took up his residence there (Bell. Jud., V, v, 8; Antiq. Jud., XV, xi, 5). He also built a theatre and an amphitheatre for gladiatorial combats. In 19 B.C. the king, whose origin as well as his cruelty rendered him odious to the Jews, thought to win their goodwill by reconstructing tbe Temple of Zorobabel, little by little, until it should be as splendid as that of Solomon. He also enlarged the sanctuary by extending the galleries to the fortress of Antonia, on the north, and connecting it, on the south, with the site of Solomon's palace, so as to erect there a superb stoa, or basilica. The opening of the new Temple took place in the year 10 B.C. (Antiq. Jud., XV, xi, 3-6), but thousands of workmen laboured at it until A.D. 64 (Antiq. Jud., XX, ix, 7). He built a second strong castle at the northwest angle of Mount Sion, and flanked it with three superb towers--Hippicus, Phasael, and Mariamne. He also opened the tomb of the kings of Juda, in quest of treasure, after which, to allay the popular indignation aroused by his sacrilege, he erected a monument of white marble at the entrance of the tomb (Anti. Jud., VII., xv, 3; XVI, vii, 1) Herod was nearing the end of his reign of nearly forty-one years when Jesus, the Divine Saviour, was born at Bethlehem. A few months after the visit of the three Wise Men of the East, and the massacre of the Innocents he died of a hideous malady, hated by all his people (4 B.C.). Archelaus, his son, took the title of king, but in the course of the same year Rome left him with only the title of Ethnarch of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea. Ten years later, he was deposed, and Judea was reduced to the status of a Roman province. Coponius, Marcus Ambivius, Annius Rufus, Valerius Gratus (A.D. 14) and Pontius Pilate (26) were successively appointed procurators of the country. Pilate occasioned several seditions, which he stifled with extreme brutality. Under the administration of Pontius Pilate, Jesus Christ was arrested and put to death. The Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension of the Divine Saviour have rendered Jerusalem -- which was already glorious -- the most celebrated city in all the world. The enthusiasm with which, after the Day of Pentecost, thousands of Jews declared themselves disciples of Jesus Christ provoked a violent persecution of Christians, in which the deacon Stephen was the first martyr (Acts, vi, 8-15). Pontius Pilate having one day seized the funds of the Corban to pay for the construction of an aqueduct, a violent uprising of the Jews was thus occasioned (35). Summoned to Rome to give an account of his conduct, he was banished by Caligula (Antiq. Jud., XVIII, iii, 2). Two years later, the emperor made Herod Agrippa I, grandson of Herod, tetrarch of the countries beyond Jordan; in 41 Claudius made him king of Judea. Agrippa undertook the construction of the third wall, to the north of the city (Antiq. Jud., XIX, vii, 2; Bell. Jud., V, iv, 2). To please the Jews, he caused St. James the Greater to be beheaded, and intended the same lot for St. Peter, when an angel came and delivered the Prince of the Apostles from his chains (Acts, xii, 1-19). Soon afterwards, early in 44, the king died miserably at Caesarea (Acts, xii, 23; Antiq. Jud., XIX, viii, 2). At this epoch there came to Jerusalem Saddan, who was called among the Greeks Helen, Queen of Adiabene, a country situated on the Adiabas, which is an eastern tributary of the Tigris. Converted to Judaism, together with her numerous family, she comforted the poor with her bounty during a terrible famine (cf. Acts, xi, 28). It was she who caused to be excavated, for herself and her family, to the north of the city, the imposing sepulchre known as the Tomb of the Kings (Antiq. Jud., XX, ii, 6; iv, 3). At this time the Blessed Virgin died, and was buried at Gethsemani. St. Peter returned from Antioch to preside at the First Ecumenical Council (Acts, xv, 1-3). (See JUDAIZERS, sub-title Council of Jerusalem.) The King of Judea was replaced by a procurator, and Agrippa II, son of the preceding Agrippa, was made Prince of Chalcis and Perea, and charged with the care of the Temple of Jerusalem (Antiq. Jud., XX, ix, 7). He finished the third wall, which had been commenced by his father, and brought the work upon the sanctuary to a termination in A.D. 64. Cuspius Fadus, Tiberius Alexander, and Cumanus were successively procurators, from 44 to 52. Then came Felix, Festus, and Albinus, from 52 to 66. With the last four, disorders and massacres occurred incessantly. Gessius Florus (66) surpassed the wickedness of his predecessors, and drove the people to revolt against the Roman domination; Agrippa and his party advocated patience, and appealed to Rome against the procurator; but after several days of civil war, the insurgent party triumphed over the pacific, massacred the Roman garrison, and set fire to the palaces. Cestius Gallus, President of Syria, arrived on 30 October, 66, with the Twelfth Legion, but only met with repulses, and had to retire (Antiq. Jud., XX, xxi; Bell. Jud., II, xvii, 6; xix, 1-9). The Christians, recalling Christ's prophecies (Luke, xix, 43, 44), withdrew beyond the Jordan into Agrippa's territory, led by their bishop, St. Simeon (St. Epiphanius, "De mensuris", xiv, xv). Nero commanded his general, Vespasian, to suppress the insurrection, and Vespasian, accompanied by his son Titus, invaded Galilee, in A.D. 67, with an army of 60,000 men. Most of the strong places had been captured, when the death of the emperor occasioned a suspension of hostilities. After the ephemeral reigns of three emperors, aggregating eighteen months, Vespasian was raised to the throne in November, 69. Titus received from his father the command of the Army of the East, and in the following year, at the season when the Holy City was crowded with those who had come to the Feast of the Passover, he began to lay siege to it. On the 14th day of Kanthic (Bell. Jud., V, xiii, 7), or of the Hebrew month Abib--the day of the Passover, corresponding to 31 March-Titus took up his position on Mount Scopus with the Fifth, Seventh, and Fifteenth Legions, while the Tenth Legion occupied the Mount of Olives. On the other side, John of Giscala held the Temple, the Antonia, and the new town at Bezetha, with 11,000 men, and Simon, the son of Giora, held the upper and lower city, on the southwestern hill, with 10,000 men. Attacking the third wall, on 9 April, the legions captured that line of defences after fifteen days' fighting. Once master of the new town, Titus took up a position to the west, on the ground known as "the Camp of the Assyrians" (Bell. Jud., V, vii, 2). An attack upon the second wall immediately followed. Five days later, the Romans gained entrance by a breach, but were repulsed, and mastered it only after five days of fierce and incessant fighting. Titus could then approach the Antonia, which offered the only way of access to the Temple, and the citadel of Herod, which covered the first wall to the north of Mount Sion. After three days given to repose, the causeways and movable towers were made ready against the Hippicus tower and the Antonia. But on 17 May the works raised against the Antonia were ruined and destroyed by the soldiers of John of Giscala, and two days later the movable towers which threatened the Hippicus were set on fire by Simon's men, while a heroic struggle was being maintained on both sides. The Roman general then employed his whole army for three days in surrounding the city with an earthwork of circumvallation, designed to cut off all communication with the city, and so to reduce the place by famine. This soon produced terrible results (Bell. Jud., XII, v, 2). After three weeks of fresh preparations, the battering-rams effected a breach in the wall connecting the Antonia with the Temple, near the Pool of Struthius, but in vain. Two days later, the wall crumbled to pieces above a mine prepared by John of Giscala, and a handful of Roman soldiers gained entrance to the Antonia by surprise, at three o'clock in the morning of 20 June (Bell. Jud., VI, i, 1-7). Titus at once had the fortress demolished, in order to use the materials in constructing mounds against the Temple. For three weeks the Jews desperately defended first the outer porticoes and then the inner, which the Romans entered only at the cost of enormous sacrifices. At last on 23 July, a Roman soldier flung a blazing torch into one of the halls adjoining the Holy of Holies. In the midst of frightful carnage the fire spread to the neighbouring buildings, and soon the whole platform was one horrible mass of corpses and ruins (Bell. Jud., VI, ii, 1-9; iii, 1, 2; iv, 1-5). The Romans then set fire to the palace in the hollow of El Wad, and to the Ophel; next day they drove the Jews out of the Acra and burned the lower city as far as the Pool of Siloe (Bell. Jud., VI, vi, 3-4). There still remained the third rampart, the formidable stronghold of the upper city, where the defenders of the Acra, laden with booty, had joined Simon's men. Eighteen days were devoted to the preparation of the aggeres (mounds) to the northwest and northeast of the fortress, but scarcely had the battering-rams breached the walls when John and Simon fled secretly with their troops. On the eighth day of Elul (1 August) the city was definitively in the power of the Romans, after a siege of 143 days. To those who congratulated him Titus replied: "It is not I who have conquered. God, in His wrath against the Jews, has made use of my arm" (Bell. Jud., VIII, v, 2). The walls of the Temple and those of the city were demolished. But Titus wished to preserve the fortress of the upper city, with the three magnificent towers of Herod's palace. Besides, the upper city was needed as a fortified station for the Tenth Legion, which was left to garrison Jerusalem. During this siege -- one of the most sanguinary recorded in history -- 600,000 Jews, according to Tacitus (Hist., V, xiii), or, according to Josephus, more than a million, perished by the sword, disease, or famine. The survivors died in gladiatorial combats or were sold into slavery. IV. DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY AND ITS CHIEF MONUMENTS A. Sion, or the City of David, according to Tradition "David took the castle of Sion" and "dwelt in the castle, and called it, the city of David: and built round about from Mello and inwards" (II Kings, v, 7, 9). When Solomon had completed the Temple and the House of the Forest of Lebanon, 100 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high, with a porch 30 cubits by 50, he erected the palaces and other buildings. Lower down, towards the south, in the locality which figures in the post-Exilic texts as the Ophel, we find the Gabaonites (Jos., ix, 22) and other Nathinites -foreign races placed at the service of the Levites to furnish wood and water for the sacrifices (I Esd., ii, 58; vii, 2f; viii, 20; II Esd., iii, 26; xi, 21). Did Sion, the City of David, occupy the eastern hill or that situated to the southwest? Before the exile, the Jews could not have been ignorant of the location, for the boundary wall of Sion enclosed the sepulchres of the prophet-king and fourteen of his successors; the last two Books of Kings repeat this thirteen times (III Kings, ii, 10; xi, 43; xiv, 9, 24, etc.; IV Kings, viii, 24, etc.), and Paralipomenon bears similar witness. On their return from exile, the old men (I Esd., iii, 12) must have remembered in what quarter of the city the burial-places of David and his descendants were situated; in point of fact, Nehemias does not hesitate to use them as a landmark (II Esd., iii, 16). Hyrcanus I and Herod the Great even opened these tombs of the kings to find treasure in them (Antiq. Jud., VII, xv, 3; XIII, vii, 4; Bell. Jud., 1, ii, 5). The white marble monument erected by the latter seems to have remained standing until A.D. 133 (Dion Cassius, "Hist. of Rome", LXIX, iv). At any rate the tomb of David was well known among the Jews and the disciples of Christ in the time of St. Peter (Acts, ii, 29). Now Josephus, an eyewitness, says that the Jebusite city, which became the City of David, occupied the high western plateau of the southwestern hill, which is now known as Mount Sion. In his time it was called "the upper city" (Antiq. Jud., XVI, vii, 1, etc.), and again the upper agora, or market (Bell. Jud., V, iv, 1. Cf. I Mach., xii, 36; xiv, 36). The word Millo (in D.V. Mello) is always translated Acra in the Septuagint and Josephus, and, according to the latter, the Millo, or Mello, occupied the high plateau on the northeast side of the same hill, and was in his time called Acra, "lower city" and "lower market" (Antiq. Jud., XVI, vii, 1; Bell. Jud., V, iv, 1; I Mach., i, 38). It was this hill, commanding the Temple, that was levelled by the Hasmoneans (Antiq.Jud., XIII, vi, 6; Bell. Jud., I, ii, 2). The Talmudists agree with the Jewish historian as to the position of the two markets (Neubauer, "La Geographie du Talmud", p. 138). Eusebius of Caesarea (Onomasticon, s. v. "Golgotha"), St. Jerome (Ep. cviii, "Ad Eustoch."), St. Epiphanius ("De mens.", xiv), and all later writers, Jewish and Christian, locate Sion, the City of David, upon the southwestern hill, which has never borne any other name than that of Mount Sion. B. Sion on Ophel During the last fifty years many writers have rejected tradition and sought information from the Bible alone, giving some twenty different topographical theories. The theory which places Sion upon Ophel is the only one which (apart from certain discrepancies as to the sites of the Mello, the Acra, the palaces of Solomon, etc.) is worth a moment's consideration. The partisans of this theory, base it upon the following passage: "This same Ezechias was he that stopped the source of waters of Gihon, and tied them away underneath toward the west of the city of David " (II Par., xxxii, 30). They maintain that Sion was at Ophel for the following reasons: (a) En Rogel-"the fountain Rogel"-a spring of the Valley of Cedron (Jos., xv, 7; xviii, 16) is the Bir Eyub, or "Well of Job", situated 2300 feet to the south of the Ain Sitti Mariam, or Fountain of the Virgin. (b) In former times, as now, the Fountain of the Virgin was the only spring which flowed in the vicinity of Jerusalem. (c) The Fountain of the Virgin is, therefore, the Upper Gihon of the Bible. (d) Now it was Ezechias who made the tunnel of Siloe. (e) By this passage the king brought the waters of the Fountain of the Virgin to the west of Ophel, that is, of the City of David. (f) The Books of Machabees explicitly state that Sion was on the mountain of the Temple or Moria. The following objections are made: (a) The Bir Eyub, that is to say, the Well of Job, is neither a spring nor a fountain (en or ain), but a well (bir), 125 feet deep, in its present condition, and is supplied only by rain-drainage and infiltration. In the sixth century, Cyril of Scythopolis (Vita S. Sabae, lxii), and then Eutychius of Alexandria (Annals), and Moudjir ed Din ("Hist. de Jerus.", ed. Sauvaire, p. 188) tell us that, after a great drought which lasted five years (509-14), in the twenty-third year of Anastasius, John, Patriarch of Jerusalem, caused a well to be dug to a depth, according to Cyril, of about 255 feet, or according to the Arab historian, of 10 cubits (about 82 feet), but without finding any water. The Bir Eyub, therefore, is no Chanaanean fountain, and the En Rogel must necessarily be the Fountain of the Virgin, the natural peculiarities of which must have made it famous in the country and fitted it to serve as a boundary mark between the tribes of Benjamin and Juda. The grotto of this spring, too, would have afforded a good place of concealment to David's two spies, who hid at En Rogel (II Kings, xvii, 17). (b) In the time of Ezechias there were many springs of running water in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, and the king stopped them all (II Par., xxxii, 2-5). Josephus relates that when Titus was besieging Jerusalem many springs flowed so abundantly that they sufficed, not only to give drinking water to the Romans but to irrigate the gardens (Bell. Jud., V, iv, 2). West of the city the ground was covered with gardens (Bell. Jud., VI, ii, 2; vii, 2) and this is why the western gate bore the name of Gennath, "Gate of the Gardens". Here Titus pitched his camp and here the officers of Sennacherib halted (IV Kings, xviii, 17. Cf, Is., vii, 3). Among the living waters of Jerusalem the Babylonian Talmud commemorates the "Beth Mamila" (Neubauer, op. cit., p. 146), that is, the Birket Mamilla. Cyril of Scythopolis (loc. cit.) relates that in the great five-years' drought "the waters of Siloe and of the Lucillians ceased to flow". Lastly Josephus says that a conduit under the Gate of Gennath brought water to the Tower of Hippicus (Bell. Jud., V, vii, 3). Several fragments of ancient aqueducts have been discovered under the Jaffa Gate and about the Hammana el Batrak, commonly called the Pool of Ezechias. (c) Adonias, the first-born son of David the king, secretly assembled his numerous partisans upon "the stone of Zoheleth, which was near the fountain Rogel", where he offered rams and bulls, and was to have been proclaimed king at the end of the banquet. But David, apprised of the plot by the Prophet Nathan, sent Solomon, with the Prophet and the royal guard to Gihon, there to receive the sacred unction without Adonias's knowledge, and to be proclaimed king to the sound of trumpets (III Kings, i, 5-9, 33-45). On the Bank of the Mount of Offence opposite to the Fountain of the Virgin, is an immense rocky ledge called Ez Zahweile. This has been identified by Clermont-Ganneau with the stone of Zoheleth ("Quart. Stat." 1810, p. 251). Wilson and Warren are of the same opinion (The Recovery of Jerus., p. 305). Conder supports the identification upheld "by the common opinion of the learned" ("Quart. 5tat.", 1884, p. 242, n. 1). If the City of David had been on Ophel, would Adonias have held his treasonable banquet under the windows of the royal palace? Would David have been ignorant of this large and noisy gathering until Nathan's arrival? Would he have sent Solomon into the Valley of Cedron, at the foot of Zoheleth? Would not the partisans of Adonias have heard the sound of trumpets and the shouts of the people before the royal procession had returned to Sion (III Kings, i, 41)? The fact appears to be that, while Adonias had withdrawn to a spot in the Valley of Cedron near En Rogel, Solomon was sent from the opposite side, where was the source of Gihon. (d) There is no document which in any way attributes the construction of the tunnel of Siloe to Ezechias. On the other hand, Isaias, in the reign of Achaz, the father of Ezechias, speaks (viii, 6) of "the waters of Siloe" (a word which means "sent."-John, ix, 7) "that go with silence". The Hebrew inscription found in 1881 on the wall of the tunnel is, according to Sayce ("Fresh Light", London, 1883, p. 116), earlier than Ezechias, and may even date from the time of Solomon. Conder, Maspero, Stade, Renan, and others hold that it antedates the time of Ezechias. (e) There is now no question of the fact that the pool of Siloe was always without the walls of the city (Bell. Jud., V, iv, 2; ix, 4). Now Ezechias brought the waters of Gihon to a cistern within the city (IV Kings, xx, 20; Ecclus., xlviii, 19, fragment of the Hebrew text). Isaias (xxii, 11) says, "You made a ditch between the two walls"-i.e., between the old wall and that of Ezechias, northwest of Mount Sion. The Hebrews never divided the cardinal points of the compass. (f) In the historical books Sion is applied to the city of Jebus, which, with the Mello, became the City of David. But in the poetic books Sion becomes, by metaphor, a synonym for the Temple (Ps. lxxvii, 68), or for Jerusalem (Ps. cxxxii, 3; lxxxvi, 5). Sion sometimes designates the people of Israel (Is., x, 32; Soph., iii, 14), or Judea (Lam., iv, 22), and even the Jewish community in the dispersion (Jer., xxxi, 12; Zach., ii, 7). In the days of the Machabees the City of David, to the west of the Temple, has become the resort of infidels (I Mach., i, 35 sqq.). Symbolically, the name of Sion was transferred to the Temple and its fortress, which had become the only remaining stronghold of Israel's faith. But Ophel was always excluded from this symbolical Sion (Mach., xii, 36, 37). The text of the Bible, studied and interpreted on the spot, indicates the same hill for the locality of the holy Sion, the City of David, as does tradition. Archaeology, too, positively confirms tradition. C. Sion the Upper City The sides of the traditional Mount Sion contain a great many dwelling-places wholly or partly excavated in the rock. These were, according to the common opinion, the houses of the aboriginal inhabitants. While constructing the Gobat School and the Protestant cemetery, in 1874-75, to the south of the western plateau of Sion, Maudslay discovered the line of an ancient fortress. Its base is a scarp cut vertically in the rock, about 600 feet in length, and 40-50 feet in height. To the west and east of this colossal scarp are salients hewn out of the rock, their sides measuring 40-50 feet. These are the rock bases of flanking towers. The first is 20 feet in height, and rests upon a plateau of rock rudely shaped into a talus. Along the scarp runs a ditch, which is also dug out of the living rock, having a depth of from 5 to 10 feet and an average width of 18 feet (Conder, "The Rock Scarp of Zion" in "Quart. Stat." 1875, pp. 81 sq.) In 1894 Bliss took up and continued the work of exploration. From the eastern tower the scarp turns toward the northeast, following the outlines of the high plateau, and the ditch follows uninterruptedly in the same direction. On account of some houses which are grouped about the Holy Cenacle, the exploration has only been carried on to a length of 185 feet. The scarp was once crowned by a wall (some of the stones of which, cut and bevelled, were found in situ), rises to a height of 240 feet above the bed of the Ennom (Hinnom) (see Bliss). This fortress, which was originally isolated, and was constructed with marvellous art, and which was so solid as to defy every attack, occupied the high city indicated by Josephus, "upon much the highest hill, straight along its length, which, by reason of its strong position, had been named by David the citadel" (Bell. Jud., V, iv, 1). It was about 2300 feet in length and 800 in breadth. To the north, where it was protected by valley of no great depth, Herod caused a strong castle to be built, which made the position almost impregnable, even against the Roman legions. Thanks to the dimensions and other indications supplied by Josephus, it is thought that the Tower of Phasael may be recognized in the first courses of masonry of the actual Tower of David, and that of Hippicus in the tower to the northwest of the city citadel; that of Mariamne ought to flank the western wall. On the same side the Gate of the Valley formerly opened (II Par., xxvi, 9; II Esd., ii, 13, 15; iii, 13), and at the northwest angle rose the Tower of the Furnaces (II Esd., iii, 11; xii, 37), which defended the Gate of the Corner before the Herodian structure existed (IV Kings, xiv, 13; II Par., xxv, 23). The high city, which, according to Josephus, was the aristocratic quarter, contained the Cenacle, according to tradition, on the south, next, the palace of Caiaphas, farther on, that of Annas, and, at the southeast angle of Herod's palace, the prison where St. James the Greater was beheaded. From the Tower of Phasael the wall descended, from west to east, upon the southern slope of Mount Sion, and ended at the enclosure of the Temple. An important fragment of this rampart has been discovered to the east of the Tower of David, and, farther on, another piece, 290 feet long, flanked by two towers, the stone facing of which, on the side towards the valley, remains intact to a height of 39 feet (Warren, "Quart. Stat.", 1884, pl. III). This wall was pierced by the ancient Gate of Ephraim (IV Kings, xv, 13; II Par., xxv, 23). According to tradition, St. Peter was cast into prison in the suburb of Ezechias; after being delivered by the Angel, he made his way to the city proper, where he found the iron gate open (Acts, xii; 3-11). As early as the sixth century a church marked the site of the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, fifty paces south of this wall (Acts, xii, 12-17). The southern wall of Mount Sion probably formed part of the wall by which David joined the City of Jebus and the Mello (the Acra of the Septuagint). This hill, according to Josephus, is the lower city, the Akron of the Syrians, which was levelled by the Hasmoneans (Antiq. Jud., XIII, vi, 6). It contained the palace of the Hasmoneans and that of Helen of Adiabene (Bell. Jud., VI, vi, 3). To return to the south of the primitive fortress, a wall of later construction descends from the outer angle, southeast of the eastern tower, towards the pool of Siloe. It is a work of the kings of Juda, if not of Solomon, but, as Bliss has remarked, it has been restored again and again--on the last occasion, by the Empress Eudocia (A.D. 450-60). At a point 130 feet from the beginning of the wall, exploration has brought to light the remains of a gate with three superimposed floorings of successive periods. It opens upon a street under which passes a drain leading to Ennom. This is the Dung Gate (II Esd., ii, 13), which Jeremias (xix, 2) calls the Earthen Gate; Josephus calls it the Gate of Essenians, and indicates its position in the quarter of Bethso (from the Hebrew Bethzoa, "a dunghill") (Bell. Jud., V, iv, 2). Here Mount Sion is crossed by two ancient aqueducts of different heights, which bring water from south of Bethlehem (Bliss, op. cit., pp. 17-82). About 2000 feet from this gate, Guthe, in 1881, and, later, Bliss, have proved the existence of another gate, also containing three floors and protected by a tower. This is the Gate of the Fountain (II Esd., ii, 14; iii, 15; "water gate", xii, 36) and, probably, also "the gate that is between two walls, and leadeth to the king's garden" by which Sedecias escaped (Jer., lii, 7; IV Kings, xxv, 4). Starting from the tower, the wall takes a northwesterly direction and then turns abruptly to the north, leaving the Pool of Siloe outside the city, in accordance with what we are told by Josephus (Bell. Jud., V, iv, 2; ix, 4). To the south of the Pool of Siloe the valley is crossed by a great dam, 233 feet long, a vast rain-water reservoir. The dam is 20 feet thick and is finished off, at about half its height, by a wall 10 feet thick, flanked by seven buttresses of equal strength. In spite, however, of successive reinforcements, it was unequal to resisting the pressure of the water. The Empress Eudocia had a second dam built, fifty feet to the north of the former one. This is "the king's aqueduct" (or pool) of II Esd. ii, 14. Bliss followed the eastern wall of Mount Sion for only 650 feet, that is, as far as 150 feet north of the Pool of Siloe. According to Nehemias (II Esd., iii, 16-19), the wall passed in front of the street of stairs which went down to the sepulchre of David, then by the reservoir which Josephus calls the Pool of Solomon (Bell. Jud., V, iv, 2), and, lastly, by the House of the Heroes--all places as yet unidentified. The wall then formed an angle and then a re-entrant angle (II Esd., iii, 24) but we are ignorant as to the point where it crossed the valley to ascend Ophel. On the eastern flank of Ophel it has ascertained that a small fragment of a wall exists, running from southwest to northeast and, 100 feet farther on, a remarkable hydraulic structure anterior in date to the tunnel of Siloe. The latter is a gallery, hewn in the rock, leading to a wall which goes down to the surface level of the Fountain of the Virgin, whence water could be drawn by means of buckets and ropes (Wilson and Warren, op. cit., pp. 248 sq.). Beyond doubt, "the water gate" and "the tower that stood out" (II Esd., iii, 26; xii, 36) must be located hereabouts. The wall has been found again at a distance of 700 feet in the same direction; it then turns to the north for a length of 70 feet and runs into the southeast angle of the Temple enclosure. At the elbow formed by this wall, there rose a tower, the "great tower that standeth out" (II Esd., iii. 27), intended as a defence for the royal palace. In course of time the kings of Juda prolonged the wall of Ophel so as to protect the eastern enclosure of the Temple. This line was pierced by numerous gates: "the horse gate" (II Par., xxiii, 15; IV Kings, xi, 16; II Esd., iii, 28), discovered in l902, by the English engineers, facing the southeast angle of the Haram, which is called "Solomon's Stables"; the eastern gate (of the Temple), corresponding to "the Golden Gate"; the Mephkad, or "judgment gate" (II Esd., iii, 30) opposite to the Golden Gate; the Prison Gate (D.V. "watch gate") (II Esd., xii, 38); the Gate of Sur (IV Kings, xi, 6); "the gate of the shieldbearers" (D.V.), or "of the guard" (A.V.) (IV Kings xi, 19); the Gate of Benjamin (Jer., xxxvii, l2; xxxviii, 7) are names of different gates which existed previously or protected suburbs that stretched north of the Temple from the time of Ezechias to Herod. Lastly, there is the Sheep Gate (D. V. "flock gate") (II Esd., iii, 1; xii, 38) near the Probatic Pool. Of the ancient Temple nothing is now to be seen but the holy rock and a number of cisterns. The Harami esh Sherif is four-sided, and has right angles on the southwest and northeast. The southern wall measures 922 feet and is pierced by three entrances: the Double Gate, the Triple Gate, and the Single Gate--remarkable works of the type of the Golden Gate and, like it restored in the sixth century of our era. The eastern and the northern walls are each 1042 feet in length; the western l601. The stones are carefully shaped and bevelled, 3 and a half feet in height, the longest of them 20 to 39 feet long, while on the south there is one course, 600 feet long, in which the stones are 7 feet high. At the southwest angle this colossal wall goes down to a depth of 85 feet below the present surface of the soil. Forty feet to the north of this angle may be seen three rows of stones, forming a vault 51 feet in width, called "Robinson's Arch", after the explorer who first recognized in these remains the fragments of a viaduct. The English engineers have as a matter of fact discovered, 54 feet to the west of this fragment of vaulting, and 55 feet below the actual level of the soil, three courses of the corresponding upright supporting wall. At the foot of Mount Sion, 246 feet from Robinson's Arch, more remains have been found of the same viaduct, of which, indeed, Josephus clearly makes mention (Antiq. Jud. XIV, iv, 2; Bell. Jud., I, vii, 2; VI, vi, 2). The supporting wall rests upon a paved foundation, which in its turn is supported by a bed of earth 23 feed in thickness. In this mass of earth, in which no traces of masonry are found, there lie vaulting-stones of from 3 to 3 1/2 feet in height and width, and 7 feet in length--the remains of a much older bridge. Authorities have attributed the first viaduct to Herod and the second to the Kings of Juda, or even to Solomon. At the very bottom of the valley there is a channel cut into the rock and vaulted in the Phoenician manner; this is an aqueduct which was later used as a drain (Wilson and Warren, op. cit., pp. 76-111; Perrot and Chipiez, "Hist. de l'art", II, 168. Cf. III Kings, xi, 27). The second entrance to the Temple, called "Barclay's Gate", opens 180 feet farther north; then, beyond the Wailing Place, comes a third gate called "Wilson's Arch". This is a viaduct arch 42 feet along the axis and 39 feet in span, built of blocks from 6 to 12 feet in length. In the bottom of the valley, round about the viaduct. Wilson has discovered some very ancient habitations and pieces of handiwork which seem to be of Phoenician origin. The viaduct, which is supposed to date from the time of Herod, was reconstructed in the Byzantine period. It both connected the Temple with Mount Sion and served as an aqueduct for the canal that runs from Bethlehem. Near Wilson's Arch there is an ancient vaulted pool, Birket el Bouraq, to which an aqueduct leads down from the citadel. Josephus places the Xystus, the gymnasium constructed by the High Priest Jason, between the two viaducts. Beyond Wilson's Arch the first city wall joined the Temple enclosure (Wilson and Warren, op. cit., pp. 76 sq.). D. The Second Wall "The second wall", says Josephus, "began at the gate that is called Gennath, which belongs to the first city wall. Enclosing only the southern district, it continued as far as the Antonia" (Bell. Jud., V, iv, 2). It is the work of Ezechias and of Manasses. In 1881, in the course of excavations for the foundations of a house, 20 feet to the north of the ditch of the citadel, a wall was brought to light, constructed of large stones, extending east and west to a distance of about 100 feet. At its western extremity it forms a somewhat obtuse angle with a stronger and still better constructed wall which runs north (Selah Merill, "Quart. Stat.", 1886, pp. 21 sq.; 1887, p. 217; I888, p. 21). In 1900 a Greek high school was built 180 feet farther on, and it was found that the rock is almost on a level with the ground to the west, while it forms a counterscarp to the east. In the accumulated fillings of the hollow remains of medieval structures were discovered; but the explorations on this spot were not followed up. Many Palestinologists, however, see here marked indications of a ditch. At the northeast angle of the Greek school, C. Schick ("Quart. Stat.", 1897, p. 219; 1883, p. 19) had already ascertained that the wall turns once more at an angle eastwards. Up to this point the city wall skirts the Pool of Ezechias at a distance of 180 feet to the west and 65 feet to the north. In building the great Greek bazaars south of the Basilica of the Holy Sepulchre, the workmen came upon a scarp which had once been crowned with a thick wall, some fine blocks of which were found still in situ; the wall sloped back from the face of the rock (Schick, "Quart. Stat.", 1888, p. 571; 1894, p. 146). Next, in 1893, while building the German Protestant church which took the place of the church of St. Mary the Latin, the engineers found that the latter edifice had stood upon filled ground. Digging down 30 feet below the actual level of the ground, they came to the rock, and then, under the great nave of the old church, they found a strong wall to the east and the west, though in bad preservation. It keeps, however, some of its facing in the shape of carefully dressed slabs. Guthe (in "Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palaestinavereins", XVII, p. 128) and Schick (in "Quart. Stat.", 1894, p. 146), with many others, regard this as a part of the second wall. In the time of Christ, Calvary was thus shut out from the perimeter of the second city enclosure. Indeed, the existence of the Jewish hypogea-the Holy Sepulchre, another one 30 feet to the west, and a third to the northeast-leaves no room for doubt on this point; for only the kings enjoyed the privilege of sepulture within the city. Some thirty years ago English engineers asserted that the wall of Ezechias must necessarily enclose Golgotha, because this zigzag city wall would, otherwise, have been built contrary to all the rules of military art. But since then the exploration of ancient Jewish and Chanaanitish cities has revealed irregularities of the same kind. While, upon the line indicated, the haphazard diggings made on various structures have all brought to light fragments of braces of a homogeneous wall, the religious communities in the Christian quarter to the northwest of Golgotha have in recent times executed important building operations without finding any traces of ditch or of rampart. At the angle where the wall turned northwards should be found the new Gate of Ephraim (II Esd., xii, 38). But the course of the wall from this point is less easy to follow. It was, very probably, replaced in the time of Hadrian by the colonnaded street which led, almost in a straight line, from Mount Sion to the Gate of Damascus, and which was founded upon rock throughout. Following this street, we pass, on the left, the first courses of the facade of Constantine's Basilica, which was completely discovered in 1907 and, on the right, 230 feet from this structure, the Khan ez Zeit, which is built in a Jewish cistern partly hewn out of the rock. To the east of this cistern, on the slope of El Wad, the rock appears, cut obliquely. Farther on, the Old Gate (II Esd., iii, 6; xii, 38) may be placed. Where the Street of the Columns was crossed by another, coming from the west a tetrapylon marked the intersection; one superb marble column of it still remains in situ, 23 feet high, leaning against a fine wall of Roman construction. Investigation has demonstrated the existence, at a point 200 feet west of this column, of a counterscarp and a deep ditch, running from south to north (Schick, "Quart. Stat.", 1887, p. 154). It was by this gate that, according to tradition, Jesus went out from the city to the place of His crucifixion. North of the column and slightly to the east, at a distance of 100 feet, is to be seen a rocky scarp which extends about 250 feet towards the north. Near here the wall descended toward into El Wad, where it came to the Fish Gate (II Par., xxxiii, 14; II Esd., iii, 3; xii, 38). This gate opened on the road by which the Tyrian fishermen came from Jaffa (cf. II Esd., xiii, 16). The wall then crossed Mount Bezetha, and the Tower of Hananeel (Jer., xxxi, 38; II Esd., iii, 1; xii, 38) must be located on the ridge which descended from the Hill of Jeremias to Mount Moria, and which was the vulnerable point of the Holy City. On this same ridge there was another tower, or stronghold, as early as the period of the kings of Juda; Nehemias, who restored it, named it Birah, an Aramaic word derived from the Assyrian biratu, "palace", or "fortress of the temple" (in D.V., "tower of the house"; II Esd., ii, 8). This tower (see I Mach., xiii, 53; etc.) bore, in the time of Josephus, the hellenized name of Baris. Under the Hasmonean dynasty, the whole rock on which this tower stood was removed on all sides, to a depth of 30 feet on the south, and of 15 feet on the north, the length of the excavation being 350 feet from east to west. On the north, where there is a deep cistern, the mountain was levelled away to a distance of 160 feet (cf. I Mach., xiii, 53). Herod caused the reservoir to be vaulted over, and built the fortress of Antonia on the rock of Baris and on the southern esplanade (Bell. Jud.. V, v, 8). It was in this building that Pontius Pilate had his praetorium, where Jesus was condemned to death. In saying that the second wall "went up to the Antonia", Josephus does not indicate where it ended, but only its direction. He himself does not place the Antonia at the end of the wall of Ezechias; on the contrary, he says that the Romans could approach it only after they had become masters of the city as far as the first wall (Bell. Jud., V, ix). From the Tower of Hananeel the wall was prolonged to the Sheep (or Flock) Gate (II Esd., iii, 1, 31; xii, 38), near the Probatic Pool, with the five porches, and the other great reservoirs, necessarily, within the walls. E. The Third Wall From A.D. 41 to 44 Herod Agrippa I undertook to build the third wall, which also began at the Tower of Hippicus and crossed the Camp of the Assyrians to the north, as far as the octagonal Tower of Psephinus (Antiq. Jud., XIX, vii, 2; Bell. Jud., V, iv, 3). Traces of this tower were found at the northwest corner of the city, at the place where the Qasr Djaloud, or Tower of Goliath, was erected in the twelfth century. Thence Agrippa's wall took an easterly direction, towards the Towers of the Women, opposite the sepulchre of Helen of Adiabene, which is situated 2000 feet to the north. The Towers of the Women, some traces of which have been found, protected the gate which corresponded to the Fish Gate. It still stands, as to a considerable part of its height, though sunken into the ground, below the actual Gate of Damascus, or Bab el Amoud. Thence the wall passed over the royal grottoes (Bell. Jud., V, iv, 3) to cross the ridge of Bezetha. The stone of this lofty hill is of excellent quality, and could be transported in immense blocks as far as the Temple by means of inclined planes. This is why, as early as the time of Solomon, the hill was used as a quarry, as is shown by the figure of a Phoenician cherub cut in the wall of one of the royal grottoes. Already perforated with numerous caverns, the hill was cut in two under Agrippa I and the cut served as a ditch for the new city wall. Thus it was that the summit became a separate hill, called, since the sixteenth century, the Hill of Jeremias. It again served as a quarry in the period of the Crusades and its present aspect has been taken on since the time of Christ. From the royal grottoes, the wall continued eastwards as far as the height above Cedron, and then turned south to rejoin the second city wall. The line of the third wall has with slight modifications been kept in that of the actual city. BARNABAS MEISTERMANN Jerusalem (A.D. 71-1099) Jerusalem (A.D. 71-1099) I. TO THE TIME OF CONSTANTINE (71-312) When Titus took Jerusalem (April-September, A.D. 70) he ordered his soldiers to destroy the city (Josephus, "De bello Jud.", VI, ix). They spared only the three great towers at the north of Herod's palace (Hippicus, Phasael, Mariamne) and the western wall. Few Jews remained. The Roman Tenth Legion held the upper town and Herod's castle as a fortress; Josephus says that Titus handed the fields around to his soldiers ("Vita", 76). The presence of these heathens would naturally repel Jews, though in this period there was no law against their presence in Jerusalem. The Jewish Rabbis gathered together at Jabne (or Jamnia, now Jebna) in the plain, northwest of the city, two hours from Ramleh. Meanwhile the Christian community had fled to Pella in Paraea, east of the Jordan (southeast of Jenin), before the beginning of the siege. The Christians were still almost entirely converts from Judaism (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", IV, v). After the destruction they came back and congregated in the house of John Mark and his mother Mary, where they had met before (Acts, xii, 12 sq.). It was apparently in this house that was the Upper Room, the scene of the Last Supper and of the assembly on Pentecost. Epiphanius (d. 403) says that when the Emperor Hadrian came to Jerusalem in 130 he found the Temple and the whole city destroyed save for a few houses, among them the one where the Apostles had received the Holy Ghost. This house, says Epiphanius, is "in that part of Sion which was spared when the city was destroyed" -- therefore in the "upper part ("De mens. et pond.", cap. xiv). From the time of Cyril of Jerusalem, who speaks of "the upper Church of the Apostles, where the Holy Ghost came down upon them" (Catech., ii, 6; P. G., XXXIII), there are abundant witnesses of the place. A great basilica was built over the spot in the fourth century; the crusaders built another church when the older one had been destroyed by Hakim in 1010. It is the famous Coenaculum or Cenacle -- now a Moslem shrine -- near the Gate of David, and supposed to be David's tomb (Nebi Daud). During the first Christian centuries the church at this place was the centre of Christianity in Jerusalem, "Holy and glorious Sion, mother of all churches" (Intercession in "St. James' Liturgy", ed. Brightman, p. 54). Certainly no spot in Christendom can be more venerable than the place of the Last Supper, which became the first Christian church. The constant use of the name Sion for the Coenaculum has led to considerable discussion as to the topography of Jerusalem. Many writers conclude that it is on Mount Sion, which would therefore be the southwest hill of the city (Meistermann, "Nouveau Guide de Terre Sainte", Paris, 1907, p. 121, plan). Others (Baedeker, "Palaestina u. Syrien", 6th ed., 1904, p. 27) oppose this tradition on the strength of the passages in the Old Testament that clearly distinguish Sion from Jerusalem and state that the Lord dwells in Sion and that the king's palace is there (Is., x, 12; viii, 18; Joel, iii, 21; etc.). So Sion would be the hill on the west, the place of the Temple and David's palace. It was that later the name Sion began to be used for all Jerusalem. Josephus never uses it at all; already in the Old Testament the way was prepared for this extended use. Jerusalem is the "daughter of Sion" (Jer., vi, 2, etc.). All its inhabitants without distinction are "Sion" (Zach, ii, 7, etc.). In early Christian times Sion seems to have lost its spell, meaning as one definite hill, and to have become merely another name for Jerusalem. Naturally then they called their centre there by the name of the city, although it did not stand on the original Mount Sion. The pilgrim Etheria (Silvia) at the turn of the fourth century, always speaks of the Coenaculum as Sion, just as the Holy Sepulchre is always Anastasis. From this Coenaculum the first Christian bishops ruled the Church of Jerusalem. They were all converts from Judaism, as were their flocks. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., IV, v) gives the list of these bishops. According to a universal tradition the first was the Apostle St. James the Less, the "brother of the Lord". His predominant place and residence in the city are implied by Gal., i, 19. Eusebius says he was appointed bishop by Peter, James (the Greater), and John (II, i). Naturally the other Apostles when they were at Jerusalem shared the government with him (Acts, xv, 6, etc.; Eus., "Hist. Eccl.,", II, xxiii). He was thrown from a rock, then stoned to death by the Jews about the year 63 (Eus., ib.; Josephus, "Antiq. Jud.", XX, ix, 1; ed. cit., p. 786). After his death the surviving Apostles and other disciples who were at Jerusalem chose Simeon, son of Cleophas (also called Our Lord's brother, Matt., xiii. 55), to succeed him. He was bishop at the time of the destruction (70) and probably then went to Pella with the others. About the year 106 or 107 he was crucified under Trajan (Eus., "Hist. Eccl.", III, xxxii). The line of bishops of Jerusalem was then continued as follows: + Judas (Justus), 107-113; + Zachaeus or Zacharias; + Tobias; + Benjamin; + John; + Matthias (d. 120); + Philip (died c. 124); + Seneca; + Justus; + Levi; + Ephraim; + Joseph; + Judas Quiriacus (d. between 134-148). All these were Jews (Eus., "Hist., Eccl.", IV, v). It was during the episcopate of Judas Quiriacus that the second great calamity, the revolt of Bar-Kochba and final destruction of the city, took place. Goaded by the tyranny of the Romans, by the re-erection of Jerusalem as a Roman colony and the establishment of an altar to Jupiter on the site of the Temple, the Jews broke out into a hopeless rebellion under the famous false Messias Bar-Kochba about the year 132. During his rebellion he persecuted the Jewish Christians, who naturally refused to acknowledge him (Eus., "Chron.", for the seventeenth year of Hadrian). The Emperor Hadrian put down this rebellion, after a siege that lasted a year, in 135. As a result of this last war the whole neighbourhood of the city became a desert. On the ruins of Jerusalem a new Roman city was built, called Ælia Capitolina (Ælia was Hadrian's family nomen), and a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus was built on Mount Moria. No Jew (therefore no Jewish Christian) was allowed under pain of death inside the town. This brought about a complete change in the circumstances of the Church of Jerusalem. The old Jewish Christian community came to an end. In its place a Church of Gentile Christians, with Gentile bishops, was formed, who depended much less on the sacred memories of the city. Hence the Church of Jerusalem did not for some centuries take the place in the hierarchy of sees that we should expect. Ælia was a town of no importance in the empire; the governor of the province resided at Caesarea in Palestine. The use of the name Ælia among Christians of this time marks the insignificance of the little Gentile church, as the restoration of the old name Jerusalem later marks the revival of its dignity. Even as late as 325 (Nicaea I, can. vii) the city is still called only Ælia. The name lasted on among the Arabs in the form Iliya till late in the Middle Ages. As the rank of the various sees among themselves was gradually arranged according to the divisions of the empire, Caesarea became the metropolitan see; the Bishop of Ælia was merely one of its suffragans. The bishops from the siege under Hadrian (135) to Constantine (312) were: + Mark (the first Gentile bishop, d. 156); + Cassian; + Publius; + Maximus; + Julian; + Caius; + Symmachus; + Caius II; + Julian II (ordained 168); + Capito (d. 185); + Maximus II; + Antonius; + Valens; + Dolichianus (d. 185); + Narcissus (Eus., "Hist. Eccl.", V, xii). Narcissus was a man famous for his virtues and miracles, but hated by certain vicious people in the city who feared his severity. They accused him of various crimes and he, for the sake of peace, retired to an unknown solitude (Eus., "Hist. Eccl.", VI, ix). The neighbouring bishops, hearing nothing more of him, proceeded to elect and consecrate Dios as his successor. Dios was succeeded by Germanion and Gordios. Then suddenly Narcissus reappeared, an old man of 110 years. The other bishops persuaded him to resume his place as bishop. Too old to do anything but pray for his flock, he made a Cappadocian bishop, Alexander, who came on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, his coadjutor. + Alexander thus became a practically diocesan bishop even before the death of Narcissus in 212. Alexander was a friend of Origen and founded a library that Eusebius used for his "History" (VI, x). He died in prison in the Decian persecution (25O). Then followed + Mazabanes or Megabezes (d. 266); + Hymenaeus (d. 298); + Zabdas; + Hermon (d. 311); + Macarius (d. 333). II. CONSTANTINE AND THE HOLY PLACES (312-337) During the episcopate of Macarius a great change came to the whole empire that incidentally affected the See of Jerusalem profoundly. The Christian Faith was acknowledged as a religio licita and the Church became a recognized society (Edict of Milan, Jan., 313). At Constantine's death (337) Christianity had become the religion of the Court and Government. As a natural result the Faith spread very rapidly everywhere. The same generation that had seen Diocletian's persecution now saw Christianity the dominant religion and the old paganism gradually reduced to country villages and out-of-the-way towns. There was then a great movement of organization among Christians; churches were built everywhere. A further result of the freedom and the dominance of Christianity was a revival of enthusiasm for the holy places where the new religion had been born, where the events that everyone now read about or heard of in sermons had taken place. Already in the fourth century, there began those great waves of pilgrimage to the Holy Land that have gone on ever since. It was in the fourth century that the Bordeaux pilgrim and Etheria made their famous journey thither (Peregrinatio Silviae). St. Jerome (d. 420) says that in his time pilgrims came there from every part of the world, even from distant Britain (Ep. xliv ad Paulam; lxxxiv, ad Oceanum). A great number of monks from Egypt and Libya also came and established themselves in the desert by the Jordan. This led to an increased respect for the bishop who ruled over the very places where Christ had lived and died. These pilgrims on their arrival found themselves under his jurisdiction; they took part in the sacrifices of his church and eagerly watched the rites that were carried out at the Mount of Olives, the Coenaculum, and the Holy Sepulchre. Etheria's careful account of all she saw in the churches of Jerusalem at Eastertide is typical of this interest. When the pilgrims returned home they remembered and told their friends about the services they had seen in the most sacred places of Christendom; and they began to imitate them in their own churches. Thus a great number of our well-known ceremonies (the Palm Sunday procession, later the Stations of the Cross, etc.) were originally imitations of local rites of Jerusalem. All this could not fail to bring about an advancement of rank for the local bishop. From the freedom of the Church the development was inevitable that changed the Bishop of Ælia, mere suffragan of Caesarea, into the great "Patriarch of the Holy City Jerusalem and of the whole Land of Promise". Meanwhile another result of these pilgrimages was the discovery of the Holy Places. Naturally the pilgrims when they arrived wanted to see the actual spots where the events they had read of in the Gospels had happened. Naturally too, each such place when it was known or conjectured became a shrine with a church built over it. Of these shrines the most famous are those built by Constantine and his mother St. Helena. St. Helena in her eightieth year (326-327) came on a pilgrimage and caused churches to be built at Bethlehem, and on the Mount of Olives. Constantine built the famous church of the Holy Sepulchre (Anastasis). Eusebius (Vita Constantine, III, xxvi) says that the place of Calvary in about 326 was covered with dirt and rubbish; over it was a temple of Venus. Emperor Hadrian had built a great terrace round the place enclosed in a wall, on this he had planted a grove to Jupiter and Venus (St. Jerome. Ep. 58). When St. Helena came and was shown the place she determined to restore it as a Christian shrine. By order of the emperor all the soldiers of the garrison were employed to clear away the temple, grove, and terrace. Underneath they found Golgotha and the tomb of our Lord. Constantine wrote to Bishop Macarius saying: "I have nothing more at heart than to adorn with due splendour that sacred place", etc. (Vita Const., III, xxx). Two great buildings were erected near each other on this spot. To the west the rock containing the tomb was carved away, leaving it as a little shrine or chapel standing above ground. Over it was built a round church covered by a dome. This is the Anastasis, which still has the form of a rotunda with a dome, containing the Holy Sepulchre in the middle. Quite near, to the east, was a great basilica with an apse towards the Anastasis, a long nave, and four aisles separated by rows of columns. Above the aisles were galleries; the whole was covered by a gable roof. Around the apse were twelve columns crowned with silver, at the east were a narthex, three doors, and a colonnade in front of the entrance. This basilica was the Martyrium; it covered the ground now occupied by part of the Katholikon and St. Helena's chapel. Etheria speaks of it as "the great church which is called the Martyrium" (Per. Silv., ed. cit., p. 38). Underneath it was the crypt of the Invention of the Cross. The Mount of Calvary was not enclosed in the basilica. It stood just at the southeast side of the apse. Etheria always distinguishes three shrines, Anastasis, Crux, Martyrium. The place of the Cross (Calvary) was in her time open to the sky and surrounded by a silver balustrade (op. cit., p. 43). People went up to it by steps (Eus., "Vita Const.", III, xxi-xl). Later in the fifth century St. Melania the younger (439), a Roman lady who came with her husband Pinianus to Jerusalem where they both entered religious houses, built a small chapel over the place of the Crucifixion. These buildings were destroyed by the Persians in 614. It is not possible to enter here upon the endless discussion that still takes place as to the authenticity of this shrine. The first question that occurs is as to the place of the wall of Jerusalem in Christ's time. It is certain that He was crucified outside the city wall. No executions took place within the city (Matt., xxvii, 33; John xix, 17; Hebr. xiii, 12, etc.). If then it could be shown that the traditional site was within the wall (the second wall built by Nehemias) it would be proved to be false. It is, however, quite certain that all attempts to prove this have failed. On the contrary, Conder found other contemporary tombs near the traditional Holy Sepulchre, which show that it was without the city, since Jews never buried within their towns. Supposing then its possibility, we have this chain of evidence: if Hadrian really built his temple of Venus purposely on the site, the authenticity is proved. Constantine's basilica stood where that temple was; that the present church stands on the place of Constantine's basilica is not doubted by any one. A number of writers (as Eusebius, op. cit.) of the fourth century describe the temple as built on the site of Calvary in order to put a stop to its veneration by Christians, just as the temple of Jupiter was built purposely where the Jewish Temple had been. We have seen that an unchanging Christian community lived at Jerusalem down to Hadrian's time (Bar-Kochba's revolt). It would be strange if they had not remembered the site of the Crucifixion and had not reverenced it. The analogy of Hadrian's profanation of the Temple leaves no difficulty as to a similar deliberate profanation of the Christian sanctuary. The theory of Fergusson who thought that the cave under the Qubbet-es-Sachra, on the site of the Temple, was the Holy Sepulchre of Constantine's time, and Conder and Gordon's site outside the Damascus gate (Conder, "The City of Jerusalem", London, 1909, pp. 151-158) hardly deserve mention. With the finding of the Holy Sepulchre and the building of the Anastasis and Martyrion is connected the story of the Invention of the Holy Cross. It is told by Rufinus (Hist. Eccl. X, viii, P. L. XXI, 477--about the year 402), Paulinus of Nola (Ep. xxi, v; P. L. LXI, 329; A.D. 403) and others. When the soldiers were removing the old balustrade and digging out the Holy Sepulchre they found to the east of the tomb three crosses with the inscription separated from them. Bishop Macarius discovered which was our Lord's Cross by applying each in turn to a sick woman. The third Cross healed her miraculously (see the lessons of the second nocturn for the feast, 3 May). Paulinus (op. cit.) adds that a dead man was raised to life by the Cross of Christ. The fame of the great shrines, Anastasis and Martyrion, then began to eclipse that of the Coenaculum. From this time the Bishop of Jerusalem celebrated the more solemn functions in the Martyrion. But Constantine had a new "Church of the Apostles" built over the Coenaculum. Other shrines that go back at least to his time are the place of the Ascension on the top of the Mount of Olives, where he built a church, and the still extant magnificent basilica at Bethlehem. III. THE PATRIARCHATE (325-451) From the time of Constantine then begins the advancement of the See of Jerusalem. The first General Council (Nicaea I, 325) meant to recognize the unique dignity of the Holy City without disturbing its canonical dependence on the metropolis, Caesarea. So the seventh canon declares: "Since custom and ancient tradition have obtained that the bishop in Ælia be honored, let him have the succession of honour (echeto ten akolouthian tes times) saving however the domestic right of the metropolis (te metropolei sozomenou tou oikeiou axiomatos)." The canon is in the "Decretum" of Gratian, dist. 65, vii. The "succession of honour" means a special place of honour, an honorary precedence immediately after the Patriarchs (of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch); but this is not to interfere with the metropolitan rights of Caesarea in Palestine. The situation of a suffragan bishop who had Precedence over his metropolitan was an anomalous one that obviously could not last. The successors of Macarius were: Maximus II (333-349); St. Cyril of Jerusalem (350-386); Eutychius intruded 357-359; Irenaeus intruded 360-361; Hilarion intruded 367-378); John II (386-417); Praylios (4l7-421); Juvenal (421-458). Already in the time of St. Cyril difficulties arose about his relation to his metropolitan. While he was defending the Faith against the Arians, Acacius of Caesarea, an extreme Arian, summoned a Synod (358) to try Cyril for various offences, of which the first was that he had disobeyed or behaved with insubordination towards Acacius, his superior. It is difficult to be sure exactly what the accusation was. Sozomen (IV, xxv) says it was that he had disobeyed and had refused to acknowledge Caesarea as his metropolis; Theodoret says it was only about his quite lawful claim to precedence. The case shows how difficult the position was. Cyril refused to attend the synod and was deposed in his absence. His refusal again opens a question as to his position. Did he refuse merely because he knew what Acacius was a determined Arian and would certainly condemn him, or was it because he thought that his exceptional "succession of honour" exempted him from the jurisdiction of any but a patriarchal synod? The three usurpers, Eutychius, Irenaeus, Hilarion, were Arians intruded into his see by their party during his three exiles. It was Juvenal of Jerusalem (420-458) who at last succeeded in changing the anomalous position of his see into a real patriarchate. From the beginning of his reign he assumed an attitude that was quite incompatible with his canonical position as suffragan of Caesarea. About the year 425 a certain tribe of Arabs was converted to Christianity. These people set up their camp in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. Juvenal then proceeded to found a bishopric for them. He ordained one Peter as "Bishop of the Camp" (episkopos parembolon). This Peter (apparently the sheikh of the tribe) signed at Ephesus in 425 with that title. Juvenal's action may perhaps be explained as merely the ordination of an Arabic-speaking coadjutor for these people whose language he himself did not know; but Peter's title and presence at Ephesus certainly suggest that he considered himself a diocesan bishop. Juvenal had no sort of right to set up a new diocese nor to ordain a suffragan to his own see. The "See of the Parembolai" disappeared again in the sixth century. From the Acts of Ephesus it appears that Juvenal had ordained other bishops in Palestine and Arabia. A number of bishops of the Antiochene patriarchate wrote a letter to the Emperor Theodosius II in which they appear to have some doubts as to the regularity of their position since, as they say, they have "been ordained formerly by the most pious Juvenal" (Mansi, IV, 1402). Now the right of ordaining a bishop always meant in the East jurisdiction over him. We see an instance of this in the Acts of the Council. Saidas, Bishop of Phaino in Palestine, describes Juvenal as "our bishop" (ho episkopos meon = "our metropolitan", apparently). Clearly then even before the council Juvenal had been making tentative efforts to assume at least metropolitical rights. At the council he made a stroke whose boldness is amazing. He tried to get his see recognized not merely as independent of and equal to Caesarea, but superior to the great Patriarchate of Antioch. Antioch, he pretended, must submit to the see that canonically (in spite of its honorary position) was the suffragan of Antioch. His attempt failed altogether. He might perhaps have shaken off the authority of Caesarea; but this was too startling. Nevertheless the opportunity was a splendid one for him. We see Juvenal's cleverness in seizing it. At Ephesus he was the second bishop present. Celestine of Rome was represented by his legates; Cyril of Alexandria was resident, but was already having trouble with Candidian the Imperial Commissioner; John of Antioch arrived late and then set up a rival council in favour of the heretics, Nestorius of Constantinople was the accused. Juvenal's own metropolitan (of Caesarea) was not present. The schismatical attitude of John of Antioch especially gave Juvenal his chance. Surely Cyril's council would not support John. Juvenal then, under colour of supporting Cyril and the pope, tried to get the council to acknowledge no less than his own jurisdiction over Antioch. In a speech he explained to the Fathers that John of Antioch ought to have appeared at the council to give the oecumenical synod an explanation of what had happened (his late arrival and the anti-council he was setting up) and to show obedience and reverence to the Apostolic See of Rome and the Holy Church of God at Jerusalem. "For it was especially the custom according to Apostolic order and tradition that the See of Antioch be corrected and judged by that of Jerusalem. Instead of that John with his usual insolence had despised the council" (Mansi, IV, 1312). To mix up his own impudent claim with the just grievance of the other Fathers was a master-stroke. But Cyril would have none of him. The pretence was too wildly absurd. Leo the Great, writing afterwards to Maximus of Antioch, says that Juvenal had tried to confirm his insolent attempt by forged documents; but Cyril had warned him not to urge such law-less claims (Ep. 119, ad Max.). So this first attempt did not succeed. For the next twenty years matters remained as they had been. Juvenal still went on acting on his claim and behaving as the chief authority of Palestine. After the Counsel he ordained a Bishop of Jamnia ("Vita S. Euthymii", P. G., CXIV, c. 57). When the Monophysite heresy began Juvenal was at first on the side of the heretics. He was present at the Robber synod of 449, on the side of Dioscurus, and joined in the deposition of Flavian of Constantinople. That fact should have ruined his chance of getting any advantage from Chalcedon (451). Yet he was clever enough to turn even this position to his advantage. Chalcedon at last gave him a great part of what he wanted. At first he appeared at the council with the other Monophysites as an accused. But he saw at once which way the tide had turned, threw off his former friends, turned completely round and signed Pope Leo's dogmatic letter to Flavian. The orthodox fathers were delighted. In a general council the titular rank given to Jerusalem by Nicaea would naturally make itself felt. The adherence of so venerable a see was received with delight, the illustrious convert deserved some reward. Juvenal then explained that he had at first come to a friendly understanding with Maximus of Antioch, by which the long dispute between their sees should be ended. Antioch was of course to keep her precedence over Jerusalem and the greater part of her patriarchate. But she would sacrifice a small territory, Palestine in the strict sense (the three Roman provinces so called), and apparently Arabia, to make up a little patriarchate for Jerusalem. The emperor (Theodosius II) had already interfered in the quarrel and had pretended to cut a much larger territory away from Antioch for the benefit of Jerusalem. So this arrangement appeared as a sort of compromise. The council in the seventh and eighth sessions accepted Juvenal's proposal (Maximus's correspondence with Leo the Great shows that he was still not quite satisfied) and made Jerusalem a patriarchate with this small territory. From this time then Jerusalem becomes a patriarchal see, the last (fifth) in order and the smallest. So was the number, afterwards so sacred, of five patriarchates established. The Quinisext Council (692) admits this order. It enumerates the patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and adds: "After these he of the city of Jerusalem" (can. xxxvi). Such too is the order proclaimed by the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869) in Canon xxi and incorporated in our canon law (C.I.C., dist. 22, c. 7). Since Chalcedon no one has disputed the place of Jerusalem in the hierarchy of patriarchates. But it will be noticed how late its rank was given, how unedifying the conduct of the bishop who obtained it. Like the other comparatively modern Patriarchate of Constantinople (made finally by the same council, can. xxviii) it represents a later concession that upset the much older, more venerable ideal of three patriarchates only -- Rome, Alexandria, Antioch. Jerusalem owes its place not to St. James, the brother of the Lord, but to the astute and unscrupulous Juvenal. Nothing, then, could show a greater ignorance of the whole situation than the naive proposal of Anglicans at various times (e.g. the Non-Jurors in their letter to the patriarchs, 1720) that everyone should admit Jerusalem "mother of all Churches" as the first see of all. The frontiers of this new patriarchate, as established by Chalcedon, are to the north the Lebanon, to the west the Mediterranean, to the south Sinai (Mount Sinai was certainly originally included in its boundaries), to the east Arabia and the desert. Under the patriarch were these metropolitans: + Caesarea in Palestine (who now had to obey her former subject), Metropolis of Palaestina I, with twenty-nine suffragans; + Scythopolis (in the Vulgate Bethsan, Jos. xvii, 11; Judges i, 27; now Besan, seven hours south of Tiberias), Metropolis of Palaestina II (Samaria), with fourteen suffragans; + Petra (Sela' in the Hebrew, II Kings, xvi, 7, Is. xvi, 1 in the Wadi Musa, half-way between the Dead Sea and the Red Sea), Metropolis of Palaestina III with thirteen suffragans. IV. FROM JUVENAL TO THE SARACEN CONQUEST (458-636) The patriarchs of this time were: Theodosius (Monophysite usurper, 452); Anastasius (458-478); Martyrius (479-486); Salustius (486-494); Elias (494-513): see ELIAS OF JERUSALEM); John III (513-524); Peter (524-544); Macarius (544-574); (Eustachius, Origenist, intruded -563); John IV (574-593); Neamus (593-601); Isaac (601-609); Zacharius (609-631); Moderatus (631-634); Sophronius (634-638 or 644). An important event for the city was the residence there of the Empress Eudocia, wife of Theodosius II. She arrived first in 438 and then settled at Jerusalem from 444 to her death about the year 460 (see EUDOCIA). She spent this last part of her life in ardent devotion at the Holy Places, in beautifying the city and building churches. She rebuilt the walls along the south so as to include the Coenaculum within the city. On the north she built the church of St. Stephen at the traditional place of his martyrdom (now the famous Dominican convent and Ecole biblique). Justinian I (527-565) also added to the beauty of the city by many splendid buildings. Of these the most famous was a great basilica dedicated to the Blessed Virgin with a house for pilgrims attached. It stood in the middle of the city, but has now completely disappeared. He also built another great church of the Blessed Virgin at the southern end of the old Temple area (now the Al-aqsa Mosque). The famous mosaic map of Jerusalem discovered at Madaba (Guthe and Palmer, "Die Mosaikkarte von Madeba", 1906) gives an idea of the state of the city in Justinian's time. During this period the See of Jerusalem, like those of Alexandria and Antioch, was troubled continually by the Monophysite schism. Under Juvenal the great crowd of monks who had settled in Palestine broke out into a regular revolution against the government and against the patriarch, whose change of front at Chalcedon they bitterly resented. They set up one of their own number, Theodosius as anti-patriarch. For a short time (in 452) Juvenal had to give way to this person. So also in the other sees of the patriarchate orthodox bishops were expelled and Monophysites (such as Peter the Iberian at Majuma-Gaza) were set up in their place. The Empress Eudocia was at first an avowed Monophysite and helped that party nearly all the time she was in the city. Juvenal fled to Constantinople and implored the help of the emperor (Marcian, 450-457). He returned with a body of soldiers who reinstated him, killed a great number of the monks, and finally took Theodosius, who had fled, prisoner. Theodosius was then kept in prison at Constantinople almost till his death. The disturbance was not finally put down till 453. Eventually the orthodox Abbot Euthymius converted Eudocia, who died in the communion of the Church (c. 460). The further Monophysite disturbances affected Jerusalem, of course, too. Martyrius accepted the Henoticon (see his letter to Peter Monogus of Alexandria in Zacharias Scholasticus: "Syriac Chronicle", ed. Ahrens and Krueger, Leipzig, 1899, VI, i, pp. 86, 18-20) with the bishops of his patriarchate. Elias of Jerusalem supported Flavian of Antioch in resisting the Emperor Anastasius' (491-518) condemnation of Chalcedon. He was then banished and John, Bishop of Sebaste, intruded in his place (513) (see ELIAS OF JERUSALEM). But John became orthodox, too, and broke his engagement with the Monophysite emperor as soon as he had possession of the see (Theophanes Confessor, "Chronographia", ed. de Boors, Leipzig, 1883-1885, I, 156). Meanwhile St. Sabas (d. 531) from his monastery by the Dead Sea was a mighty support to the orthodox. John III of Jerusalem accepted the decrees of the orthodox Synod of Constantinople in 518 and the formula of Pope Hormisdas (514-523). John III's successor, Peter, held a synod in September, 536, in which he proclaimed his adherence to Chalcedon and Orthodoxy by agreeing to the deposition of the Monophysite Anthimus of Constantinople (deposed in that year; the Acts of this synod are in Mansi, VIII, 1163-1176). From this time the patriarchs seem to have been all orthodox; though the Monophysites had a strong party in Palestine and eventually set up Monophysite bishops in communion with the (Jacobite) patriarchs of Antioch of the line of Sergius of Tella (since 539) even at Jerusalem itself. The first of these Jacobite bishops (they did not take the title patriarch) of Jerusalem was Severus in 597. From him descends the present Jacobite line. In the year 614 a great calamity befell the city; it was taken by the Persians. In 602 the Roman Emperor Maurice had been barbarously murdered by order of Phocas (602-610), who usurped his place. Chosroes (Khusru) II, King of Persia, had found protection from his enemies at home with Maurice, who had even sent an army to restore him (591). The Persian king, furious at the murder of his friend and benefactor, then declared war against Phocas and invaded Syria (604). The war with Persia continued under Phocas's successor, Heraclius (610-642). In 611 the Persians took Antioch, then Caesarea in Cappadocia and Damascus. In 614 they stormed Jerusalem. Chosroes's son-in-law Shaharbarz besieged the city; in his camp were 26,000 Jews eager to destroy Christian sovereignty in their holy city. It is said that no less than 90,000 Christians perished when Jerusalem fell. The Patriarch Zacharius was taken captive to Persia. The Anastasis, Martyrion and other Christian sanctuaries were burned or razed to the ground. St. Helena's great relic of the Holy Cross was taken off to Persia in triumph. The Jews as a reward for their help were allowed to do as they liked in the city. But their triumph did not last long. In 622 Heraclius marched across Asia Minor, driving back the Persians. In 627 he invaded Persia; Chosroes fled, was deposed, and murdered in 628 by his son Siroes. In the same year the Persians had to submit to a peace which deprived them of all their conquests. The Persian soldiers evacuated the cities of Syria and Egypt which they had conquered, the relic of the True Cross was given back. In 629 Heraclius himself came to Jerusalem to venerate the Cross. This is the origin of the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross (14 September: see the lessons of the second nocturn on that day). The emperor as a punishment for the treason of the Jews renewed the old law of Hadrian forbidding them to enter the city. After the Persian assault on the town, even before the Romans reconquered it, Modestus, Abbot of the monastery of St. Theodosius in the desert to the south, acting apparently as vicar for the captured patriarch, had already begun to restore the shrines. It was impossible under Persian rule to restore the splendour of Constantine's great Martyrion. Modestus therefore had to be content with a more modest group of buildings at the Holy Sepulchre. He restored the round Anastasis, much as it had been before, except that a conical roof replaced the old cupola. The custom of orientating churches had now become universal; so a new apse was made at the east (where the entrance had been) for the altar. Doors were pierced in the round wall north and south of this apse. The Anastasis, formerly a shrine subsidiary to the great basilica, now became the chief building. Modestus restored the little chapel of the Crucifixion, originally built by Melania, but did not attempt to rebuild any part of the basilica (Martyrion) except the crypt of the Invention of the Holy Cross. The whole esplanade around these buildings was enclosed by a wall and so made into a great atrium. During the next centuries a great number of chapels were built here to contain various relics of the Passion. Heraclius when he reconquered the city rebuilt the walls and restored many more of the ruined shrines. From his time to the Arab conquest Christian Jerusalem enjoyed a short period of peace and prosperity. St. Sophronius (634-638) or (644), who saw that conquest, was one of the more famous patriarchs of Jerusalem. In his time Monothelism had arisen as one more of the many hopeless attempts to conciliate the Monophysites. Sophronius distinguished himself as an opponent of this new heresy. He was born in Damascus and had been a monk of the monastery of St. Theodosius. In defence of the Faith against the Monothelites he had travelled through Syria and Egypt and had visited Constantinople. As patriarch in 634 he wrote a synodal letter in defence of the two wills in Christ that is one of the most important documents of this controversy (Mansi XI, 461 sq.). In 636 he had to give up his city to the Moslems. V. FROM THE ARAB CONQUEST TO THE FIRST CRUSADE (636-1099) The Moslems in the first zeal of their new faith proceeded to invade Syria. Caliph Abu-bakr (632-634) gave the command of the army to Abu-'Ubaidah, one of the original Ashab (companions of Mohammed in his flight, 622). They first took Bosra. In July, 633, they defeated Heraclius's army at Ajnadain near Emesa; in 634 they stormed Damascus and again defeated the Romans at Yarmuk. Emesa fell in 636. The Moslems then consulted Caliph Omar (634-644) as to whether they should march on Jerusalem or Caesarea. By 'Ali's advice they received orders to take the Holy City. First they sent to Mo'awiya Ibn-Abu-Sufyan with 5000 Arabs to surprise the city; soon afterwards it was invested by the whole army of Abu-'Ubaidah. It was defended by a large force composed of refugees from all parts of Syria, soldiers who had escaped from Yarmuk and a strong garrison. For four months the siege continued, every day there was a fierce assault. At last, when all further resistance was hopeless, the Patriarch Sophronius (who acted throughout as the head of the Christian defenders) appeared on the walls and demanded a conference with Abu-'Ubaidah. He then proposed to capitulate on fair and honourable terms; the Christians were to keep their churches and sanctuaries, no one was to be forced to accept Islam. Sophronius further insisted that these terms should be ratified by the caliph in person. Omar, then at Medina, agreed to these terms and came with a single camel to the walls of Jerusalem. He signed the capitulation, then entered the city with Sophronius "and courteously discoursed with the patriarch concerning its religious antiquities" (Gibbon, ci, ed. Bury, London, 1898, V, 436). It is said that when the hour for his prayer came he was in the Anastasis, but refused to say it there, lest in future times the Moslems should make that an excuse for breaking the treaty and confiscating the church. The Mosque of Omar (Jami 'Saidna 'Omar), opposite the doors of the Anastasis, with the tall minaret, is shown as the place to which he retired for his prayer. Under the Moslems the Christian population of Jerusalem in the first period enjoyed the usual toleration given to non-Moslem theists. The pilgrimages went on as before. The new government did not make Jerusalem the political centre of Palestine. This was fixed at Lydda till the year 716, then at Ar-Ramla (Ramleh). But in the Moslem view, too, Jerusalem, the city of David and Christ, to which Mohammed was taken miraculously in one night (Koran, Sura. XVII), which had been the first Qibla of their religion, was a very holy place, third only after Mecca and Medina. They call it Beit al-mukaddas, Beit al-makdis (now generally Al-Kuds). 08344adt.gif In the reign of Caliph 'Abd-al-malik (684-705, the fifth Ommaid caliph, at Damascus) the people of Iraq revolted and got possession of the Hijaz. In order to give his followers a substitute for the haraman (Mecca and Medina), which they were prevented from visiting, he resolved to make Jerusalem a centre of pilgrimage. He, therefore, set about to adorn the place of the Temple with a splendid mosque. It appears that the Christians had left the place where the Temple had once stood untouched. Omar visited it and found it filled up with refuse. In his time a large square building with no architectural pretension was put up to shelter the True Believers who went there to pray. In 691 'Abd-al-malik replaced this by the exquisite "Dome of the Rock" (Qubbet-es-Sachra), built by Byzantine architects, that still stands in the middle of the Temple area. This is the building long known as the Mosque of Omar, falsely attributed to him. It is an eight-sided building crowned with a dome, covered outside with marble and most beautiful many-coloured tiles, certainly one of the most splendid monuments of architecture in the world. It stands over a great flat rock, probably the place of the old altar of holocausts. 'Abd-allah al-Iman al-Mamun (Caliph, 813-833) restored it. The dome fell in an earthquake and was rebuilt in 1022. The Crusaders (who turned it into a church) thought this was the original Jewish Temple; hence the many round temple-churches built in imitation of it. Raphael in his "Espousal of the Blessed Virgin" has painted it, as well as he could from descriptions, in the background as the Temple. The whole of the Temple area became to Moslems the "illustrious Sanctuary" (Haram-ash-sherif) and was gradually covered with colonnades, minbars (pulpits), and smaller domes. At the south end Justinian's basilica became the "most remote Mosque" (Al-Masjid-al-aqsa, Sura XVII, 1). The description of Arculf, a Frankish bishop who went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land in the seventh century, written down from his account by Adamnan, monk of Iona (d. 704): "De locis terrae sanctae", lib. III (P. L., LXXXVIIl, 725 sq.), gives us a not unpleasant picture of the conditions of Christians in Palestine in the first period of Moslem rule. The caliphs of Damascus (661-75O) were enlightened and tolerant princes, on quite good terms with their Christian subjects. Many Christians (e.g. St. John Damascene, d. c. 754) held important offices at their court. The Abbaside caliphs at Bagdad (753-1242), as long as they ruled Syria, were also just and tolerant to the Christians. The famous Harun Abu-Ja-'afar (Haroun al-Raschid, 786-809) sent the keys of the Holy Sepulchre to Charlemagne who built a hospice for Latin pilgrims near the shrine. Revolutions and rival dynasties that tore the union of Islam to pieces then made Syria the battleground of the Moslem world; the Christians under new masters began to suffer the oppression that eventually led to the Crusades. In 891 the sect of the Karamita (Carmathians) under Abu-Said al-jannabi arose in the neighbourhood of Kufa. They defeated the troops of the Caliph Al-Mutazid (Ahmed Abu'l Abbas), entered Syria (903-904) and devastated the province. They seized Mecca and prevented the pilgrims from going there from 929 to 950, when they were finally destroyed. During this time Moslems again began to go in pilgrimage to Jerusalem instead of to the Hijaz. The religious importance that the city thus gained for them was the beginning of intolerance towards the Christians there. It is the invariable result in Islam; the more sacred a place is to Moslems the less they are disposed to tolerate unbelievers in it. The Fatimide dynasty now arose in Africa (908). About the year 967 they got possession of Egypt. Meanwhile a frontier war with the empire went on always. The Romans took advantage of the dismemberment of the Moslem world to invade their former provinces. Already in 901, in the reign of Leo VI (886-911), the Roman armies had advanced into Syria as far as Aleppo and had carried off a great number of prisoners. In 962 Nicephorus Phocas with 100,000 men again came as far as Aleppo and devastated the country. In 968 and 969 the Romans reconquered Antioch. It was inevitable that the Christians of Jerusalem should try to help their fellow-countrymen to reconquer the land that had been Roman and Christian; inevitable, too, that the Moslems should punish such attempts as high treason. In 969 the patriarch, John VII, was put to death for treasonable correspondence with the Romans; many other Christians suffered the same fate, and a number of churches were destroyed. Meanwhile the first wave of the great Turkish race (the Seljuks) was pouring over the caliph's empire. In 934 a Turk, Ikshid, revolted and his successors held Palestine for a few years. In 969 Mu-'ezz-li-Din-Allah, the fourth Fatimide Caliph in Egypt, conquered Jerusalem. A Moslem pilgrim, Al-Muqaddasi, wrote a description of the city, especially of the Haram ash-sharif, at this time (quoted by Le Strange, "Palestine under the Moslems," 1890). The infamous Hakim (Al-Hakim bi-amr-Allah, the sixth Egyptian Caliph, 996-1021, who became the god of the Druses) determined to destroy the Holy Sepulchre. This was really only one incident in his persecution of Christians: his excuse was that the miracle of the holy fire (already practised in his time) was a scandalous imposture. In 1010 the buildings erected by Modestus were burned to the ground. The news of their destruction, brought back by pilgrims, caused a wave of indignation throughout Europe. It was one of the causes of the feeling that eventually brought about the First Crusade. Meanwhile funds were collected to rebuild the sanctuary. The Emperor Constantine IX (1042-1054) persuaded the Caliph Al-Mustansir-bi-llah (1036-1094) to allow the rebuilding on condition of releasing 5000 Moslem prisoners and of allowing prayer for Al-Mustansir in the mosques in the empire. Byzantine arhitects were sent to Jerusalem. The rebuilding was finished in 1048. The work of Modestus was restored with a few additions hurriedly and not well. The Holy Sepulchre remained in this state till the crusaders replaced it by the present group of buildings (1140-1149). In 1030 merchants of Amalfi were able to establish themselves permanently in Jerusalem. They had leave to trade fully with the people of Palestine, built a church (S. Maria Latina), a Benedictine monastery, and a hospice for pilgrims. In 1077 the Seljuk Turks became masters of Palestine. From this time the condition of the Christians became unbearable. The Turks forbade Christian services, devastated churches, murdered pilgrims. It was the news of these outrages that provoked the Council of Clermont (1095) and brought the crusaders in 1099. The patriarchal succession after Sophronius was: (The see vacant from Sophronius's death to 7O5. Meanwhile Stephen of Dora acted as papal vicar for Palestine); John V (7O5-735); John VI (735-760), possibly the same person as John V); Theodore (760-c. 770); Eusebius (772); Elias II (driven out in 784, died c. 800); (meanwhile for a time Theodore occupied the see); George of Sergius (800-807); Thomas (807-821); Basil (821-842); Sergius (842- c. 859); Solomon (c. 859-c. 864); Theodosius (c. 864- c. 879); Elias III (c. 879-907); Sergius II (907-911); Leo or Leontius (911-928; Anastasius or Athanasius; Nicholas; Christopher of Christodorus (died 937); Agatho; John VII (murdered 969); Christopher II; Thomas II; Joseph II; Alexander; Agapius (986-?): Jeremias or Orestes (banished and murdered c. 1012; Theophilus; Arsenius (c. 1024); Jordanus; Nicephorus; Sophronius II; Mark II; Euthymius II (died 1099). ADRIAN FORTESCUE Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (1099-1291) 08344abt.gif The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem was founded as a result of the First Crusade, in 1099. Destroyed a first time by Saladin in 1187, it was re-established around Saint-Jean d'Acre and maintained until the capture of that city in 1291. During these two centuries it was for Western Europe a genuine centre of colonization. As the common property of Christendom it retained its international character to the end, although the French element predominated among the feudal lords and the government officials, and the Italians acquired the economic preponderance in the cities. (1) Kings and Succession to the Throne The succession of kings is as follows: + Godfrey of Bouillon, elected Lord of Jerusalem, 22 July, 1099, did not assume the royal crown and died 18 July, 1100, having strengthened the new conquest by his victory over the Egyptians at Ascalon (12 August, 1099). + After his death the barons invited his brother Baldwin, Count of Edessa, to assume the lordship of Jerusalem. Baldwin accepted and had himself crowned King of Jerusalem by the Patriarch Daimbert in the basilica of Bethlehem (25 December, 1100). Baldwin I (1100-1118) was the real founder of the kingdom. With the aid of new crusaders, and more especially the help afforded by the Genoese, Pisan, and Venetian fleets he took possession of the principal cities on the coast of Syria. Besides, the Countship of Tripoli and the Principality of Edessa became fiefs of the new kingdom, but the Principality of Antioch preserved its independence. Baldwin I attacked even the Caliphate of Egypt but died at El-Arish (1118) in the course of this expedition. + His cousin, Baldwin du Bourg, Count of Edessa, was chosen by the barons to succeed him. Baldwin II (1118-1131), who had followed Godfrey of Bouillon to the crusade, was a valiant knight and, in 1124, took possession of Tyre. In 1129 he married his daughter Mélisende to Fulc, Count of Anjou, who was the father of Geoffrey Plantagenet and already sixty years of age. + Fulc (1131-1141) succeeded his father-in-law. + Under his son, Baldwin III (1144-1162), who married Theodora Comnena, the kingdom attained its greatest dimensions after the capture of Ascalon (1153), but the principality of Edessa was wrested from it in 1144. + Amaury I (1162-1174), brother of Baldwin III, succeeded to the throne on the latter's death, being only twenty-seven years of age. He was one of Jerusalem's most brilliant sovereigns, and thought to profit by the anarchy that prevailed in Egypt in order to acquire possession of that country, reaching Cairo twice (1167 and 1168); and, for the moment, having Egypt under his protectorate. But the formation of Saladin's power soon placed the kingdom in peril. + Amaury died prematurely in 1174, leaving as his successor his son Baldwin IV (1174-1185), a very gifted young man, who had been the pupil of William of Tyre, but who was attacked with leprosy and rendered incapable of taking charge of affairs. He at first reigned under the guardianship of Milon de Planci and, assisted by Renaud de Châtillon, inflicted a defeat upon Saladin at Ramleh (1177). + By 1182 the dreadful disease had gained such headway that the unfortunate Baldwin "the Leprous" ("le Mesel") had the son of his sister Sibylla by the Count of Montferrat crowned under the name of Baldwin V. He also had Sibylla take as her second husband Guy of Lusignan, who had put himself at Baldwin's service and had been appointed by him regent of the kingdom. However, as Guy seemed incompetent, the barons took the regency away from him and confided it to Raymond, Count of Tripoli. Baldwin IV died in 1185, at the age of twenty-five, without having married, and left the kingdom a prey to discord and exposed to the attacks of Saladin. + The young Baldwin V, his nephew, died in 1186, supposedly of poisoning. + It was largely due to the instrumentality of Renaud de Châtillon that the barons elected Guy of Lusignan, (1186-1192) and Sibylla sovereigns of Jerusalem. Incapable of defending his kingdom against Saladin, Guy was made prisoner at the battle of Tiberias (4 July, 1187), which was followed by the capture of Jerusalem (2 October), and purchased his liberty by yielding Ascalon to Saladin. The Kingdom of Jerusalem was destroyed. Then took place the Crusade of Saint-Jean d'Acre, of which Guy commenced the siege in 1188. However, Queen Sibylla died in 1190 and Conrad of Montferrat, who had married Isabella, Sibylla's sister, disputed the title of king with Guy of Lusignan, and this rivalry lasted throughout the siege of Saint-Jean d'Acre, which city capitulated 11 July, 1191. On 28 July, Richard Coeur de Lion, King of England, imposed his arbitration upon the two rivals and decided that Guy should be king during his lifetime and have Conrad for his successor, the latter to receive Beirut, Tyre, and Sidon as guarantees; but on 29 April, 1192, Conrad was assassinated by emissaries of the "Old Man of the Mountain". Guy, on his side, renounced the title of king (May, 1192) and purchased the Island of Cyprus from the Templars. + He died in 1194 and his widow named Henry I, Count of Champagne (1194-1197), who was elected king, but in 1197 Henry died from an accident. + Isabella married a fourth husband, Amaury of Lusignan (1197-1205), brother of Guy and already King of Cyprus. The turning of the course of the crusade to Constantinople obliged him to conclude a truce with the Moslems. Amaury died in 1205. + He left an only daughter Mélisende who married Bohemond IV, Prince of Antioch. However, it was to Mary, daughter of Isabella and Conrad of Montferrat, that the barons gave the preference, and they requested the King of France to provide her with a husband. + Philip Augustus accordingly selected John of Brienne (1210-1225), who hesitated for a long time before accepting and did not arrive in Palestine until 1210, having first obtained from the pope a considerable loan of money. He directed the Crusade of Egypt in 1218 and, after his defeat, came to the West to solicit help. Hermann von Salza, the Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights, advised him to give his only daughter Isabella (Yolande) in marriage to the Emperor Frederick II. + In 1225, Henry of Malta, Admiral of Sicily, came to seek the young princess at Saint-Jean d'Acre, and on 9 November she married Frederick II at Brindisi. Immediately after the ceremony the emperor declared that his father-in-law must renounce the title of King of Jerusalem, and he himself adopted it in all his acts. After the death of Isabella, by whom he had a son Conrad, Frederick II attempted to take possession of his kingdom and to fulfill his crusader's vow, the execution of which he had so long deferred, and landed at Saint-Jean d'Acre (September, 1228), excommunicated by the pope and in disfavour with his new subjects. By a treaty concluded with the Sultan of Egypt, Frederick regained Jerusalem, and on 18 March, 1229, without any religious ceremony whatever, assumed the royal crown in the church of the Holy Sepulchre. Having confided the regency to Balian d'Ibelin, Lord of Sidon, he returned to Europe. To strengthen his power in the East he sent to Saint-Jean d'Acre Richard Filangieri, Marshal of the Empire, whom he named baile (guardian) of the kingdom. The new regent combated the influence of the Ibelins and tried to secure possession of the Island of Cyprus, but was conquered and had to content himself with placing an imperial garrison at Tyre (1232). + In 1243 Conrad, son of Frederick II, having attained his majority, the court of barons declared that the regency of the emperor must cease, and invited the legitimate king to come in person and exercise his rights. Alix of Champagne, Queen of Cyprus and daughter of King Henry I, claimed the regency on the ground of being Isabella of Brienne's nearest relative; and it was conferred upon her and her second husband Ralph, Count of Soissons, the imperial garrison, besieged in Tyre, being forced to capitulate. + On the death of Alix (1244) her son Henry of Lusignan, King of Cyprus, assumed the regency but, in the month of September, 1244, a troop of Kharizmians seized Jerusalem, whilst the Mongols threatened Antioch. After his Crusade of Egypt, St. Louis landed at Saint-Jean d'Acre (1250) and remained four years in Palestine, putting the fortresses of the kingdom in a state of defence and endeavouring to reconcile the factious barons. However, just at the time that the Christian states were menaced by the Mongols and the Mamelukes of Egypt, interior strife was at its height. + In 1257, Henry of Lusignan having died, some of the barons acknowledged Queen Plaisance regent in the name of her son Hugh II, whereas others would give their allegiance to none other than Conradin, grandson of Frederick II. Moreover, civil war broke out at Acre between the Genoese and the Venetians, between the Hospitallers and the Templars, and on 31 July, 1258, the Venetians destroyed the Genoese fleet before Acre. The Mameluke Sultan Bibars, "the Cross-bowman" (El-Bundukdáree), recommenced the conquest of Syria without meeting any resistance and, in 1268, the last Christian cities, Tripoli, Sidon, and Acre, were cut off from one another. + King Hugh II of Lusignan had died in 1267, and his succession was disputed by his nephew, Hugh III, already King of Cyprus, and Mary of Antioch whose maternal grandfather was Amaury of Lusignan. In 1269 the barons acknowledged Hugh III, but the new king, unable to cope with the lack of discipline among his subjects, retired to Cyprus after naming Balian d'Ibelin regent of the kingdom (1276). But, in 1277, Mary of Antioch sold her rights to Charles of Anjou, King of Naples, who, thinking to subdue the East, sent a garrison under command of Roger of San Severino to occupy Acre. + After the Sicilian Vespers (1282), which ruined the projects of Charles of Anjou, the inhabitants of Acre expelled his seneschal and proclaimed Henry II of Cyprus (15 August, 1286) their king. But at this time the remnants of the Christian possessions were hard pressed by the Mamelukes. On 5 April, 1291, the Sultan Malek-Aschraf appeared before Saint-Jean d'Acre and, despite the courage of its defenders, the city was taken by storm on 28 May. The Kingdom of Jerusalem no longer existed, and none of the expeditions of the fourteenth century succeeded in re-establishing it. The title of King of Jerusalem continued to be borne in a spirit of rivalry: by the Kings of Cyprus belonging to the House of Lusignan; and by the two Houses of Anjou which claimed to hold their rights from Mary of Antioch. In 1459 Charlotte, daughter of John III, King of Cyprus, married Louis of Savoy, Count of Geneva, and in 1485 ceded her rights to Jerusalem to her nephew Charles of Savoy; hence, from that time up to 1870, the title of King of Jerusalem was borne by the princes of the House of Savoy. (2) Institutions and Civilization Towards the middle of the twelfth century, when the Kingdom of Jerusalem had attained its greatest dimensions, it comprised the entire coast of Syria from Beirut on the north to Raphia on the south. On the northeast its territory, bounded by the Lebanon district, which separated it from the Moslem principality of Damascus, was hardly more than a few leagues in breadth; on the southeast it extended beyond the Dead Sea and the Jordan as far as the Arabian Desert and even included the port of Aïla on the Red Sea. In the north the Countship of Tripoli was under the suzerainty of the King of Jerusalem. But in the very interior of the kingdom the power of the king was checked by numerous obstacles, and the sovereignty belonged less to the king than to the body of feudatories whose power was centered in the High Court, composed of vassals and rear-vassals. Its authority governed even the succession to the throne, in event of dispute between two members of the royal family; it alone was empowered to make laws or "assizes", and to its initiative was due the compilation of the "Assizes of Jerusalem", erroneously ascribed to Godfrey of Bouillon. The king took an oath in presence of this court and had no right to confiscate a fief unless in accordance with the regular judgment of that assembly. Moreover, if the king were to violate his oaths, the assizes formally proclaimed the right of the lieges to resist. The High Court, presided over by the constable or marshal, assembled only when convoked by the king; in judicial matters it constituted the supreme tribunal and its judgments were without appeal: "Nulle chose faite par court n'en doit estre desfaite" (Assizes, I, clxxvii). A "Court of the Burgesses", organized in the twelfth century, had analogous jurisdiction over the burgesses and could sentence to exile or even condemn to death. In the great fiefs mixed courts of knights and burgesses had similar control independently of the liege. Even within these limits the king was incapable of compelling vassals to fulfill their feudal obligations. Domiciled in impregnable castles, the architecture of which had been perfected after Moslem models, the nobles led an almost independent life. A fief like that of Montréal with its four castles of Crac, Crac de Montréal, Ahamant, and Vau de Moïse, situated between the Dead and Red Seas, formed a really independent state. Renaud de Châtillon, who became Lord of Montréal in 1174, himself waged war against the Moslems, whom he terrified by his cruise in the Red Sea, and his individual policy was counter to that of King Baldwin VI, who was powerless to prevent him from waging war against Saladin. The Church, at this period, was also a power independent of the kings, and, with the exception of the king, the Patriarch of Jerusalem was the most important personage in the realm. After the First Crusade a very powerful Latin Church was established in Palestine; numerous monasteries were founded and received large donations of landed property in Palestine as well as in Europe. Some patriarchs, especially Daimbert, who was at enmity with Baldwin I, even endeavoured to found a power thoroughly independent of royalty; nevertheless, both of these powers generally lived in harmony. The Patriarch of Jerusalem, who was elected by the clergy and acclaimed by the people, had his powers confirmed by the pope, who continued to exercise great authority in Palestine. Moreover, the orders of religious knighthood, the Hospitallers of St. John, organized in 1313, the Templars founded by Hugh of Payens in 1128, and the Teutonic Knights created in 1143, formed regular powers, equally independent of Church and State. Most lavishly endowed, they soon owned an incalculable number of fiefs and castles in Palestine and in Europe. In spiritual matters they were directly subject to the pope; but the king could not interfere in their temporal affairs, and each of the three orders had its own army and exercised the right of concluding treaties with the Moslems. Although royal authority was restricted to rather narrow limits by these various powers, it nevertheless succeeded in having at its disposal resources adequate to the defence of the Christian states. Its financial revenues were more considerable than those of the majority of the European princes of the twelfth century, amongst the most profitable sources of income being the customs duties enforced at all the ports and of which the register was kept by natives who wrote in Arabic. The king also levied toll upon caravans, had the monopoly of certain industries, and the exclusive right to coin money. At times he obtained from the court of barons authority to levy extraordinary taxes; and in 1182, in order to meet the invasion of Saladin all revenues, even those of the Church were subjected to a tax of 2 per cent. Although the kings of the twelfth century were surrounded by high officials, and kept a sufficiently grand court, at which Byzantine etiquette ruled, they devoted most of their income to the defence of their kingdom. Their vassals owed military service, unlimited as to time, unlike the prevailing Western customs, but in exchange they received pay. Moreover, the king enlisted natives or foreigners, settling on them a life-annuity- or fief de soudée; a light cavalry of Turcopoles mounted and equipped in Saracenic style, Maronite archers from the Lebanon, and Armenian and Syrian foot-soldiers completed the list of this cosmopolitan army of which the effective force was hardly over 20,000 men, some few hundreds of them being knights. To these regular resources already mentioned we must add the bands of crusaders constantly arriving from Europe, but whose turbulence and lack of discipline often rendered them more of an encumbrance than a help; besides, many considered that, having once engaged in combat with the Moslems, they had accomplished their vows and therefore returned to Europe, thus making continuous warfare well nigh impossible. This explains why with the well-organized Moslem states arrayed against it, the Kingdom of Jerusalem could only dispute the ground foot by foot for two centuries. Nevertheless, despite its imperfect organization, the economic prosperity of the Latin kingdom attained an extraordinary height of development in the twelfth century. In order to repopulate the country, Baldwin I held out inducements to the Christian communities dwelling beyond the Jordan; in 1182 the Maronites of the Lebanon abjured their Monothelite heresy. Most of the natives did likewise, and constituted the influential middle class or burgesses of the various cities, having the right to own land and an autonomous administration under magistrates called reis. In the ports, the Italian cities of Genoa, Venice, and Pisa, and the French cities of Marseilles, Narbonne, etc., received grants of houses and even of districts independently administered by their own consuls. Each of these colonies had lands or casaux on the outskirts of the city, where cotton and sugar-cane were cultivated; the colonial merchants had the monopoly of commerce between Europe and the East, and freighted their out-going ships with costly merchandise, spices, China silk, precious stones, etc., which the caravans brought from the interior of Asia. Industries peculiar to Syria, the manufacture of silk and cotton materials, the dye-works and glass factories of Tyre, etc., all helped to feed this commerce, as did also the agricultural products of the land. In exchange, the Western ships brought to Palestine such European products as were necessary to the colonists; two flotillas sailed yearly from Western ports, at Easter and about the feast of St. John, thus ensuring communication between Palestine and Europe. Thanks to this commerce, during the twelfth century the Kingdom of Jerusalem became one of the most prosperous states in Christendom. In the castles, as in the cities, the Western knights loved to surround themselves with gorgeous equipments and choice furniture, the latter often of Arabian workmanship. In Palestine there was a marked development along artistic lines, and churches were erected in the towns according to the rules of Roman architecture. Even now, the cathedral of St. John at Beirut, built about 1130-1140 and transformed into a mosque, shows us the style of edifice reared by Western architects, its structure recalling that of the monuments of Limousin and Languedoe. The specimen of ivory used as a binding for the Psalter of Mélisende, daughter of Baldwin II, and preserved in the British Museum, displays a curious decoration in which are combined designs of Byzantine and Arabian art. But it was military architecture that reached the greatest development and probably furnished models to the West; even today the ruins of the Crac of the Knights, built by the Hospitallers, astonish the beholder by their double gallery, their massive towers, and elegant halls. The Kingdom of Jerusalem, established as a result of the First Crusade, was thus one of the first attempts made by Europeans at colonization. LOUIS BRÉHIER Jerusalem (After 1291) Jerusalem (After 1291) (1) Political History 08344act.gif The Latin dominion over Jerusalem really came to an end on 2 October, 1187, when the city opened its gates to Saladin (Yusuf ibn Ayyub, Salah-ed-din, Emir of Egypt, 1169-93); although fragments of the Latin kingdom in Palestine lasted into another century. Frederick II acquired a short possession of Jerusalem itself by treaty later, and the title "King of Jerusalem" added an empty splendour to the styles of various European sovereigns almost to our own time. Nevertheless after 1187 the episode of Christian and Latin rule over the Holy City is closed. From that time it falls back again into its former state of a city under Moslem government, in which Christian pilgrims are at best only tolerated. As soon as Saladin's army entered the city they set and to destroy all traces of the Christian rule. They tore the great gilt cross from the Dome of the Rock, broke up the bells, plundered churches and convents, restored all the buildings that had been mosques (notably the Dome of the Rock and the El-Aqsa mosque), turned other churches into stables or granaries, founded Moslem schools, hospitals, and all the pious institutions that go by the general name of waqf. While Europe was thunderstruck at the loss of the Holy City, and was preparing a new crusade to recapture it, letters were sent to all parts of the Moslem world announcing the glad tidings that El-Quds was now purified and restored to the true believers. But -- true to the promise made by Omar (see above) -- Saladin left the Holy Sepulchre, as well as a few other churches, to the Christians (the Orthodox). For the use of these they had to pay a heavy tribute. The church of the Knights of St. John was turned into a hospital (at the place still called Muristan, where the German Protestant church now stands). Saladin further strengthened the walls of the city when the Third Crusade (with King Richard of England) approached and threatened it (1191). In 1219 the Sultan Malik-el-Mu'azzam (d. 1227, viceroy at Damascus for El-Mansur) ordered these walls to be destroyed, lest they should become a protection for the Franks. In 1229 another short interlude began. Emperor Frederick II (1212-5O) came on his (the Fifth) Crusade. He obtained by treaty with the Sultan of Egypt, El-Kamil (1219-38), possession of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth, and the pilgrim roads from Jaffa and 'Akka for ten years and a half. The city was not to be fortified, and the Haram esh-sherif (the Temple area) was to remain in exclusive possession of the Moslems. In 1239 the Emir of Kerak, En-nasir Daud, conquered Jerusalem again and destroyed the Tower of David. But in 1243 he made over the city to the Latins without any stipulations. This led to the final loss of the city. For Essalih Ayyub, Caliph of Egypt (1238-49), then called on the savage Khwarizmian tribes from Mesopotamia to recapture it. They poured over Syria plundering and murdering, and in September, 1244, stormed Jerusalem. In the massacre that followed 7000 Christians perished; Jerusalem was restored once more, and finally, to the Empire of the Caliph. From this time the remaining Latin possessions in Palestine were lost one by one in quick succession. The last town, 'Akka (Saint-Jean d'Acre), fell in 1291. The title "King of Jerusalem" went from Guy of Lusignan (King of Jerusalem and Cyprus, 1186-92) to Henry of Champagne (1192-7), to whom it was already only a title of pretence since the Moslems ruled in the city. Amaury (Amalric) of Lusignan (brother of Guy), King of Cyprus (1194-1205), was elected king by the crusading army at Tyre, and married Isabel, daughter of Amaury I of Jerusalem (1162-73). He then added the title of Jerusalem to that of Cyprus (Amaury II). From his time the Lusignan kings of Cyprus used the title of Jerusalem and quartered its arms (argent, a cross potent between four crosslets or) with their paternal coat (barry of ten azure and argent, a lion rampant or, crowned gules. See the arms of "die conine von cipers" in Gelre's Wapenboeck, 1334-72). The Lusignan "Kingdom of Jerusalem and Cyprus" came to an end in 1474, when Catherine Cornaro, widow of the last king (James III) abdicated in favour of the Republic of Venice. Whatever rights they may be supposed to have had to the title of Jerusalem passed to the House of Savoy. Meanwhile, at the death of Amaury II (1205), John of Brienne who married Mary, daughter of the same Isabel and Conrad of Montferrat, began a rival line of titular Kings of Jerusalem. His daughter Isabel (Iolanthe), married Emperor Frederick II, who then assumed the title, and (as we have seen) for a short time actually reigned in Jerusalem. He crowned himself in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre on l7 March, 1229. After him the title was borne by his descendants to Conradin (d. 1268). Then Hugh III, prince of Antioch (1267-80) and regent of the scattered Latin possessions in Palestine for the absent kings of this line, began another series of titular Kings of Jerusalem. He was crowned at Tyre in 1269. His claim was maintained by his son Henry at 'Akka. But Mary of Antioch, also descended from Isabel, set up a claim to this visionary crown, and then sold it to her grand-nephew, Charles of Anjou, King of Sicily (l285-l309), who had already obtained another claim by marrying Margaret, grand-daughter of John of Brienne. While the Moslems were gaining ground and driving back the thin remnant of the Latin kingdom every year, the Sicilians and the party of Hugh of Antioch were fighting for the empty title. Eventually the kings of Sicily added it to their style, and "Jerusalem and the two Sicilies" existed as a "royal title down to the Italian revolution (1860). Lastly, the House of Habsburg also added this shadowy royalty to its long list of titles. Iolanthe-daughter of Rene the Good (d. 1480), titular King of Jerusalem and Naples-married Duke Frederick of Lorraine; from her the title came to the Dukes of Lorraine, and so, through Maria Theresa's marriage with Francis of Lorraine (1736), to the House of Austria. The arms of Jerusalem formed one of the fifty-eight quarterings of the Imperial Arms of Austria; and "Koenig von Jerusalem" was one of the emperor's long string of titles, till Ferdinand I (1835-48) had the good sense to reduce both quarterings and titles to those that had a real meaning. The story of this title of Jerusalem forms a curious bypath in history, and is a typical example of the pretence that medieval heralds loved. Meanwhile, the Moslem ruled again over the Holy City. The crusading idea lingered on in the West for centuries. Pope Pius II (1458-64) still hoped to renew the work of Urban II; but nothing ever came of these attempts. Jerusalem was lost to Christendom in 1187; it is lost still. Till the sixteenth century Syria belonged to the caliphs in Egypt; but it was constantly overrun for short periods by their various enemies. In the thirteenth century the Mongols, who had destroyed the line of caliphs at Baghdad, poured over Syria plundering and destroying under their chief Hulagu (capture of Aleppo, 1260). Kutuz (1259-60) sent his famous general, Beibars el-bundukdari, by whom the Mongols were driven out. Beibars then had Kutuz murdered and reigned as caliph in his stead (1260-77). He succeeded in driving the Crusaders nearly back to their last stronghold, 'Akka, crushed the "Assassins" (Hashishiye)-fanatical Isma'ilis who had been the terror of Syria for nearly two centuries-and conquered a great part of Asia Minor. The name of Beibars (Es sultan el-malik ez-zahir, rukn-ed-dunga wa-din, "The sultan, the manifest king, prop of the world and the faith") may be seen on many monuments in Jerusalem. Kala'un (1279-90) deposed Beibars' son, made himself caliph, further harassed the Crusaders, and built splendid monuments all over Syria. In 1400 the Mongols under Timur again devastated the land. Meanwhile the Osmanli Turks were becoming the dominant race in Islam. In 1516 under Sultan Selim I (1512-20), after they had crushed the Persians (1514), they turned southward towards Syria. On 14 August, 1516, Selim routed the Egyptian army and killed the Caliph Kansuh el-Ghuri. On 22 January, 1517, Selim entered Cairo in triumph. Mutawekkil, the last Egyptian caliph, died a captive of the Turks in 1538, bequeathing his title to the conquering House of Osman. It is on the strength of this (quite illegal) legacy that the Turkish sultan still calls himself Caliph of Islam. From this time the Turk has been master of Jerusalem. In 1799 Napoleon I invaded Syria and reached Nazareth. In 1831 the Egyptian army under Ibrahim Pasha defeated the Turks near Homs (Emessa), and kept possession of Syria and Jerusalem till England and Austria conquered them back for the Turks in 1840. During the nineteenth century Syria has had her share of various Turkish reforms. Jerusalem and the holy places especially, as being the most interesting parts of the empire to Christians and the scene of continual Christian pilgrimages, were the places where the Turkish government was most anxious to show that its reforms were really meant. The great number of Christian institutions of various sects and the large Christian population of Jerusalem have almost taken from it the appearance of an Eastern town. The latest development is the enormous increase of Jews who, in spite of repeated attempts on the part of the government to keep them out, form large colonies in and around the city. They and the European Christians are now the predominant element. There are no cities of the Turkish Empire where (in 1913) Moslems were so little in evidence as in Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nazareth. (2) The Holy Sepulchre The Crusaders found the group of buildings as they had been left by Constantine IX's restoration (1048; see above). From 1140 to 1149 they made a complete restoration of the whole under their architect Master Jordan. The effect of this was a great French-Romanesque cathedral. At the east of the round building over the Anastasis a transept, and beyond it a choir and an apse were built; an aisle surrounded the choir and apse. At the junction with the round building they put a triumphal arch. All the various chapels opened into the central church. From the apse steps led down to the chapel of St. Helena. The entrance was at the south. In this way the Holy Sepulchre became one great building. From the choir one could see into the Anastasis and into all the chapels. This Crusaders' Church is the one that still stands: the beautiful Romanesque doors, at the south especially, still give it a Western appearance. Slight restorations were made in 1244, 1310, 1400 and 1719. In 1808 the round building was burnt down. The Orthodox persuaded the Turkish government to allow them alone to restore it. Their architect closed up the triumphal arch, thus again destroying the unity of the whole, and replaced the old columns of the rotunda by clumsy pillars. He also enclosed the tomb in the present marble covering. The choir of the Crusaders' Church became the present Orthodox Katholikon. The arches between it and its aisles were walled up; the aisles became dark passages. The cupola they built over the rotunda threatened to fall in 1869. France and Russia together had it restored by the iron dome that still exists. It was the dispute between Catholics and Orthodox as to the keys of the Holy Sepulchre that immediately caused the Crimean War (1853). All the parts of the church now needed repairs which were not executed, because no religion would allow the other to undertake them for fear of disturbing their various rights. The inside of the cupola over the Anastasis especially was rotting daily. But the reparation of the roof was the most dangerous of all, since by Turkish law the right to repair implied possession and the possession of a roof meant possession of all it covers. In the present building, walled up and divided into a complex mass of dark passages and chapels laden with tawdry ornament, it is still possible to trace the plan of the great Crusaders' Church. For the rights of the various religions see below. (3) The Orthodox Patriarchate Through all the political changes, under Saracens, Egyptians, and Turks, the old line of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem (who followed the Church of Constantinople into schism in the eleventh century) goes on. But there is little to tell of their history. The line was often broken, and there have been many disputed successions. For the list of these patriarchs since Sophronius see Le Quien, "Oriens Christianus", III, 498-516. When the Crusaders took Jerusalem (1099), the Orthodox patriarch (Simon II) fled to Cyprus. As long as the former held the city, it was impossible for the schismatical rival of their Latin patriarchs to live in it. In 1142 the Orthodox continued their line by electing Arsenius II: he resided at Constantinople. After the Moslems had recaptured the city, the Orthodox patriarchs came back and lived in or near it. The only event of any importance in the later history of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem is the Synod of Jerusalem (often wrongly called the Synod of Bethlehem) in 1672. This synod represents the climax of the Orthodox reaction against the heresies of Cyril Lucaris (d. 1638). Cyril was Patriarch of Constantinople (Cyril I) at five separate intervals (1620-3, 1623-30, 1630-4, 1634-5, 1637-8); he had imbibed Protestant ideas from his friends in Germany and England. As patriarch he organized -- or tried to organize -- a reforming party, and he wrote in 1629 a famous "Confession" (Eastern Confession of the Christian Faith), which was full of pure Calvinism. Eventually Lucaris was accused of treason against the sultan, and strangled by the janizaries in 1638. He left a certain number of Protestantizing disciples, but the enormous majority of the Orthodox abhorred his new doctrines. In the years following his death four synods were held -- at Constantinople (1639), Yassy in Moldavia (1643), Jerusalem (1672), and Constantinople again (1672) in which the Orthodox faith was asserted against Protestantism in the most uncompromising terms. Of these synods that of Jerusalem was by far the most important. It is indeed one of the most important, as it is the last, of the official pronouncements of the Orthodox Church, and may be compared to our Council of Trent. Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem (1669-1707), who summoned the synod, was certainly the most distinguished bishop of that line during this Iater period. He was one of the most important and learned of all modern Orthodox theologians. As patriarch he desuade the Turkish Government to expel Latins and Armenians from the holy places, and reorganized the monasteries of his patriarchate on a stricter basis. As a theologian he wrote works against Catholics, and collected evidences from former writers about the various questions that were being discussed in his time -- the eternal questions of the papacy and the procession of the Holy Ghost, the Hesychast controversy, etc., and then, most of all, the new questions raised by Lucaris and his friends. His chief works are Tomos katallages (1692), Tomos agapes (1699), Tomos charas (1705). In the first of these he publishes the acts of a pretended Synod of Constantinople against the Latins in 1540. No such synod was held; the acts are a palpable forgery. Dositheus also wrote a "History of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem", published after his death (Bukarest, 1715). This work contains more than is promised by its title. It almost amounts to a general history of the Church from the Orthodox side with vehement polemics against other Churches. But Dositheus's chief work was the Synod of Jerusalem. He summoned it on the occasion of consecrating a church at Bethlehem in 1672 (hence the common name "Synod of Bethlehem"). It met in the same year at Jerusalem. The acts are signed by Dositheus, his predecessor the ex-patriarch Nectarius, six metropolitans and bishops, the Archimandrite of the Holy Sepulchre, Josaphat, and a great number of other archimandrites, priests, monks, and theologians. There are sixty-eight signatures in all. The Church of Russia was represented by a monk, Timothy. The acts are dated 20 March, 1672; they bear the title: "Christ guides. A shield of the Orthodox Faith, or the Apology composed by the Synod of Jerusalem under the Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheus against the Calvinist heretics, who falsely say that the Eastern Church thinks heretically about God and Divine things as they do." The first part begins by quoting the text: "There is a time to speak and a time to be silent," which text is explained and enlarged upon at length. It tells the story of the summoning of the synod, and vehemently denies that the Orthodox Eastern Church ever held the opinions attributed to Lucaris. To show this the relations between the Lutherans and Jeremias II of Constantinople are quoted as well as the acts of former synods (Constantinople and Yassy). An elaborate attempt is then made to prove that Lucaris did not really write the famous "Confession". To do this the "Confession" is compared clause by clause with other statements made by him in sermons and in other works. This denial, it should be noted, is a palpable piece of bad faith on the part of the synod. There is no doubt at all as to the authenticity of Lucaris's "Confession". That he used other language on other occasions, especially in preaching, is well-known and very natural. In chapter ii the synod declares that in any case Lucaris showed the "Confession" to no one (this is also quite false), and tries to find further reasons for doubting his authorship. Chapter iii maintains that, even if he had written it, it would not thereby become a confession of the Faith of the Orthodox Church, but would remain merely the private opinion of a heretic: here the Fathers are on safe ground. Chapter iv defends -- no longer Cyril but -- the Orthodox Church by quoting her formularies, and contains a list of anathemas against the heresies of the "Confessions". Chapter v again tries to defend Cyril by quoting various deeds and sayings of his and transcribes the whole decree of the synod of Constantinople in 1639, and then that of Yassy (Giasion) in 1641. Chapter vi gives the decrees of this synod in the form of a "Confession of Dositheus". It has eighteen decrees (horoi), then four "questions" (eroteseis) with long answers. In these all the points denied by Lucaris's "Confession" (Church and Bible, predestination, cult. of saints, sacraments, the Real Presence, the liturgy, a real sacrifice, etc.) are maintained at great length and in the most uncompromising way. A short epilogue closes the acts. Then follow the date, signatures, and seals. Because of its determined anti-Protestantism (Protestants are described as being patently heretics and airetikon koryphaiotatoi), Protestant writers have described this synod as a work of the Jesuits, of the French ambassador at that time, Olivier de Nointel, and of other Catholics who were undermining the Eastern Church. It is true that the Synod of Jerusalem represents a strongly Catholic reaction after Lucaris's troubles (it accepts and defends the word transubstantiation -- metousiosis -- for instance). It is all the more remarkable that its decrees have been accepted unreservedly by the whole Orthodox Church. They were at once approved by the other patriarchs, the Church of Russia, etc.; they are always printed in full among the symbolic books of the Orthodox Church, and form an official creed or declaration in the strictest sense, which every Orthodox Christian is bound to accept. An affair that concerned the Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem was that of the independence of the great monastery of Mount Sinai. This monastery, one of the richest and most famous of Eastern Christendom, was undoubtedly at one time subject to the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Jerusalem. In 1782, after a great struggle, the Abbot of Mount Sinai succeeded in asserting his independence of any patriarch. As Archbishop of Sinai the abbot now reigns over the smallest autocephalous Church of their communion. But he is still ordained in Jerusalem, and the patriarchs have constantly tried to assert some kind of authority over their independent daughter-church. The last great quarrel was in 1866, when the archbishop (Cyril Byzantius) had a dispute with his monks. Instead of applying to Jerusalem he wrote to Constantinople for help. Sophronius III of Constantinople (1863-67) at once took up his cause against the monks. The Patriarch of Jerusalem then summoned a synod (1867), in which he protested hotly against the interference of Constantinople. Less for the sake of Jerusalem's shadowy rights over Sinai than because of the ever-welcome chance of opposing the arrogant interference of Constantinople, the other Orthodox Churches all supported Jerusalem, so that Byzantius was deposed and the Patriarch of Constantinople had to resign. But that is the last attempt made by Jerusalem to interfere in the affairs of what is now universally recognized as the autocephalous Church of Sinai. During these centuries the patriarchate, never very rich, suffered from steadily increasing poverty. Dositheus complained bitterly of this. He says that pilgrimages are rarer, and that the pilgrims who do come bring little money; he himself is obliged to travel constantly for the sake of collecting alms to Constantinople, Russia, Moldavia, etc. A result of the Turkish conquest was that since 1517 the Patriarchs of Jerusalem have been subject to their brothers of Constantinople in civil matters, as far as the government is concerned. The Turks made the ecumenical Patriarch civil head of all the "Roman nation" (rum millet), that is the Orthodox Church. The other patriarchs can approach the Porte only through him. This civil authority must not be confused with ecclesiastical jurisdiction. In Orthodox canon law the Church of Jerusalem is autocephalous, having no superior authority but that of Christ and the Seven Councils. Jerusalem, like the other free branches of their communion, has always indignantly withstood the many attempts of Constantinople to assert a kind of papal authority, and has always upheld the axiom that that ecumenical bishop has no ecclesiastical jurisdiction outside his patriarchate. Nevertheless, during these centuries till quite modern times, the independence of Jerusalem was only theoretical. The patriarchs were all Greeks. Originally, under the Egyptian rule, they had been Arabs, taken naturally from the native clergy of Palestine. But in 1534 Germanus, a Greek of the Peloponnesus, succeeded in being elected and from that time to this his successors have all been Greeks. Germanus further succeeded in hellenizing all the administration of his patriarchate: the monks of the Holy Sepulchre, the bishops, archimandrites, and officials of the patriarchal court are all Greeks. It became a recognized principle that no native Arab should ever be appointed to any office in the patriarchate. The result of this is that for over three centuries the patriarchal curia of Jerusalem has been and remains a foreign colony in the land, utterly separate from the native Arab lower clergy and the people. But this state of things will soon come to an end. Following the triumphant example of Antioch there is at this moment a great agitation among the Orthodox Arabs to assert their place in their own patriarchate. And as they are supported by Russia they will succeed. The reigning patriarch, Damianus, though of course a Greek, is not unfriendly to the Arab agitators. On the other hand the monks, the "Fraternity of the Holy Sepulchre", stand out as a bulwark of Orthodoxy for the present state of things, and treat the Arabs as schismatical revolutionaries. Everyone has heard of the scandalous riots that took place in 1908, and culminated in the pretended deposition of the patriarch. Till quite lately, moreover, most of these Greek patriarchs did not even take the trouble to reside in their titular city. Mere servants of the oecumenical bishop, having no interest in their Arab flock, they were content to fritter away their lives in Constantinople, useless ornaments of the Phanar. Since the accession of Cyril II (1845-72), this abuse has been removed and the patriarchs live near the Monastery of the Holy Sepulchre. Meanwhile the sees of the patriarchate have almost entirely disappeared. In Juvenal's time (420-58) fifty-nine bishops in the three Palestines obeyed the new patriarch. The Moslem conquest, the Crusades, and the other troubles of the Orthodox Church in Syria gradually reduced this number, till there are now only a handful of titular bishops who reside at Jerusalem instead of in their dioceses, and a few sees whose titles are registered but are always vacant. In 1913 only one bishop (the Metropolitan of 'Akka) lived in his diocese (see the list below). The full list of patriarchs of Jerusalem during this period will be found in Le Quien, "Oriens Christianus", III; for the later ones see Williams, "Holy City", I, pp. 487-8. The patriarchs in the nineteenth century are: Anthimus, 1787-1808; Polycarp, 1808-27; Athanasius V, 1827-45; Cyril II, 1845-72. The last-mentioned refused to sign the excommunication of the Bulgars in 1872, and was deposed the same year. Procopius was intruded while Cyril still claimed to be patriarch. Russia and the native Arabs acknowledged Cyril, the Phanar and nearly all the rest of the Orthodox world Procopius. Russia deposed Procopius in 1875, and Cyril died. Russia then appointed Hierotheus, who, however, to everyone's surprise took the side of the Phanar in the Bulgarian quarrel. So Russia fell foul of him, and took the opportunity of confiscating the property of the Holy Sepulchre in Bessarabia. Hierotheus died in 1882. There were then three candidates for the vacant see, Nicodemus, Gerasimus and Photius. Photius (always a determined enemy of Russia) was elected canonically. But the Russians made the sultan refuse him the berat, and give it to Nicodemus instead. Gerasimus became Patriarch of Antioch in 1885. Photius went back to his monastery at Sinai. Nicodemus reigned from 1883 to 1890. In 1890 the Phanar persuaded the sultan to depose Nicodemus, and give the berat to Photius. Nicodemus retired to Halki. But the Russians absolutely refused to allow Photius to become patriarch. So the third original candidate, Gerasimus, was persuaded to leave Antioch and come to Jerusalem. He reigned from 1891 to 1897. Photius became Metropolitan of Nazareth, and in 1899 Patriarch of Alexandria. Gerasimus died in 1897 and the Russians tried to have their candidate Euthymius, Archimandrite of the Holy Sepulehre, appointed. But the candidate of the Phanar, Damianus, Metropolitan of Philadelphia, was appointed in 1897. For further information about the Orthodox patriarchate see below. (4) The Catholic Church in Jerusalem The organization of the Catholics in Palestine dates from the time of the Crusades. As soon as Godfrey of Bouillon became King of Jerusalem in 1099, a Latin patriarchate was set up. Arnulf, chaplain of the Normans, was made administrator of this patriarchate by the synod held in Jerusalem at Christmas, 1099. But he was soon set aside because of his immoral life, and Dagobert, Archbishop of Pisa, elected patriarch. The line of Latin patriarchs is: Dagobert of Pisa, 1099-1107 (Ehremar, anti-patriarch set up by Baldwin I while Dagobert was travelling to Rome to answer the king's complaints); Ghibellin of Arles, 1107-11; Arnulf (the original administrator), 1111-8; Guarimund, 1118-28; Stephen, 1128-30; William, 1130-45; Fulcher, 1146-57; Amalric, 1157-80; Heraclius, 1180-91. -- During the episcopate of Heraclius the Saracens took Jerusalem (1187), and the Orthodox patriarch returned. From this time the Latin patriarchs resided at the court of the Latin kings; when that court was at 'Akka (during the last period of the kingdom) the patriarchate was united to the bishopric of that town (Ptolemais in Latin). -- Michael; Bl. Albert of Parma (d. 1214); Gerald or Girold, 1214-27; Robert, 1227-54; James Pantaleon (afterwards Pope Urban IV), 1254-61; William, 1261-; Thomas; John, 1270-8; Nicholas, 1278-94. Since 'Akka fell in 1291, the Latin line was continued by merely titular patriarchs, living at Rome and using the basilica of St. Laurence without the Walls as their patriarchal church, till Pius III restored the real patriarchate at Jerusalem in 1847. The patriarchs of the crusading time were in most cases not very edifying persons. Much of the history of the Latin Kingdom is taken up with their quarrels with the kings, intrigues, and generally scandalous adventures. An amusing, if hostile account of these intrigues will be found in Besant and Palmer's "Jerusalem" (throughout the book). The patriarchate extended to the limits of the Crusaders' territory; as they conquered new cities, so were new Latin sees established. There were four provinces: Palaestina I (metropolis, Caesarea; two suffragan sees, Sebaste and Saba), Palaestina II (Nazareth with one suffragan, Tiberias), Palaestina III (metropolis Petra, suffragan Sinai), Phoenicia (metropolis Tyre; suffragans, St. Jean d'Acre, Sidon, Beirut, Paneas). Bethlehem and Ascalon (joined), Hebron and Lydda (Diospolis) were immediately subject to the patriarch. But the number of sees fluctuated with the fortunes of the crusaders; there are various lists given by contemporary authors representing different circumstances. There were many abbeys besides the priory of the Holy Sepulchre (following the Augustinian rule); for these see Le Quien, III, 1279 sqq., and the "Gesta Dei per Francos" (Hanover, 1611), 1077. From the thirteenth century, when this hierarchy disappeared, down to our own time, the Catholic cause was upheld almost solely by the Franciscan Order. The friars were first sent to Palestine by St. Francis himself in 1219. The order has a special province, the "Custodia Terræ Sanctæ", which includes Lower Egypt, Cyprus, and Armenia. The head of this province, and till 1847 the supreme authority for Catholics in Palestine, is the Franciscan provincial who bears the title "Custos Terrae Sanctae". He had episcopal jurisdiction (but not orders), and the Turkish government granted him many privileges as civil head of the "Latin nation" in Palestine. This province (commonly called by the Italian form "Terra Santa", which has passed into Arabic and Turkish) is recruited from all the other Franciscan provinces. Its official language is Italian. During the long centuries since the fall of the Latin kingdom the heroic friars have guarded the interests of the Catholic Church around the Holy Places. Always exposed to the jealousy of the Orthodox and other sects, continually persecuted by the Turks, they have kept their place till today, and with it our rights in the Holy Land, constantly at the price of their blood. It was in their hospices (the case nuove, which they have built all over Palestine) that the Catholic pilgrim found shelter. They have kept the Latin altars in repair, and have never ceased offering the Latin Mass on them for six centuries when no one else cared for them. The "Reverendissimus Custos Terrae Sanctae" now fills a much less important place in the Catholic Church of Palestine; but no changes can ever make one forget what we owe to the friars for defending our cause during those dark years. In the nineteenth century it was felt that a state of things of which the result was practically Franciscan monopoly in Palestine had become an anomaly. The Turkish government had become tolerant, the number of Catholic pilgrims increased enormously, many other religious orders had built houses at Jerusalem and other cities, there were Arab Catholics who wished to become priests and to serve their own people, but who had not necessarily a vocation for the Franciscan Order. So the old conditions that reserved practically all cure of souls to Franciscans and submitted every one to the jurisdiction of the custos -- natural enough when there had been no one else to undertake the work -- were no longer reasonable now. There was no reason why the Catholics of Palestine should not be governed by an episcopal hierarchy in the normal way. Moved by these considerations Pius IX decided to change the titular Latin patriarchate at Rome into a real see again at Jerusalem. The titular patriarch, Augustus Foscolo (1830-47), was requested to resign. In his place Joseph Valerga was made patriarch in 1847, and ordered to take up his residence in the Holy City (Brief of 23 July 1847). He was consecrated by the pope himself on 10 October, 1847, and arrived in his patriarchate in January, 1848. He found 4200 Latin Catholics there; at his death in 1872 he had doubled the number. The succession of these restored Latin patriarchs is: Joseph Valerga, 1847-72; Vincent Bracco, 1873-89; Louis Piavi, 1889-1905. Mgr. Piavi died on 24 January, 1905. After some delay, the present patriarch, Mgr. Philip Camassei, formerly Latin Bishop of Syra, was promoted in November, 1906, and entered Jerusalem just before Easter, 1907. (5) Present Condition of the City Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures: Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000; Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly half the present population. The Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem has jurisdiction over all Latins of Palestine, extending to Egypt on the south, the Latin Delegacy of Syria (seat at Beirut) on the north, and including Cyprus. He is appointed by the Roman Curia (libera collatio S. Pont.), and is personally exempt from Turkish authority (still nominally under the protectorate of France). He is represented in the majlis. The patriarchate has no suffragan sees. The Custos Terræ Sanctæ retains the use of episcopal insignia and certain rights of admission to the holy places; otherwise, he must now be counted only as the Provincial of the Franciscans. Appointments to the "Order of the Holy Sepulchre" (a military order of knighthood which began with the crusades and continues as a small dignity given to deserving Catholics), formerly made by the custos, are now in the hands of the patriarch. The patriarchal church in theory is the Holy Sepulchre. But since Catholics have only alternative rights there with the Orthodox and Armenians, Foscolo built a pro-cathedral near the Jaffa Gate (to the north): the patriarch's house and a seminary adjoin this church. But the patriarch celebrates the functions of Holy Week and others at the Holy Sepulchre according to the rights conceded to Catholics, which are carefully drawn up and enforced by the Government. The Franciscan custos lives at the Convent of St. Saviour to the north of the Muristan. This convent is the Franciscan head-quarters at Jerusalem. It was originally a Georgian monastery, and was acquired by the friars in 1551. Next to it is the large parish church of St. Saviour, finished in 1885 at the expense of the Austrian Emperor Francis Joseph I; the Casa Nuova (hospice for pilgrims) is close at hand. Then there are an orphanage, a school, a library, printing press, etc., all in charge of the friars, clustered around the convent. The Franciscans have also the little convent of the Holy Sepulchre with the "Chapel of the Apparition," that forms the northern part of the group of buildings at the Anastasis. This has been Franciscan property since the thirteenth century (P. Barnabe Meistermann's "Nouveau Guide" contains an excellent plan of the Anastasis, coloured according to the possessions of the various religions). Six or seven priests and as many lay-brothers are sent from the convent of St. Saviour to reside here for periods of three months in turn. These are the "Fathers of the Holy Sepulchre" who are always on guard to celebrate the Latin Offices, receive pilgrims, and maintain our traditional rights. They have a hard time while they are on duty. There is no way out of the convent except by the door to the whole complex on the south. This door is locked by the Turkish guardians at night, so the friars are locked in. Their food is brought to them from St. Saviour, and passed through a wicket in the great door every day. Formerly the residence in the narrow damp convent shut in among the other buildings, which they do not leave during their time of office, was very injurious to their health. But in 1869 Emperor Francis Joseph of Austria, when he made his pilgrimage to Jerusalem, obtained from the Turkish government some improvement in the ventilation of the convent and leave to build a terrace and a belfry behind it. In 1875 the friars rang their bells to summon Catholics to their services for the first time at this place since centuries (the Orthodox do not use bells but clappers -- symantra; bells are an abomination to Moslems). The third Franciscan convent in Jerusalem is by the Chapel of the Scourging in the Tariq Bab Sitti Miriam, opposite the Antonia castle. This property belonged to them from the time of the Crusades till 1618. It was then taken away by the Pasha and turned into a stable. It was given back in 1838, and restored at the expense of King Maximilian of Bavaria. Other Latin properties in Jerusalem are the College of St. Ann for Melkite clergy governed (since 1878) by Cardinal Lavigerie's Pres blancs near the Bab Sitti Miriam (Gate of the Lady Mary), the Dominican convent and Ecole biblique at St. Stephen outside the Damascus Gate (1884), the great French Hospice "Notre Dame de France", directed by the Augustinians of the Assumption outside the walls to the northwest near the Bab 'Abdu-I'hamid (1887), the Benedictine monastery with a seminary for Syrian Catholics on the Mount of Olives (1899), the new German Benedictine monastery at the "Dormitio B.M.V." on Mount Sion, given by the German Emperor in 1906, the German and Austrian hospices, the French Passionists and Lazarists, the Italian Salesians, and French Peres de Sion and Christian Brothers. There are convents of the French Carmelite nuns (on the Mount of Olives, since 1873), Poor Clares, Franciscan nuns, "Dames de Sion", Sisters of St. Vincent de Paul, Benedictine nuns, Sisters of the Rosary of St. Joseph and of Marie-Reparatrice". Of all these Latin institutions the older colonies (e.g. the Franciscans) have on the whole an Italian character, by far the greatest number are French, but the Germans (especially since the troubles about the protectorate) are now getting considerable influence. As throughout the Turkish Empire early in the twentieth century, French was the European language most spoken at Jerusalem. Most of the Eastern Catholic Churches have establishments in the Holy City. The Melkite Patriarch of Antioch also bears the titles of Alexandria and Jerusalem. He has a church (St. Veronica) in the Khan-ez-zeit just behind St. Saviour where the Melkite patriarchal vicar (who generally resides at Jaffa) and the patriarch himself (when present) officiate; near it is a hospice for Melkites. There is also a Melkite monastery near the New Bazaar (Es-suk el-jedid). The Maronites have a parish church served by their patriarchal vicar; that of the Catholic Armenians (Notre Dame du Spasme) is in the Via Dolorosa opposite the Austrian hospice. The Armenians had an Archbishop of Jerusalem (Michael Alessandrius) from 1855 to 1867. No successor has been appointed to him. The Syrian Catholics have also a small church where their patriarchal vicar officiates. The Syrian Catholic Patriarch of Antioch is considered as administrator of an Archdiocese of Jerusalem; but he does not use the title. A hardship felt by all these Eastern Catholics is that they cannot celebrate their Offices at the Holy Sepulchre. Among Catholics the Turk recognizes only the rights of Latins there. The Orthodox Church naturally also fills a large place among the Christian communities of Jerusalem. The patriarch bears the title "the most blessed and holy Patriarch of the holy city Jerusalem and all Palestine, of Syria, Arabia beyond the Jordan, Cana of Galilee and Holy Sion". It should be noticed that of all the persons who bear the title "Patriarch of Jerusalem", this one alone represents historic continuity from the original line. His patriarchate extends to the Lebanon on the north and the Red Sea on the south (except the autocephalous convent on Sinai). East and west it is bounded by the Syrian desert and the sea. The patriarch resides by the "Great Laura" in the Haret deir-er-rum not far from the Anastasis; he has also properties in the country at Katamon near Jerusalem (where they say St. Simeon lived) and near Deir Aban (between Jerusalem and Jaffa). The sees of the Patriarchate are Cæsarea, Scythopolis (Beisan), Petra, Ptolemais ('Akka), Nazareth, Bethlehem, Lydda, Gaza, Nablus, Sebaste, Tabor, the Jordan, Tiberias, Philadelphia, Pella, Kerak, Diocaesarea (Sepphoris), Madaba. The only resident bishop is the Metropolitan of 'Akka; those of Lydda, Gaza, Nablus, Sebaste, the Jordan, Philadelphia, Kerak and Madaba live at Jerusalem and form the Patriarch's Court. The other sees are left vacant. In the administration of his Church the patriarch is assisted by a synod consisting of ten bishops and ten archimandrites. Near the patriarchate is the large Orthodox monastery (St. Constantine) with a printing press and hospice for pilgrims. In the Holy Sepulchre the Orthodox possess the central part (the "Katholikon") and various chapels. They have a monastery built against it (to the west). The actual Anastasis under its cupola is too precious to be given to any one religion; so it is common property, used in turn by all. There are sixteen other Orthodox monasteries in and around the city and various hospices, hospitals and schools. For the education of their clergy they have the "Monastery of the Holy Cross" (Deir el-musallebe) about one and a half miles west of the city. This monastery (said to be at the place where the tree grew from which the cross was made) was originally Georgian. Inscriptions in that language may be seen in the church. It was sold to the Greeks, opened as a theological college in 1855, since then several times closed and re-opened. Many students do not belong to the patriarchate, but come from Asia Minor, Cyprus, Greece, etc., to study here. There are hardly any Arabs. The only language used in the college is Greek. The Greek element has hitherto had exclusive possession of the older Orthodox establishments in Jerusalem. We have alluded to the troubles now raging through the attempt of the Arabs to break this monopoly. It is considerably broken, though not in favour of the Arabs, by the Russian establishments. The autocephalous Russian Church is represented in Palestine by a great number of large colonies and institutions altogether separate from those of the Patriarchate. The first Russian archimandrite arrived in 1844; the consulate dates from 1858. The Russian Palestine Society builds churches, in which the liturgy is celebrated in Slavonic, and hospices for Russian pilgrims all over the country to the great annoyance of the Greek patriarchal element. It is because Russia has taken up the cause of the native Arabs that they can no longer be ignored as obscure revolutionaries of the lower classes. On the contrary, the Greek influence is already doomed; when Lord Damianus dies or is successfully deposed, we may expect to hear of an Arab patriarch as his successor. It remains to be it made at Antioch by excommunicating him. The chief Russian establishments at Jerusalem are the enormous group of buildings outside the city on the Jaffa road. These contain a large and very handsome church where the Russian archimandrite officiates, huge hospices for pilgrims, a hospital and other buildings, all close to the Russian consulate. Then they have a gorgeous church in Gethsemane, and another one with a high tower, a convent of nuns, and other buildings on the top of the Mount of Olives (the place of the Ascension in their tradition). There are also another Russian hospice in the Muristan, a lunatic asylum, and schools. But the Russians have no rights at the Holy Sepulchre. Each time they want to have a service there they must ask leave of the patriarch. About 8000 Russian pilgrims visit the Holy Places every year. The Gregorian Armenians have a Patriarchate of Jerusalem as one of their two minor patriarchates. In the seventeenth century the Katholikos of Echmiadzin gave the Armenian Bishop of Jerusalem the right to consecrate chrism; thereupon the bishop assumed the title patriarch and began ordaining bishops. The title is now acknowledged by the Armenian Church. The jurisdiction of the Armenian Patriarch of Jerusalem extends throughout the Pashaliks of Damascus, 'Akka, Tarabulus (Tripoli), and Cyprus. Under him are seven archbishops and bishops who live with him and form his synod, and fourteen suffragans. The patriarchate is at the great Armenian monastery of St. James to the southwest of the city, near the Bab Nebi Daud. This was formerly a Georgian monastery; the Armenians possess it since the thirteenth century. Besides the patriarch and bishops about a hundred vartabeds live here. There are also a seminary and schools and a hospice for pilgrims adjoining the great church. They also have a monastery just outside the same gate (the reputed house of Caiphas), a convent of nuns (Deir-ez-zeituni) near the patriarchate, and land outside the city opposite the great Russian colony. The whole southwest of Jerusalem around their patriarchate is the "Armenian quarter". At the Holy Sepulchre they possess the Chapels of St. Helena, of St. John, of the "Division of Garments", of St. James (behind the Anastasis), and the "Stone of the Holy Women" (cf. Meistermann's plan). The Armenians have further rights of walking in procession about the Anastasis, and take their turn to celebrate their offices at it. The Jacobite Syrians have a little church (claimed as the house of John Mark) in the Haret-en-nebi Daud, with a monastery where the vicar of their maphrian (who now unites with this dignity that of Metropolitan of Jerusalem) resides, and the central chapel behind the Anastasis. The Copts have a large monastery (Deir-es-sultan) close to the Holy Sepulchre to the north, at the ninth Station of the Cross, with a hospice. Another Coptic church is at their Khan north of the Birket Hammam-el-batrak (Pool of Hezekiah), and they have several chapels in the Holy Sepulchre itself. The Copts have had a Bishop of Jerusalem since the eleventh century. He now resides at Cairo with the title Bishop of the East (Sharkiye), or of the Anastasis (Kayame), or Jerusalem (El Quds), and ranks immediately after the Abuna of Abyssinia. The Abyssinians possess a large round church outside the city to the northwest (beyond the Russian buildings) and a monastery touching the Holy Sepulchre and the Coptic monastery. They have no special place in the great church itself; but share with the Copts (with whom, of course, they are in communion). The Nestorians had a Metropolitan of Jerusalem from the ninth to the thirteenth century. Since 1282 the title seems to have disappeared (Le Quien, II, 1299). Lastly, English, German and American Protestants of all sects have a great number of establishments, churches, hospitals, and hospices in Jerusalem. The most important of these are the German Evangelical Erl serkirche in the Muristan (built in 1898 on land given by the German Emperor) with a school, the Johanniterhospiz, Hospital of the Kaiserwerth Deaconesses, the Leper-house kept by the Moravians, and the Syrian Protestant orphanage. In 1841, by arrangement between the Prussian and English governments, an Anglo-Lutheran "Bishopric of St. James" at Jerusalem was founded. The bishops were to be appointed alternately by the two governments and to have jurisdiction over all Anglicans and Lutherans in Syria, Chaldea, Egypt and Abyssinia. This is the famous "Jerusalem bishopric" that gave so great scandal to the leaders of the Oxford Movement. The bishops were: Michael Samuel Alexander (appointed by England), 1842-5; Samuel Gobat von Cremines (by Prussia), 1845-79; Joseph Barclay (by England), 1879-81. Already during Gobat's time the two elements had drifted apart; when Barclay died, the arrangement fell through. The Anglicans have now a bishopric "in" Jerusalem of quite a different type (since 1887). Bishop Blyth and his archdeacons are conciliatory to all the Eastern Churches and on excellent terms with the Orthodox patriarch. The Anglican Collegiate Church of St. George (with a college) is the seat of the bishop in Jerusalem. It is situated outside the city to the north, beyond the Dominican convent. St. Paul's Church belongs to the Church Missionary Society (outside, northwest); there is a large Anglican school (founded by Bishop Gobat) at the southwest corner of the walls. The London Jews' Society has a church, two hospitals and several schools. The following persons use the title of Jerusalem in some form: + Catholics: the Latin Patriarch, residing in the city; the Melkite Patriarch of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and all the East, residing at Alexandria or Damascus; the Melkite Patriarchal Vicar of Jerusalem residing at Jaffa; the Maronite Patriarchal Vicar of Jerusalem residing in the city; + Non-Catholics: the Orthodox Patriarch residing in the city; the Armenian Patriarch residing in the city; the Jacobite Maphrian (Metropolitan of Jerusalem) residing with his Patriarch (of Antioch) in the Zapharan monastery near Mardin; the Jacobite Vicar of Jerusalem (for the Maphrian) residing in the city; the Coptic Bishop of Jerusalem (or the East or the Anastasis) residing at Cairo; the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem. ADRIAN FORTESCUE Liturgy of Jerusalem Liturgy of Jerusalem The Rite of Jerusalem is that of Antioch. That is to say, the Liturgy that became famous as the use of the patriarchical church of Antioch, that through the influence of that Church spread throughout Syria and Asia Minor, and was the starting point of the development of the Byzantine rite, is itself originally the local liturgy, not of Antioch, but of Jerusalem. It is no other than the famous liturgy of St. James. That it was actually composed by St. James the Less, as first Bishop of Jerusalem, is not now believed by any one; but two forms in it show that it was originally used as local rite of the city of Jerusalem. There is a reference to the Cross among the prayers for catechumens--"Lift up the horn of the Christians by the power of the venerable and life-giving cross"--that is always supposed to be a reference to St. Helena's invention of the True Cross at Jerusalem in the early fourth century. If so, this would also give an approximate date, at any rate for that prayer. A much clearer local allusion is in the Intercession, after the Epiklesis: "We offer to thee, O Lord, for thy holy places which thou hast glorified by the divine appearance of thy Christ and by the coming of thy Holy Spirit" (these are the various sanctuaries of Palestine) "especially for holy and glorious Sion, mother of all Churches" (Sion, in Christian language, is always the local Church of Jerusalem. See JERUSALEM II) "and for thy holy Catholic and Apostolic Church throughout the whole world" (kata pasan ten oikoumenen, which always may mean, "throughout the whole Empire"). This reference, then, the only one to any local Church in the whole liturgy -- the fact that the Intercession, in which they pray for every kind of person and cause, begins with a prayer for the Church of Jerusalem, is a sure index of the place of origin. We have further evidence in the catechetical discourses of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. These were held about the year 347 or 348 in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre; it is obvious that they describe the liturgy known to his hearers there. Probst has examined the discourses from this point of view ("Liturgie des IV Jahrhunderts", Muster, 1893, 82-106) and describes the liturgy that can be deduced from them. Allowing for certain reticences, especially in the earlier instructions given to catechumens (the disciplina arcani), and for certain slight differences, such as time always brings about in a living rite, it is evident that Cyril's liturgy is the one we know as that of St. James. As an obvious example one may quote Cyril's description of the beginning of the Anaphora (corresponding to our Preface). He mentions the celebrant's versicle, "Let us give thanks to the Lord", and the answer of the people, "Meet and just". He then continues : "After this we remember the sky, the earth and the sea, the sun and the moon, the stars and all creation both rational and irrational, the angels, archangels, powers, mights, dominations, principalities, thrones, the many-eyed Cherubim who also say those words of David: Praise the Lord with me. We remember also the Seraphim, whom Isaias saw in spirit standing around the throne of God, who with two wings cover their faces, with two their feet and with two fly; who say: Holy, holy, holy Lord of Sabaoth. We also say these divine words of the Seraphim, so as to take part in the hymns of the heavenly host" ("Catech. Myst.", V, 6). This is an exact description of the beginning of the Anaphora in the Liturgy of St. James. We have, then, certain evidence that our St. James's Liturgy is the original local rite of Jerusalem. A further question as to its origin leads to that of its relation to the famous liturgy in the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions. That the two are related is obvious. (The question is discussed in ANTIOCHENE LITURGY.) It seems also obvious that the Apostolic Constitution rite is the older; St. James must be considered a later, enlarged, and expanded form of it. But the liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions is not Palestinan, but Antiochene. The compiler was an Antiochene Syrian; he describes the rite he knew in the north, at Antioch. (This, too, is shown in the same article.) The St. James's Rite, then, is an a adaptation of the other (not necessarily of the very one we have in the Apostolic Constitutions, but of the old Syrian rite, of which the Apostolic Constitutions give us one version) made for local use at Jerusalem. Then it spread throughout the patriarcate. It must always be remembered that, till the Council of Ephesus (431), Jerusalem belonged to the Patriarchate of Antioch. So this liturgy came to Antioch and there displaced the older rite of the Apostolic Constitutions. Adopted unchanged at Antioch (the local allusion to "holy and glorious Sion" was left unaltered), it imposed itself with new authority as the use of the patriarchical Church. The earliest notices of an Antiochene Rite that we possess show that it is this one of St. James. There is no external evidence that the Apostolic Constitution rite was ever used anywhere; it is only from the work itself that we deduce that it is Syrian and Antiochene. Under its new name of Liturgy of Antioch, St. James's Rite was used throughout Syria, Palestine, and Asia Minor. When Jerusalem became a patriarchate it kept the same use. The Liturgy of St. James exists in Greek and Syriac. It was probably at first used indifferently in either language, in Greek in the Hellenized cities, in Syriac in the country. Of the relation of these two versions we can say with certainty that the present Greek form is the older. The existing Syriac liturgy is a translation from the Greek. There is good reason to suppose that at Jerusalem, as everywhere else, the primitive liturgical language was Greek. The schismatical Monophysite Churches formed in the fifth and sixth centuries in Syria kept St. James's Rite in Syriac. The Orthodox used it in Greek till it was supplanted by the daughter-rite of Constantinople about the twelfth century. At present the old Rite of Jerusalem is used, in Syriac, by the Jacobites and Uniat Syrians, also in a modified form in Syriac by the Maronites. The Greek version has been restored among the Orthodox at Jerusalem for one day in the year -- 31 December. ADRIAN FORTESCUE Jesi Jesi (ÆSINA) Diocese in the Province of Ancona, Italy, immediately subject to the Holy See. The city is situated on a pleasant eminence, and was anciently known as Æsis, the name likewise of the River Esino, which flows near the city and forms the boundary between Umbria and Piceno. Little or nothing remains of the ancient buildings, temples, baths, etc., still preserved in the fourteenth century. After the Lombard invasion Jesi formed part of the Pentapolis, afterwards called the March of Ancona. In the conflicts between pope and emperor for the possession of the Marches, Jesi was Ghibelline. Frederick II, who was born there, used the city as the base of his operations. Saint Septimius, martyred in 307, is venerated as the first Bishop of Jesi. Saint Florianus, who was cast into the Esino in the Diocletian persecution, is also venerated (perhaps he is confounded with Saint Florianus who was cast into the Enus or Anisus). Other holy bishops of antiquity were Saints Martianus (c. 500), Calumniosus (c. 647), Honestus. The relics of these three were discovered in 1623. In 1245 Innocent IV deposed the intruder Armannus and placed in his stead the Franciscan Gualtiero, an Englishman and a friend of John of Parma, general of the order and patron of the "Spirituals", spoken of by Salimbene as "bonus cantor, bonus prædicator, bonus dictator". Bishop Severinus in 1237 laid the foundations of the new cathedral, a magnificent structure; the old one, now San Nicola, was outside the city, and in the eighteenth century had fallen into ruin. Gabriele del Monte (1554) introduced the reforms of the Council of Trent, which he had attended; he founded the seminary, and distinguished himself by his charity, especially during the plague of 1583. His successors were Cardinal Camillo Borghese (1597), afterwards Pope Paul V; Cardinals Tiberio Cenci (1621) and Alderano Cibò (1656), noted for their benefactions to churches, monasteries, and the seminary; Antonio Fonseca (1724), who restored the cathedral and founded a hospital. Cardinal Caprara (afterwards Archbishop of Milan), who concluded the Concordat with Napoleon, was Bishop of Jesi (1800-02). He was succeeded by Antonio M. Odescalchi, deported to Milan by the French in 1809. The diocese has twenty-six parishes with 54,000 souls; six religious houses of men and thirteen of women; two schools for boys and six for girls. Cappelletti, Le Chiese d'Italia, VII (Venice, 1857); Baldassini, Notizie historiche della regia città di Jesi (1703). U. BENIGNI Jesuit's Bark Jesuit's Bark ( China Bark; Cinchona; Cortex ChinÆ; Peruvian Bark). Jesuit's Bark, on account of its alkaloids, is the most celebrated specific remedy for all forms of malaria. It is obtained from several species of the genus cinchona, of the order Rubiaceæ, that have been discovered at different times and are indigenous in the Western Andes of South America. Formerly the bark itself, prepared in different forms, was used as a drug, while today immense quantities form the base of the production of cinchona alkaloids. This industry is carried on principally in Germany, and the Dutch and English cinchona plantations in Java, Ceylon, and Farther India are the chief sources whence the raw material is supplied. The history of cinchona bark, which dates back two hundred and eighty years, has greatly influenced that of pharmacy, botany, medicine, trade, theoretical and practical chemistry, and tropical agriculture. Two hundred and fifty years ago the physician Bado declared that this bark had proved more precious to mankind than all the gold and silver which the Spaniards obtained from South America, and the world confirms his opinion today. Two hundred years ago the Italian professor of medicine Ramazzini said that the introduction of Peruvian bark would be of the same importance to medicine that the discovery of gunpowder was to the art of war, an opinion endorsed by contemporary writers on the history of medicine. Whoever has searched the annals of cinchona will recognize the truth of the following observations of Weddel (d. 1877): "Few subjects in natural history have excited general interest in a higher degree than cinchona; none perhaps have hitherto merited the attention of a greater number of distinguished men." This explains the fact that the above-named branches of science all possess an extensive literature on cinchona, which is accessible for purposes of comparison to those who care to study the subject in detail. Limited space here permits merely a sketch of the relation between the Jesuits and cinchona bark, with an elucidation of the terms "Jesuit's bark", "Jesuit's Tree", "Jesuit's Powder", "Pulvis Patrum", etc., necessitating a glance into the earliest literature on cinchona, where, however, many difficulties arise. For a just appreciation of these difficulties, the following quotation from Alexander von Humboldt, which sufficiently accounts for them, should be borne in mind: "It almost goes without saying that among Protestant physicians hatred of the Jesuits and religious intolerance lie at the bottom of the long conflict over the good or harm effected by Peruvian Bark." Many tales which were formerly widespread have proved fabulous; others are to be modified in detail; to which must be added modern discoveries of unquestioned genuineness. Scientific proof is found partly in the work of the present writer. The Spanish Jesuit missionaries in Peru were taught the healing power of the bark by natives, between 1620 and 1630, when a Jesuit at Loxa was indebted to its use for his cure from an attack of malaria (Loxa Bark). It was used at the recommendation of the Jesuits in 1630, when Countess Chinchon (Cinchon; the derivative is Cinchona, the appellation selected by Linnæus in 1742 -- Markham prefers Chinchona), wife of the new viceroy, who had just arrived from Europe, was taken ill with malaria at Lima. The countess was saved from death, and in thanksgiving caused large quantities of the bark to be collected, which she distributed to malaria sufferers, partly in person and partly through the Jesuits of St. Paul's College at Lima (pulvis comitissæ). She did not return to Europe and was not the first to bring the bark there or to spread its use through Spain and the rest of the Continent, as stated by Markham. For the earliest transportation of the bark we must thank the Jesuit Barnabé de Cobo (1582-1657; the Cobæa plant), who rendered important services in the exploration of Mexico and Peru. In his capacity of procurator of the Peruvian province of his order, he brought the bark from Lima to Spain, and afterwards to Rome and other parts of Italy, in 1632. In the meanwhile its merits must have been ascertained both in Lima and in various parts of Europe, as Count Chinchon and his physician de Vega brought it back with them in 1640. Count Chinchon, however, troubled himself little about the use or sale of the bark. A greater distribution resulted from the large quantity brought over by the Jesuit Bartolomé Tafur, who, like Cobo, came to Spain in 1643 while procurator of the Peruvian province of his order, proceeded through France (there is an alleged cure of the young Louis XIV, when still dauphin, effected by Father Tafur by means of Peruvian bark), and thence to Italy as far as Rome. Tafur had frequent intercourse with the celebrated Jesuit theologian de Lugo, who became a cardinal in 1643. From him de Lugo heard of the cinchona, and remained from 1643 until his death in 1660 its faithful advocate, zealous defender, and generous, disinterested dispenser in Italy and the rest of Europe, for which he was honoured in the appellation of pulvis cardinalis, pulvis Lugonis, and by having several portraits painted of him. De Lugo had the bark analysed by the pope's physician in ordinary, Gabriele Fonseca, who reported on it very favourably. Its distribution among the sick in Rome took place only on the advice and with the consent of the Roman doctors. The cardinal had more bark brought from America over the trade routes through Spain. Almost all the other patrons of the drug in those times appear to have been directly influenced by de Lugo; as, for instance, the lay brother Pietro Paolo Pucciarini, S. J. (1600-1661), apothecary in the Jesuit college at Rome, who undoubtedly deserves the greatest credit after de Lugo for distributing the genuine unadulterated article, and to whom are attributed the Roman directions for its use (schedula Romana), the earliest dating at least from 1651. In his friend Honoré Fabri, a French Jesuit, who stayed for a time in Rome, de Lugo won a determined defender of the bark against the first anticinchona pamphlet written by the Brussels doctor JeanJacques Chifflet. Under the pseudonym of Antimus Conygius, Fabri wrote in 1655 the first paper on cinchona published in Italy, as well as the first of the long list of brochures defending its use and the only independent article on this bark which has been issued by a Jesuit. The two Genoese, Girolamo Bardi, a priest, and Sebastiano Ba(l)do, a physician, who were among the pioneer advocates of the plant, were intimate with the cardinal, and Ba(l)do prefixed to his principal work a letter from de Lugo, dated 1659, on cinchona, which shows that the cardinal even when seventy-seven years old was still active in its behalf. Circumstances created a suitable opportunity for disseminating the bark from Rome throughout Europe by means of the Jesuits. In 1646, 1650, and 1652 the delegates to the eighth, ninth, and tenth general councils of the order (three from each province) returned to their homes, taking it with them, and at the same time there is evidence of its use in the Jesuit colleges at Genoa, Lyons, Louvain, Ratisbon, etc. The remedy -- connected with the name of Jesuit -- very soon reached England. The English weekly "Mercurius Politicus" in 1658 contains in four numbers the announcement that: "The excellent powder known by the name of "Jesuit's powder" may be obtained from several London chemists." It remains to recall the fact that even in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the bark kept in the Jesuit pharmacies or in their colleges was considered particularly efficacious because they were better able to provide a genuine unadulterated supply. Further, that in those two centuries Jesuit missionaries took the remedy to the malaria regions of foreign countries, even reaching the court of Peking, where they cured the emperor by its means; that in Peru during the eighteenth century they urged American collectors to lay out new plantations; and in the nineteenth century they were the first to plant cinchona outside of South America. Rompel, Kritische Studien zur ältesten Geschichte der Chinarinde (Feldkirch, 1905); Herbermann, in Historical Records and Studies, IV, (New York, 1906); as a very important historical reference see Badus, Anastasis Corticis Peruvia (Genoa, 1663); Backer in Medical Transactions, III (London, 1785); da Bergen, Versuch einer Monographie der China (Hamburg, 1826); Weddel, Histoire Naturelle des Quinquinas (Paris, 1849); Markham, A memoir of the Lady Ana de Osorio (London, 1874); Idem, Peruvian Bark (London, 1880); FlÜckiger, Die Chinarinde (Berlin, 1883); Idem, Pharmakognosie (Berlin, 1891). Joseph Rompel Daughters of Jesus Daughters of Jesus Founded at Kermaria, in the Diocese of Vannes, France, in 1834, for the care of the sick poor, and the education of girls. The congregation received government authorization 31 October, 1842. In 1893 a provincial house for Canada was founded at Three Rivers. The sisters in Canada number (1910) 267, choir and lay, in charge of 25 schools, chiefly model and elementary, in addition to 9 boarding schools, a hospital, and an orphanage; they also have the domestic care of 2 religious houses. In the United States they conduct an academy and hospital at Lewiston, Montana, and the school connected with the French parish at Waltham, Massachusetts. The congregation has over 200 convents throughout the world. Heimbucher, Orden und Kongregationen (Paderborn, 1908); Le Canada ecclesiastique (1910). F.M. RUDGE Sisters of the Holy Childhood of Jesus and Mary Sisters of the Holy Childhood of Jesus and Mary (1) A congregation founded in 1835 in the Diocese of Fréjus, for the education of girls and the care of the sick, with mother-house at Draguignan; government authorization was granted in 1853. (2) A congregation established at Sens, in 1838, for the work of teaching and the care of the sick in their own homes, the direction of asylums, boarding-schools, etc.; it received state authorization in 1853. Under the mother-house at St-Colombe-les-Sens are over 36 filial establishments. (3) Sisters of the Holy Childhood of Jesus and Mary of Ste-Chrétienne, known also as Sisters of Ste-Chrétienne, founded in 1807 by Mme Anne-Victoire Méjanes, née Tailleux, for the education of girls and the care of the sick poor. At the invitation of Bishop Jauffret of Metz, Mme Méjanes and her community went from Argancy to Metz and took up their abode in the Abbey of St. Glossinde, where, on 20 April, 1807, they bound themselves by vow to follow the statutes drawn up for them by the bishop. Their numbers soon increased until now (1910) there are about 1400 sisters in over 809 houses. The religious are divided into choir and lay sisters, the latter occupied with the domestic care of their various institutions, the former engaged in the works peculiar to higher schools, industrial schools, and orphanages. The vows are made annually for ten years, after which final vows are taken. The congregation received the approval of the Holy See in 1888, and in 1899 its statutes were granted papal approbation. The sisters have houses in Lorraine, France, Austria, Belgium, England, and the United States. In the United States about 90 sisters have charge of 5 schools in the Archdiocese of Boston, with a total attendance of 2400. There is a novitiate of the congregation in Salem, Massachusetts. Heimbucher, Orden und Kongregationen (Paderborn, 1908); The Official Catholic Directory (1910). F.M. RUDGE Jesus Christ Jesus Christ Origin of the Name of Jesus In this article, we shall consider the two words -- "Jesus" and "Christ" -- which compose the Sacred Name. The Holy Name of Jesus We give honour to the Name of Jesus, because it reminds us of all the blessings we receive through our Holy Redeemer. Early Historical Documents Concerning Jesus Christ In this article, we discuss the ancient historical documents -- pagan, Jewish, and Christian -- referring to Christ's life and work. Chronology of the Life of Christ In this article, we shall endeavour to establish the absolute and relative chronology of our Lord's life. The Character of Jesus Christ Here we consider the character of Jesus as manifested first in His relation to men, then in His relation to God. The Mystery of the Incarnation The Incarnation is the mystery and dogma of the Word made Flesh. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ Resurrection is the rising again from the dead, the resumption of life. In this article, we shall treat of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, including its characteristics and importance. Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Devotion to the Sacred Heart is but a special form of devotion to Jesus. Christology Christology is that part of theology which deals with Our Lord Jesus Christ. In its full extent it comprises the doctrines concerning both the person of Christ and His works; but in the present article we shall limit ourselves to a consideration of the person of Christ. The Name of Jesus Christ Origin of the Name of Jesus Christ In this article, we shall consider the two words which compose the Sacred Name. JESUS The word Jesus is the Latin form of the Greek Iesous, which in turn is the transliteration of the Hebrew Jeshua, or Joshua, or again Jehoshua, meaning "Jehovah is salvation." Though the name in one form or another occurs frequently in the Old Testament, it was not borne by a person of prominence between the time of Josue, the son of Nun and Josue, the high priest in the days of Zorobabel. It was also the name of the author of Ecclesiaticus of one of Christ's ancestors mentioned in the genealogy, found in the Third Gospel (Luke 3:29), and one of the St. Paul's companions (Colossians 4:11). During the Hellenizing period, Jason, a purely Greek analogon of Jesus, appears to have been adopted by many (I Machabees 8:17; 12:16; 14:22; II Machabees 1:7; 2:24; 4:7-26; 5:5-10; Acts 17:5-9; Romans 16:21). The Greek name is connected with verb iasthai, to heal; it is therefore, not surprising that some of the Greek Fathers allied the word Jesus with same root (Eusebius, "Dem. Ev.", IV; cf. Acts 9:34; 10:38). Though about the time of Christ the name Jesus appears to have been fairly common (Josephus, "Ant.", XV, ix, 2; XVII, xiii, 1; XX, ix, 1; "Bel. Jud.", III, ix, 7; IV, iii, 9; VI, v, 5; "Vit.", 22) it was imposed on our Lord by God's express order (Luke 1:31; Matthew 1:21), to foreshow that the Child was destined to "save his people from their sins." Philo ("De Mutt. Nom.", 21) is therefore, right when he explains Iesous as meaning soteria kyrion; Eusebius (Dem., Ev., IV, ad fin.; P.G., XXII, 333) gives the meaning Theou soterion; while St. Cyril of Jerusalem interprets the word as equivalent to soter (Cat., x, 13; P.G., XXXIII, 677). This last writer, however, appears to agree with Clement of Alexandria in considering the word Iesous as of Greek origin (Paedag., III, xii; P.G., VIII, 677); St. Chrysostom emphasizes again the Hebrew derivation of the word and its meaning soter (Hom., ii, 2), thus agreeing with the exegesis of the angel speaking to St. Joseph (Matthew 1:21). CHRIST The word Christ, Christos, the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word Messias, means "anointed." According to the Old Law, priests (Exodus 29:29; Leviticus 4:3), kings (I Kings 10:1; 24:7), and prophets (Isaias 61:1) were supposed to be anointed for their respective offices; now, the Christ, or the Messias, combined this threefold dignity in His Person. It is not surprising, therefore, that for centuries the Jews had referred to their expected Deliverer as "the Anointed"; perhaps this designation alludes to Isaias 61:1, and Daniel 9:24-26, or even to Psalms 2:2; 19:7; 44:8. Thus the term Christ or Messias was a title rather than a proper name: "Non proprium nomen est, sed nuncupatio potestatis et regni", says Lactantius (Inst. Div., IV, vii). The Evangelists recognize the same truth; excepting Matthew 1:1, 18; Mark 1:1; John 1:17; 17:3; 9:22; Mark 9:40; Luke 2:11; 22:2, the word Christ is always preceded by the article. Only after the Resurrection did the title gradually pass into a proper name, and the expression Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus became only one designation. But at this stage the Greeks and Romans understood little or nothing about the import of the word anointed; to them it did not convey any sacred conception. Hence they substituted Chrestus, or "excellent", for Christians or "anointed", and Chrestians instead of "Christians." There may be an allusion to this practice in I Peter 2:3; hoti chrestos ho kyrios, which is rendered "that the Lord is sweet." Justin Martyr (Apol., I, 4), Clement of Alexandria (Strom., II, iv, 18), Tertullian (Adv. Gentes, II), and Lactantius (Int. Div., IV, vii, 5), as well as St. Jerome (In Gal., V, 22), are acquainted with the pagan substitution of Chrestes for Christus, and are careful to explain the new term in a favourable sense. The pagans made little or no effort to learn anything accurate about Christ and the Christians; Suetonius, for instance, ascribes the expulsion of the Jews from Rome under Claudius to the constant instigation of sedition by Chrestus, whom he conceives as acting in Rome the part of a leader of insurgents. The use of the definite article before the word Christ and its gradual development into a proper name show the Christians identified the bearer with the promised Messias of the Jews. He combined in His person the offices of prophet (John 6:14; Matthew 13:57; Luke 13:33; 24:19) of king (Luke 23:2; Acts 17:7; I Corinthians 15:24; Apocalypse 15:3), and of priest (Hebrew 2:17; etc.); he fulfilled all the Messianic predictions in a fuller and a higher sense than had been given them by the teachers of the Synagogue. A. J. MAAS Early Historical Documents On Jesus Christ Early Historical Documents on Jesus Christ The historical documents referring to Christ's life and work may be divided into three classes: pagan sources, Jewish sources, and Christian sources. We shall study the three in succession. I. PAGAN SOURCES The non-Christian sources for the historical truth of the Gospels are both few and polluted by hatred and prejudice. A number of reasons have been advanced for this condition of the pagan sources: + The field of the Gospel history was remote Galilee; + the Jews were noted as a superstitious race, if we believe Horace (Credat Judoeus Apella, I, Sat., v, 100); + the God of the Jews was unknown and unintelligible to most pagans of that period; + the Jews in whose midst Christianity had taken its origin were dispersed among, and hated by, all the pagan nations; + the Christian religion itself was often confounded with one of the many sects that had sprung up in Judaism, and which could not excite the interest of the pagan spectator. It is at least certain that neither Jews nor Gentiles suspected in the least the paramount importance of the religion, the rise of which they witnessed among them. These considerations will account for the rarity and the asperity with which Christian events are mentioned by pagan authors. But though Gentile writers do not give us any information about Christ and the early stages of Christianity which we do not possess in the Gospels, and though their statements are made with unconcealed hatred and contempt, still they unwittingly prove the historical value of the facts related by the Evangelists. We need not delay over a writing entitled the "Acts of Pilate", which must have existed in the second century (Justin, "Apol"., I, 35), and must have been used in the pagan schools to warn boys against the belief of Christians (Euseb., "Hist. Eccl.", I, ix; IX, v); nor need we inquire into the question whether there existed any authentic census tables of Quirinius. A. Tacitus We possess at least the testimony of Tacitus (A.D. 54-119) for the statements that the Founder of the Christian religion, a deadly superstition in the eyes of the Romans, had been put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate under the reign of Tiberius; that His religion, though suppressed for a time, broke forth again not only throughout Judea where it had originated, but even in Rome, the conflux of all the streams of wickness and shamelessness; furthermore, that Nero had diverted from himself the suspicion of the burning of Rome by charging the Christians with the crime; that these latter were not guilty of arson, though they deserved their fate on account of their universal misanthropy. Tacitus, moreover, describes some of the horrible torments to which Nero subjected the Christians (Ann., XV, xliv). The Roman writer confounds the Christians with the Jews, considering them as a especially abject Jewish sect; how little he investigated the historical truth of even the Jewish records may be inferred from the credulity with which he accepted the absurd legends and calumnies about the origin of he Hebrew people (Hist., V, iii, iv). B. Suetonius Another Roman writer who shows his acquaintance with Christ and the Christians is Suetonius (A.D. 75-160). It has been noted that Suetonius considered Christ (Chrestus) as a Roman insurgent who stirred up seditions under the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54): "Judaeos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes (Claudius) Roma expulit" (Clau., xxv). In his life of Nero he regards that emperor as a public benefactor on account of his severe treatment of the Christians: "Multa sub eo et animadversa severe, et coercita, nec minus instituta . . . . afflicti Christiani, genus hominum superstitious novae et maleficae" (Nero, xvi). The Roman writer does not understand that the Jewish troubles arose from the Jewish antagonism to the Messianic character of Jesus Christ and to the rights of the Christian Church. C. Pliny the Younger Of greater importance is the letter of Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan (about A.D. 61-115), in which the Governor of Bithynia consults his imperial majesty as to how to deal with the Christians living within his jurisdiction. On the one hand, their lives were confessedly innocent; no crime could be proved against them excepting their Christian belief, which appeared to the Roman as an extravagant and perverse superstition. On the other hand, the Christians could not be shaken in their allegiance to Christ, Whom they celebrated as their God in their early morning meetings (Ep., X, 97, 98). Christianity here appears no longer as a religion of criminals, as it does in the texts of Tacitus and Suetonius; Pliny acknowledges the high moral principles of the Christians, admires their constancy in the Faith (pervicacia et inflexibilis obstinatio), which he appears to trace back to their worship of Christ (carmenque Christo, quasi Deo, dicere). D. Other pagan writers The remaining pagan witnesses are of less importance: In the second century Lucian sneered at Christ and the Christians, as he scoffed at the pagan gods. He alludes to Christ's death on the Cross, to His miracles, to the mutual love prevailing among the Christians ("Philopseudes", nn. 13, 16; "De Morte Pereg"). There are also alleged allusions to Christ in Numenius (Origen, "Contra Cels", IV, 51), to His parables in Galerius, to the earthquake at the Crucifixion in Phlegon (Origen, "Contra Cels.", II, 14). Before the end of the second century, the logos alethes of Celsus, as quoted by Origen (Contra Cels., passim), testifies that at that time the facts related in the Gospels were generally accepted as historically true. However scanty the pagan sources of the life of Christ may be, they bear at least testimony to His existence, to His miracles, His parables, His claim to Divine worship, His death on the Cross, and to the more striking characteristics of His religion. II. JEWISH SOURCES A. Philo Philo, who dies after A.D. 40, is mainly important for the light he throws on certain modes of thought and phraseology found again in some of the Apostles. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., II, iv) indeed preserves a legend that Philo had met St. Peter in Rome during his mission to the Emperor Caius; moreover, that in his work on the contemplative life he describes the life of the Christian Church in Alexandria founded by St. Mark, rather than that of the Essenes and Therapeutae. But it is hardly probable that Philo had heard enough of Christ and His followers to give an historical foundation to the foregoing legends. B. Josephus The earlist non-Christian writer who refers Christ is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus; born A.D. 37, he was a contemporary of the Apostles, and died in Rome A.D. 94. Two passages in his "Antiquities" which confirm two facts of the inspired Christian records are not disputed. In the one he reports the murder of "John called Baptist" by Herod (Ant., XVIII, v, 2), describing also John's character and work; in the other (Ant., XX, ix, 1) he disappoves of the sentence pronounced by the high priest Ananus against "James, brother of Jesus Who was called Christ." It is antecedently probable that a writer so well informed as Josephus, must have been well acquainted too with the doctrine and the history of Jesus Christ. Seeing, also, that he records events of minor importance in the history of the Jews, it would be surprising if he were to keep silence about Jesus Christ. Consideration for the priests and Pharisees did not prevent him from mentioning the judicial murders of John the Baptist and the Apostle James; his endeavour to find the fulfilment of the Messianic prophecies in Vespasian did not induce him to pass in silence over several Jewish sects, though their tenets appear to be inconsistent with the Vespasian claims. One naturally expects, therefore, a notice about Jesus Christ in Josephus. Antiquities XVIII, iii, 3, seems to satisfy this expectation: About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ.) And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day. A testimony so important as the foregoing could not escape the work of the critics. Their conclusions may be reduced to three headings: those who consider the passage wholly spurious; those who consider it to be wholly authentic; and those who consider it to be a little of each. Those who regard the passage as spurious First, there are those who consider the whole passage as spurious. The principal reasons for this view appear to be the following: + Josephus could not represent Jesus Christ as a simple moralist, and on the other hand he could not emphasize the Messianic prophecies and expectations without offending the Roman susceptibilities; + the above cited passage from Josephus is said to be unknown to Origen and the earlier patristic writers; + its very place in the Josephan text is uncertain, since Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., II, vi) must have found it before the notices concerning Pilate, while it now stands after them. But the spuriousness of the disputed Josephan passage does not imply the historian's ignorance of the facts connected with Jesus Christ. Josephus's report of his own juvenile precocity before the Jewish teachers (Vit., 2) reminds one of the story of Christ's stay in the Temple at the age of twelve; the description of his shipwreck on his journey to Rome (Vit., 3) recalls St. Paul's shipwreck as told in the Acts; finally his arbitrary introduction of a deceit practised by the priests of Isis on a Roman lady, after the chapter containing his supposed allusion to Jesus, shows a disposition to explain away the virgin birth of Jesus and to prepare the falsehoods embodied in the later Jewish writings. Those who regard the passage as authentic, with some spurious additions A second class of critics do not regard the whole of Josephus's testimony concerning Christ as spurious but they maintain the interpolation of parts included above in parenthesis. The reasons assigned for this opinion may be reduced to the following two: + Josephus must have mentioned Jesus, but he cannot have recognized Him as the Christ; hence part of our present Josephan text must be genuine, part must be interpolated. + Again, the same conclusion follows from the fact that Origen knew a Josephan text about Jesus, but was not acquainted with our present reading; for, according to the great Alexandrian doctor, Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Messias ("In Matth.", xiii, 55; "Contra Cels.", I, 47). Whatever force these two arguments have is lost by the fact that Josephus did not write for the Jews but for the Romans; consequently, when he says, "This was the Christ", he does not necessarily imply that Jesus was the Christ considered by the Romans as the founder of the Christian religion. Those who consider it to be completely genuine The third class of scholars believe that the whole passage concerning Jesus, as it is found today in Josephus, is genuine. The main arguments for the genuineness of the Josephan passage are the following: + First, all codices or manuscripts of Josephus's work contain the text in question; to maintain the spuriousness of the text, we must suppose that all the copies of Josephus were in the hands of Christians, and were changed in the same way. + Second, it is true that neither Tertullian nor St. Justin makes use of Josephus's passage concerning Jesus; but this silence is probably due to the contempt with which the contemporary Jews regarded Josephus, and to the relatively little authority he had among the Roman readers. Writers of the age of Tertullian and Justin could appeal to living witnesses of the Apostolic tradition. + Third, Eusebius ("Hist. Eccl"., I, xi; cf. "Dem. Ev.", III, v) Sozomen (Hist. Eccl., I, i), Niceph. (Hist. Eccl., I, 39), Isidore of Pelusium (Ep. IV, 225), St. Jerome (catal.script. eccles. xiii), Ambrose, Cassiodorus, etc., appeal to the testimony of Josephus; there must have been no doubt as to its authenticity at the time of these illustrious writers. + Fourth, the complete silence of Josephus as to Jesus would have been a more eloquent testimony than we possess in his present text; this latter contains no statement incompatible with its Josephan authorship: the Roman reader needed the information that Jesus was the Christ, or the founder of the Christian religion; the wonderful works of Jesus and His Resurrection from the dead were so incessantly urged by the Christians that without these attributes the Josephan Jesus would hardly have been acknowledged as the founder of Christianity. All this does not necessarily imply that Josephus regarded Jesus as the Jewish Messias; but, even if he had been convinced of His Messiahship, it does not follow that he would have become a Christian. A number of posssible subterfuges might have supplied the Jewish historian with apparently sufficient reasons for not embracing Christianity. C. Other Jewish Sources The historical character of Jesus Christ is also attested by the hostile Jewish literature of the subsequent centuries. His birth is ascribed to an illicit ("Acta Pilati" in Thilo, "Codex apocryph. N.T., I, 526; cf. Justin, "Apol.", I, 35), or even an adulterous, union of His parents (Origen, "Contra Cels.," I, 28, 32). The father's name is Panthera, a common soldier (Gemara "Sanhedrin", viii; "Schabbath", xii, cf. Eisenmenger, "Entdecktes Judenthum", I, 109; Schottgen, "Horae Hebraicae", II, 696; Buxtorf, "Lex. Chald.", Basle, 1639, 1459, Huldreich, "Sepher toledhoth yeshua hannaceri", Leyden, 1705). The last work in its final edition did not appear before the thirteenth century, so that it could give the Panthera myth in its most advanced form. Rosch is of opinion that the myth did not begin before the end of the first century. The later Jewish writings show traces of acquaintance with the murder of the Holy Innocents (Wagenseil, "Confut. Libr.Toldoth", 15; Eisenmenger op. cit., I, 116; Schottgen, op. cit., II, 667), with the flight into Egypt (cf. Josephus, "Ant." XIII, xiii), with the stay of Jesus in the Temple at the age of twelve (Schottgen, op. cit., II, 696), with the call of the disciples ("Sanhedrin", 43a; Wagenseil, op. cit., 17; Schottgen, loc. cit., 713), with His miracles (Origen, "Contra Cels", II, 48; Wagenseil, op. cit., 150; Gemara "Sanhedrin" fol. 17); "Schabbath", fol. 104b; Wagenseil, op.cit., 6, 7, 17), with His claim to be God (Origen, "Contra Cels.", I, 28; cf. Eisenmenger, op. cit., I, 152; Schottgen, loc. cit., 699) with His betrayal by Judas and His death (Origen, "Contra cels.", II, 9, 45, 68, 70; Buxtorf, op. cit., 1458; Lightfoot, "Hor. Heb.", 458, 490, 498; Eisenmenger, loc. cit., 185; Schottgen, loc. cit.,699 700; cf."Sanhedrin", vi, vii). Celsus (Origen, "Contra Cels.", II, 55) tries to throw doubt on the Resurrection, while Toldoth (cf. Wagenseil, 19) repeats the Jewish fiction that the body of Jesus had been stolen from the sepulchre. III. CHRISTIAN SOURCES Among the Christian sources of the life of Jesus we need hardly mention the so called Agrapha and Apocrypha. For whether the Agrapha contain Logia of Jesus, or refer to incidents in His life, they are either highly uncertain or present only variations of the Gospel story. The chief value of the Apocrypha consists in their showing the infinite superiority of the Inspired Writings by contrasting the coarse and erroneous productions of the human mind with the simple and sublime truths written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Among the Sacred Books of the New Testament, it is especially the four Gospels and the four great Epistles of St. Paul that are of the highest importance for the construction of the life of Jesus. The four great Pauline Epistles (Romans, Galatians, and First and Second Corinthinas) can hardly be overestimated by the student of Christ's life; they have at times been called the "fifth gospel"; their authenticity has never been assailed by serious critics; their testimony is also earlier than that of the Gospels, at least most of the Gospels; it is the more valuable because it is incidental and undesigned; it is the testimony of a highly intellectual and cultured writer, who had been the greatest enemy of Jesus, who writes within twenty-five years of the events which he relates. At the same time, these four great Epistles bear witness to all the most important facts in the life of Christ: His Davidic dscent, His poverty, His Messiahship, His moral teaching, His preaching of the kingdom of God, His calling of the apostles, His miraculous power, His claims to be God, His betrayal, His institution of the Holy Eucharist, His passion, crucifixion, burial, resurrection, His repeated appearances (Romans 1:3-4; 5:11; 8:2-3; 8:32; 9:5; 15:8; Galatians 2:17; 3:13; 4:4; 5:21; First Corinthians 6:9; 13:4; etc.). However important the four great Epistles may be, the gospels are still more so. Not that any one of them offers a complete biography of Jesus, but they account for the origin of Christianity by the life of its Founder. Questions like the authenticity of the Gospels, the relation between the Synoptic Gospels, and the Fourth, the Synoptic problem, must be studied in the articles referring to these respective subjects. A.J. MAAS Chronology of the Life of Jesus Christ Chronology of the Life of Jesus Christ In the following paragraphs we shall endeavour to establish the absolute and relative chronology of our Lord's life, i.e. we shall show first how certain facts connected with the history of Jesus Christ fit in with the course of universal history, and secondly how the rest of the life of Jesus must be arranged according to the inter-relation of its single elements. I. ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY The incidents whose absolute chronology may be determined with more or less probability are the year of Christ's nativity, of the beginning of His public life, and of His death. As we cannot fully examine the data entering into these several problems, the reader ought to compare what has been said on these points in the article Biblical Chronology. A. The Nativity St. Matthew (2:1) tells us that Jesus was born "in the days of King Herod". Josephus (Ant., XVII, viii, 1) informs us that Herod died after ruling thirty four years de facto, thirty seven years de jure. Now Herod was made rightful king of Judea a.d. 714, while he began his actual rule after taking Jerusalem a.d. 717. As the Jews reckoned their years from Nisan to Nisan, and counted fractional parts as an entire year, the above data will place the death of Herod in a.d. 749, 750, 751. Again, Josephus tells us from that an eclipse of the moon occurred not long before Herod's death; such an eclipse occurred from 12 to 13 March, a.d. 750, so that Herod must have died before the Passover of that year which fell on 12 April (Josephus, "Ant"., iv, 4; viii, 4). As Herod killed the children up to two years old, in order to destroy the new born King of the Jews, we are led to believe that Jesus may have been born a.d. 747, 748, 749. The enrollment under Cyrinus mentioned by St. Luke in connection with the nativity of Jesus Christ, and the remarkable astronomical conjunction of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn in Pisces, in the spring of a.d. 748, will not lead us to any more definite result. B. Beginning of the Public Ministry The date of the beginning of Christ's ministry may be calculated from three different data found respectively in Luke 3:23; Josephus, "Bel. Jud." I, xxi, 1; or "Ant.", XV, ii, 1; and Luke 3:1. The first of these passages reads: "And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years". The phrase "was beginning" does not qualify the following expression "about the age of thirty years", but rather indicates the commencement of the public life. As we have found that the birth of Jesus falls within the period 747-749 a.d., His public life must begin about 777-779 a.d. Second, when, shortly before the first Pasch of His public life, Jesus had cast the buyers and sellers out of the Temple, the Jews said: "Six and forty years was this temple in building" (John 2:20). Now, according to the testimony of Josephus (loc. cit.), the building of the Temple began in the fifteenth year of Herod's actual reign or in the eighteenth of his reign de jure, i.e. 732 a.d.; hence, adding the forty six years of actual building, the Pasch of Christ's first year of public life must have fallen in 778 a.d. Third, the Gospel of St. Luke (3:1) assigns the beginning of St. John the Baptist's mission to the "fifteenth year of the Tiberius Caesar". Augustus, the predecessor of Tiberius, died 19 August, 767 a.d., so that the fifteenth year of Tiberius's independent reign is 782 a.d.; but then Tiberius began to be associate of Augustus in a.d. 764, so that the fifteenth year reckoned from this date falls in a.d. 778. Jesus Christ's public life began a few months later, i.e. about a.d. 779. C. The Year of the Death of Christ According to the Evangelists, Jesus suffered under the high priest Caiphas (a.d. 772-90, or A.D. 18-36), during the governorship of Pontius Pilate a.d. 780-90). But this leaves the time rather indefinite. Tradition, the patristic testimonies for which have been collected by Patrizi (De Evangeliis), places the death of Jesus in the fifteenth (or sixteenth) year of Tiberius, in the consulship of the Gemini, forty-two years before the destruction of Jerusalem, and twelve years before the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles. We have already seen that the fifteenth year of Tiberius is either 778 or 782, according to its computation from the beginning of Tiberius's associate or sole reign; the consulship of the Gemini (Fufius and Rubellius) fell in a.d. 782; the forty second year before the destruction of Jerusalem is A.D. 29, or a.d. 782, twelve years before the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles brings us to the same year, A.D. 29 or a.d. 782, since the conversion of Cornelius, which marks the opening of the Gentile missions, fell probably in A.D. 40 or 41. D. The Day of the Death of Christ Jesus died on Friday, the fifteenth day of Nisan. That He died on Friday is clearly stated by Mark (xv, 42), Luke (xxiii, 54), and John (xix, 31). The few writers who assign another day for Christ's death are practically lost in the multitude of authorities who place it on Friday. What is more, they do not even agree among themselves: Epiphanius, e.g., places the Crucifixion on Tuesday; Lactantius, on Saturday; Westcott, on Thursday; Cassiodorus and Gregory of Tours, not on Friday. The first three Evangelists are equally clear about the date of the Crucifixion. They place the Last Supper on the fourteenth day of Nisan, as may be seen from Matt., xxvi, 17, 20; Mark, xiv, 12 17; Luke, xxii, 7 14. Nor can there be any doubt about St. John's agreement with the Synoptic Evangelists on the question of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion. The supper was held "before the festival day of the Pasch" (John, xiii, 1), i. e. on 14 Nisan, as may be seen from Matt., xxii, 7-14. Nor can there be any doubt about St. John's agreement with the Synoptic Evangelists on the question of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion. The Supper was held "before the festival day of the pasch" (John, xiii, 1), i.e. on 14 Nisan, since the sacrificial day was computed according to the Roman method (Jovino, 123 sqq., 139 sqq.). Again, some disciples thought that Judas left the supper table because Jesus had said to him: "Buy those things which we have need of for the festival day: or that he should give something to the poor" (John, xiii, 29). If the Supper had been held on 13 Nisan this belief of the disciples can hardly be understood, since Judas might have made his purchases and distributed his alms on 14 Nisan; there would have been no need for his rushing into the city in the middle of the night. On the day of Christ's Crucifixion the Jews "went not into the hall, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the pasch" (John, xviii, 28). The pasch which the Jews wished to eat could not have been the paschal lamb, which was eaten on 14 Nisan, for the pollution contracted by entering the hall would have ceased at sundown, so that it would not have prevented them from sharing in the paschal supper. The pasch which the Jews had in view must have been the sacrificial offerings (Chagighah), which were called also pasch and were eaten on 15 Nisan. Hence this passage places the death of Jesus Christ on the fifteenth day of Nisan. Again, Jesus is said to have suffered and died on the "parasceve of the pasch", or simply on the "parasceve" (John, xix, 14, 31); as "parasceve" meant Friday, the expression "parasceve" denotes Friday on which the pasch happened to fall, not the before the pasch. Finally, the day following the parasceve on which Jesus died is called "a great sabbath day" (John, xix, 31), either to denote its occurrence in the paschal week or to distinguish it from the preceding pasch, or day of minor rest. II. RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY No student of the life of Jesus will question the chronological order of its principal divisions: infancy, hidden life, public life, passion, glory. But the order of events in the single divisions is not always clear beyond dispute. A. The Infancy of Jesus The history of the infancy, for instance, is recorded only in the First Gospel and in the Third. Each Evangelist contents himself with five pictures: + St. Matthew describes the birth of Jesus, the adoration of the Magi, the flight into Egypt, the slaughter of the Holy Innocents, and the return to Nazareth. + St. Luke gives a sketch of the birth, of the adoration of the shepherds, of the circumcision, of the purification of the Virgin, and of the return to Nazareth. The two Evangelists agree in the first and the last of these two series of incidents (moreover, all scholars place the birth, adoration of the shepherds, and the circumcision before the Magi), but how are we to arrange the intervening three events related by St. Matthew with the order of St. Luke? We indicate a few of the many ways in which the chronogical sequence of these facts has been arranged. 1. The birth, the adoration of the shepherds, the circumcision, the adoration of the Magi, the flight into Egypt, the slaughter of the Innocents, the purification, the return to Nazareth. This order implies that either the purification was delayed beyond the fortieth day, which seems to contradict Luke, ii, 22 sqq., or that Jesus was born shortly before Herod's death. so that the Holy Family could return from Egypt within forty days after the birth of Jesus. Tradition does not seem to favour this speedy return. 2. The birth, the adoration of the shepherds, the circumcision, the adoration of the Magi, the purification, the flight into Egypt, the slaughter of the Innocents, the return to Nazareth. According to this order the Magi either arrived a few days before the purification or they came on 6 January; but in neither case can we understand why the Holy Family should have offered the sacrifice of the poor, after receiving the offeings of the Magi. Moreover, the firsr Evangelist intimates that the angel appeared to St. Joseph soon after the departure of the Magi, and it is not at all probable that Herod should have waited long before inquiring concerning the whereabouts of the new born king. The difficulties are not overcome by placing the adoration of the Magi on the day before the purification; it would be more unlikely in that case that the Holy Family should offer the sacrifice of the poor. 3. As Luke 2:39 appears to exclude the possibility of placing the adoration of the Magi between the presentation and return to Nazareth, there are interpreters who have located the advent of the wise men, the flight to Egypt, the slaughter of the Innocents, and the return from Egypt after the events as told in St. Luke. They agree in the opinion that the Holy Family returned to Nazareth after the purification, and then left Nazareth in order to make their home in Bethlehem. Eusebius, Epiphanius, and some other ancient writers are willing to place the adoration of the Magi about two years after Christ's birth; Paperbroch and his followers allow about a year and thirteen days between the birth and the advent of the Magi; while Patrizi agrees with those who fix the advent of the Magi at about two weeks after the purification . The text of Matt., ii, 1, 2, hardly permits an interval of more than a year between the purification and the coming of the wise men; Patrizi's opinion appears to satisfy all the data furnished by the gospels, while it does not contradict the particulars added by tradition. B. The Hidden Life of Jesus It was in the seclusion of Nazareth that Jesus spent the greatest part of His earthly life. The inspired records are very reticent about this period: Luke, 2:40-52; Mark 6:3; John 6:42; 7:15, are about the only passages which refer to the hidden life. Some of them give us a general view of Christ's life: "The child grew, and grew in strength and wisdom; and the grace of God was in him" is the brief summary of the years following the return of the Holy Family after the ceremonial purification in the Temple. "Jesus advanced in wisdom, and age, and grace with God and men", and He "was subject to them" form the inspired outline of Christ's life in Nazareth after He had attained the age of twelve. "When he was twelve years old" Jesus accompanied His parents to Jerusalem, 'according to the custom of the feast'; When they returned, the child Jesus remained in Jerusalem; and his parents knew it not." After three days, they found him in the Temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, hearing them, and asking them questions." It was on this occasion that Jesus spoke the only words that have come down from the period of His hidden life: "How is it that you sought me? Did you not know, that I must be about my Father's business [or, "in my father's house"]?" The Jews tell us that Jesus had not passed through the training of he Rabbinic schools: "How doth this man know letters, having never learned?". The same question is asked by the people of Nazareth, who add, "Is not this the carpenter?" St. Justin is authority for the statement that Jesus specially made "ploughs and yokes' (Contra Tryph., 88). Though it is not certain that at the time of Jesus elementary schools existed in the Jewish villlages, it may be inferred from the Gospels that Jesus knew how to read (Luke 4:16) and write (John 8:6). At an early age He must have learned the so called Shema (Deut. 6:4), and the Hallel, or Psalms 113-118 (Hebr.); He must have been familiar with the other parts of the Scriptures too, especially the Psalms and the Prophetic Books, as He constantly refers to them in His public life. It is also asserted that Palestine at the time of Jesus Christ was practically bilingual, so that Christ must have spoken Aramaic and Greek; the indications that He was acquainted with Hebrew and Latin are rather slight. The public teaching of Jesus shows that He was a close observer of the sights and sounds of nature, and of the habits of all classes of men. For these are the usual sources of His illustrations. To conclude the hidden life of Jesus extending through thirty years is far different from what one should have expected in the case of a Person Who is adored by His followers as their God and revered as their Saviour; this is an indirect proof for the credibility of the Gospel story. C. The Public Life of Jesus: Its Duration The chronology of the public life offers a number of problems to the interpreter; we shall touch upon only two, the duration of the public life, and the successive journeys it contains. There are two extreme views as to the length of the ministry of Jesus: St. Irenaeus (Contra Haer., II, xxii, 3-6) appears to suggest a period of fifteen years; the prophetic phrases, "the year of recompenses", "the year of my redemption" (Is., xxxiv, 8; lxiii, 4), appear to have induced Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Philastrius, Hilarion, and two or three other patristic writers to allow only one year for the public life. This latter opinion has found advocates among certain recent students: von Soden, for instance, defends it in Cheyne's "Encyclopaedia Biblica". But the text of the Gospels demands a more extensive duration. St. John's Gospel distinctly mentions three distinct paschs in the history of Christ's ministry (ii, 13; vi, 4; xi, 55). The first of the three occurs shortly after the baptism of Jesus, the last coincides with His Passion, so that at least two years must have intervened between the two events to give us the necessary room for the passover mentioned in vi, 4. Westcott and Hort omit the expression "the pasch" in vi, 4 to compress the ministry of Jesus within the space of one year; but all the manuscripts, the versions, and nearly all the Fathers testify for the reading "En de eggysto pascha heeorteton Ioudaion": "Now the pasch, the festival day of the Jews, was near at hand". Thus far then everything tends to favour the view of those writers and more recent commentators who extend the period of Christ's ministry a little over two years. But a comparison of St. John's Gospel with the Synoptic Evangelists seems to introduce another pasch, indicated in the Fourth Gospel, into Christ's public life. John, iv, 45, relates the return of Jesus into Galilee after the first pasch of His public life in Jerusalem, and the same event is told by Mark, i, 14, and Luke iv, 14. Again the pasch mentioned in John, vi, 4 has its parallel in the "green grass" of Mark, vi, 39, and in the multiplication of loaves as told in Luke, ix, 12 sqq. But the plucking of ears mentioned in Mark, ii, 23, and Luke, vi, 1, implies another paschal season intervening between those expressly mentioned in John, ii, 13, and vi, 4. This shows that the public life of Jesus must have extended over four paschs, so that it must have lasted three years and a few months. Though the Fourth Gospel does not indicate this fourth pasch as clearly as the other three, it is not wholly silent on the question. The "festival day of the Jews" mentioned in John, v, 1, has been identified with the Feast of Pentecost, the Feast of Tabernacles, the Feast of Expiation, the Feast of the New Moon, the Feast of Purim, the Feast of Dedication, by various commentators; others openly confess that they cannot determine to which of the Jewish feasts this festival day refers. Nearly all difficulties will disappear if the festival day be regarded as the pasch, as both the text (heorte) and John, iv, 35 seem to demand (cf. Dublin Review, XXIII, 351 sqq.). D. The Public Life of Jesus: His Journeys The journeys made during His public life may be grouped under nine heads: the first six were mainly performed in Galilee and had Capharnaum for their central point; the last three bring Jesus into Judea without any pronounced central point. We cannot enter into the disputed questions connected with the single incidents of the various groups. 1. First Journey. December, a.d. 778 - Spring, 779. (Cf. John, i, ii; Matthew, iii, iv; Mark, i; Luke, iii, iv.) Jesus abandons His hidden life in Nazareth, and goes to Bethania across the Jordan, where He is baptized by John and receives the Baptist's first testimony to His Divine mission. He then withdraws into the desert of Judea, where He fasts for forty days and is tempted by the devil. After this He dwells in the neighbourhood of the Baptist's ministry, and receives the latter's second and third testimony; here too He wins His first disciples, with whom He journeys to the wedding feast at Cana in Galilee, where He performs His first miracle. Finally He transfers His residence, so far as there can be question of a residence in His public life, to Capharnaum, one of the principal thoroughfares of commerce and travel in Galilee. 2. Second Journey. Passover, a.d. 779 - about Pentecost, 780. (Cf. John, ii-v; Mark, i-iii; Luke, iv-vii; Matt., iv-ix.) Jesus goes from Capharnaum to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover; here he expels the buyers and sellers from the Temple, and is questioned by the Jewish authorities. Many believed in Jesus, and Nicodemus came to converse with Him during the night. After the festival days He remained in Judea till about the following December, during which period He received the fourth testimony from John who was baptizing at Ennon (A.V. Aenon). When the Baptist had been imprisoned in Machaerus, Jesus returned to Galilee by way of Samaria where He met the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well near Sichar; He delayed two days in this place, and many believed in Him. Soon after His return into Galilee we find Jesus again in Cana, where He heard the prayer who pleaded for the recovery of his dying son in Capharnaum. The rejection of Jesus by the people of Nazareth, whether at this time as, St. Luke intimates, or at a later period, as St. Mark seems to demand, or again both now and about eight months later, is an exegetical problem we cannot solve here. At any rate, shortly afterwards Jesus is mostly actively engaged in Capharnaum in teaching and healing the sick, restoring among others Peter's mother-in-law and a demoniac. On this occasion He called Peter and Andrew, James and John. Then followed a missionary tour through Galilee during which Jesus cured a leper; soon he again taught in Capharnaum, and was surrounded by such a multitude that a man sick of the palsy had to be let down through the roof in order to reach the Sacred Presence. After calling Matthew to the Apostleship, He went to Jerusalem for the second pasch occurring during His public life, it was on this occasion that He healed the man who been sick for thirty-eight years near the pool at Jerusalem. The charge of violating the Sabbath and Christ's answer were the natural effects of the miracle. The same charge is repeated shortly after the pasch; Jesus had returned to Galilee, and the disciples plucked some ripe ears in the corn fields. The question became more acute in the immediate future; Jesus had returned to Capharnaum, and there healed on the Sabbath day a man who had a withered hand. The Pharisees now make common cause with the Herodians in order to "destroy him". Jesus withdraws first to the Sea of Galilee, where He teaches and performs numerous miracles; then retires to the Mountain of Beatitudes, where He prays during the night, chooses His Twelve Apostles in the morning, and preaches the Sermon on the Mount. He is brought back to Capharnaum by the prayers of the centurion who asks and obtains the of his servant. 3. Third Journey. About Pentecost, a.d. 780- Autumn, 780. (Cf. Luke, vii, viii; Mark, iii, iv; Matt., iv, viii, ix, xii, xiii.) Jesus makes another missionary tour through Galilee; He resuscitates the son of the widow at Naim, and shortly afterwards receives the messengers sent by John from his prison in Machaerus. Then follows the scene of the merciful reception of the sinful woman who anoints the feet of the Lord while He rests at table in Magdala or perhaps in Capharnaum; for the rest of His missionary tour Jesus is followed by a band of pious women who minister to the wants of the Apostles. After returning to Capharnaum, Jesus expels the mute devil, is charged by the Pharisees with casting out devils by the prince of devils, and encounters the remonstrances of His kinsmen. Withdrawing to the sea, He preaches what may be called the "Lake Sermon", consisting of seven parables. 4. Fourth Journey. Autumn, a.d. 780- about Passover, 781. (Cf. Luke, viii, ix; Mark, iv-vi; Matt., viii, ix, x, xiii, xiv.) After a laborious day of ministry in the city of Capharnaum and on the lake, Jesus with His Apostles crosses the waters. As a great storm overtakes them, the frightened Apostles awaken their sleeping Master, Who commands the winds and the waves. Towards morning they meet in the country of the Gerasens, on the east of the lake, two demoniacs. Jesus expels the evil spirits, but allows them to enter into a herd of swine. The beasts destroy themselves in the waters of the lake, and frightened inhabitants beg Jesus not to remain among them. After returning to Capharnaum he heals the woman who had touched the hem of His garment, resuscitates the daughter of Jairus, and gives sight to two blind men. The second Gospel places here Christ's last visit to and rejection by the people of Nazareth. Then follows the ministry of the Apostles who are sent two by two, while Jesus Himself makes another missionary tour through Galilee. It seems to have been the martyrdom of John the Baptist that occasioned the return of the Apostles and their gathering around the Master in Capharnaum. But, however depressing this event may have been, it did not damp the enthusiasm of the Apostles over their success. 5. Fifth Journey. Spring, a.d. 781. (Cf. John, vi; Luke, ix; Mark, vi; and Matt., xiv.) Jesus invites the Apostles, tired out from their missionary labours, to rest awhile. They cross the northern part of the Sea of Galilee, but, instead of finding the desired solitude, they are met by multitudes of people who had preceded them by land or by boat, and who were eager for instruction. Jesus taught them throughout the day, and towards evening did not wish to dismiss them hungry. On the other hand, there were only five loaves and two fishes at the disposal of Jesus; after His blessing, these scanty supplies satisfied the hunger of five thousand men, besides women and children, and remnants filled twelve baskets of fragments. Jesus sent the Apostles back to their boats, and escaped from the enthusiastic multitudes, who wished to make Him king, into the mountain where He prayed till far into the night. Meanwhile the Apostles were facing a contrary wind till the fourth watch in the morning, when they saw Jesus walking upon the waters. The Apostles first fear, and then recognize Jesus; Peter walks upon the water as long as his confidence lasts; the storm ceases when Jesus has entered the boat. The next day brings Jesus and His Apostles to Capharnaum, where He speaks to the assembly about the Bread of Life and promises the Holy Eucharist, with the result that some of His followers leave Him, while the faith of His true disciples is strenghened. 6. Sixth Journey. About May, a.d. 781- Sept., 781. (Cf. Lk., ix; Mk., vii-ix; Matt., xiv- xviii; John, vii.) It may be owing to the enmity stirred up against Jesus by His Eucharistic discourse in Capharnaum that He began now a more extensive missionary tour than He had made in the preceding years of His life. Passing through the country of Genesar, He expressed His disapproval of the Pharisaic practices of legal purity. Within the boarders of Tyre and Sidon He exorcized the daughter of the Syrophenician woman. From here Jesus travelled first towards the north, then towards the east, then south-eastward through the northern part of Decapolis, probably along the foot of the Labanon, till He came to the eastern part of Galilee. While in Decapolis Jesus healed a deaf-mute, employing a ceremonial more elaborate than He had used at any of His previous miracles; in the eastern part of Galilee, probably not far from Dalmanutha and Magedan, He fed four thousand men, besides children and women, with seven loaves and a few little fishes, the remaining fragments filling seven baskets. The multitudes had listened for three days to the teaching of Jesus, previously to the miracle. In spite of the many cures performed by Jesus, during this journey, on the blind, the dumb, the lame, the maimed, and on many others, the Pharisees and Sadduces asked Him for a sign from heaven, tempting Him. He promised them the sign of Jonas the Prophet. After Jesus and the Apostles had crossed the lake, He warned them to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees; then they passed through Bethsaida Julias where Jesus gave sight to a blind man. Next we find Jesus in the confines of Caesarea Philippi, where Peter professes his faith in Christ, the Son of the living God, and in his turn receives from Jesus the promise of the power of the keys. Jesus here predicts His passion, and about a week later is transfigured before Peter, James, and John, probably on the top of Mt. Thabor. On descending from the mountain, Jesus exorcizes the mute devil whom His disciples had not been able to expel. Bending his way towards Capharnaum, Jesus predicts His Passion for the second time, and in the city pays the tribute-money for Himself and Peter. This occasions the discussion as to the greater in the kingdom of heaven, and the allied discourses. Finally, Jesus refuses His brethren's invitation to go publicly to the Feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem. 7. Seventh Journey. Sept., a.d. 781- December, 781. (Cf. Luke, ix-xiii; Mark, x; Matt., vi, vii, viii, x, xi, xii, xxiv; John, vii-x.) Jesus now "steadfastly set His face to go Jerusalem", and as the Samaritans refused Him hospitality, He had to take the east of the Jordan. While still in Galilee, He refused the discipleship of several half-hearted candidates, and about the same time He sent other seventy-two, two by two, before His face into every city and place whither He Himself was to come. Probably in the lower part of Peraea, the seventy-two returned with joy, rejoicing in the miraculous power that had been exercised by them. It must have been in the vicinity of Jericho that Jesus answered the lawer's question, "Who is my neighbour?" by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Next Jesus was received in the hospitable home of Mary and Martha, where He declares Mary to have chosen the better part. From Bethania went to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles, where he became involved in discussions with the Jews. The Scribes and Pharisees endeavoured to catch Him in the sentence which they asked Him to pronounce in the case of the woman taken in adultary. When Jesus had avoided this snare, He continued His discussions with the hostile Jews. Their enmity was intensified because Jesus restored sight to a blind man on the Sabbath day. Jesus appears to have His stay in Jerusalem with the beautiful discourse on the Good Shepherd. A little later He teaches His Apostles the Our Father, probably somewhere on Mt. Olivet. On a subsequent missionary tour through Judea and Peraea He defends Himself against the charges of Pharisees, and reproves their hypocrisy. On the same journey Jesus warned against hypocrisy, covetousness, worldly care; He exhorted to watchfulness, patience under contradictions, and to penance. About this time, too, He healed the woman who had the spirit of infirmity 8. Eighth Journey. December, a.d. 781-February, 782. (Cf. Luke, xiii-xvii; John, x, xi.) The Feast of Dedication brought Jesus again to Jerusalem, and occasioned another discussion with the Jews. This is followed by another missionary tour through Peraea, during which Jesus explained a number of important points of doctrine: the number of the elect, the choice of one's place at table, the guests to be invited, the parable of the great supper, resoluteness in the service of God, the parables of the hundred sheep, the lost groat, and the prodigal son, of the unjust steward, of Dives and Lazarus, of the unmerciful servant, besides the duty of fraternal correction, and the efficacy of faith. During this period, too, the Pharisees attempted to frighten Jesus with the menance of Herod's persecution; on his part, Jesus healed a man who had drospy, on a Sabbath day, while at table in the house of a certain prince of the Pharisees. Finally Mary and Martha send messengers to Jesus, asking Him to come and cure their brother Lazarus; Jesus went after two days, and resuscitated His friend who had been several days in the grave. The Jews are exasperated over this miracle, and they decree Jesus must die for the people. Hence He withdrew "into a country near the desert, unto a city that is called Ephrem". 9. Ninth Journey. February, a.d. 782- Passover, 782. (Cf. Luke, xvii-xxii; Mark., x, xiv; Matt., xix-xxvi; John, xi, xii.) This last journey took Jesus from Ephrem northward through Samaria, then eastward along the border of Galilee into Peraea, then southward through Peraea, westward across the Jordan, through Jericho, Bethania on Mt. Olivet, Bethphage, and finally to Jerusalem. While in the most northern part of the journey, He cured ten lepers; a little later, He answered the questions raised by the Pharisees concerning the kingdom of God. Then He urged the need of incessant prayer by proposing the parable of the unjust judge; here too belong the parable of the Pharisee and Publican, the discourse on marriage, on the attitude of the Church towards the children, on the right use of riches as illustrated by the story of the rich young ruler, and the parable of the labourers in the vineyard. After beginning His route towards Jerusalem, He predicted His Passion for the third time; James and John betray their ambition, but they are taught the true standard of greatness in the Church. At Jericho Jesus heals two blind men, and receives the repentance of Zacheus the publican; here He proposed also the parable of the pounds entrusted to the servants by the master. Six days before the pasch we find Jesus at Bethania on Mt. Olivet, as the guest of Simon the leper; Mary anoints His feet, and the disciples at the instigation of Judas are indignant at this seeming waste of ointment. A great multitude assembles at Bethania, not to see Jesus only but also Lazarus; hence the chief priests think of killing Lazarus too. On the following day Jesus solemnly entered Jerusalem and was received by the Hosanna cries of all classes of people. In the afternoon He met a delegation of Gentiles in the court of the Temple. On Monday Jesus curses the barren fig tree, and during the morning He drives the buyers and sellers from the Temple. On Tuesday the wonder of the disciples at the sudden withering of the fig tree provokes their Master's instruction on the efficacy of faith. Jesus answers the enemies' questions as to His authority; then He proposes the parable of the two sons, of the wicked husbandmen, and of the marriage feast. Next follows a triple snare: the politicians ask whether it is lawful to pay tribute to Caesar; the scoffers inquire whose wife a woman, who has had several husbands, will be after ressurection; the Jewish theologians propose the question: Which is the first commandment, the great commandment of the law? Then Jesus proposes His last question to the Jews: "What think you of Christ? whose son is he?" This is followed by the eightfold woe against the Scribes and Pharisees, and by the denunciation of Jerusalem. The last words of Christ in the Temple were expressions of praise for the poor widow who had made an offering of two mites in spite of her poverty. Jesus ended this day by uttering the prophecies concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, His second coming, and the future judgement; these predictions are interrupted by the parable of the ten virgins and the talents. On Wednesday Jesus again predicted His Passion; probably it was on the same day that Judas made his agreement with the Jews to betray Jesus. E. The Passion of Jesus: Its Preparation The history of Christ's Passion comprises three parts: the preparation for the Passion, the trial of Jesus, and His death. Jesus prepares His disciples for the Passion, He prepares Himself for the ordeal and His enemies prepare themselves for the destruction of Jesus. 1. Preparation of the Apostles. Jesus prepares His Apostles for the Passion by the eating of the paschal lamb, the institution of the Holy Eucharist, the concomitant ceremonies, and His lengthy discourses held during and after the Last Supper. Special mention should be made of the prediction of the Passion, and of the betrayal one of the Apostles and the denial by another. Peter, james, and John are prepared in a more particular manner by witnessing the sorrow of Jesus on Mt. Olivet. 2. Preparation of Jesus. Jesus must have found an indirect preparation in all He did and said to strengthen His Apostles. But the preparation that was pecularly His own consisted in His prayer in the grotto of His Agony where the angel came to strengthen Him. The sleep of His favoured Apostles during the hours of His bitter struggle must have prepared Him too for the complete abandonment He was soon to experience. 3. Preparation of the Enemies. Judas leaves the Master during the Last Supper. The chief priests and Pharisees hastily collect a detachment of the Roman cohort stationed in the castle of Antonia, of the Jewish temple-watch, and of the officials of the Temple. To these are added a number of the servants and dependents of the high-priest, and a miscellaneous multitude of fanatics with lanterns and torches, with swords and clubs, who were to follow the leadership of Judas. They took Christ, bound Him, and led Him to the high-priest's house. F. The Passion of Jesus: The Trial Jesus was tried first before an ecclesiastical and then before a civil tribunal. 1. Before Ecclesiastical Court. The ecclesiastical trial includes Christ's appearance before Annas, before Caiphas, and again before Caiphas, who appears to have acted in each case as head of the Sanhedrin. The Jewish court found Jesus guilty of blasphemy, and condemned Him to death, though its proceedings were illegal from more than one point of view. During the trial took place Peter's triple denial of Jesus; Jesus is insulted and mocked, especially between the second and third session; and after His final condemnation Judas despaired and met his tragic death. 2. Before the Civil Court. The civil trial, too, comprised three sessions, the first before Pilate, the second before Herod, the third again before Pilate. Jesus is not charged with blasphemy before the court of Pilate, but with stirring up the people, forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and claiming to be Christ the king. Pilate ignores the first two charges; the third he finds harmless when he sees that Jesus does not claim royalty in the Roman sense of the word. But in order not to incur the odium of the Jewish leaders, the Roman governor sends his prisoner to Herod. As Jesus did not humour the curiosity of Herod, He was mocked and set at naught by the Tetrarch of Galilee and his court, and sent back to Pilate. The Roman procurator declares the prisoner innocent for the second time, but, instead of setting Him free, gives the people the alternative to choose either Jesus or Barabbas for their paschal freedman. Pilate pronounced Jesus innocent for the third time with the more solemn ceremony of washing his hands; he had recourse to a third scheme of ridding himself of the burden of pronouncing an unjust sentence against his prisoner. He had the prisoner scourged, thus annihilating, as far as human means could do so, any hope that Jesus could ever attain to the royal dignity. But even this device miscarried, and Pilate allowed his political ambition to prevail over his sense of evident justice; he condemned Jesus to be crucified. G. The Passion of Jesus: His Death Jesus carried His Cross to the place of execution. Simon of Cyrene is forced to assist Him in bearing the heavy burden. On the way Jesus addresses his last words to the weeping women who sympathized with His suffering. He is nailed to the Cross, his garments are divided, and an inscription is placed over His head. While His enemies mock Him, He pronounces the well-known "Seven Words". Of the two robbers crucified with Jesus, one was converted, and the other died impenitent. The sun was darkened, and Jesus surrendered His soul into the hands of His Father. The veil of the Temple was rent into two, the earth quaked, the rocks were riven, and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose and appeared to many. The Roman centurion testified that Jesus was indeed the Son of God. The Heart of Jesus was pierced so as to make sure of His death. The Sacred Body was taken from the Cross by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, and was buried in the new sepulchre of Joseph, and the Sabbath drew near. H. The Glory of Jesus After the burial of Jesus, the Holy women returned and prepared spices and ointments. The next day, the chief priests and Pharisees made the sepulchre secure with guards, sealing the stone. When the Sabbath was passed, the Holy women brought sweet spices that they might anoint Jesus. But Jesus rose early the first day of the week, and there was a great earthquake, and an angel descended from heaven, and rolled back the stone. The guards were struck with terror, and became as dead men. On arriving at the sepulchre the holy women found the grave empty; Mary Magdalen ran to tell the Apostles Peter and John, while the other women were told by an angel that the Lord had arisen from the dead. Peter and John hasten to the sepulchre, and find everything as Magdalen has reported. Magdalen too returns, and, while weeping at the sepulchre, is approached by the arisen Saviour Who appears to her and speaks with her. On the same day Jesus appeared to the other Holy Women, to Peter, to the two disciples on their way to Emmaus, and to all the Apostles excepting Thomas. A week later He appeared to all the Apostles, Thomas included; later still He appeared in Galilee near the Lake of Genesareth to seven disciples, on a mountain in Galilee to a multitude of disciples, to James, and finally to His disciples on the Mount Olivet whence He ascended into heaven. But these apparitions do not exhaust the record of the Gospels, according to which Jesus showed Himself alive after His Passion by many proofs, for forty days appearing to the disciples and speaking of the kingdom of God. A.J. MAAS Character of Jesus Christ The Character of Jesus Christ The surpassing eminence of the character of Jesus has been acknowledged by men of the most varied type: + Kant testifies to His ideal perfection; + Hegel sees in Him the union of the human and the Divine; + the most advanced sceptics do Him homage; + Spinoza speaks of Him as the truest symbol of heavenly wisdom; + the beauty and grandeur of His life overawe Voltaire; + Napoleon I, at St. Helena, felt convinced that "Between him [Jesus] and whoever else in the world there is no possible term of comparison" (Montholon, "Récit de la Captivité de l'Empereur Napoléon"). + Rousseau testifies: "If the life and death of Socrates are those of a sage, the life and death of Jesus are those of a god." + Strauss acknowledges: "He is the highest object we can possibly imagine with respect to religion, the being without whose presence in the mind perfect piety is impossible". + To Renan "The Christ of the Gospels is the most beautiful incarnation of God in the most beautiful of forms. His beauty is eternal; his reign will never end." + John Stuart Mill spoke of Jesus as "a man charged with a special, express, and unique commission from God to lead mankind to truth and virtue". Not that the views of the foregoing witnesses are of any great importance for the theological student of the life of Jesus; but they show at least the impression made on the most different classes of men by the history of Christ. In the following paragraphs we shall consider the character of Jesus as manifested first in His relation to men, then in His relation to God. A. JESUS IN HIS RELATION TO MEN In His relation to men Jesus manifested certain qualities which were perceived by all, being subject to the light of reason; but other qualities were reserved for those who viewed Him in the light of faith. Both deserve a brief study. (1) In the Light of Reason There is no trustworthy tradition concerning the bodily appearance of Jesus, but this is not needed in order to obtain a picture of His character. It is true that at first sight the conduct of Jesus is so many-sided that His character seems to elude all description. Command and sympathy, power and charm, authority and affection, cheerfulness and gravity, are the some of the qualities that make the analysis impossible. The make-up of the Gospels does not facilitate the work. At first they appear to us a bewildering forest of dogmatic statements and moral principles; there is no system, no method, everything is occassional, everything fragmentary. The Gospels are neither a manual of dogma nor a treatise on casuistry, though they are the fountain of both. No wonder then the various investgators have arrived at entirely different conclusion at the study of Jesus. Some call Him a fanatic, others make Him a socialist, others again an anarchist, while many call Him a dreamer, a mystic, an Essene. But in this variety of views there are two main concepts under which the others may be summarized: Some consider Jesus an ascetic, others an aesthete; some emphasize His suffering, others His joyfulness; some identify Him with ecclesiasticism, others with humanism; some recognize in Him the prophetic picture of the Old Testament and the monastic of the New, others see in Him only gladness and poetry. There may be solid ground for both views; but they do not exhaust the character of Jesus. Both are only by-products which really existed in Jesus, but were not primarily intended; they are only enjoyed and suffered in passing, while Jesus strove to attain an end wholly different from either joy or sorrow. (a) Strength Considering the life of Jesus in the light of reason, His strength, His poise, and His grace are His most characteristic qualities. His strength shows itself in His manner of life, His decision, His authority. In His rugged, nomadic, homeless life there is no room for weakness or sentimentality. Indecision is rejected by Jesus on several occasions: "No man can serve two masters"; "He that is not with me, is against me"; Seek first the kingdom of God", these are some of the statements expressing Christ's attitude to indecision of will. Of Himself He said: "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me"; "I seek not my own will, but the will of him that sent me." The authority of the Master does not allow its power to be questioned; He calls to men in their boats, in their tax-booths, on their homes, "Follow me", and they look up into His face and obey. St. Mathew testifies, "The multitude...glorified God that gave such power to men"; St. Mark adds, "the kingdom of God comes to power"; St. Luke says, "Thou hast given him power over all flesh"; the Book of the Acts reads, "God anointed him...with power"; St. Paul too is impressed with "the power of our Lord Jesus". In His teaching Jesus does not argue, or prove, or threaten, like the Phrarisees, but He speaks like one having authority. Nowhere is Jesus merely a long-faced ascetic or a joyous comrade, we find Him everywhere to be leader of men, whose principles are built on a rock. (b) Poise It may be said that the strength of Christ's character gives rise to another quality which we may call poise. Reason is like the sails of the boat, the will is its rudder, and the feelings are the waves thrown upon either side of the ship as it passes through the waters. The will-power of Jesus is strong enough to keep a perfect equilibrium between His feelings and His reason; His body is the perfect instrument in the performance of His duty; His emotions are wholly subservient to the Will of His Father; it is the call of complying with His higher duties that prevents His austerity from becoming excessive. There is therefore a perfect balance or equilibrium in Jesus between the life of His body, of His mind, and of His emotions. His character is so rounded off that, at first sight, there remains nothing which could make it characteristic. This poise in the character of Jesus produces a simplicity which pervades every one of His actions. As the old Roman roads led stright ahead in spite of mountains and valleys, ascents and declivities, so does the life of Jesus flow quietly onward in accordance with the call of duty, in spite of pleasure or pain, honour or ignominy. Another trait in Jesus which may be considered as flowing from the poise of His character is His unalterable peace, a peace which may be ruffled but cannot be destroyed either by His inward feelings or outward encounters. And these personal qualities in Jesus are reflected in his teaching. He establishes an equilibrium between the rightousness of the Old Testament and the justice of the New, between the love and life of the former and those of the latter. He lops off indeed the Pharisaic conventionalism and externalism, but they were merely degenerated outgrowths; He urges the law of love, but shows that it embraces the whole Law and the Prophets; He promises life, but it consists not so much in our possession as in our capacity to use our possession. Nor can it be urged that the poise of Christ's teaching is destroyed by His three paradoxes of self-reliance, of service, and of idealism. The law of self-sacrifice inculcates that we shall find life by losing it; but the law of biological organisms, of physiological tissues, of intellectual achivements, and of economic processes shows that self-sacrifice is self-realization in the end. The second paradox is that of service: "Whosoever will be the greater among you, let him be your minister: and he that will be first among you, shall be your servant." But in the industrial and artistic world, too, the greatest men are those who have done most service. Thirdly, the idealism of Jesus is expressed in such words as "The life is more than the meat", and "Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God." But even our realistic age must grant that the reality of the law is its ideals, and again, that the world of the idealist is impossible only for the weak, while the strong character creates the world after which he strives. The character of Jesus therefore is the embodiment of both strength and poise. It thus verifies the definition given by such an involved writer as Emerson: "Character is centrality, the impossibility of being displaced or overset...The natural measure of this power is the resistence of circumstances." (c) Grace But if there were not a third essential element entering into the character of Jesus, it might not be attractive after all. Even saints are at times bad neighbours; we may like them, but sometimes we like them only at a distance. The character of Christ carries with it the trait of grace, doing away with all harshness and want of amiability. Grace is the unconstrained expression of the self-forgetting and kindly mind. It is a beautiful way of doing the right thing, in the right way, at the right time, therefore opens all hearts to its possessor. Sympathy is the widst channel through which grace flows, and the abundance of the stream testifies to the reserve of grace. Now Jesus sympathizes with all classes, with the rich and the poor, the learned and the ignorant, the happy and the sad; He moves with the same sense of familiarity among all classes of society. For the self-righteous Pharisees He has only the words, "Woe to you, hypocrites"; he disciples, "Unless you become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Plato and Aristotle are utterly unlike Jesus; they may speak of natural virtue, but we never find children in their arms. Jesus treats the publicans as His friends; He encourages the most tentative beginnings of moral growth. He chooses common fishermen for the corner -stones of His kingdom, and by His kindliness trains them to become the light of the world and the salt of the earth; He bends down to St. Peter whose character was a heap of sand rather than a solid "foundation, but He graciously forms Peter into the rock upon which to build his Church. After two of the Apostles had fallen, Jesus was gracious to both, though He saved only one, while the other destroyed himself. Women in need are not excluded from the general graciousness of Jesus; He receives the homage of the sinful woman, He consolves the sorrowing sisters Martha and Mary, He cures the mother-in -law of St. Peter and restores the health of numerous other women of Galilee, He has words of sympathy for the women of Jerusalem who bewailed His sufferings, He was subject to His mother till He reached man's estate, and when dying on the Cross commanded her to the care of His beloved disciple. The grace of the Master is also evident in the form of His teaching: He lays under contribution the simple phases of nature, the hen with her chickens, the gnat in the cup, the camel in the narrow street, the fig tree and its fruit, the fishermen sorting the catch. He meets with the lightest touch, approaching sometimes the play of humour and sometimes the thrust of irony, the simple doubts of His disciples, the selfish questions of His hearers, and the subtlest snares of his enemies. He feels no need of thrift in His benefits on the few as abundantly as the vastest multitudes. He flings out His parables into the world that those who have ears may hear. There is a prodigality in this manifestation of Christ's grace that can only be symbolized, but not equalled, by the waste of seed in the realm of nature. (2) In the Light of Faith In the light of faith the life of Jesus is an uninterrupted series of acts of love for man. It was love that impelled the Son of God to take on human nature, though He did so with the full consent of His Father: "For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son" (John, iii, 16). For thirty years Jesus shows His love by a life of poverty, labour, and hardship in the fulfillment of the duties of a common trademan. When His public ministry began, He simply spent Himself for the good of His neighbour, "doing good, and healing all that were oppressed by the devil" (Acts, x, 38). He shows a boundless compassion for all the infirmities of the body; He uses His miraculous power to heal the sick, to free the possessed, to resuscitate the dead. The moral weaknesses of man move His heart still more effectively; the woman at Jacob's well, Mathew the publican, Mary Magdalen the public sinner, Zacheus the unjust administrator, are only a few instances of sinners who received encouragement from the lips of Jesus. He is ready with forgiveness for all; the parable of the Prodigal Son illustrates His love for the sinner. In His work of teaching He is at the service of the poorest outcast of Galilee as well as of the theological celebrities of Jerusalem. His bitterest enemies are not excluded from the manifestations of His love; even while He is being crucified He prays for their pardon. The Scribes and Pharisees are treated severely, only because they stand in the way of His love. "Come to me, all you that labour, and are burdened, and I will refresh you" (Matt., xi, 28) is the message of His heart to poor suffering humanity. After laying down the rule, "Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John, xv, 13), He surpasses as it were His own standard by dying for His enemies. Fulfilling the unconscious prophecy of the godless high-priest, "It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people" (John, xi, 50), He freely meets His sufferings which He could have easily avoided (Matt., xxvi, 53), undergoes the greatest insults and ignominies, passes through the most severe bodily pains, and sheds His blood for men "unto remission of sins" (Matt., xxvi, 28). But the love of Jesus embraced not only the spiritual welfare of men, it extended also to their temporal happiness: "Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you" (Matt., vi, 33). B. JESUS IN HIS RELATION TO GOD Prescinding from the theological discussions which are usually treated in the theses "De Verbo Incarnato", we may consider the relations of Jesus to God under the headings of His sanctity and His Divinity. (1) Sanctity of Jesus From a nagative point of view, the sanctity of Jesus consists in His unspotted sinlessness. He can defy His enemies by asking, "Which of you shall convince me of sin?" (John, viii, 46). Even the evil spirits are forced to acknowledge Him as the Holy One of God (Mark, i, 24; Luke, iv, 34). His enemies charge Him with being a Samaritan, and having a devil (John, viii, 48), with being a sinner (John, ix, 24), a blasphemer (Matt., xxvi, 65), a violator of the Sabbath (John, ix, 16), a malefactor (John, xviii, 30), a disturber of the peace (Luke, xxiii, 5), a seducer (Matt., xxvii, 63). But pilate finds and declares Jesus innocent, and, when pressed by the enemies of Jesus to condemn Him, he washes his hands and exclaims before the assembled people, "I am innocent of the blood of this just man" (Matt., xxvii, 24). The Jewish authorities practically admit that they cannot prove any wrong against Jesus; they only insist, "We have a law; and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God" (John, xix, 7). The final charge urged against Christ by His bitterest enemies was His claim to be the Son of God. The positive side of the sanctity of Jesus is well attested by His constant zeal in the service of God. At the age of twelve He asks His mother, "Did you not know, that I must be about my father's business?". He urges on His hearers the true adoration in spirit and in truth (John, iv, 23) required by His Father. Repeatedly He declares His entire dependence on His Father (John, v, 20, 30; etc.); He is faithful to the Will of His Father (John, viii, 29); He tells His disciples, "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me" (John, iv, 34). Even the hardest sacrifices do not prevent Jesus from complying with His Father's Will: "My Father, if this chalice may not pass away, but I must drink it, thy will be done" (Matt., xxvi, 42). Jesus honours His Father (John, ii, 17), and proclaims at the end of His life, "I have glorified thee on the earth" (John, xvii, 4). He prays almost incessantly to His Father (Mark, i, 35; vi, 46; etc.), and teaches His Apostles the Our Father (Matt., vi, 9). He always thanks His Father for His bounties (Matt., xi, 25; etc.), and in brief behaves throughout as only a most loving son can behave towards his beloved father. During His Passion one of His most intense sorrows is His feeling of abandonment by His Father (Mark, xv, 34), and at the point of death He joyfully surrenders His Soul into the hands of His Father (Luke, xxiii, 46). (2) Divinity of Jesus The Divinity of Jesus is proved by some writers by an appeal to prophecy and miracle. But, though Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament to the letter, He Himself appears to appeal to them mainly in proof of His Divine mission; He shows the Jews that He fulfills in His Person and His work all that had been foretold of the Messias. The prophecies uttered by Jesus Himself differ from the predictions of the Old Testament in that Jesus does not speak in the name of the Lord, like the seers of old, but in His own name. If it could be strictly proved that they were made in virtue of His own knowledge of the future, and of His own power to dispose of the current of events, the prophecies would prove His Divinity; as it is they prove at least that Jesus is a messenger of God, a friend of God, inspired by God. This is not the place to discuss the historical and philosophical truth of the miracles of Jesus, but we know that Jesus appeals to His works as bearing witness to the general truth of His mission (John, x, 25, 33, 38), and also for the verity of some particulr claims (Matt., ix, 6; Mark, ii, 10, 11; etc.) They show, therefore, at least that Jesus is a Divine legate and that His teaching is infallibly true. Did Jesus teach that He is God? He certainly claimed to be the Messias (John, iv, 26), to fulfill the Messianic descriptions of the Old Testament (Matt., xi, 3-5; Luke, vii, 22-23; iv, 18-21), to be denoted by the current Messianic names, "king of israel" (Luke, xix, 38; etc), "Son of David" (Matt., ix, 27; etc), "Son of man" (passim), "he that cometh in the name of the Lord" (Matt., xxi, 9.etc). Moreover, Jesus claims to be greater than Abraham (John, viii, 53, 56), than Moses (Matt., xix, 8-9), than Solomon and Jonas (Matt., xii, 41-42); He habitually claims to be sent by God (John, v, 36, 37, 43; etc), calls God His Father (Luke, ii, 49; etc), and He willingly accepts the titles "Master" and "Lord" (John, xiii, 13, 14). He forgives sin in answer to the observation that God alone can forgive sin (Mark, ii, 7, 10; Luke, v, 21, 24; etc). He acts as the Lord of the Sabbath (Matt., xii, 8; etc), and tells St. Peter that as "Son" He is free from the duty of paying temple-tribute (Matt., xvii, 24, 25). From the beginning of His ministry he allows Nathanael to call Him "Son of God" (John, i, 49); the Apostles (Matt., xiv, 33) and Martha (John, xi, 27) give Him the same title. Twice He approves of Peter who calls Him "the Christ, the Son of God" (John, vi, 70), "Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt., xvi, 16). Four distinct times does He proclaim Himself the Son of God; to the man born blind (John, x, 30, 36); before the two assemblies of the Jewish Sanhedrin on the night before His death (Matt., xxvi, 63-64; Mark, xiv, 61-62; Luke, xxii, 70). He does not manifest His Divine Sonship before Satan (Matt., iv, 3, 6) or before the Jews who are deriding Him (Matt., xxvii, 40). Jesus does not wish to teach the evil spirit the mystery of His Divinity; to the Jews He gives a greater sign than they are asking for. Jesus, therefore, applies to Himself, and allows others to apply to Him, the title "Son of God" in its full meaning. If there had been a misunderstanding He would have corrected it, even as Paul and Barnabas corrected those who took them for gods (Acts, xiv, 12-14). Nor can it be said that the title "Son of God" denotes a merely adoptive sonship. The foregoing texts do not admit of such an interpretation. St. Peter, for instance, places his master above John the Baptist, Elias, and the Prophets (Matt., xvi, 13-17). Again, the Angel Gabriel declares that the Child to be born will be "the Son of the most High" and "Son of God" (Luke, i, 32, 35), in such a way that He will be without an earthly father. Mere adoption presupposes the existence of the child to be adopted; but St. Joseph is warned that "That which is conceived in her [Mary], is of the Holy Ghost" (Matt., i, 20); now one's being conceived by the operation of another implies one's natural relation of sonship to him. Moreover, the Divine Sonship claimed by Jesus is such that he and the Father are one (John, x, 30, 36); a merely adopted sonship does not constitute a physical unity between the son and his adoptive father. Finally if Jesus had claimed only an adoptive sonship, He would have deceived His judges; they could not have condemned Him for claiming a prerogative common to all pious Israelites. Harnack (Wesen des Christentums, 81) contends that the Divine Sonship claimed by Jesus is an intellectual relation to the Father, springing from special knowledge of God. This knowledge constitutes "the sphere of the Divine Sonship", and is implied in the words of Matt., xi, 27: "No one knoweth the Son, but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him". But if the Divine Sonship of Christ is a mere intellectual relation, and if Christ is God in a most figurative sense, the Paternity of the Father and the Divinity of the Son will be reduced to a figure of speech. (See CHRISTOLOGY.) A.J. MAAS Religious of Jesus Mary Religious of Jesus Mary The Congregation of the Religious of Jesus Mary was founded at Lyons, France, in October, 1818, by Claudine Thevenet, in religion, Mother St. Ignatius. The constitutions were approved by Pius IX, 31 December, 1847. The object of this congregation is to give to young ladies a Christian education conformable to their social position; For this purpose the religious have boarding-schools and academies, and, in large cities, residences for ladies of the literary profession. Their establishments of various kinds are numerous: in France, before the expulsion of 1901, they were at Lyons, the birthplace of the congregation, at Le Puy, Rodes, and Remiremont. Owing to the religious persecution, the mother-house was transferred to Rome in September, 1901. Besides the mother-house on the Via Flaminia, the religious have opened a college, the Stella Viae, to give to young ladies the means of culture which a residence in Rome and the study of the fine arts, modern languages, European literature, and history afford. The Stella Viae is situated on the Via Nomentana, near the Porta Pia. In 1842 Lyons sent a colony to India, where twelve houses now exist. The most important of these are at Bombay, Poonah, Lahore, Simla, and Agra. In 1850 the first house in Spain was founded at Tarragona; then followed other foundations, Valencia, Barcelona, Orihuela, S. Gervas, Alicante, and Murcia. In 1902 Spain sent a colony to found houses in the city of Mexico and at Merida, Yucatan. The first house of the congregation in America was founded at St. Joseph, Levis, Canada, in 1858. In 1876 Sillery (Quebec) became the provincial house of America. Canada has four other houses, at St-Gervais, St-Michel, Trois-Pistoles, and Beauceville. In 1876 several sisters left Sillery to open houses in the Unites States. The first foundation was that at Fall River, Mass., where the sisters now conduct a boarding-school and a parochial school attended by twelve hundred children. The house at Manchester, New Hampshire, was founded in 1881; then, at Woonsocket, R.I., a boarding-school and two parochial schools, attended by fourteen hundred children. At Providence, R.I., the religious have a convent and two parochial schools. In 1902 several nuns left the mother-house in Rome, to found an establishment in New York. The religious of Jesus Mary now possess a house on Fourteenth Street and an academy at Kingsbridge. They also have the supervision of a day-school for poor Italian children. The establishment on Fourteenth Street, called "Our Lady of Peace", is a residence for ladies in the literary profession. MOTHER STE. EUPHEMIE History of the Jews History of the Jews ( Yehúd`m; Ioudaismos). Of the two terms, Jews and Judaism, the former denotes usually the Israelites or descendants of Jacob (Israel) in contrast to Gentile races; the latter, the creed and worship of the Jews in contrast to Christianity, Mohammedanism, etc. In a separate article we will treat of Judaism as a religious communion with its special system of faith, rites, customs, etc. (See JUDAISM.) Here, we shall cover the history of the Jews since the return from the Babylonian Exile, from which time the Israelites received the name of Jews (for their earlier history, see ISRAELITES). This history may be divided into various periods in accordance with the leading phases which may be distinguished in the existence of the Jewish race since the Return in 538 B.C. (1)Persian Suzerainty (538-333 B.C.) In October, 538 B.C., Babylon opened its gates to the Persian army, and a few weeks later the great conqueror of Babylonia, Cyrus, made his triumphal entry into the fallen city. One of the official acts of the new ruler in Babylon was to give to the exiled Jews full liberty to return to Juda (see I Esdras, i). The substance of Cyrus's decree in their favour is in striking harmony with other known decrees of that monarch, with his general policy of clemency and toleration towards the conquered races of his empire, and with his natural desire to have on the Egyptian border a commonwealth as large as possible, bound to Persia by the strongest ties of gratitude. A comparatively large number of Jewish exiles (50,000 according to I Esdras, ii, 64, 65) availed themselves of Cyrus's permission. Their official leader was Zorobabel, a descendant of the royal family of Juda, whom the Persian monarch had invested with the governorship of the sub-province of Juda, and entrusted with the precious vessels which had belonged to Yahweh's House. There appeared also by his side the priest "Josue, the son of Josedec", probably as the religious head of the returning community. The returned exiles, who mostly belonged to the tribes of Benjamin and Juda, settled chiefly in the neighborhood of Jerusalem. They at once organized a council of twelve elders, and this council, which was naturally presided over by Zorobabel, controlled and guided the internal affairs of the community, under the suzerainty of Persia. Without delay, too, they set up a new altar, and had it ready to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles in 537 B.C. Henceforth, the ritual system was religiously carried out. The foundation of the second Temple was laid in the second month of the second year after the Return, but no further headway was made for fifteen or sixteen years, owing to the active interference and positive misrepresentations to the Persian kings by the Samaritans to whom the Jews had denied a share in the work of rebuilding the House of the Lord. Meantime, the Jews themselves lost much of their interest in the reconstruction of the Temple; and it is only in 520 B.C. that the Prophets Aggæus and Zacharias succeeded in rousing them from their supineness. Pecuniary help came too from the Jewish community in Babylon, and also, a little later, from the Persian king. Thus encouraged, they made rapid progress and on 3 March, 515 B.C., the new Temple was solemnly dedicated. The Jewish leaders next started on the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem, and here again met with the hostility of the Samaritans, whose complaints at the Court of Persia were most successful under Artaxerxes I "Longimanus" (464-124 B.C.), who issued orders strictly forbidding the Jews to proceed with the work. The special mission of Esdras and Nehemias in behalf of the struggling Palestinian community and their strenuous efforts to lift up its moral tone need not to be dwelt upon here (see ESDRAS; NEHEMIAS). Suffice it to say that, to whatever precise time their labours should be assigned (see CAPTIVITIES), the scribe Esdras and the satrap Nehemias left their permanent impress on their fellow-Jews. After Esdras's death, which probably occurred not long before the end of the Persian rule over in Juda in 333 B.C., little is distinctly known of the history of the Palestinian Jews. It seems, however, that under the satraps of Coele-Syria, the action of the high-priest had a very considerable influence upon their religious and civil matters alike (cfr. Josephus, "Antiq. Of the Jews", XI, vii), and that their community enjoyed a steadily increasing prosperity, hardly marred by the deportation of a certain number of Jews to distant regions like Hyrcania, which probably occurred under Artaxerxes III (358-337 B.C.). During the Persian period, the Jews who had preferred to stay in Babylonia remained constantly in touch with the returned exiles, sending them, at times, material help, and formed a flourishing community deeply attached to the faith and to the traditions of their race. Within the same period falls the formation of the Jewish colony at Elaphantine (Upper Egypt), which was for a while supplied with a temple of its own, and the faithfulness of which to Persia is witness by Judeo-Aramean papyri recently discovered. Lastly, the institutions of Judaism which seem to have more particularly developed during the Persian domination are the Synagogues, with their educational and religious features, and the Scribes with their peculiar skill in the law. (2) Greek Period (333-168 B.C.) A new period in the history of the Jews opens with the defeat of Darius III (335-330 B.C.) by Alexander the Great at Issus, in Cilicia. This victory of the young conqueror of Persia undoubtedly brought the Palestinian Jews into direct contact with Greek civilization, whatever may be thought of the exact historical value of what Josephus relates (Antiq. of the Jews, XI, viii, 3-5) concerning Alexander's personal visit to Jerusalem. Alexander allowed them the free enjoyment of their religious and civil liberties, and rewarded those of them who went to war with him against Egypt and settled in Alexandria, a city of his foundation, by granting them equal civic rights with the Macedonians. Again, when the Samaritans rebelled against him, he added a part of Samaria to Judea (331 B.C.). After Alexander's untimely death (323 B.C.), Palestine had an ample share of the troubles which arose out of the partition of his vast empire among his captains. Placed between Syria and Egypt, it became the bone of contention between their respective rulers. At first, as a part of Coele-Syria, it passed naturally into the possession of Laomedon of Mytiline. But as early as 320 B.C., it was seized by the Egyptian Ptolemy I (323-285 B.C.) who, on a Sabbath-day took Jerusalem, and carried away many Samaritans and Jews into Egypt A few years later (315 B.C.), it fell into the power of Syria; but after the battle of Ipsus in Phrygia (301 B.C.), it was annexed to Egypt and remained so practically a whole century(301-202 B.C.). Seleucus I, who founded Antioch about 300 B.C., attracted the Jews to his new capital by granting them equal rights with his Greek subjects; and thence they gradually extended into the principal cities of Asia Minor. The rule of the first three Ptolemies was even more popular with the Jews than that of the Seleucids. Ptolemy I (Soter) settled many of them in Alexandria and Cyrene, whence they gradually spread over the whole country, and attained to eminence in science, art, and even literature, as is proved by the numerous Judeo-Greek fragments which have survived. Under Ptolemy II (Philadelphus), the Hebrew Pentateuch was first rendered into Greek; and this, in turn, led in the course of time to the complete translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint. His successor, Euergetes (247-222 B.C.), is particularly credited, after a successful campaign in Syria, with having offered rich presents at the Temple in Jerusalem. Again, the annual tribute demanded by the early Ptolemies was apparently light; and as long as it was paid regularly, the Palestinian Jews were left free to manage their own affairs under their high-priests at whose side stood the Gerusia of Jerusalem, as a council of state, including the priestly aristocracy. In this wise, things went well under the high-priesthood of Simon the Just (310-291 B.C.), and that of his two brothers, Eleazar II (291-276 B.C.) and Manasses (276-250 B.C.). Matters proved less satisfactory under Onias II (250-226 B.C.), who withheld the tribute for several years from his Egyptian suzerain. Under Onias's son and successor, Simon II (226-298 B.C.), whose godly rule is highly praised in Ecclesiasticus (chap. iv), the condition of Palestine became precarious owing to the renewed conflicts between Egypt and Syria for the possession of Coele-Syria and Judea. In the end, however, the Syrian king, Antiochus II, remained master of Palestine and did his utmost to secure the loyalty of the Jews not only of Judea, but also of Mesopotamia and Babylon. Seleucus IV (187-175 B.C.) pursued at first the conciliatory policy of his father, and the Judean Jews prospered during the opening years of Onias III (198-175). Soon, however, intestine strife disturbed the pontiff's wise rule, and Seleucus, misled by Simon, the governor of the Temple, sent his treasurer, Heliodorus, to seize the Temple funds. The failure of Heliodorus's mission led eventually to Onias's imprisonment and deposition from the high-priesthood. This deposition purchased from the new king, Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), by Jason, an unworthy brother of Onias, was the real triumph of Hellenism in Jerusalem. The man who, in turn, supplanted Jason was Menelaus, another hellenizing leader, whom craft and gold maintained in office, despite the complaints of the Jews to the Syrian monarch. At length, a popular revolt occurred against Menelaus, which Antiochus put down with great barbarity, and which resulted in his leaving Menelaus in charge of the high-priesthood, while two foreign officers became Governors of Jerusalem and Samaria respectively (170). (3) The Machabean Age (168-63 B.C.) The whole period which has just been described, was marked by the steady growth and widespread influence of hellenistic culture. Towards its end, the Jewish high-priests themselves not only assumed Greek names and adopted Greek manners, but became the ardent champions of Hellenism. In fact, Antiochus IV thought that the time had now come to unify the various races of his dominions by thoroughly hellenizing them. His general edict for that purpose met probably with unexpected opposition on the part of most Palestinian Jews. Hence, by special letters he ordered the utter destruction of Yahweh's worship in Jerusalem and in all towns of Judea: under the penalty of death everything distinctly Jewish was prohibited, and Greek idolatry prescribed (168 B.C.). The Holy City had recently been dismantled, and a part of it (Acra) transformed into a Syrian citadel. Now its Temple was dedicated to Zeus, to whom sacrifices were offered upon an idol-altar erected over Yahweh's altar. In like manner, in all the townships of Juda altars were set up and heathen sacrifices offered. In the dire persecution which ensued, all resistance seemed impossible. In the little town of Modin, however, an aged priest, Mattathias, boldly raised the standard of revolt. At his death (167 B.C.), he appointed his son Judas, surnamed Machabeus, to head the forces which had gradually gathered around him. Under Judas's able leadership, the Machabean troops won several victories, and in December, 165 B.C., Jerusalem was re-entered, the Temple cleansed, and Divine worship renewed. The struggle was a hard one against the numerous armies of Antiochus V and Demetrius I, the next Syrian kings; yet it was heroically maintained, with varying success, by Judas until his death on the battlefield (161 B.C.). One of his brothers, Jonathan, became his successor in command for the next eighteen years (161-143 B.C.). The new leader was not only able to re-enter and fortify Jerusalem, but was also recognized as high-priest of the Jews by the Syrian Crown, and as an ally by Rome and Sparta. It was not given him, however to restore his country to complete independence: he was treacherously captured and soon afterwards put to death by the Syrian general, Tryphon. Another brother of Judas, Simon (143-135 B.C.), then assumed the leadership, and under him the Jews attained to a high degree of happiness and prosperity. He repaired the fortresses of Judea, took and destroyed the citadel of Acra (142 B.C.), and renewed the treaties with Rome and Lacedæmon. In 141 B.C., he was proclaimed by a national assembly "prince and high-priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet". He exercised the right of coinage and may be considered as the founder of the Asmonean, or last Jewish, dynasty. The rule of John Hyrcanus I, Simon's successor, lasted 30 years. His career was marked by a series of conquests, notably by the reduction of Samaria and the forcible conversion of Idumea. He sided with the aristocratic Sadducees against the more rigid defenders of the Theocracy, the Pharisees, the successors of the Assideans. The oldest parts of the "Sibylline Oracles" and of the "Book of Enoch" are probably remainders of the literature of his day. He was succeeded by his eldest son, Aristobulus I (Heb. name, Judas), who was the first Machabean ruler to assume the title of king. He reigned but one year, conquered and proselytized a part of Galilee. His brother Alexander Jannæus (Heb. name Jonathan) occupied the throne twenty-six years (104-78 B.C.). During the civil war which broke out between him and his subjects he was long unsuccessful; but he finally got the better of his opponents, and wreaked frightful vengeance upon them. He also succeeded at a later date in conquering and Judaizing the whole country east of the Jordan. On acceding to the kingdom, his widow Alexandra (Heb. name, Salome) practically surrendered the rule to the Pharisees. But this did not secure the peace of the realm, for Alexandra's death alone prevented her being involved in a new civil war. The strife which soon arose after her death (69 B.C.), between her two sons Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, who were favoured by the Pharisees and the Sadducees respectively, was skilfully kept up by Antipater, the ambitious Governor of Idumea and father of Herod the Great. It gradually led both brothers to submit to the arbitration of Pompey, then commanding the Roman forces in the East. The wary imperator finally decided in favour of Hyrcanus, marched on Jerusalem, and stormed the temple, whereupon a carnage ensued. This brought to an end the short era of independence which the Machabees had secured for the country (63 B.C.). It was during the Machabean Age that occurred the building of a Jewish temple at Leontopolis in the Delta, and the transformation of the Jewish Gerusia into the Jerusalem Sanhedrin. Among the literary products of the same period are to reckoned the deuterocanonical Books of the Machabees, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus; and the apocryphal "Psalms of Solomon", "Book of Jubilees", and "Assumption of Moses"; to which many scholars add the Book of Daniel and several sacred hymns embodied in our Psalter. (4) Early Roman Supremacy (63 B.C.-A.D. 70) The fall of Jerusalem in 63 B.C. marks the beginning of Judea's vassalage to Rome. Pompey, its conqueror, dismantled the Holy City, recognized Hyrcanus II as high-priest and ethnarch, but withdrew from his jurisdiction all territory outside of Judea proper, and strictly forbade him all further conquests. Then he proceeded homewards carrying with him numerous captives, who greatly increased, if indeed they did not begin, the Jewish community in Rome. Soon Judea became a prey to several discords, in the midst of which the weak Hyrcanus lost more and more of his authority, and his virtual master, the Idumean Antipater, grew proportionately in favour with the suzerains of the land. Upon the final defeat of Pompey at Pharsalus (48 B.C.) by Julius Cæsar, Antipater promptly sided with the victor, and rendered him signal services in Egypt. His reward was the full recognition of Hyrcanus as high-priest and ethnarch; and for himself the rights of Roman citizenship and the office of procurator over the whole of Palestine. He next proceeded to rebuild the walls of the Holy City, and to appoint two of his sons, Phasael and Herod, Governors of Jerusalem and Galilee respectively. From this time forth Herod's fortune grew rapidly, until in the Roman capital, whither he had fled from the wrath of the Nationalist party, he reached the goal of his ambition. The Idumean Herod ascended the Throne of David, and his long reign (37-4 B.C.) forms in several respects a glorious epoch in the history of the Jews (see HEROD THE GREAT). Upon the whole, however, it was disastrous for the Jews of Palestine. Its first part (37-25 B.C.) was chiefly spent in getting rid of the surviving Asmoneans. By their death he, indeed, made the throne more secure for himself, but also alienated the mass of his subjects who were deeply attached to the Machabean family. To this grievance he gradually added others no less hateful to the national party. The people hated him as a bloody tyrant bent on destroying the worship of God, and hated still more the Romans who maintained him on the throne, and whose suzerainty was to be thrown off at the first opportunity. It was a short time before the death of Herod that Jesus, the true King of the Jews, was born, and the Holy Innocents were massacred. Herod's death was the signal for an insurrection which spread gradually and was finally put down by Varus, the Governor of Syria. Next followed the practical ratification of the last will of Herod by Augustus. The principal heir was Archelaus, who was appointed ethnarch of Idumean, Judea, and Samaria, with the promise of the royal title on condition that he should rule to the emperor's satisfaction. For his mis-rule, Augustus deposed him (A.D. 6), and put in his stead a Roman procurator. Henceforward, Judea continued as a part of the province of Syria, except for a brief interval (A.D. 41-44), during which Herod Agrippa I held sway over all the dominions of Herod the Great. The Roman procurators of Judea resided in Cæsaria, and went to Jerusalem only on special occasions. They were subalterns of the Syrian governors, commanded the military, maintained peace and took care of the revenue. They generally abstained from meddling with the religious affairs, especially for fear of arousing the violence of the Zealots of the time, who regarded as unlawful the payment of tribute to Cæsar. The local government was largely left in the hands of the Sadducean priestly aristocracy, and the Sanhedrin was the supreme court of justice, deprived, however (about A.D. 30), of the power of carrying a sentence of death. It was under Pontius Pilate (A.D. 26-36), one of the procurators appointed by Tiberius, that Jesus was crucified. Up to the reign of Caligula (37-44), the Jews enjoyed, without any serious interruption, the universal toleration which Roman policy permitted to the religion of the subject states. But when that emperor ordered that Divine honours should be paid to him, they generally refused to submit. Petronius, the Roman Governor of Syria, received peremptory orders to use violence, if necessary, to set up Caligula's statue in the Temple at Jerusalem. At Alexandria a fearful massacre took place, and it looked as if all the Jews of Palestine were doomed to perish. Petronius, however, delayed the execution of the decree, and in fact, escaped punishment only through the murder of Caligula in A.D. 41. The Jews were saved, and with the accession of Claudius, who owed the imperial dignity chiefly to the efforts of Herod Agrippa, a brighter day dawned for them. Through gratitude, Claudius conferred upon Agrippa the whole kingdom of Herod the Great, and upon the Jews at home and abroad valuable privileges. Agrippa's careful government made itself felt throughout the entire community, and the Sanhedrin, now under the presidency of Gamaliel I, St. Paul's teacher, had more authority than ever before. Yet the national party remained in an almost constant state of mutiny, while the Christians were persecuted by Agrippa. Upon Agrippa's death (A.D. 44), the country was again subjected to Roman procurators, and this was the prelude to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish people. Nearly all the seven procurators who ruled Judea from A.D. 44 to 66 acted as though they sought to drive its population to despair and revolt. Gradually, the confusion became so great and so general as manifestly to presage the dissolution of the commonwealth. At length, in A.D. 66, in spite of the precautionary efforts of Agrippa II, the party of the Zealots burst into an open rebellion, which was terminated (A.D. 70) by the capture of Jerusalem by Titus, the destruction of the Temple, and the massacre and the banishment of hundreds of thousands of the unhappy people, who were scattered among their brethren in all parts of the world. According to Eusebius, the Christians of Jerusalem, forewarned by their Master, escaped the horrors of the last siege, by removing in due time to Pella, east of the Jordan. Prominent among the Jewish writers of the first century of our era are Philo, who pleaded the Jewish cause at Rome before Caligula, and Josephus, who acted as Jewish Governor of Galilee during the final revolt against Rome, and described its vicissitudes and horrors in a thrilling, and probably also in an exaggerated, manner. (5) Last Days of Pagan Rome (A.D. 70-320) Rome exulted over fallen Jerusalem, and struck coins commemorative of the hard won victory. The chief leaders of the defence, a long train of heavily chained captives, the vessels of the Temple, the seven-branched candlestick, the golden table, and a roll of the Law, graced Titus's triumph in the imperial city. And yet three strong fortresses in Palestine still held out against the Romans: Herodium, Machærus, and Masada. The first two fell in A.D. 71, and the third, the following year, which thus witnessed the complete conquest of Judea. For a while longer, certain fugitive Judean Zealots strove to foment a rebellion in Egypt and in Cyrenaica. But their efforts soon came to naught, and Vespasian availed himself of the Egyptian commotion to close for ever the temple of Onias in Heliopolis. At this juncture, it looked as though the distinct groups of Jewish families were henceforth destined to drift separately, finally to be absorbed by the various nations in the midst of which they chanced to live. This danger was, however, averted by the rapid concentration of the surviving Jews in two great communities, mostly independent of each other, and corresponding to the two great divisions of the world at the time. The first naturally comprised all the Jews who lived this side of the Euphrates. Not long after the fall of Jerusalem and its subsequent misfortunes, they gradually acknowledged the authority of a new Sanhedrin, which, in whatever way it arose, was actually constituted at Jamnia (Jabne), under the presidency of Rabbi Jochanan ben Zaccai. Together with the Sanhedrin [now the supreme Court (Bêth Din) of the Western communities], there was at Jamnia a school in which Jochanan inculcated the oral Law (specifically the Halacha) handed down by the fathers, and delivered expository lectures (Hagada) on the other Hebrew Scriptures distinct from the written Law (Pentateuch). Jochanan's successor as the head of the Sanhedrin (A.D. 80) was Rabbi Gamaliel II, who took the title of Nasi ("prince": among the Romans, "patriarch"). He also lived at Jamnia, and presided over its school, on the model of which other schools were gradually formed in the neighbourhood. He finally transmitted (A.D. 118) to his successors, the "patriarchs of the West", a religious authority to which obedience and reverence were henceforth paid, even after the seat of this authority was shifted first to Sephoris, and finally to Tiberias. The supremacy of "Rabbinism", thus firmly established among the Western Jews, prevailed likewise in the other great community which comprised all the Jewish families east of the Euphrates. The chief of this Babylonian community assumed the title of Resh-Galutha (prince of the Captivity), and was a powerful feudatory of the Parthian Empire. He was the supreme judge of the minor communities, both in civil and in criminal matters, and exercised in many other ways a wellnigh absolute authority over them. The principal districts under his jurisdiction were those of Nares, Sora, Pumbeditha, Nahardea, Nahar-Paked, and Machuzza, whose rabbinical schools were destined to enjoy the greatest fame and influence. The patriarchs of the West possessed much less temporal authority than the princes of the Captivity; and this was only natural in view of the suspicious watchfulness which Vespasian and Titus exercised over the Jews of the Empire. A garrison of 800 men occupied the ruins of Jerusalem to prevent its reconstruction by the religious zeal of its former inhabitants, and in order to do away with all possible pretenders to the Jewish Throne or to the Messianic dignity as strict search was made for all who claimed descent from the royal House of David. Under Domitian (A.D. 81-96), the Fiscus Judaicus, or tax of two drachmas established by Vespasian for the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, was exacted from the Jews with the utmost rigour, and they were involved in the persecutions which this tyrant carried on against Christians. The reign of Nerva (A.D. 96-98) gave a brief interval of peace to the Jews; but in that of Trajan (98-117), while the Roman legions had been withdrawn from Africa to fight against Parthia, the Jewish population of Egypt and Cyrene took up arms against the Greeks of those districts, and on both sides dreadful atrocities were committed. Thence the flame spread to Cyprus where the Jews massacred, we are told, 240,000 of their fellow-citizens. Hadrian sent forces to suppress the uprising in that island, and forbade any Jew to set his foot on its soil. Next, the revolt in Egypt and Cyrene was put down. Meanwhile the Jews of Mesopotamia, dissatisfied with the Romans who had just conquered the Parthians, endeavoured to get rid of the Fiscus Judaicus now imposed upon them. Their insurrection was soon suppressed by Lucius Quintus, who was then appointed to the government of Judea, where it is probable that disturbances were feared. The next year (A.D. 117), Hadrian became emperor. This was a fortunate occurrence for the Jews of Babylonia, for as the new Cæsar gave up Trajan's conquests beyond the Euphrates, they came again under the milder rule of their ancient sovereigns. But it proved most unfortunate for the Jewish population of the Roman world. Hadrian issued an edict forbidding circumcision, the reading of the Law, and the observance of the Sabbath. He next made known his intention to establish a Roman colony in Jerusalem, and to erect a fane to Jupiter on the site of Yahweh's fallen Temple. At this juncture, it was announced that the Messia had just appeared. His name, Bar-Cochba, "Son of the Star", seemed to fulfil the ancient prophecy: "a star shall rise out of Jacob" (Numbers, xxiv,17). Rabbi Aqiba, the most learned and venerated of the Sanhedrists of the day, distinctly acknowledged the claims of the new Messia. Jewish warriors of all countries flocked around Bar-Cochba, and he maintained his cause against Hadrian for two years. But Roman tactics and discipline gradually prevailed. The Jewish strongholds fell one after another before Julius Severus, the Roman general; Jerusalem was taken; and at length (A.D. 135), the fortress of Bither, the last refuge of the rebels, was captured and razed to the ground. Bar-Cochba had been slain; and sometime later, Rabbi Aqiba was seized and executed, but his seven leading pupils fortunately escaped to Nisibis and Nahardea. Dreadful massacres followed the suppression of the revolt; of the fugitives who escaped death many fled to Arabia, whence that country obtained its Jewish population; and the rest were sold into slavery. To annihilate for ever all hopes of the restoration of a Jewish kingdom, a new city was founded on the site of Jerusalem and peopled by a colony of foreigners. The city received the name of Ælia Capitolina, and no Jew was allowed to reside in it or even approach its environs. The Christians, now fully distinguished from the Jews, were permitted to establish themselves within the walls, and Ælia became the seat of a flourishing bishopric. Under Antoninus Pius (138-161), Hadrian's laws were repealed, and the active persecution against the Jews came to an end. Aqiba's disciples then returned to Palestine and reorganized the Sanhedrin at Usha, in Galilee (140), under the presidency of Simon II, the son of Gamaliel II. Simon's patriarchate was not free from the petty oppression of the Roman officials, which the Palestinian Jews particularly felt and resented. On the occasion, therefore, of the warlike preparations of the Parthians against Rome, a fresh revolt broke out in Judea during the last year of Antoninus's reign. It was speedily suppressed under the next emperor, Marcus Aurelius (161-180), and followed by a re-enactment of Hadrian's extreme measures which, however, were soon annulled or never carried out. In 165, Rabbi Juda I succeeded Simon II as president of the Sanhedrin and patriarch of the West. The most important of his acts is the completion of the Mishna oral Law (about 189), which, concurrently with the Bible, became the principal source of rabbinical study, and a kind of constitution which even now holds together the scattered members of the Jewish race. As Rabbi Juda was in office for over thirty years, he was the last Jewish patriarch who had to complain of the vexations of the pagan rulers of Rome. Under Caracalla (211-217), the Jews received the rights of citizenship; and under his successors the various disabilities by which they had been affected were gradually removed. Even such rabid persecutors of the Christians as Decius (249-251), Valerian (253-260), and Diocletian (284-305) left the Jews unmolested. During this period of peace, the patriarchs of the West frequently sent their legates to the various synagogues to ascertain their actual condition and collect the tax from which Juda III and his successors drew their income. In Babylonia, the Jewish communities and schools were flourishing under the princes of the Captivity, and except for a short space of time immediately after the conquest of the Parthians by the neo-Persians, and during the ephemeral rule of Odenathus at Palmyra, they enjoyed quiet and independence. The condition of the Jews in Arabia and China, at this time, is not known with any degree of certainty. (6) Christian Emperors and Barbarian Kings (320-628) The accession of Christianity to the throne of the Cæsars by the conversion of Constantine, opens a new era in the history of the Jews. The equality of rights to which the pagan emperors had admitted them was gradually restricted by the head of the Christian State. Under Constantine (306-337), the restrictions were few in number, and due to his interest in the welfare of his Christian subjects and in the promotion of the true religion. He made the passage from Christianity to Judaism a penal offence; prohibited the Jews from circumcising their Christian slaves; protected converts from Judaism against the fiery vengeance of their former coreligionists; but never deprived them of their citizenship, and never went beyond constraining them -- with the exception of their rabbis -- to take upon themselves certain public offices which had become particularly burdensome. These laws were re-enacted and made more severe by his son Constans I (337-350), who attached the death penalty to marriages between Jews and Christians. The severity of these and other laws of Constans was but too fully justified by the dreadful excesses of the Jews in Alexandria, and by their temporary revolt in Judea. The accession of Julian the Apostate, in 361, made a new diversion in their favour. This emperor decreed the rebuilding of the Temple on Mt. Moria and the full restoration of Jewish worship, apparently with a view to secure the influence of the Mesopotamian Jews in his expedition against the Persians. The Jews were triumphant, but their triumph was short-lived; sudden flames burst forth from Mr. Moria and rendered impossible the rebuilding of the Temple; Julian perished in his Persian War, and his successor, Jovian (363-364), reverted to Constans' policy. The next emperors, Valens and Valentinian, reinstated the Jews in their former rights, except, however, the exemption from the public services. Under Gratian, Theodosius I, and Arcadius, they likewise enjoyed the protection of the Throne; but under Theodosius II (402-450), emboldened by their long immunity from persecution, they manifested a spirit of intolerance and crime which let to violent tumults between them and the Christians in various parts of the Eastern Roman Empire, and apparently also to the prohibition of building new synagogues and from discharging any state employment. It was under Theodosius II that the patriarchate of the West, then held by Gamaliel VI, came to an end (425). Some time before (c. 375), the Jerusalem Talmud was finished, a work which, however important for Judaism, is less complete, in regard to both its Mishna and its Gemara, than the Babylonian Talmud, the compilation of which was terminated by the heads of the Babylonian schools about 499, despite the violent persecutions of the Persian kings, Jezdijird III (440-457) and Firuz (457-484). The immediate result of Firuz's persecution was the emigration of Jewish colonists in the south as far as Arabia, and in the east as far as India where they founded a little Jewish state on the coast of Malabar which lasted till 1520. Under Qubad I, Firuz's son and successor, the prince of the Captivity, Mar-Zutra II, managed to maintain for seven years an independent Jewish state in Babylonia; but in 518, the Byzantine successors of Theodosius II enforced his anti-Jewish laws with great rigour, and, as a result, the intellectual life and former jurisdiction of the Judean Jews became virtually extinct. In the West the Jews fared decidedly better during the fifth century than in the East. They of course suffered many evils during the invasions of the northern barbarians who flooded the Western Empire after its permanent separation in 395 from the Eastern Empire of Constantinople. In the midst of the political convulsions naturally entailed by these invasions, the Jews gradually became the masters of the commerce, which the conquerors of the Western Empire, addicted to the arts of war, had neither time nor inclination to pursue. In the various states which soon arose out of that dismembered empire, the numerous Jewish colonies do not seem for a long time to have been subjected to restrictive measures, except in connection with their slave trade. The Vandals left them free to exercise their religion. They were justly treated in Italy, by the kings of the Ostrogoths, and by the Roman pontiffs; in Gaul, by the early Merovingians generally; and in Spain, by the Visigoths down to the conversion of King Recared to Catholicism (589), or rather down to the accession of Sisebut (612), who, deploring the fact that Recared's anti-Jewish laws had been little more than a dead letter, resolved at once to enforce them, and in fact added to them first the injunction that the Jews should release the slaves in their possession, and next, that they should choose between baptism and banishment. Anti-Jewish legislation was framed at a much earlier date in the Frankish dominions. Hostility towards the Jews showed itself first in Burgundy, under King Sigismund (517), and thence it spread over the Frankish countries. In 554, Childebert I of Paris forbade them to appear on the street at Eastertide; in 581, Chilperic compelled them to receive baptism; in 613, Clotaire II sanctioned new decrees against them; and in 629, Dagobert bade them choose between baptism and expulsion. Thus the laws against the Jews both in Spain and in France reached gradually a degree of severity unknown even to such Eastern persecutors of Judaism as Justinian I (527-5650 and Heraclius (610-641). Yet, the edicts of these Byzantine emperors were vexatious enough. In fact, Justinian's decrees so exasperated the Palestinian Jews that despite the persecutions of their Mesopotamian fellow-Jews by the Persian kings, Jusrau I (531-579), Hormizdas IV (579-591), and Kusrau II (590-628), they seized the first opportunity to avenge themselves by siding with Kusrau II in his war against Heraclius. During the Persian invasion and occupation of Palestine, they committed dreadful excesses against the Christians, which finally met with a merited punishment in the persecution which Heraclius, again master of Judea, started against them. (7) The Mohammedan Ascendancy (628-1038) The rise of Mohammedanism, with whose power the Arabian Jews cane in contact when it was yet in its infancy, marks the beginning of a new period in Jewish history. Several centuries before Mohammed's birth (c. 570), the Jews had effected important settlements in Arabia, and in the course of time, they had acquired a considerable influence upon the heathen population. In fact, it is certain that at one time, there existed in Southern Arabia (Yemen), an Arab-Jewish kingdom which was brought to an end in 530 by a Christian king of Abyssinia. But although they had lost their royal estate, the Arabian Jews were still numerous and powerful, in the Hedjaz, north of Yemen. There was indeed but a small Jewish population in Mecca, Mohammed's birthplace; yet it is probable that contact with the Jews of that city was one of the means by which the founder of Islam became acquainted with Judaism, its beliefs, and it Patriarchs. This acquaintance became naturally closer after the Hegira (Flight) of Mohammed (622) to Medina, the chief centre of the Arabian Jews. To win the Israelites to his cause, the "prophet" made various concessions to their religion and adopted some of their customs. As this was useless, and as the Jews were a constant menace to his cause, he resolved to get rid of their tribes one after another. He first put an end to the Jews in the vicinity of Medina, and next (628) subjected those of the district of Khaibar and of Wadi al-Kura to an annual tribute of half the produce of the soil. After Mohammed's death (A.D. 632), Caliph Abu-Bekr tolerated the Jewish remnant in Khaibar and al-Kura; but this toleration ceased under Omar, the prophet's second successor. During Omar's short caliphate (634-644), Syria, Ph nicia, Persia, Egypt, and Jerusalem fell under the sway of Islam. The Jews were fairly well treated by their new masters. Omar's so-called "Covenant" (640) imposed indeed restrictions upon Jews in the whole Mohammedan world, but these restrictions do not seem to have been carried out during his lifetime. In return for the valuable assistance of the Babylonian Jews in Omar's campaigns against Persia, this caliph granted them several privileges, among which may be mentioned the recognition of their exilarch Bostanaï (642). Under Islam's fourth caliph, Ali (656-661), the Jewish community of Irak (Babylonia) became more fully organized and assumed the appearance of an independent state, in which the Talmudic schools of Sora and Pumbeditha flourished again. The exilarch and the head of the school of Sora, with his new name of Gaon (658), were of equal rank. The former's office was political, the latter's distinctly religious. The exilarch, both in bearing and in mode of life, was a prince. Thus it came to pass that the Jews scattered through the Mohammedan world persuaded themselves that in Abraham's own country there survived a prince of the Captivity who had regained the sceptre of David. For them, the heads of the Babylonian schools were the representatives of the ideal times of the Talmud. The farther the dominion of the Ommiads (661-750) was extended, the more adherents were gained for the Jewish Babylonian chiefs. The great liberty which the Jews enjoyed under Islam's rule allowed them to cultivate Paitanism or neo-Hebraic poetry and to begin their Massoretic labours (see Massora). Meantime, their fellow-Jews were less fortunate in Spain, where most rulers of the seventh century enacted severe laws against Judaism. Towards the end of that century, Egica forbade them to own lands and houses, to repair to or trade with North Africa, and even to transact business with Christians. Having next discovered a plot of the Jews with the Moors to overthrow the Visigothic rule, he sentenced to slavery all the Jews of his states and ordered that their children of seven years and upwards be given to Christians to be educated. This condition of things came to an end under Roderic, Egica's second successor and last Visigothic King of Spain. With numerous Jews in their army, the Mohammedans crossed from Africa into Andalusia, defeated and slew Roderic (July, 711); Spain was gradually conquered; and in 720, the Saracens occupied Septimania, north of the Pyrenees, a dependency of the Gothic Kingdom. In Mohammedan Spain, the Jews, to whose help the conquerors largely owed their victories, obtained their liberty. In fact, it was now given to the Jews at large to enjoy a long period of nearly unbroken peace and security. Apart from the persecutions started in 720 by the Caliph of Damascus, Omar II, and in 723 by the Byzantine emperor, Leo III, they prospered everywhere till about the middle of the ninth century. It was during this period that the great Kingdom of the Chazars, which was situated west of the Caspian Sea, and had caused the Persians to tremble, embraced Judaism (c. 745); its rulers remained exclusively Jewish above two centuries and a half. After the caliphs of the Ommiad dynasty, one of whom had a Jew as his mint-master, those of the Abassides, till after Harun al-Rashid (d. 809), do not seem to have seriously disturbed their Jewish subjects; during that time, the Babylonian Talmudic schools were crowded with hearers, and had it not been for their internal dissension, religious (Karaites) and political (contests for the dignity of exilarch), the Jews of Babylon would have been as happy as they were renowned for their learning. In Mohammedan Spain (with its separate Caliphate of Cordova since A.D. 756), the Jews were undoubtedly prosperous during the century now under review, although details concerning their condition during that time are actually wanting. In France, the Jewish population was not submitted to any serious restrictions under either Pepin (752-768) or Charlemagne (764-814), while under Louis I (814-840) it even enjoyed special favours and privileges, the king having for his confidential adviser his Jewish physician name Zedekiah, and actively protecting Jewish interests against powerful opponents. Thus, with the exception of a passing persecution under the two sons of Harun al-Rashid, the Jews were left unmolested for about 100 years. But with the middle of the ninth century, and nearly everywhere, this ceases to be the case. In the East, Jewish persecutions were resumed by the Byzantine emperors of the Macedonian dynasty (842-1056), and by the Abasside Caliph al-Motawakel, who, in 853, re-enacted the Covenant of Omar, and under whose successors in the Caliphate of Bagdad, the Jewish community of Irak lost more and more of its prestige and was supplanted in this respect by that of Spain: the exilarchate gradually ceased to be an office of the State and finally perished (c. 940), owing chiefly to the dissensions between the Gaons of Sora and Pumbeditha; and the Gaonate itself, for a while made famous by Saadiah, ultimately disappeared through the oppression of the weak caliphate (c. 1038). Under the Fatimite dynasty of caliphs (909-1171), whose rule extended over North Africa, Egypt, and Syria, the Jews were worse off still. About the middle of the tenth century, the Jewish Kingdom of the Chazars was destroyed by the Russians. In the West, the lot of the Jews was also that of a despised and persecuted race. Charles the Bald (840-877) protected them effectively, it is true, but his weak Carlovingian successors and the early Capetians lacked sufficient authority for doing so. In Italy, as early as 855, Louis II ordered the banishment of all Italian Jews, and his order failed to have the intended effect only because of the distracted condition of the realm at the time. In Germany, where "Jew" was synonymous with "merchant", the emperors were long satisfied with exacting a special tax from their Jewish subjects; but finally Henry II (1002-1024) expelled from Mainz the Jews who refused to be baptized, and it is probable that his decree was applied to other communities. Spain (Navarre, Castile, and Leon) also persecuted the Jews, although towards the end of the tenth century, its rulers placed them in many respects on an equality with the rest of the population. In Mohammedan Spain, however, the Jewish race was politically and religiously free. Under such patrons of science and art as the Ommiad caliphs, Abd-er-Rhamman III (d. 961), Al-Hakem (d. 976), and the regent Al-Mansur (d. 1002), the Jews greatly increased in Moorish Spain, and became famous for learning as well as for commercial and industrial activity. The Talmudic schools of Cordova, Lucena, and Granada took the place of those of Sora and Pumbeditha, under the high patronage of the Jewish statesmen Hasdai, Jacob Ibn-Jau, and Samuel Halevi. During this period, an Arabic translation of the Mishna was made in Spain by Ibn-Abitur, and the first commentaries on the Talmud were composed at Mainz by Gershom ben Juda (d. 1028). (8) Era of the Crusades (1023-1300) In many respects, Mohammedan Spain owed a great deal to its Jewish population; yet, in 1066, the Jews were expelled from the Kingdom of Granada. In many ways, too, the young kingdoms of Christian Spain were indebted to their Jewish inhabitants; nevertheless, Ferdinand the Great subjected them to vexatious measures and was only prevented from drawing the sword against them by the intervention of the Spanish clergy. These, however, were but passing storms; for Alfonso VI (1071-1109) soon freely used Jews in his diplomatic and military operations, while in the Mohammedan states distinct from Granada, Jewish culture reached the zenith of its splendour. The era of Jewish persecutions really began with the First Crusade (1096-1099). The crusaders enacted in May-July, 1096, bloody scenes against the Jews of Trier, Worms, Mainz, Cologne, and other Rhenish towns, and repeated them as they went along in the cities on the Main and the Danube, even as far as Hungary, bishops and princes being mostly on the side of the victims, but proving, for various reasons, powerless to protect them effectively. On the capture of Jerusalem, 15 July, 1099, the crusaders wreaked a frightful vengeance on the Jews of the fallen city. The interval between the First and the Second Crusade was a time of respite and recuperation for the Jewish race. In England, in Germany, and even in Palestine, they were left unmolested; while in Spain and in France, they attained to a high degree of prosperity and influence, and actively pursued literary and Talmudic studies under the guidance of Juda Halevi and the sons of Rashi. Yet, in 1146, on the eve of the Second Crusade, there began against them the violent persecution of the Almohades in Northern Africa and Southern Spain which brought about the speedy ruin of the Jewish synagogues and schools and would have resulted in the practical annihilation of the Jews of Mohammedan Spain had not most of them found a refuge in the Christian dominions of Alfonso VIII (d. 1157). Then came the Second Crusade (1147-1149) with its atrocities against the Jews in Cologne, Mainz, Worms, Speyer, and Strasburg, despite the protestations of St. Bernard and of Eugenius III, and the efforts of the German prelates and the Emperor Conrad III in their behalf; and with its most deplorable result, namely the greater enslavement of the German Jews to the Crown. The next fifty years were, on the whole, for the Jewish race a period of peace and prosperity; in Spain, where Juda Ibn-Ezra was steward of the palace to Alfonso VIII; in Mesopotamia, where Mohammed Almuktafi revived the dignity of exilarch; in the Two Sicilies, where the Jews had equal rights with the rest of the population; in Italy, where Pope Alexander II was favourable to them, and the Third Lateran Council (1179) passed decrees protecting their religious liberty; in England and its French provinces, where the Jews were very flourishing under Henry Plantagenet (c. 1189); in France itself, where under the kind rule of Louis VI and Louis VII (1108-1180) they greatly prospered in every direction. And yet, in some of these countries there was a deep-seated hatred of the Jewish race and its religion. It manifested itself in 1171 when the Jews of Blois were burned on the charge of having used Christian blood in their Passover, and it allowed Philip Augustus in the year of his accession (1180) to decree the confiscation of all the unmovable goods of his Jewish subjects and their banishment from his domains. This feeling showed itself particularly on the occasion of the Third Crusade (1189-1192). The Jews were massacred on the day of the coronation of Richard I (3 Sept, 1189) and soon afterwards in several English towns (1190). About the same time, crusaders murdered them at different places from the district of the Rhine to Vienna. When again in 1198 a new crusade (1202-1204) was preached, many barons of northern France got released from their debts to Jewish creditors, and then drove them out of their dominions. Philip Augustus received indeed the exiles in his own territory, but he was chiefly actuated by covetousness. The Jews appealed to Innocent III to curb the violence of the crusaders; and in answer, the pontiff issued a Constitution which rigorously forbade mob violence and forced baptism, but which apparently had little or no effect. The year 1204, in which closed the Fourth Crusade, marked the beginning of still heavier misfortunes for the Jews. That very year witnessed the death of Maimonides, the greatest Jewish authority of the twelfth century, and the first of the many efforts of Innocent III to prevent Christian princes from showing favour to their Jewish subjects. Soon afterwards, the Jews of southern France suffered grievously during the war against the Albigenses which ended only in 1228. In 1210, those of England were ill-treated by King John Lackland and their wealth confiscated to the Exchequer. Next, the Jews of Toledo were put to death by crusaders (1212). The conciliar legislation of the time was generally unfavourable to the Jews, and it culminated in the anti-Jewish measures of the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), among which may be mentioned the exclusion of Jews from all public offices, and the decree that they should wear a Jew badge. Besides being thus legislated against, the Jews were divided amongst themselves with regard to the orthodoxy of the writings of Maimonides. Gradually, the Lateran decrees against them were enforced wherever this was possible, and active persecutions from kings and crusaders were started, the rulers of England being particularly conspicuous for their extortions of money from their Jewish subjects. In many places, the severity of the Lateran decrees was outdone, so that in 1235 Gregory IX felt called upon to confirm the Constitution of Innocent III, and in 1247 Innocent IV issued a Bull reprobating the false accusations and various excesses of the time against the Jews. Writing to the bishops of France and of Germany the latter pontiff says: Certain of the clergy, and princes, nobles and great lords of your cities and dioceses have falsely devised certain godless plans against the Jews, unjustly depriving them by force of their property, and appropriating it themselves; . . . they falsely charge them with dividing up among themselves on the Passover the heart of a murdered boy. . . . In their malice, they ascribe every murder, wherever it chance to occur, to the Jews. And on the ground of these and other fabrications, they are filled with rage against them, rob them of their possessions without any formal accusation, without confession, and without legal trial and conviction, contrary to the privileges granted to them by the Apostolic See. . . . They oppress the Jews by starvation, imprisonment, and by tortures and sufferings; they afflict them with all kinds of punishments, and sometimes even condemn them to death, so the Jews, although living under Christian princes, are in a worse plight than were their ancestors in the land of the Pharaohs. They are driven to leave in despair the land in which their fathers have dwelt since the memory of man. . . . Since it is our pleasure that they shall not be disturbed, . . . we ordain that ye behave towards them in a friendly and kind manner. Whenever any unjust attacks upon them come under your notice, redress their injuries, and do not suffer them to be visited in the future by similar tribulations. The protestations of the Roman pontiffs do not seem to have been much heeded in the Christian states generally. In 1254, nearly all the French Jews were banished by St. Louis from the king's domains. Between 1257 and 1266, Alfonso X of Castile compiled a code of laws which contained several clauses against the Jews and countenanced the blood accusation which had been contradicted by Innocent IV. During the last years of Henry III (d. 1272), the Jews of England fared worse and worse. About this time, Pope Gregory X issued a Bull ordaining that no injury be inflicted upon their persons or their property (1273); but the popular hatred against them on the charge of usury, use of Christian blood at their Passover, etc., could not be restrained; and the thirteenth century which had witnessed their persecution in all parts of Christendom, except Austria, Portugal, and Italy, closed with their total expulsion from England in 1200, under Edward I, and their carnage in Germany in 1283 and 1298. During the same period, public disputations had been resorted to but with little success for the conversion of the Jews. Further light on the severity of measures enacted by popes or councils concerning the Jews, as well on the motives of popular prejudice and hatred, will be found below, under section JUDAISM: (4) Judaism and Church Legislation. (9) Last Part of the Middle Ages (1300-1500) At the beginning of the fourteenth century, Jewish rabbis were divided concerning the value of the Zohar, the sacred book of the Kabalists (see KABBALA), which Moses of Leon had recently published. A still deeper division prevailed among them with regard to the cultivation of Aristotle's philosophy and the humanistic sciences and literature, and it resulted in 1305 in a public ban on the part of several Jewish leaders against the study of science. The next year (1306), Philip IV plundered and expelled all the French Jews, some of whom travelled as far as Palestine to enjoy there freedom under the rule of the mameluke sultan, Nassir Mohammed (d. 1341), while most remained on the border of France, thinking that the royal avarice which had caused their banishment would bring about their early return. Meantime, their coreligionists of Castile narrowly escaped the carrying out of stringent measures against their own rights and privileges (1313). The banished French Jews were actually recalled in 1315 by Louis X, and admitted for twelve years. But as early as 1320, there arose against them the bloody persecution of some 40,000 pastoureaux who pretended to be on their way to the recovery of the Holy Sepulchre. In 1321, the Jews were accused by the lepers of having poisoned the wells and rivers, whereupon a new persecution ensued. The same year, owing to intrigues against them, the Jews of Rome, then very flourishing in society and literature, would have been expelled from Roman territory by John XXII who resided in Avignon, had it not been for the timely intervention of Robert of Anjou, Vicar-General of the Papal States. In Castile, where the Jews possessed great influence with Alfonso XI (1312-1350), the various plans against them actually failed, and the king showed himself favourable to them till the day of his death. Their enemies were more successful in Navarre on the occasion of the war of independence which this province waged against France. As the Jews were apparently in the way of the secession, they were subjected to a violent persecution during the course of the war (1328), and to oppressive measures after Navarre had become a separate kingdom. In Germany, they fared still worse during the riots and the civil wars under Louis IV (1314-1347). For two consecutive years (1336, 1337), the Armleder, or peasants wearing a piece of leather wound around arm, inflicted untold sufferings upon the Jewish inhabitants of Alsace and the Rhineland as far as Swabia. In 1337, also, on the charge of having profaned a consecrated Host, the Jews of Bavaria were subjected to a slaughter which soon extended to those of Bohemia, Moravia, and Austria, although Benedict XII had issued a Bull promising an inquiry into the matter. Besides, Louis IV, who always treated his Jewish subjects as mere slaves, subjected them (c. 1342) to a new and most onerous poll-tax. Greater Jewish massacres occurred in 1348-1349 while the fearful scourge, known as the "Black Death", desolated Europe. The report that the Jews had caused the scourge by poisoning the wells used by Christians, spread rapidly and was believed in most towns of Central Europe, despite the Bulls issued by Clement VI in July and September, 1348, declaring their falsity. Despite the fact, too, that the same pontiff had solemnly ordered that Jews be not forced into baptism, that their sabbaths, festivals, synagogues, and cemeteries be respected, that no new exactions be imposed on them, they were plundered and murdered in many countries of Central and Northern Europe. The next years were, on the whole, a period of respite from persecution for the Jewish race. In Castile, the Jews attained to a great influence under Don Pedro (1360-1369), and the misfortunes which then befell them arose partly from the prevalent view that they availed themselves of their power to lap up the people's possessions with their tax-farming, and partly from their constant loyalty to Don Pedro's cause, during the civil war which broke out between him and Don Henry. The latter, after reaching the throne, showed himself friendly to the Jews, and agree only reluctantly to some of the restrictive measures urged by the Cortes in 1371. In Germany, they were readmitted as early as 1355 into the very towns which had sworn that for 100 or 200 years no Jew should dwell within their walls. In France, they were granted special privileges by King John (1361), which they enjoyed to the full extent under his successor, Charles V (1364-1380). But the last twenty years of the fourteenth century were again disastrous for the European Jews. In France, scarcely was Charles V dead, when popular riots were started against them because of their extortionate usury and encouragement to baptized Jews to recant, and finally brought about the permanent exile of the Jewish population (1394). In Spain, the reign of John I (d. 1390) witnessed a great curtailing of the Jews' power and privileges; and that of Henry III (d. 1406) was marked by bloody assaults in many cities of Castile and Aragon and even in the island of Majorca, on account of which numerous Jews embraced Christianity. In Germany (1384), and in Bohemia (1389, 1399), the Jews were likewise persecuted. Boniface IX had protested, but in vain, against such outrages and slaughters (1389); and it is only in his states, in Italy, and in Portugal, that the Jewish race had any measure of peace during these years of carnage. At the beginning of the fifteenth century, the Jews enjoyed some manner of respite in nearly al the countries where they had been allowed to stay or whither they had fled from persecuting France and Spain. But these peaceful days did not last long. As early as 1408, there appeared in the name of the infant King of Castile, John II, an edict which revived the dormant anti-Jewish statutes of Alfonso X; and soon afterwards (1412), a severer edict was issued, intended to isolate the Jews from the Christians lest intercourse should injure the true Faith, and calculated to induce them to give up their religion. In fact, degraded in every way, parked in "Juderias", and deprived of practically every means of subsistence, many Jews surrendered to the exhortations of St. Vincent Ferrer, and received baptism, while the others persevered in Judaism and saw their misery somewhat alleviated by the royal edict of 1414. The persecution gradually extended to all the provinces of Spain, where St. Vincent also effected many conversions. At length, brighter days dawned for the Spanish Jews upon the death of Ferdinand, King of Aragon (1416) and of Catherine, Regent of Castile (1419), and upon the publication of the following solemn declaration of Martin V (1419), in their behalf: "Whereas the Jews are made to the image of God, and a remnant of them will one day be saved, and whereas they have besought our protection: following in the footsteps of our predecessors we command that they be not molested in their synagogues; that their laws, rights, and customs be not assailed; that they be not baptized by force, constrained to observe Christian festivals, nor to wear any new badges, and they be not hindered in their business relations with Christians." But then began new persecutions against the Jewish population of Central Europe. In their distress, the Austrian and the German Jews appealed to the same pontiff who, in 1420, also raised his voice in their favour, and who, in 1422, confirmed the ancient privileges of their race. Nevertheless, the Jews of Cologne were expelled in 1426, and those of several towns of southern Germany burned on the old blood accusation (1431). To add to their misfortune, the Council of Basle renewed the old and devised new restrictive measures against the Jews (1434); the unfavourable Archduke of Austria, Albert, became Emperor of Germany (1437-1439); and the new pope, Eugenius IV (1431-1447), at first well-disposed towards them, showed himself by this time less friendly to them. Meantime, the Jewish communities of Castile prospered under John II, who promoted several Jews to public offices, and who in 1432 confirmed the statute of the Jewish Synod of Avila prescribing the establishment of separate schools. In the course of time, however, Spanish Christians complained to the pope of the arrogance of the Castilian Jews, and, in consequence, Eugenius IV issued an unfavourable Bull (1442) which greatly reduced Jewish prosperity and influence in Spain, and which was practically repeated in 1451 by Nicholas V (1447-1455). This pontiff was distinctly opposed to mob violence against the Jews, and he enjoined upon the Inquisitors of the Faith not only to refrain from exciting the popular hatred against them, but even to see that they should not be forcibly baptized or otherwise molested. And yet, under Nicholas V, severe persecutions befell the Jews of Central Europe, and their fugitives found a friendly refuge almost exclusively in the new Turkish Empire started by Mohammed II, the conqueror of Constantinople in 1453. The German emperor, Frederick III, was weak and vacillating, so that practically down to the end of his reign (1493), the Jews remaining in Central Europe were repeatedly subjected to miseries and humiliations. The Jews of Italy fared better during the same period, owing to the fact that the flourishing republics of Venice, Florence, Genoa, and Pisa appreciated and needed them as capitalists and diplomatists; and it is worthy of notice that the Italian Jews were very prompt in availing themselves of the newly invented art of typography. In Spain, also, the Jewish population lived in comparative peace and comfort under Henry IV of Castile (1454-1474) and John II of Aragon (1458-1479), for, apart from a few popular riots directed against the Jews, the persecution then prevailing in Spain fell upon the "Maranos", or forcibly converted Jews, for whose ambition or weakness Christianity was but a mask. Even after Ferdinand II and Isabella had united Castile and Leon under one sceptre (1479), the Jews remained undisturbed -- except in Andelusia -- until the fall of Granada, protected as they were by Isaac Abrabanel, the ruler's Jewish minister of finance. But the conquest of the rich Kingdom of Granada apparently led Ferdinand and Isabella to regard the Spanish Jews as no longer indispensable, as in fact out of place in their estates, which they wished altogether Christian. Without the approval of Innocent VII, the decree appeared (1492) banishing all Jews from Spain, and it was carried out despite Abrabanel's supplication and offer of an immense sum of money. Great indeed were the misfortunes which befell the impoverished Jewish exiles. In Navarre, they had ultimately to choose between expulsion and baptism. In the African seaports, when allowed to land, they were decimated by plague and starvation. On the Genoese ships, they were submitted to the most brutal treatment, and those who landed near Genoa reduced to starve or give up Judaism. In Rome, their fellow-Jews offered 1000 ducats to Alexander VI to prevent their admission, an offer which was indignantly refused. In Naples, they were compassionately received by Ferdinand I, but also carried off in numbers by the pestilence which broke out among them. In Portugal, John II tolerated them only eight months, after which all remaining were made slaves. It is true that John's successor, Emmanuel (1495-1521), at first freed those enslaved Jews; but he finally signed in December, 1496, the decree expelling from Portugal all Jews who would refuse to be baptized, and in 1497 had it carried out. The country where the Spanish refugees were most hospitably received was Turkey, then ruled over by Bajazet II. (10) Modern Period (1500-1700) These expulsions of the Jews gave rise in the sixteenth century to the important division of the European Jews into "Sephardim" (Spanish and Portuguese Jews) and "Askenazim" (German and Polish Jews), thus called from two Biblical words connected by medieval rabbis with Spain and Germany respectively. Wherever they settled, the Sephardim preserved their peculiar ritual and also their native refinement of dictions, manners, dress, etc., which stood in striking contrast with those of the Askenazim and secured for them an influence which the latter did not exercise despite their closer acquaintance with the Talmud and greater faithfulness to ancestral virtues and traditions. Thus were formed two deep currents of Judaism requiring to be treated separately during the modern period of Jewish history. In Italy, the Sephardim found a refuge chiefly in Rome, Naples, Florence, and Ferrara, where they were soon rejoined by numerous Maranos of Spain and Portugal who again professed Judaism. In Naples, they enjoyed the high protection of Samuel Abrabanel, a wealthy Jew who apparently administered the finances of the viceroy, Don Pedro of Toledo. In Ferrara and Florence, Jews and Maranos were well treated by the respective rulers of these cities; and even in Venice, which considered the expediency of their expulsion lest their presence should injure the interest of native merchants, they were simply confined to the first Italian Ghetto (1516). The early Roman pontiffs of the sixteenth century had Jewish physicians and were favourable to the Jews and the Maranos of their states. Time soon came, however, when the Sephardic Jews of Italy fared differently. As early as 1532, the accusation of child murder nearly entailed the extermination of the Jews of Rome. In 1555, Paul IV revived the ancient canons against the Jews which forbade them the practice of medicine, the pursuit of high commerce, and the ownership of real estate. He also consigned them to a Ghetto, and compelled them to wear a Jew badge. In 1569, Pius IV expelled all the Jews from the Pontifical States, except Rome and Ancona. Sixtus V (1585-1590) recalled them; but, soon after him, Clement VIII (1592-1605) banished them again partially, at the very moment when the Maranos of Italy lost their last place of refuge in Ferrara. Similar misfortunes befell the Jewish race in other states of Italy as the Spanish domination extended there: Naples banished the Jews in 1541; Genoa, in 1550; Milan, in 1597. Henceforward, most Sephardic fugitives simply passed through Italy when on their way to the Turkish Empire. During the whole present period, Turkey was, in fact, a haven of rest for the Sephardim. Bajazet II (d. 1512) and his immediate successors fully realized the services which the Jewish exiles could render to the new Mohammedan empire of Constantinople, and hence welcomed them in their states. Under Selim II (1566-1574), the Marano Joseph Nassi, become Duke of Naxos and the virtual ruler of Turkey, used his immense power and wealth for the benefit of his coreligionists, at home and abroad. After Nassi's death, his influence passed partially to Aschkenazi, and also to the Jewess Esther Kiera who played a most important role under the Sultans Amurath III, Mohammed III, and Achmet I. During the remainder of the period, the Jews of Turkey were generally prosperous under the guidance of their rabbis. Their communities were spread throughout the Ottoman Empire, their most important centres being Constantinople and Salonica in European Turkey, and Jerusalem and Safed in Palestine. It is true that the Turkish Jews of the period were repeatedly disturbed by the appearance of such false Messiases as David Rubeni, Solomon Molcho, Lurya Levi, and Sabbatai Zevi; but the public authorities of Turkey took no steps to punish the Jews who shared in such Messianic agitations. The country in which, next to Turkey, the Sephardim fared best, was Holland. The origin of their settlements in the Netherlands is chiefly due to the immigration of Portuguese Maranos who, under Emmanuel's successors, were repeatedly subjected to the terrors of the Inquisition despite the laudable efforts of several popes in their behalf, and who, after the conquest of Portugal by Philip II of Spain, in 1580, reached Holland, now in full revolt against the Spanish domination. Their first congregations of 1593 and 1598 in Amsterdam were acceptable to the city authorities who saw in the new-comers a means of extending Dutch commerce, and who, in 1619, allowed the public exercise of Jewish worship under liberal conditions. During the seventeenth century, the Amsterdam Jews contributed actively to the home and foreign prosperity of their adopted country. They greatly increased in numbers by new accessions of Portuguese Maranos, and established communities in Hamburg, in Guiana, and in Brazil. It was also in Amsterdam that the movement originated for a legal re-establishment of the Jews in England from which Jews had been strictly excluded since 1290. Oliver Cromwell, protector of the realm (1653-1658), was personally in favour of the movement, and he actively seconded the skilful pleadings of Manasses ben Israel, the leading rabbi of Amsterdam, for that purpose. Cromwell, however, did not dare openly to bring about a change generally hateful to the English clergy and nation. Under Charles II (d. 1685), the Jews stole insensibly into the kingdom, where they have ever since maintained their footing. The chief difficulties of the Sephardim in Holland were of an internal order: their rabbis used rather freely the power of excommunication, one of the victims of which was the celebrated Spinoza (1656); and the majority of the Jewish population of Amsterdam was more or less seriously disturbed, about this time, by the Messianic pretensions of Sabbatai Zevi. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Askenazim or German Jews were less fortunate than their Sephardic contemporaries. Their general condition remained much the same as during the preceding period. It is often, but wrongly, asserted that the invention of printing, the revival of learning, and the Protestant Reformation were beneficial to the Jews. When, early in the sixteenth, century, the German Jews began to use the printing press for their own literature, sacred or otherwise, the Emperor Maximilian (d. 1519) was urged to order all Hebrew books to be burned, and but for the strenuous exertions of Reuchlin, the burning of the Talmud would have taken place. "That the Reformation itself had nothing to do with the subsequent ameliorations in the conditions of the Jews, is plain from the fact that in many parts of Germany, Protestant as well as Catholic, their lot became actually harder than before" ("The New Inter. Cyclop.", vol. X, New York, 1903). Luther himself, towards the end of his life, was their greatest opponent. He poisoned the Protestant world for a long time to come, with his Jew-hating testament. Protestants became even more bitter against Jews that Catholics had been. The leaders of Catholicism demanded absolute submission to canonical law; but on that condition granted them permission to remain in Catholic countries; Luther, on the other hand, required their absolute expulsion. . . . It was reserved for him to place Jews on a level with Gypsies. . . . He was the cause of their being expelled by Protestant princes. (Grätz) In general, the emperors of the period acted with equity towards their Jewish subjects. At times, however, they expelled them from their crown lands, or connived at their banishment from other places. During the Thirty Years' War, Ferdinand II (d. 1638) treated the Jews with great consideration, and required his generals to spare them from the hardships of the war. Under him and under his son, the Jewish community of Vienna was particularly flourishing; but this prosperity ended abruptly under Leopold I (1657-1705), and although about 1685 some Jews succeeded in stealing into Vienna, Leopold's decree of exclusion was formally repealed only much later. The chief place of refuge for the Askenazim of Germany, Austria, and Bohemia was at this time the Kingdom of Poland, where the Jewish population was remarkably free and prosperous up to the middle of the seventeenth century. In 1648, the Polish Jews began themselves to be persecuted by the Cossacks of the Ukraine who invaded Poland and were victorious in three successive campaigns. They were next subjected to the disastrous invasions of the Russians and the Swedes. It is estimated that within ten years (1648-1658), more than 200,000 Jews were slaughtered in the Polish dominions. In consequence, the surviving Jews of Poland were reduced to a condition of extreme poverty and abjection from which the Polish kings of the second part of the seventeenth century earnestly strove to extricate them. During the period just sketched, Christian scholars began to cultivate Hebrew under the guidance of Jewish grammarians; Hebrew studies were introduced into German and French universities; and Richard Simon made the learned world acquainted with rabbinical literature. (11) Recent Times (since 1700) In dealing with this last period, it will be convenient to narrate briefly the events relative, first to the Jews of the Old world, and next to those of the New. The internal condition of the Jews in the Old World during the first half of the eighteenth century was that of a general demoralization which made them appear all the more disreputable because the recent works of Christian scholars, such for instance, as the history of the Jews by Basnage, had forcibly directed the attention of the learned world towards them. They were not indeed subjected to the wholesale massacres of former days, but they remained in the eyes of all a despised race liable to all kinds of disabilities. In Sweden, they were allowed (1718) to enter the kingdom under unfavourable conditions; in France, new restrictions were imposed on their settlements (1718) at Metz and Bordeaux; in Prussia, the laws of Frederick William I (1714, 1730) breathed a spirit of great intolerance against them; at Naples, the concessions made to the Jews by Charles III, in 1740, were soon revoked; in Austria, charges that they were in league with the country's enemies during the War of the Austrian Succession were readily believed, led to bloody riots against them, wellnigh entailed (1745) under Maria Theresa their perpetual expulsion from Bohemia and Moravia, and caused the Jews of Prague to be placed under the most severe restrictions; in Russia, Catherine I (1727) took active measures against the Ukraine Jews and banished the Jewish population from Russia. Anna Ivanowa (1739) decreed their expulsion from Little Russia, and Elizabeth (1741-1762) harshly enforced anti-Jewish measures; and finally, in England, the Jews were simply tolerated as aliens, and a naturalization act, which was passed by both Houses and ratified by George II (1753), was actually repealed (1754) owing to the nation's opposition to it. Gradually, however, a number of circumstances lessened this spirit of hostility against the Jews. Among these circumstances may be particularly mentioned: (a) the vast influence exercised by Moses Mendelssohn (1729-1786), who, by his literary attainments and his strong personality, proved to the world that his race could produce men worthy of admittance into the highest society, and showed to his fellow-Jews the way to remove prejudices against them; and (b) the vigorous defence of the Jews by the Christian writer Dohm, who, in his work "Upon the Amelioration of the Condition of the Jews", suggested many practical measures which Joseph II of Austria partly accepted in 1781, when he abolished the Jewish poll-tax and granted civil liberties to the Jews. Under these, and other such circumstances, a more liberal spirit toward the Jews prevailed in Prussia and in France, where William II and Louis XVI, respectively, abolished the Jewish body tax. It made itself felt also in Russia where Catherine II (1762-1796) even decreed the civil and religious liberty of the Jews, but under whose rule the Russian Senate managed to organize the "Pale of Settlement" or portion of Russia in which Jews are allowed to reside, and to enforce other anti-Jewish measure. It culminated in the decrees of the French Revolution which actually opened the era of Jewish emancipation: in 1790, the French National Assembly granted citizenship to the Sephardic Jews, and, in 1791, it extended full civil rights to all the Jews of the country. With French victories and influence, Jewish liberty naturally followed, and, in 1796, the Batavian National Assembly decreed citizenship for the Jews. Napoleon I summoned in 1806 an assembly of Jewish notables which succeeded in calming his prejudices against the Jews, and in 1807 a Great Sanhedrin, which proved to his satisfaction that the Jewish race may be faithful both to its religion and to the State. Then followed, not without difficulties, yet in rapid succession, the emancipation of the Jews of Westphalia and of Baden (1808), of Hamburg (1811), of Mecklenburg, and of Prussia (1812). The fall of Napoleon and the consequent period of European reorganization gave a setback to Jewish liberty, especially in Germany, which was for a while the scene of bloody riots against the Jews; but gradually, and nearly everywhere in the Old World, Jewish liberty prevailed. In France, the Jewish rabbis were put, under Louis Philippe (1831), on the same footing with regard to salary as the curês of the Catholic Church; in 1846, the oath "More Judaico" was abolished as unconstitutional; and since the wave of anti-Semitism which culminated in the well-known case of Alfred Dreyfus, the Jewish population of the country and of Algiers has not been molested. In England, it was not before 1858 that Parliament was freely opened to the Jews by the suppression of the clause "On the true faith of a Christian" from the oath of office, and not before 1870, that all restrictions for every position (except that of sovereign) in the British Empire were abolished. In northern Germany, the various states allowed civil liberty to their Jewish population in 1848, and after 1870, all restrictions disappeared, although since that time, owing to anti-Semitism, minor disabilities have been publicly enacted or quietly enforced in some parts of the Empire. Denmark enfranchised the Jews in 1849, whereas Sweden and Norway still subject them to certain disabilities. In 1867, the Jews of Austria were emancipated, and in 1895, those of Hungary obtained, moreover, that Judaism be considered as "a legally recognized religion". In Switzerland, after a long and bitter struggle, the Federal Constitution of 1874 granted to the Jews full liberty. In Italy, the Jewish disabilities, revived on the fall of Napoleon I, and the application of which occasioned in 1858 the celebrated Mortara Case, have all been gradually abolished, and Rome, the last Italian place where the Jews were emancipated, elected a Jew, Ernesto Nathan, for its mayor, 10 October, 1908. Spain and Portugal have not yet recognized officially their small Jewish population. The Danubian provinces of Servia, Bulgaria, and Montenegro, have, in accordance with the Treaty of Berlin of 1878, allowed civil and religious liberty to their Jewish settlers, whereas the province of Rumania, in defiance of the same treaty, has refused it and carried out persecutions which have entailed a very large emigration of Rumanian Jews. Turkish Jews were granted citizenship in 1839; yet, in various parts of the Turkish Empire, there repeatedly occur accusations of ritual and child-murder, which inflame the populace and lead to anti-Jewish riots. In Palestine, their number is rapidly increasing (there are now 78,000) despite the sultan's restrictions (1888, 1895) concerning the accession of Jewish immigrants in numbers; and agricultural colonies are established in various parts of the land. In Fez and chiefly in Morocco, Jews have still much to fear from the fanaticism of Mohammedans. In Persia, they are at times oppressed, despite the ruler's general goodwill towards them. Their fate has been, and still is, deplorable in Russia where lives nearly one-half of the total Jewish population of the globe. The liberty of trade and commerce granted to them by Alexander I (1801-1825) was replaced, under Nicholas I (1825-1855), by a legislation calculated to diminish their number, to deprive them of their religious and national character, and to render them morally and commercially harmless to Christians. Alexander II (1855-1881)was very favourable to the Jews; but the reaction against them under Alexander III (1881-1894) was of the most intolerant kind. From the promulgation of the Ignatieff law of 1882, the most restrictive measures have been piled up against the Jews, and since 1891 they have been applied with such severity that Russian Jews have emigrated in hundreds of thousands, mostly to the United States. Under the present emperor, Nicholas II, new restrictions have been devised; riots against the Jews occurred in 1896, 1897, 1899, and culminated in the massacres of Kishineff, Homel, etc., from 1903 to 1906, helped in various ways by Russian officials and soldiers; during the year 1909, the persecution took the form of orders of expulsion, and the trials prescribed by the Duma against the organizers and perpetrators of the massacres of some years ago are apparently a farce. Jews at an early date settled in South America, exiled from Spain and Portugal, or taking part in the Dutch and English commercial enterprises in the New World. Brazil was their main centre. Those found there in the sixteenth century were Maranos who had been sent in company with convicts. They acquired wealth and became very numerous at the beginning of the seventeenth century. They helped the Dutch in wresting Brazil from Portugal (1624), and were joined in 1642 by many Portuguese Jews from Amsterdam. At the end of the Dutch rule over Brazil (1654), most Jewish settlers returned to Holland; some emigrated to French settlements -- Guadaloupe, Martinique, and Cayenne; others took refuge in Curaçao, a Dutch possession; and finally, a small band reached New Amsterdam (New York). After a very few years, those who had settled on the French islands were compelled to turn to friendly Dutch possessions, and to other places of refuge, notably to Surinam (then belonging to England) where they became increasingly prosperous. The other early settlements of Jews in Mexico, Peru, and the West Indies do not require more than a passing mention. Of much greater importance were those effected chiefly by Sephardim in North America. There were Jews in New Amsterdam as early as 1652; others came from Brazil in 1654. As these were not received in a friendly manner by the governor, Peter Stuyvesant, some of them betook themselves to the Colony of Rhode Island, where they were reinforced in the course of time by contingents from Curaçao (1690) and from Lisbon (1755). The condition of those who had remained at New Amsterdam was, on the whole, fair, for they sere sustained by the Dutch home Government; and it remained substantially so after 1664, at which date the British captured New Amsterdam and changed its name to New York. At the end of the seventeenth century there were some Jews in Maryland. The next places of settlement were Pennsylvania (with a large percentage of Askenazim), Georgia, and the Carolinas. During the War of the American Revolution, the Jews generally took the colonial side; some fought bravely for it; and Haydn Solomon aided the Continental Congress with his money. Following the Declaration of Independence (July, 1776) most of the states of the Union placed all citizens upon an equality, the only notable exception Maryland, in which state all disabilities were removed only in 1826. During the nineteenth century, the Jews spread over all the United States and recently into their possessions, after the Spanish American War (1898), in which some 2000 Jewish soldiers took part. Important congregations have also grown up in the larger cities of Canada, where the Jews possess full civil rights since 1831. From 1830 to 1870, the immigration into the United States came largely from the Rhine Provinces, South Germany, and Hungary. Since 1882, the riots and persecutions in Russia have let to an immense emigration, a small portion of which was directed by Baron von Hirsch to the Argentine Republic, or went to Canada, but the great bulk of which came to the United States. To these have been added numerous Jews from Galicia and Rumania. The total Jewish immigration to the United States through the three chief ports of entry (New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore) from 1882 to 30 June 1909, was 1,397,423, out of which upwards of 54,000 reached the country between 1 July, 1908, and 30 June, 1909. In consequence, the United States have the third largest Jewish population in the world, the latest estimates being 5,215,805 for Russia, 2,084,591 for Austria-Hungary, and 1,777,185 for the United States. For the immigrants who, for the most part, have settled in large business centres, day and night schools to teach them English, together with trade schools to enable them to earn a livelihood, have been organized or enlarged. For those whom it has been possible to divert elsewhere, agricultural colonies have been attempted in several states, but have been little successful. In nearly every other line (educational, philanthropic, literary, financial, etc.) the development of Jewish activity during the last twenty-five years has been both rapid and successful. Differently from the Jews of Jamaica and Canada those of the United States are altogether independent of the jurisdiction of any European authority. The Jewish statistics in the table below are taken from the "American Jewish Year Book" for the year 5670 (16 September, 1909, to 3 October, 1910). United States -- 1,777,185 Italy -- 52,115 British Empire -- 380,809 Luxemburg -- 1,200 Abyssinia -- 3,000 Mexico -- 8,972 Argentina -- 30,000 Morocco -- 109,712 Austria-Hungary 2,084,591 Norway -- 642 Belgium -- 12,000 Persia -- 49,500 Brazil -- 3,000 Peru -- 498 Bulgaria -- 36,455 Rumania -- 250,000 China and Japan 2,000 Russia -- 5,215,805 Costa Rica -- 43 Servia -- 5,729 Cuba -- 4,000 Spain -- 2,500 Denmark -- 3,476 Sweden -- 3,912 France -- 95,000 Switzerland -- 12,264 Algeria -- 63,000 Turkey -- 463,686 Tunis -- 62,540 Egypt -- 38,635 Germany -- 607,862 Tripoli -- 18,660 Greece -- 8,350 Crete -- 1,150 Holland -- 105,988 Turkestan & Afghanistan -- 14,000 Curaçao -- 1,000 Venezuela -- 411 Surinam -- 1,158 Total -- 11,530,848 HAMBURGER, Realencyclopädie des Judenthums (Leipzig, 1896); The Jewish Encyclopedia (New York, 1901-1906); the handy vols. Of the American Jewish Year Book (Philadelphia, 1899-1909); KREUTZWALD in Kirchenlex., s.v. Juden; VON HANEBERG, ibid, s.v. Judenthum; SCHöLEIN in BUCHBERGER, Kirchliches Handlex., s. v. Juden and Judentum. In addition the following works may be mentioned as more important or more accessible: General Jewish History. BASNAGE, Histoire des Juifs depuis Jésus-Christ (Rotterdam, 1706); ADAMS, History of the Jews from the Destruction of Jerusalem to the Present Time (Boston, 1812); JOST, Hist of the Jews from the Maccabees to Our Day, tr. (New York, 1848); IDEM, Geschicte d. Judenthums u. s. Secten (Leipzig, 1857-59); MILMAN, The History of the Jews (London, 1863); PALMER, A History of the Jewish Nation (London, 1874); REINACH, Hist. Des Israélites depuis l'epoque de leur dispersion jusqu'á nos jours (Paris, 1884); MAGNUS, Outlines of Jewish History (Philadelphia, 1884); BECK, Gesch. D. jüdischen Volkes u. s. Iiteratur vom babylonischen Exile bis auf die Gegenwart(Lissa, 1894); GRéTZ, Hist. Of the Jews, tr. (Philadelphia, 1891-98); KARPELES, Sketch of Jewish Hist. (Philadelphia, 1898); DUBNOW, Jewish Hist., tr. (Philadelphia, 1903); GEIGER, Das Judenthum u. s. Geschichte (2nd ed., Breslau, 1909. Special Jewish History. SCHLATTER, Israels Geschichte von Alexander d. Grossen bis Hadrian (Carlovitz, 1901); CONDER, Judas Maccabæus (London, 1894); VON SCHöRER, A Hist. Of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ. tr. (New York, 1891); MORRISON, The Jews under Roman Rule (New York, 1893); BEUGNOT, Les Juifs d'Occident (Paris, 1824); DEPPING, Les Juifs dans le Moyen-Age (Paris, 1834); BÉDARRIDE, Les Juifs en France, en Italie, et en Espagne (Paris, 1861); HARRIS, History of the Mediæval Jews (New York, 1907); MARKENS, The Hebrews in America (New York, 1888); WOLF, The American Jew as Patriot, Soldier, and Citizen (Philadelphia, 1895); DALY, The Settlement of the Jews in North America (New York, 1893); TOVEY, Anglia Judaica (Oxford, 1788); PICCIOTO, Sketches of Anglo-Jewish Hist. (London, 1875); GOLDSCHMIDT, Gesch. d. Juden in England (Berlin, 1886); HALLEZ, Les Juifs en France (Paris, 1845); KOENEN, Geschiedenis d. Juden in Nederland (Utrecht, 1843); DA COSTA, Israel en de Volken (Utrecht, 1876); STEINBERG, Studien zur Gesch. D. Juden in der Schweiz während des Mittelalters (Zurich, 1902); VOGELSTEIN AND RIEGER, Gesch. D. Juden in Rom (Berlin, 1895-96); LAGUMINA, Codice diplomatico dei Giudei di Sicilia (Palermo, 1885); LINDO, The History of the Jews of Spain and Portugal (London, 1848); AMADOR DE LOS RIOS, Historia social, politica, y religiosa de los Judios de España y Portugal (Madrid, 1875-76); KAYSERLING, Gesch. Der Juden in Spanien und Portugal (Berlin, 1861-67); STOBBE, Die Juden in Deutschland während des Mittelalters (Brunswick, 1866); FöRST, Urkunden zur Gesch. Der Juden (Leipzig, 1844); Quellen zur Gesch. d. Juden in Deutschland (Berlin, 1888); WERTHEIMER, Die Juden in Oesterrich (Leipzig, 1842; WOLF, Judentaufen in Oesterrich (Vienna, 1863; BERGL, Gesch. Der ungarischen Juden (Leipzig, 1879); MöLLER, Urkundliche Beiträge zur Gesch. Der märischen Judenschaft im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (Olmütz, 1903); PODIEGRAD AND FOGES, Alterthümer d. Prager Josefstadt (Prague, 1870); VERAN, La Roumanie et les Juifs (Bukarest, 1903); ELK, Die jüd. Kolonien in Russland (Frankfort, 1886; ERRERA, The Russian Jews, tr. (New York, 1894); STERNBERG, Gesch. D. Juden in Polen (Leipzig, 1878); BERSHADSKI, Litovskie Yevrei (St. Petersburg, 1883); Russko-Yevreiski Arkiv (St. Petersburg, 1882); CAZES, Essai sur l'histoire des Israilites de Tunisie (Paris, 1888); FREGIER, Les Juifs Algeriens (Paris, 1865). Literary History. FöRST, Bibliotheca Judaica (Leipzig, 1849-63); WINTER AND WöNSCHE, Die Jüdische Literatur (Trier, 1891-96); KARPELES, Jewish Literature and Other Essays (Philadelphia, 1895); LIPPE, Bibliog. Lexicon (Vienna, 1899); WIENER, The History of Yiddish Literature in the 19tth Century, tr. (New York, 1903); CASSEL, Manual of Jewish History and Literature, (New York, 1903); SLOUSCH, Renaissance de la littérature hébraïque (Paris, 1903); BRODY AND ALBRECHT, The New School of Poets of the Spanish-American Epoch (London, 1906); ABRAHAMS, A Short History of Jewish Literature (New York, 1906). FRANCIS E. GIGOT Judaism Judaism At the present day, the term designates the religious communion which survived the destruction of the Jewish nation by the Assyrians and the Babylonians. A brief account of Judaism thus understood may be given under the following heads: (1) Judaism before the Christian Era; (2) Judaism and Early Christianity; (3) Judaism since A.D. 70; (4) Judaism and Church Legislation. I. JUDAISM BEFORE THE CHRISTIAN ERA Upon the return from Babylon (538 B.C.), Juda was conscious of having inherited the religion of pre-Exile Israel. It was that religion which had prompted the exiles to return to the land promised by Yahweh to their ancestors, and they were now determined to maintain it in its purity. From the Captivity they had learned that in His justice, God had punished their sins by delivering them into the power of pagan nations, as the Prophets of old had repeatedly announced; and that in His love for the people of His choice, the same God had brought them back, as Isaias (40-46) had particularly foretold. Thence they naturally drew the conclusion that, cost what it may, they must prove faithful to Yahweh, so as to avert a like punishment in the future. The same conclusion was also brought home to them, when some time after the completion of the Temple, Esdras solemnly read the Law in their hearing. This reading placed distinctly before their minds the unique position of their race among the nations of the world. The Creator of heaven and earth, in His mercy towards fallen man (Genesis 1-3), had made a covenant with their father Abraham, in virtue of which his seed, and in his seed all the peoples of the earth, should be blessed (Genesis 12, 18; II Esdras 9). From that time forth, He had watched over them with jealous care. The other nations, once fallen into idolatry, He had allowed to grovel amid their impure rites; but He had dealt differently with the Israelites whom he wished to be unto Him "a priestly kingdom and a holy nation" (Exodus 19:6). Their repeated falls into idolatry He had not left unpunished, but He kept alive among them the revealed religion which ever represented God as the true and adequate object of their devotion, trust, gratitude, of their obedience and service. All the past misfortunes of their race were thus distinctly seen as so many chastisements intended by God to recall His ungrateful people to the observance of the Law, whereby they would secure the holiness necessary for the blameless discharge of their priestly mission to the rest of the world. They, therefore, pledged renewed faithfulness to the Law, leaving it to God to bring about the glorious day when all the earth, with Jerusalem as its centre, would recognize and worship Yahweh; they broke every tie with the surrounding nationalities, and formed a community wholly sacred unto the Lord, chiefly concerned with the preservation of His faith and worship by a strict compliance with all the ritual prescriptions of the Law. On the one hand, this religious attitude of the Judean Jews secured the preservation of Monotheism among them. History proves that the Persians and the Macedonians respected their religious freedom and even to some extent favoured the worship of Yahweh. It remains true, however, that in the time of the Machabees, the children of Israel escaped being throughly hellenized only through their attachment to the Law. Owing to this attachment, the fierce persecutions which they then underwent, confirmed instead of rooting out their belief in the true God. On the other hand, the rigour with which the letter of the Law became enforced gave rise to a narrow "legalism". The mere external compliance with ritual observances gradually superseded the higher claims of conscience; the Prophet was replaced by the "scribe", the casuistic interpreter of the Law; and Israel, in its sacred isolation, looked down upon the rest of mankind. A similarly narrow spirit animated the Babylonian Jews, for it was from Babylon that Esdras, "a ready scribe in the Law of Moses", had come to revive the Law in Jerusalem, and their existence in the midst of heathen populations made it all the more imperative for them to cling tenaciously to the creed and worship of Yahweh. Apparently, things went on smoothly with the priestly community of Juda as long as the Persian supremacy lasted. It was the policy of ancient Asiatic empires to grant to each province its autonomy, and the Judean Jews availed themselves of this to live up to the requirements of the Mosaic Law under the headship of their high-priests and the guidance of their scribes. The sacred ordinances of the Law were no burden to them, and gladly did they even increase the weight by additional interpretations of its text. Nor was this happy condition materially interfered with under Alexander the Great and his immediate successors in Syria and in Egypt. In fact, the first contact of the Judean Jews with hellenistic civilization seemed to open to them a wider field for their theocratic influence, by giving rise to a Western Dispersion with Alexandria and Antioch as its chief local centres and Jerusalem as its metropolis. However much the Jews living among the Greeks mingled with the latter for business pursuits, learned the Greek language, or even became acquainted with hellenistic philosophy, they remained Jews to the core. The Law as read and explained in their local synagogues regulated their every act, kept them from all defilement with idolatrous worship, and maintained intact their religious traditions. With regard to creed, worship, and morality, the Jews felt themselves far superior to their pagan fellow-citizens, and the works of their leading writers of the time were in the main those of apologists bent on convincing pagans of this superiority and on attracting them to the service of the sole living God. In fact, through this intercourse between Judaism and Hellenism in the Græco-Roman world, the Jewish religion won the allegiance of a certain number of Gentile men and women, while the Jewish beliefs themselves gained in clearness and precision through the efforts then made to render them acceptable to Western minds. Much less happy results followed on the contact of Jewish Monotheism with Greek Polytheism on Palestinian soil. There, worldly and ambitious high-priests not only accepted, but even promoted, Greek culture and heathenism in Jerusalem itself; and, as already stated, the Greek rulers of the early Machabean Age proved violent persecutors of Yahweh worship. The chief question confronting the Palestinian Jews was not, therefore, the extension of Judaism among the nations, but its very preservation among the children of Israel. No wonder then that Judaism assumed there an attitude of direct antagonism to everything hellenistic, that the Mosaic observances were gradually enforced with extreme rigour, and that the oral Law, or rulings of the Elders relative to such observances appeared in the eyes of pious Judean Jews of no less importance than the Mosaic Law itself. No wonder, too, that in opposition to the lukewarmness for the oral Law evinced by the priestly aristocracy -- the Sadducees as they were called -- there arose in Juda a powerful party resolved to maintain at any cost the Jewish separation -- hence their name of Pharisees -- from the contamination of the Gentiles by the most scrupulous compliance, not only with the Law of Moses, but also with the "Traditions of the Elders". The former of these leading parties was pre-eminently concerned with the maintenance of the status quo in politics, and in the main sceptical with regard to such prominent beliefs or expectations of the time as the existence of angels, the resurrection of the dead, the reference of the oral Law to Moses, and the future Redemption of Israel. The latter party strenuously maintained these positions. Its extreme wing was made up of Zealots always ready to welcome any false Messias who promised deliverance from the hated foreign yoke; while its rank and file earnestly prepared by the "works of the Law" for the Messianic Age variously described by the Prophets of old, the apocalyptic writings and the apocryphal Psalms of the time, and generally expected as an era of earthly felicity and legal righteousness in the Kingdom of God. The rise of the Essenes is also ascribed to this period. II. JUDAISM AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY At the beginning of our era, Judaism was in external appearance thoroughly prepared for the advent of the Kingdom of God. Its great centre was Jerusalem, the "Holy City", whither repaired in hundreds of thousands Jews of every part of the world, anxious to celebrate the yearly festivals in the "City of the Great King". The Temple was in the eyes of them all the worthy House of the Lord, both by the magnificence of its structure and by the wonderful appointment of its service. The Jewish priesthood was not only numerous, but also most exact in the offering of the daily, weekly, monthly, and other, sacrifices, which it was its privilege to perform before Yahweh. The high-priest, a person most sacred, stood at the head of the hierarchy, and acted as final arbiter of all religious controversies. The Sanhedrin of Jerusalem, or supreme tribunal of Judaism, watched zealously over the strict fulfilment of the Law and issued decrees readily obeyed by the Jews dispersed throughout the world. In the Holy Land, and far and wide beyond its boundaries, besides local Sanhedrins, there were synagogues supplying the ordinary religious and educational needs of the people, and wielding the power of excommunication against breakers of the Law, oral and written. A learned class, that of the Scribes, not only read and interpreted the text of the Law in the synagogue meetings, but sedulously proclaimed the "Traditions of the Elders", the collection of which formed a "fence to the Law", because whoever observed them was sure not to trespass in any way against the Law itself. Legal righteousness was the watchword of Judaism, and its attainment by separation from Gentiles and sinners, by purifications, fasts, almsgiving, etc., in a word by the fulfilment of traditional enactments which applied the Law to each and every walk of life and to all imaginable circumstances, was the one concern of pious Jews wherever found. Plainly, the Pharisees and the scribes who belonged to their party had generally won the day. In Palestine, in particular, the people blindly followed their leadership, confident that the present rule of pagan Rome would speedily come to an end at the appearance of the Messias, expected as a mighty deliverer of the faithful "children of the kingdom'. Meantime, it behooved the sons of Abraham to emulate the "righteousness of the Scribes and the Pharisees" whereby they would secure admittance into the Messianic world-wide empire, of which Jerusalem would be the capital, and of which every Jewish member would be superior in things temporal as well as spiritual to the rest of the world then rallied to the worship of the one true God. In reality, the Jews were far from prepared for the fulfilment of the promises which the almighty had repeatedly made to their race. This was first shown to them, when a voice, that of John, the son of Zachary and the herald of the Messias, was heard in the wilderness of Juda. It summoned, but with little success, all the Jews to a genuine sorrow for sin, which was indeed foreign to their hearts, but which could alone, despite their title of "children of Abraham", fit them for the kingdom near at hand. This was next shown to them by Jesus, the Messias Himself, Who, at the very beginning of His public life, repeated John's summons to repentance (Mark 1:15), and Who, throughout His ministry, endeavoured to correct the errors of Judaism of the day concerning the kingdom which He had come to found among men. With authority truly Divine He bade His hearers not to be satisfied with the outward righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees if they wished to enter into that kingdom, but to aim at the inner perfection which alone could lift up men's moral nature and render them worthy worshipers of their heavenly Father. The Kingdom of God, He plainly declared, had come upon His contemporaries, since Satan, God's enemy and man's, was under their eyes cast out by Himself and by His chosen disciples (Mark 12:20; Luke 10:18). The kingdom which the Jews should expect is the Kingdom of God in its modest, secret, and as it were, insignificant origin. It is subject to the laws of organic growth as all living things are, and hence its planting and early developments do not attract much attenti0on; but it is not so with its further extension, destined as it is to pervade and transform the world. This kingdom is indeed rejected by those who had the first claim to its possession and seemingly were the best qualified for entering into it; but all those, both Jews and Gentiles, who earnestly avail themselves of the invitation of the Gospel will be admitted. This is really a new Kingdom of God to be transferred to a new nation and governed by a new set of rulers, although it is no less truly the continuation of the Kingdom of God under the Old Covenant. Once this kingdom is organized upon earth, its king, the true son and lord of David, goes to a far country, relying upon His representatives to be more faithful than the rulers of the old kingdom. Upon the king's return, this kingdom of grace will be transferred into a kingdom of glory. The duration of the kingdom on earth will outlive the ruin of the Holy City and of its Temple; it will be coextensive with the preaching of the Gospel to all nations, and this, when accomplished, will be the sign of the near approach of the kingdom of glory. In thus describing God's kingdom, Jesus justly treated as vain the hopes of His Jewish contemporaries that they should become masters of the world in the event of a conflict with Rome; He also set aside the fabric of legalism which their leaders regarded as to be perpetuated in the Messianic kingdom, but which in reality they should have considered as either useless or positively harmful now that the time had come to extend "salvation out of the Jews" to the nations at large; plainly, the legal sacrifices and ordinances had no longer any reason of being, since they had been instituted to prevent Israel from forsaking the true God, and since Monotheism was now firmly established in Israel; plainly, too, the "traditions of the Elders" should not be tolerated any longer, since they had gradually led the Jews to disregard some of the most essential precepts of the moral law embodied in the decalogue. Jesus did not come to destroy the Law or the Prophets, that is those sacred writings which He, no less than His Jewish contemporaries, distinctly recognized as inspired by the Holy Spirit; His mission, on the contrary, was to secure their fulfilment. Indeed, He would have destroyed the Law, if He had sided with the Scribes and the Pharisees who had raised a fence to the Law, which actually encroached upon the sacred territory of the Law itself; but He fulfilled it by proclaiming the new Law of perfect love of God and man, whereby all the precepts of the Old Law were brought to completion. Again, He would have destroyed the Prophets, if like the same Scribes and Pharisees, He had pictured an image of God's kingdom and God's Messias solely by means of the glorious features contained in the prophetical writings; but He fulfilled them by drawing a picture which took into account both glorious and inglorious delineations of the Prophets of old, setting both in their right order and perspective. The Kingdom of God as described and founded by Jesus has an historical name. It is the Christian Church, which was able silently to leaven the Roman Empire, which has outlived the ruin of the Jewish Temple and its worship, and which, in the course of centuries, has extended to the confines of the world the knowledge and the worship of the God of Abraham, while Judaism has remained the barren fig-tree which Jesus condemned during His mortal life. The death and resurrection of Jesus fulfilled the ancient types and prophecies concerning Him (cf. Luke, xxiv, 26, 27), and the visible bestowal of the Holy Ghost upon His assembled followers on Pentecost Day gave them the light to realize this fulfilment (Acts, iii, 15) and the courage to proclaim it even in the hearing of those Jewish authorities who thought that they had by the stigma of the Cross put an end forever to the Messianic claims of the Nazarene. From this moment the Church which Jesus had silently organized during His mortal life with Peter as its head and the other Apostles as his fellow-rulers, took the independent attitude which it has maintained ever since. Conscious of their Divine mission, its leaders boldly charged the Jewish rulers with the death of Jesus, and freely "taught and preached Christ Jesus", disregarding the threats and injunctions of men whom they considered as in mad revolt against God and His Christ (Acts, iv). They solemnly proclaimed the necessity of faith in Christ for justification and salvation, and that of baptism for membership in the religious community which grew rapidly under their guidance, and which recognized the risen Son of God as its Divinely constituted "Lord and Christ", "Prince and Saviour", in a real, although invisible, manner, during the present order of things. According to them, these are plainly Messianic times as proved by the realization of Joel's prophecy concerning the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon all flesh, so that the Jews "first" and next the Gentiles are now called to receive the Divine blessing so long promised in Abraham's Seed for all nations. Much as in these early days the infant Church was Jewish in external appearance, it even then caused Judaism to feel threatened in its whole system of civil and religious life (Acts 6:13-14). Hence followed a severe persecution against the Christians, in which Saul (Paul) took and active part, and in the course of which he was converted miraculously. At his conversion Paul found the Church spread far and wide by the very persecution meant to annihilate it, and officially pursuing its differentiation from Judaism by the reception into its fold of Samaritans who rejected the Temple worship in Jerusalem, of the Ethiopian eunuch, that is, of a class of men distinctly excluded from the Judaic community by the Deuteronomic Law, and especially of the uncircumcised Cornelius and his Gentile household with whom Peter himself broke bread in direct opposition to legal traditions. When, therefore, Paul, now become an ardent Apostle of Christ, openly maintained the freedom of Gentile converts from the Law as understood and enforced by the Jews and even by certain Judeo-Christians, he was in thorough agreement with the official leaders of the Church at Jerusalem, and it is well known that the same official leaders positively approved his course of action in this regard (Acts 15; Galatians 2). The real difference between him and them consisted in his fearlessness in preaching Christian freedom and in vindicating by his Epistles the necessity and efficiency of faith in Christ for justification and salvation independently of the "works of the Law", that is, the great principles acknowledged and acted upon before him in this Christian Church. The result of his polemics was the sharp setting forth of the relation existing between Judaism and Christianity; in Christ's kingdom, only believing Jews and Gentiles recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (cf. Matthew 8:11); they are coheirs of the promise made to the father of all the faithful when he was as yet uncircumcised; the Law and the Prophets are fulfilled in Christ and His body, the Church; the Gospel must be preached to all nations, and then the consummation shall come. The result of his consuming zeal for the salvation of souls redeemed by the blood of Christ was the formation of religious communities bound together by the same faith, hope, and charity as the churches of Palestine, sharing in the same sacred mysteries, governed by pastors likewise vested with Christ's authority, and forming a vast Church organism vivified by the same Holy Spirit and clearly distinct from Judaism. Thus the small mustard seed planted by Jesus in Judea had grown into a great tree fully able to near the storms of persecution and heresy (see Epistle to the Colossians; Ebionites; Gnosticism). III. JUDAISM SINCE A.D. 70 While Christianity thus asserted itself as the new Kingdom of God, the Jewish theocracy, guided by leaders unable "to know the signs of the times", was hastening to its total destruction. The Romans came, and in A.D. 70 put an end forever to the Jewish Temple, priesthood, sacrifices, and nation, whereby it should have become clear to the Jews that their national worship was rejected of God. In point of fact, Judaism, shorn of these its essential features, soon "assumed an entirely new aspect. All the parties and sects of a former generation vanished; Pharisees and Sadducees ceased to quarrel with each other; the Temple was supplanted by the synagogue, sacrifices by the prayer, the priest by any one who was able to read, teach, and interpret both the written and the oral law. The Sanhedrin lost its juridical qualification, and became a consistory to advise people in regard to the religious duties. Judaism became a science, a philosophy, and ceased to be a political institution" (Schindler, "Dissolving Views in the History of Judaism"). This new system, treated at first as simply provisional because of the surviving hope of restoring the Jewish commonwealth, had soon to be accepted as definitive through the crushing of Bar-Cochba's revolt by Hadrian. Then it was that Rabbinical or Talmudical Judaism fully asserted its authority over the two great groups of Jewish families east and west of the Euphrates respectively. For several centuries, under either the "Patriarchs of the West" or the "Princes of the Captivity", the Mishna "Oral Teaching" completed by Rabbi Juda I, committed ultimately to writing in the form of the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds, and expounded by generations of teachers in the schools of Palestine and Babylonia, held undisputed sway over the minds and consciences of the Jews. In fact, this long acceptation of the Talmud by the Jewish race, before its centre was shifted from the East to the West, so impressed this Second Law (Mishna) upon the hearts of the Jews that down to the present day Judaism has remained essentially Talmudical both in its theory and in its practice. It is indeed true that as early as the eighth century of our era the authority of the Talmud was denied in favour of Biblical supremacy by the sect of the Karaites, and that it has oftentimes since been questioned by other Jewish sects such as Judghanits, Kabbalist, Sabbatians, Chassidim (old and new), Frankist, etc. Nevertheless, these sects have all but disappeared and the supremacy of the Talmud is generally recognized. The most important religious division of Judaism at the present day is that between "Orthodox" and "Reform" Jews, with many subdivisions to which these names are more or less loosely applied. Orthodox Judaism included the greater part of the Jewish race. It distinctly admits the absolutely binding force of the oral Law as finally fixed in the "Shulhan Aruk" by Joseph Caro (sixteenth century). Its beliefs are set forth in the following thirteen articles, first compiled by Maimonides in the eleventh century: + I believe with a true and perfect faith that God is the creator (whose name be blessed), governor, and maker of all creatures; and that he has wrought all things, worketh, and shall work forever. + I believe with perfect faith that the creator (whose name be blessed) is one; that there is no unity like unto his in any way; and that he alone was, is, and will be our God. + I believe with a perfect faith that the creator (whose name be blessed) is incorporeal, that he has not any corporeal qualities, and that nothing can be compared unto him. + I believe with a perfect faith that the creator (whose name be blessed) was the first, and will be the last. + I believe with a perfect faith that the creator (whose name be blessed) is to be worshipped and none else. + I believe with perfect faith that all the words of the prophets are true. + I believe with perfect faith that the prophecies of Moses our master (may he rest in peace) were true; that he was the father and chief of all prophets, both of those before him and those after him. + I believe with perfect faith that the Law, at present in our hands, is the same that was given to our master Moses (peace be with him). + I believe with perfect faith that this Law will not be changed, and that no other Law will be revealed by the creator (blessed be his name). + I believe with a perfect faith that God (whose name be blessed) knows all the deeds of the sons of men and all their thoughts; as it is said: "He who hath formed their hearts altogether, he knoweth all their deeds". + I believe with a perfect faith that God (whose name be blessed) rewards those who keep his commandments, and punishes those who transgress them. + I believe with a perfect faith that the Messias will come; and although he tarries I wait nevertheless every fay for his coming. + I believe with a perfect faith that there will be a resurrection of the dead, at the time when it shall please the creator (blessed be his name). With regard to the future life, Orthodox Jews believe, like the Universalists, in the ultimate salvation of all men; and like the Catholics, in the offering up of prayers for the souls of their departed friends. Their Divine worship does not admit of sacrifices; it consists in the reading of the Scriptures and in prayer. While they do not insist on attendance at the synagogue, they enjoin all to say their prayers at home or in any place they chance to be, three times a day; they repeat also blessings and particular praises to God at meals and on other occasions. In their morning devotions they use their phylacteries and a praying scarf (talith), except on Saturdays, when they use the talith only. The following are their principal festivals: + Passover, on 14 Nisan, and lasting eight days. On the evening before the feast, the first-born of every family observes a fast in remembrance of God's kindness to the nation. During the feast unleavened bread is exclusively used; the first two and last days are observed as strict holidays. Since the paschal lamb has ceased, it is customary after the paschal meal to break and partake as Aphikomon, or after-dish, of half of an unleavened bread cake which has been broken and put aside at the beginning of the supper. + Pentecost, or the feast of Weeks, falling seven weeks after the Passover and kept, at present, for two days only. + Trumpets, on 1 and 2 Tishri, of which the first is called New Years's feast. On the second day they blow the horn and pray that God will bring them to Jerusalem. + Tabernacles, on 15 Tishri, lasting nine days, the first and last two days being observed as feast days. On the first day they carry branches around the altar or pulpit singing psalms; on the seventh day, they carry copies of the Torah out of the ark to the altar, all the congregation joining in the procession seven times around the altar and singing Ps. xxix. On the ninth day they repeat several prayers in honour of the Law, bless God for having given them His servant Moses, and read the section of the Scriptures which records his death. + Purim, on 14 and 15 Adar (Feb.-March), in commemoration of the deliverance recorded in the Book of Esther; the whole Book of Esther is read several times during the celebration. + Dedication, a feast commemorative of the victory over Antiochus Epiphanes and lasting eight days. + Atonement Day, celebrated on 10 Tishri, although the Jews have neither Temple nor priesthood. They observe a strict fast for twenty-four hours, and strive in various ways to evince the sincerity of their repentance (see Jewish Calendar). Reform Judaism, which traces back its origin to Mendelssohn's time, is chiefly prevalent in Germany and the United States. It has very lax views of biblical inspiration and bends Jewish beliefs and practices so as to adapt them to environment. It is a sort of Unitarianism coupled with some Jewish peculiarities. It disregards the belief of the coming of a personal Messias, the obligatory character of circumcision, ancient Oriental customs in synagogue services, the dietary laws which but few reform Jews observe out of custom or veneration for the past, the second days of the holy days, all minor feasts and fast-days of the year (except Hanukha and Purim), while it uses sermons in the vernacular and adds in some places Sunday services to those held on the historical Sabbath Day, etc. Nominally, for all, the Sabbath is the day of rest; but only a small number even of the Orthodox Jews keep their places of business closed on that day, owing to the commercial demands of modern life and the police regulations usually enforced in Christian lands concerning the ordinary Sunday rest. Intermarriage with non-Jews is generally discountenanced even by Reform Jewish rabbis, and as a fact, has never been frequent, except of late in Australia. Of late, the use of Hebrew has been revived particularly in Palestine Jewish colonies, and a number of Jewish journals and reviews are published in that tongue in the East and in certain countries of Europe. Yiddish, or Judeo-German, is by far more prevalent, and is used in the large cities of Europe and North America for weekly and daily papers. The Yeshibas, or high schools of Talmudic learning, where the time was exclusively devoted to the study of rabbinical jurisprudence and Talmudic law, have been partly replaced by seminaries with a more modern curriculum of studies. In 1893 Gratz College, thus named from its founder, was started in Philadelphia for training religious school-teachers. Young Men's's Hebrew Associations, begun in 1874, now exist in nearly all the large cities of the United States. Of wider import still is the development of the Sabbath schools which are generally attached to Jewish congregations in the same country. The recent Zionist movement claims a passing notice. Since 1896 the scheme for securing in Palestine a legal home for the oppressed Hebrews has rapidly taken a firm hold of the Jewish race. To many, Zionism appears as calculated to bring about the realization of the old Jewish hope of restoration to Palestine. To others, it seems to be the only means of obviating the impossibility felt by various peoples of assimilating their Jewish population and at the same time of allowing it the amount of freedom which the Jews consider necessary for the preservation of their individual character. By others again, it is regarded as the practical answer to the anti-Semitic agitation which has prevailed intensely through Western Europe since 1880, and to the lack of social equality, which Jews repeatedly find denied them, even in countries where they possess civil rights and attain to high political and professional positions. Since 1897 Zionism holds annual international congresses, counts numerous societies and clubs, and since 1898 has a Jewish Colonial Trust. There is no Jewish Church as such, and each congregation is a law to itself. Owing to this, the ancient distinction between the Sephardim and the Askenazim continues among the Jews. As of yore, the Sephardim, or descendants of Spanish and Portuguese Jews, readily organize themselves into separate congregations. Even now, they are easily distinguished from the Askenazim (German or Polish Jews) by their names, their more Oriental pronunciation of Hebrew, and their peculiarities in synagogue services. IV. JUDAISM AND CHURCH LEGISLATION The principal items of Church legislation relative to Judaism have been set forth in connection with the history of the Jews. There remains only to add a few remarks which will explain the apparent severity of certain measures enacted by either popes or councils concerning the Jews, or account for the fact that popular hatred of them so often defeated the beneficent efforts of the Roman pontiffs in their regard. Church legislation against Jewish holding of Christian slaves can be easily understood: as members of Christ, the children of the Church should evidently not be subjected to the power of His enemies, and thereby incur a special danger for their faith; but more particularly, as stated by a recent Jewish writer: "There was good reason for the solicitude of the Church and for its desire to prevent Jews from retaining Christian slaves in their houses. The Talmud and all later Jewish codes forbade a Jew from retaining in his home a slave who was uncircumcised" (Abrahams, "Jewish Life in the Middle Ages"). The obligation of wearing a distinguishing badge was of course obnoxious to the Jews. At the same time, Church authorities deemed its injunction necessary to prevent effectively moral offences between Jews and Christian women. The decrees forbidding the Jews from appearing in public at Eastertide may be justified on the ground that some of them mocked at the Christian processions at that time; those against baptized Jews retaining distinctly Jewish customs find their ready explanation in the necessity for the Church to maintain the purity of the Faith in its members, while those forbidding the Jews from molesting converts to Christianity are no less naturally explained by the desire of doing away with a manifest obstacle to future conversions. It was for the laudable reason of protecting social morality and securing the maintenance of the Christian Faith, that canonical decrees were framed and repeatedly enforced against free and constant intercourse between Christians and Jews, against, for instance, bathing, living, etc., with Jews. To some extent, likewise, these were the reasons for the institution of the Ghetto or confinement of the Jews to a special quarter, for the prohibition of the Jews from exercising medicine, or other professions. The inhibition of intermarriage between Jews and Christians, which is yet in vigour, is clearly justified by reason of the obvious danger for the faith of the Christian party and for the spiritual welfare of the children born of such alliances. With regard to the special legislation against printing, circulating, etc., the Talmud, there was the particular grievance that the Talmud contained at the time scurrilous attacks upon Jesus and the Christians (cf. Pick, "The Personality of Jesus in the Talmud" in the "Monist", Jan., 1910), and the permanent reason that "that extraordinary compilation, with much that is grave and noble, contains also so many puerilities, immoral precepts, and anti-social maxims, that Christian courts may well have deemed it right to resort to stringent measures to prevent Christians from being seduced into adhesion to a system so preposterous" (Catholic Dictionary, 484). History proves indeed that Church authorities exercised at times considerable pressure upon the Jews to promote their conversion; but it also proves that the same authorities generally deprecated the use of violence for the purpose. It bears witness, in particular, to the untiring and energetic efforts of the Roman pontiffs in behalf of the Jews especially when, threatened or actually pressed by persecution they appealed to the Holy See for protection. It chronicles the numerous protestations of the popes against mob violence against the Jewish race, and thus directs the attention of the student of history to the real cause of the Jewish persecutions, viz., the popular hatred against the children of Israel. Nay more, it discloses the principal causes of that hatred, among which the following may be mentioned: + The deep and wide racial difference between Jews and Christians which was, moreover, emphasized by the ritual and dietary laws of Talmudic Judaism; + the mutual religious antipathy which prompted the Jewish masses to look upon the Christians as idolaters, and the Christians to regard the Jews as the murderers of the Divine Saviour of mankind, and to believe readily the accusation of the use of Christian blood in the celebration of the Jewish Passover, the desecration of the Holy Eucharist, etc.; + the trade rivalry which caused Christians to accuse the Jews of sharp practice, and to resent their clipping of the coinage, their usury, etc.; + the patriotic susceptibilities of the particular nations in the midst of which the Jews have usually formed a foreign element, and to the respective interests of which their devotion has not always been beyond suspicion. In view of these and other more or less local, more or less justified, reasons, one can readily understand how the popular hatred of the Jews has too often defeated the beneficent efforts of the Church, and notably of its supreme pontiffs, in regard to them. Jewish Religion. NATHAN, Religion, Natural and Revealed (New York, 1875); TROY, Judaism and Christianity (Boston, 1890); MENDELSSOn, Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence of the Talmud (Baltimore, 1891); LEVIN, Die Reform des Judenthums (Berlin, 1895); HIRSCH, Nineteen Letters, tr. (New York, 1899); FRIEDLANDER, The Jewish Religion (2nd ed., New York, 1900); LAZARUS, Ethics of Judaism, tr. (Philadelphia, 1901); MORRIS JOSEPH, Judaism as Creed and Life (New York, 1903); SCHREINER, Die jüngsten Urtheile über das Judenthum (Berlin, 1902); MONTEFIORE, Liberal Judaism (New York, 1903); LEVY, La Famille dans l'Antiquité (Paris, 1905); SCHECHTER, Studies in Judaism (New York, 1896); IDEM, Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology (New York, 1909). FRANCIS E. GIGOT Jezabel Jezabel (Sept., 'Iezabél,). Wife of Achab, King of Israel. She was the daughter of Ethbaal I, King of the Sidonians, who was also grand pontiff of the goddess Astarte (the Ishtar of the Assyrians) worshipped by that people. It is probable that the marriage of this princess with Achab was brought about in order to strengthen the house of Amri (father of Achab) against the Syrians. She introduced into Samaria various forms of Phoenician luxury hitherto unknown in that capital of the Northern Kingdom, and also prevailed upon Achab to establish there the worship of the Phoenician gods and goddesses of which she was a fanatical devotee (III Kings, xvi, 31, 32). She maintined 450 priests for the worship of Baal and 400 for that of Astarte (III Kings, xviii, 19). Consistently she persecuted and slew the prophets (III Kings, xviii, 4), but to prevent their complete extermination Abdias, governor of the king's house, caused a hundred of them to hide themselves in caves where they were secretly sustained. After the slaying of the 450 priests of Baal by Elias on Mount Carmel (III Kings, xviii, 40), Jezabel sought the life of the prophet, and he fled to the kingdom of Juda (III Kings, xix, 1-3). How she brought about the death of Naboth in order to confiscate a vineyard which he had refused to sell to Achab is related in III Kings, xxi. Elias again appears on the scene and declares the Divine retribution which is to fall upon the perpetrators of the crime. The blood of Achab shall be licked by the dogs in the very field where they licked the blood of Naboth, and the dogs shall eat Jezabel in the field of Jezrahel. After the death of Achab, Jezabel continued to exercise a strong and baneful influence over her two sons Ochozias and Joram who reigned successively in his place, and through her daughter Athalia who married Joram, King of Juda, the same evil influence was extended even to the Southern Kingdom. At last the Divine vengeance came upon Jezabel, and the predictions of Elias and Eliseus were literally fulfilled at the beginning of the reign of Jehu, as related in IV Kings, ix, 30-37. See LesÊtre in Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible, s. v.; Selbie in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, s. v. Jezebel. JAMES F. DRISCOLL Jibaro Indians Jíbaro Indians Jíbaro (Spanish orthography) "forest man", i.e. native. An important tribal group of Ecuador, comprising a great number of small subtribes speaking a common language with dialectic variants, and together constituting a distinct linguistic stock, holding the extensive forests between the Santiago and Pastaza rivers and southward to the Amazon. Owing to similarity of name -- also written Xebaro, Zibaro -- they have been frequently confounded with their eastern neighbours, the Zaparo, and the confusion is increased by the fact that in earlier times the name Jíbaro was often loosely used to designate any of the wild Indians of eastern Ecuador. More than any other tribe of the upper Amazon region, the Jíbaro are notable for their determined and successful resistance to all efforts at conquest or Christianization, and notwithstanding more than three centuries of more or less intimate Spanish contact they still retain their primitive manners to a remarkable degree. They have no villages, the houses of each small community being scattered about in the forest within easy communicating distance, and always close to a stream. The houses are communal, from fifty to eighty feet in length, with a door at each end, one exclusively for the men and the other for the women. Near the women's door are the fire-places for cooking, one for each family, while outside the men's door is the tunduli, or great wooden drum, made from a hollow log, the sound of which can be heard for a distance of ten miles through the forest, and by means of which, according to a well-understood code, the Jíbaro can signal to his farthest acquaintance. War is their normal condition, the favourite weapons being the lance, the javelin with throwing stick, the blow-gun with poisoned arrows, and the shield for defence. The heads of enemies are smoked by an ingenious process which in a measure preserves the features. The women are expert potters. The Jíbaro are agricultural, cultivating corn, beans, bananas, yuca, and cotton. Besides dogs, parrots, and monkeys, they have chickens and hogs, which were introduced among them by the whites. They use no salt, but like many other tribes of the Amazon and Orinoco are addicted to eating a certain saltpetrous clay. Their favourite drink is chicha, a mild intoxicant fermented from the yuca, banana or some other native plant. They wear a cotton dress below the waist, flowing hair, paint, feather ornaments, ear pendants, and -- among women -- labrets. They are robust and comparatively handsome, although not tall. They are very fond of music, visiting, and ceremonial dances. Polygamy exists, as also, according to some travellers, the curious custom of the couvade. The dead are usually laid away in small shelter structures in the woods or in hollow tree-trunks placed in the house where the death occurs, the house being then abandoned. There is apparently no tribal organization or chiefly authority, the only bond among families being their habitual attendance at common festivals. In each family group one man has the duty of reciting a long historical and didactic discourse each morning while the women are preparing breakfast. Very little is known of their religious or mythologic beliefs, but witchcraft flourishes, and almost every death is attributed to this cause. Sheltered by their forests, the Jíbaro successfully withstood the efforts of the Peruvian Incas to subjugate them. The first Spanish entrance into their country was made by Vergara in 1541, and in 1559, under order from Governor Salinas, five towns were established in the Jíbaro country, first and chief of which was Logrono. Under enforced labour in the mines, and other oppressions, at the hands of their Spanish taskmasters, the Indians rapidly withered away or saved themselves by retreating deeper into the forests. In 1599 a fresh tribute goaded the Jíbaro into rebellion, and under the leadership of Anirula a force estimated by many at 20,000 warriors stormed Logrono in a night attack, killing every inhabitant to the number of 12,000, excepting the young women, and burning the city to the ground. The governor was killed by pouring molten gold down his throat "in order that he might have his fill of gold". The inhabitants of the other towns took refuge in Sevilla del Oro, which was next attacked, but resisted so stoutly that the Indians finally retired after having killed nearly 14,000 of the besieged. The young women were carried off as wives to the savages, and it is said that the admixture of blood is still evident in the clearer skin and more abundant beard of many of the tribe. Successive expeditions failed to reduce the Jíbaro, until it was resolved to call in the help of the missionaries. In 1645 two Franciscan fathers, Laureano de la Cruz and Andrés Fernández, with a small military escort, entered the territory from the west, and in 1656 Commander Agureo with a detachment of troops and a company of mission Indians under the Jesuit Father Raimundo Santa Cruz, attempted a settlement at the mouth of the Pastaza, but the attempt was a failure through the bad conduct of the soldiers. Other unsuccessful missionary attempts were made in 1690, and in 1692 a combined force of Spanish troops and mission Indians, the latter under the superior of the Jesuit missions, Father Viva, began a series of manhunts in the Jíbaro country, but with so little result that in five months only three hundred and seventy-two Indians were captured, most of whom escaped later. In these raids the Indian mothers frequently slew their children with their own hands to prevent their falling into the hands of the Spaniards. In 1767 the Jesuit Father Andrés Camacho made another effort, with some fair promise of success, when the decree of expulsion banished the Jesuits from their missions, which were then turned over to Franciscans and secular priests and speedily fell into decay. This may be considered the end of any systematic attempt at Christianizing the Jíbaro. As far back as 1581 the Dominicans of Quito had undertaken a similar work at Camelos on the Pindo, but after more than two centuries the only result was three small villages containing two hundred and forty baptized Indians, and about half that number in 1814. Several Franciscans also entered the territory from time to time, notably Father Antonio Prieto in 1816, who discovered some important pre-Columbian ruins. In 1869, the restored Jesuits began work again at three stations, but were driven out a few years later by an Indian rising. In 1886 the Dominicans and in 1893 the Franciscans re-entered the field and have now mission stations at Macas (D) Canelos (D) and Zamora (F), while the Jesuits are at work on the Napo. In 1893 the Salesians were authorized to enter the territory, which had been newly erected into the Vicariate Apostolic of Mendez and Gualaquiza. Intestine feuds, smallpox visitations, alcohol, and other causes have steadily reduced the number of the Jíbaro until, for the 20,000 warriors who sacked Logrono three centuries ago, the whole nation to-day does not count more than as many souls, and experienced missionaries think they do not exceed 10,000 or 12,000 of whom only about 1400 are rated as Christians. RIVET, Les Indiens Jíbaros in L'Anthropologie, XVIII-XIX (1907-08), has valuable bibliographic notes; MARKHAM, Tribes of the Amazon; HERNDON, The Amazon; RECLUS, South America: The Andes Regions. See INDIANS, AMERICAN, bibliography. JAMES MOONEY St. Joachim St. Joachim Joachim (whose name means Yahweh prepares), was the father of the Blessed Virgin Mary. If we were to obey the warning of St. Peter Damian, we should consider it a blameable and needless curiosity to inquire about those things that the Evangelists did not deem it advisable to relate, and, in particular, about the parents of the Blessed Virgin (Serm. iii de Nativ. B.M.V.). Tradition nevertheless, grounded on very old testimonies, very early hailed Saints Joachim and Anne as the father and mother of the Mother of God. True, this tradition seems to rest ultimately on the so-called "Gospel of James", the "Gospel of the Nativity of the Blessed Mary", and the Pseudo-Matthew, or "Book of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the Childhood of the Saviour"; and this origin is likely to rouse well-founded suspicions. It should be borne in mind, however, that the apocryphal character of these writings, that is to say, their rejection from the canon, and their ungenuineness do not imply that no heed whatever should be taken of some of their assertions; side by side, indeed, with unwarranted and legendary facts, they contain some historical data borrowed from reliable traditions or documents; and difficult though it is to distinguish in them the wheat from the tares, it would be unwise and uncritical indiscriminately to reject the whole. Some commentators, who believe that the genealogy given by St. Luke is that of the Blessed Virgin, find the mention of Joachim in Heli (Luke, iii, 23; Eliachim, i.e. Jeho-achim), and explain that Joseph had, in the eyes of the law, become by his marriage the son of Joachim. That such is the purpose and the meaning of the Evangelist is very doubtful, and so is the identification proposed between the two names Heli and Joachim. Neither can it be asserted with certainty, in spite of the authority of the Bollandists, that Joachim was Heli's son and Joseph's brother; nor, as is sometimes affirmed, from sources of very doubtful value, that he had large possessions in herds and flocks. Much more interesting are the beautiful lines in which the "Gospel of James" describes how, in their old age, Joachim and Anne received the reward of their prayers to obtain issue. Tradition has it that the parents of the Blessed Virgin, who, apparently, first lived in Galilee, came later on to settle in Jerusalem; there the Blessed Virgin was born and reared; there also they died and were buried. A church, known at various epochs as St. Mary, St. Mary ubi nata est, St. Mary in Probatica, Holy Probatica, St. Anne, was built during the fourth century, possibly by St. Helena, on the site of the house of St. Joachim and St. Anne, and their tombs were there honoured until the close of the ninth century, when the church was converted into a Moslem school. The crypt which formerly contained the holy tombs was rediscovered on 18 March, 1889. St. Joachim was honoured very early by the Greeks, who celebrate his feast on the day following the Blessed Virgin's birthday; the Latins were slow to admit it to their calendar, where it found place sometimes on 16 Sept. and sometimes on 9 Dec. Assigned by Julius II to 20 March, the solemnity was suppressed some fifty years later, restored by Gregory XV (1622), fixed by Clement XII (1738) on the Sunday after the Assumption, and finally raised to the rank of double of the second class by Leo XIII (1 Aug., 1879). CHARLES L. SOUVAY Joachim of Flora Joachim of Flora Cistercian abbot and mystic; b. at Celico, near Cosenza, Italy, c. 1132; d. at San Giovanni in Fiore, in Calabria, 30 March, 1202. His father, Maurus de Celico (whose family name is said to have been Tabellione), a notary holding high office under the Norman kings of Sicily, placed him at an early age in the royal Court. While on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, Joachim was converted from the world by the sight of some great calamity (perhaps an outbreak of pestilence). He passed the whole of Lent in contemplation on Mount Thabor, where he is said to have received celestial illumination for the work of his life. Returning to Italy, he retired to the Cistercian Abbey of Sambucina, probably in 1159, and for some years devoted himself to lay preaching, without taking the religious habit or receiving any orders. The ecclesiastical authorities raising objections to his mode of life, he took the Cistercian habit in the Abbey of Corazzo, and was ordained priest, apparently in 1168. He now applied himself entirely to Biblical study, with a special view to the interpretation of the hidden meaning of the Scriptures. A few years later, much against his will, he was elected abbot. Finding the duties of his office an intolerable hindrance to what he deemed his higher calling, he appealed, in 1182, to Pope Lucius III, who relieved him of the temporal care of his abbey, and warmly approved of his work, bidding him continue it in whatever monastery he thought best. He spent the following year and a half at the Abbey of Casamari, engaged upon his three great books, and there a young monk, Lucas (afterwards Archbishop of Cosenza), who acted as his secretary, tells us of his amazement at seeing so famous and eloquent a man wearing such rags, and of the wonderful devotion with which he preached and said Mass. The papal approbation was confirmed by Urban III, in 1185, and again, more conditionally, by Clement III, in 1187, the latter exhorting him to make no delay in completing his work and submitting it to the judgment of the Holy See. Joachim now retired to the hermitage of Pietralata, and finally founded the Abbey of Fiore (or Flora) among the Calabrian mountains, which became the center of a new and stricter branch of the Cistercian Order approved by Celestine III in 1198. In 1200 Joachim publicly submitted all his writings to the examination of Innocent III, but died before any judgment was passed. It was held to be in answer to his prayers that he died on Holy Saturday, "the Saturday on which Sitivit is sung, attaining the true Sabbath, even as the hart panteth after the fountains of waters." The holiness of his life is unquestionable; miracles were said to have been wrought at his tomb, and, though never officially beatified, he is still venerated as a beatus on 29 May. Dante voiced the general opinion of his age in declaring Joachim one "endowed with prophetic spirit." But he himself always disclaimed the title of prophet. The interpretation of Scriptural prophecy, with reference to the history and the future of the Church, is the main theme of his three chief works: "Liber Concordiae Novi ac Veteris Testamenti," "Expositio in Apocalipsim," and "Psalterium Decem Cordarum." The mystical basis of his teaching is the doctrine of the "Eternal Gospel," founded on a strained interpretation of the text in the Apocalypse (xiv, 6). There are three states of the world, corresponding to the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. In the first age the Father ruled, representing power and inspiring fear, to which the Old Testament dispensation corresponds; then the wisdom hidden through the ages was revealed in the Son, and we have the Catholic Church of the New Testament; a third period will come, the Kingdom of the Holy Spirit, a new dispensation of universal love, which will proceed from the Gospel of Christ, but transcend the letter of it, and in which there will be no need for disciplinary institutions. Joachim held that the second period was drawing to a close, and that the third epoch (already in part anticipated by St. Benedict) would actually begin after some great cataclysm which he tentatively calculated would befall in 1260. After this Latins and Greeks would be united in the new spiritual kingdom, freed alike from the fetters of the letter; the Jews would be converted, and the "Eternal Gospel" abide until the end of the world. Although certain doctrines of Joachim concerning the Blessed Trinity were condemned by the Lateran Council in 1215, his main teaching does not seem to have excited suspicion until the middle of the century. Many works had meanwhile come into being which were wrongly attributed to Joachim. Among these the "De Oneribus Prophetarum," the "Expositio Sybillae et Merlini," and the commentaries on Jeremias and Isaias are the most famous. The sect of the "Joachists" or "Joachimists" arose among the "spiritual" party among the Franciscans, many of whom saw Antichrist already in the world in the person of Frederick II, nor was their faith shaken by his death in 1250. One of their number, Fra Gherardo of Borgo San Donnino, wrote a treatise entitled "Introductorium in Evangelium Aeternum", of which the contents are now known only from the extracts made by the commission of three cardinals who examined it in 1255. From these it is clear that the Joachists went far beyond what the abbot himself had taught. They held that, about the year 1200, the spirit of life had gone out of the two Testaments and that Joachim's three books themselves constituted this "Eternal Gospel," which was not simply to transcend but to supersede, the Gospel of Christ. The Catholic priesthood and the whole teaching of the New Testament was to be rendered void in a few years. This work was solemnly condemned by Alexander IV, in 1256, and the condemnation involved the teaching of Joachim himself. His central doctrine was confuted by St. Thomas in the Summa Theologica (I-II, Q. cvi, a. 4), and its Franciscan exponents were sternly repressed by St. Bonaventure. Another blow was given to the movement when the fatal year 1260 came, and nothing happened. "After Frederick II died who was Emperor," writes Fra Salimbene of Parma, "and the year 1260 passed, I entirely laid aside this doctrine, and I am disposed henceforth to believe nothing save what I see." It was revived in a modified form by the later leader of the spiritual Franciscans, Pier Giovanni Olivi (d. 1297), and his follower, Ubertino da Casale, who left the order in 1317. We hear a last echo of these theories in the letters of Blessed Giovanni dalle Celle and the prophecies of Telesphorus of Cosenza during the Great Schism, but they were no longer taken seriously. Divini vatis Abbatis Joachim Liber Concordiae novi ac veteris Testatmenti (Venice, 1519); Expositio magni prophetae Abbatis Joachim in Apocalipsim: Eiusdem Psalterium Decem Cordarum opus prope divinum (Venice, 1527); REUTER, Geschichte der religiösen Aufklärung im Mittelalter, II (Berlin, 1877); TOCCO, L'Eresia nel Medio Evo (Florence, 1884); DENIFLE, Das Evangelium aeternum und die Commission zu Anagni in Archiv fur Litteratur- und Kirchen-Geschichte, I (Berlin, 1885): HOLDER-EGGER, Cronica Fratris Salimbene de Adam Ordinis Minorum (Hanover, 1905-08); WICKSTEED, The Everlasting Gospel in The Inquirer (London, 1909); FOURNIER, Etudes sur Joachim de Flore et ses doctrines (Paris, 1909). The only contemporary account is the sketch, Virtutum B. Joachimi synopsis, by LUCAS OF COSENZA, his secretary: but the fuller Vita by JACOBUS GRAECUS SYLLANAEUS, written in 1612, is professedly drawn from an ancient manuscript then preserved at Fiore. Both are printed by the Bollandists, Acta SS., May, VII. EDMUND G. GARDNER Pope Joan Popess Joan The fable about a female pope, who afterwards bore the name of Johanna (Joan), is first noticed in the middle of the thirteenth century. VARIATIONS OF THE FABLE First Version: Jean de Mailly. The first who appears to have had cognizance of it was the Dominican chronicler Jean de Mailly (Archiv der Gesellschaft fur altere deutsche Geschichte, xii, 17 sq., 469 sq.) from whom another Dominican, Etienne de Bourbon (d. 1261), adopted the tale into his work on the "Seven Gifts of the Holy Ghost." In this account the alleged popess is placed about the year 1100, and no name is yet assigned her. The story runs that a very talented woman, dressed as a man, became notary to the Curia, then cardinal and finally pope; that one day this person went out on horseback, and on this occasion gave birth to a son; that she was then bound to the tail of a horse, dragged round the city, stoned to death by the mob, and was buried at the place where she died; and that an inscription was put up there as follows: " Petre pater patrum papissae prodito partum". In her reign, the story adds, the Ember days were introduced, called therefore the "fasts of the popess". Second Version: Martin of Troppau. A different version appears in the third recension of the chronicle of Martin of Troppau (Martinus Polonus) possibly inserted by the author himself and not by a subsequent transcriber. Through this very popular work the tale became best known in the following form: After Leo IV (847-55) the Englishman John of Mainz (Johannes Anglicus, natione Moguntinus) occupied the papal chair two years, seven months and four days. He was, it is alleged, a woman. When a girl, she was taken to Athens in male clothes by her lover, and there made such progress in learning that no one was her equal. She came to Rome, where she taught science, and thereby attracted the attention of learned men. She enjoyed the greatest respect on account of her conduct and erudition, and was finally chosen as pope, but, becoming pregnant by one of her trusted attendants, she gave birth to a child during a procession from St. Peter's to the Lateran, somewhere between the Colosseum and St. Clement's. There she died almost immediately, and it is said she was buried at the same place. In their processions the popes always avoid this road; many believe that they do this out of abhorrence of that calamity. Here occurs for the first time the name of Johanna (Joan) as that of the alleged popess. Martin of Troppau had lived at the Curia as papal chaplain and penitentiary (he died 1278), for which reason his papal history was widely read, and through him the tale obtained general acceptance. One manuscript of his chronicle relates in a different way the fate of the alleged popess: i.e., after her confinement Joan was immediately deposed, and did penance for many years. Her son, it is added, became Bishop of Ostia, and had her interred there after her death. Later Versions. Later chroniclers even give the name which she bore as a girl; some call her Agnes, some Gilberta. Still further variations are found in the works of different chroniclers, e.g. in the "Universal Chronicle of Metz", written about 1250, and in subsequent editions of the twelfth (?) century "Mirabilia Urbis Romae". According to the latter, the popess was given the choice in a vision, of temporal disgrace or eternal punishment; she chose the former, and died at her confinement in the open street. EARLY EVALUATIONS OF THE LEGEND Credulous Acceptance. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries this popess was already counted as an historical personage, whose existence no one doubted. She had her place among the carved busts which stood in Siena Cathedral. Under Clement VIII, and at his request, she was transformed into Pope Zacharias. The heretic Hus, in the defense of his false doctrine before the Council of Constance, referred to the popess, and no one offered to question the fact of her existence. She is not found in the "Liber Pontificalis" nor among the papal portraits in St. Paul's Outside the Walls, at Rome. Critical Evaluation. This alleged popess is a pure figment of the imagination. In the fifteenth century, after the awakening of historical criticism, a few scholars like Aeneas Silvius (Epist., I, 30) and Platina (Vitae Pontificum, No. 106) saw the untenableness of the story. Since the sixteenth century Catholic historians began to deny the existence of the popess, e.g., Onofrio Panvinio (Vitae Pontificum, Venice, 1557), Aventinus (Annales Boiorum, lib. IV), Baronius (Annales ad a. 879, n. 5), and others. Protestant Evaluation. A few Protestants also, e.g., Blondel (Joanna Papissa, 1657) and Leibniz ("Flores sparsae in tumulum papissae" in "Bibliotheca Historica", Göttingen, 1758, 267 sq.), admitted that the popess never existed. Numerous Protestants, however, made use of the fable in their attacks on the papacy. Even in the nineteenth century, when the untenableness of the legend was recognized by all serious historians, a few Protestants (e.g. Kist, 1843; Suden, 1831; and Andrea, 1866) attempted, in an anti-Roman spirit, to prove the historical existence of the popess. Even Hase ("Kirchengesch.", II, 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1895, 81) could not refrain from a spiteful and absolutely unhistorical note on this subject. PROOFS OF ITS MYTHICAL CHARACTER The principal proofs of the entirely mythical character of the popess are: 1. Not one contemporaneous historical source among the papal histories knows anything about her; also, no mention is made of her until the middle of the thirteenth century. Now it is incredible that the appearance of a "popess", if it was an historical fact, would be noticed by none of the numerous historians from the tenth to the thirteenth century. 2. In the history of the popes, there is no place where this legendary figure will fit in. Between Leo IV and Benedict III, where Martinus Polonus places her, she cannot be inserted, because Leo IV died 17 July, 855, and immediately after his death Benedict III was elected by the clergy and people of Rome; but owing to the setting up of an antipope, in the person of the deposed Cardinal Anastasius, he was not consecrated until 29 September. Coins exist which bear both the image of Benedict III and of Emperor Lothair, who died 28 September, 855; therefore Benedict must have been recognized as pope before the last-mentioned date. On 7 October, 855, Benedict III issued a charter for the Abbey of Corvey. Hinemar, Archbishop of Reims, informed Nicholas I that a messenger whom he had sent to Leo IV learned on his way of the death of this pope, and therefore handed his petition to Benedict III, who decided it (Hinemar, ep. xl in P.L., CXXXVI, 85). All these witnesses prove the correctness of the dates given in the lives of Leo IV and Benedict III, and there was no interregnum between these two popes, so that at this place there is no room for the alleged popess. Further, is is even less probable that a popess could be inserted in the list of popes about 1100, between Victor III (1087) and Urban II (1088-99) or Paschal II (1099-1110), as is suggested by the chronicle of Jean de Mailly. ORIGIN OF THE LEGEND This fable of a Roman popess seems to have had an earlier counterpart at Constantinople. Indeed, in his letter to Michael Caerularius (1053), Leo IX says that he would not believe what he had heard, namely that the Church of Constantinople had already seen eunuchs, indeed even a woman, in its episcopal chair (Mansi "Concil.", XIX, 635 sq.). Concerning the origin of the whole legend of Popess Joan, different hypotheses have been advanced. Bellarmine (De Romano Pontifice, III, 24) believes that the tale was brought from Constantinople to Rome. Baronius (Annales ad a., 879, n. 5) conjectures that the much censured effeminate weaknesses of Pope John VIII (872-82) in dealing with the Greeks may have given rise to the story. Mai has shown (Nova Collectio Patr., I, Proleg., xlvii) that Photius of Constantinople (De Spir. Sanct. Myst., lxxxix) refers emphatically three times to this pope as "the Manly", as though he would remove from him the stigma of effeminacy. Other historians point to the degradation of the papacy in the tenth century, when so many popes bore the name John; it seemed therefore a fitting name for the legendary popess. Thus Aventinus sees in the story a satire on John IX; Blondel, a satire on John XI; Panvinio (notae ad Platinam, De vitis Rom. Pont.) applies it to John XII, while Leander (Kirkengesch., II, 200) understands it as applicable generally to the baneful female influence on the papacy during the tenth century. Other investigators endeavour to find in various occurrences and reports a more definite basis for the origin of this legend. Leo Allatius (Diss. Fab. de Joanna Papissa) connects it with the false prophetess Theota, condemned at the Synod of Mainz (847); Leibniz recalls the story that an alleged bishop Johannes Anglicus came to Rome and was there recognized as a woman. The legend has also been connected with the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, e.g. by Karl Blascus ("Diatribe de Joanna Papissa", Naples, 1779), and Gfrörer (Kirchengesch., iii, 978). Döllinger's explanation has met with more general approval ("Papstfabeln", Munich, 1863, 7-45). He recognizes the fable of Popess Joan as a survival of some local Roman folk-tale originally connected with certain ancient monuments and peculiar customs. An ancient statue discovered in the reign of Sixtus V, in a street near the Colosseum, which showed a figure with a child, was popularly considered to represent the popess. In the same street a monument was discovered with an inscription at the end of which occurred the well-known formula P.P.P. (proprie pecuniâ posuit) together with a prefixed name which read: Pap. (?Papirius) pater patrum. This could easily have given origin to the inscription mentioned by Jean de Mailly (see above). It was also observed that the pope did not pass along this street in solemn procession (perhaps on account of its narrowness). Further it was noticed that, on the occasion of his formal inauguration in front of the Lateran Basilica, the newly-elected pope always seated himself on a marble chair. This seat was an ancient bath-stool, of which there were many in Rome; it was merely made use of by the pope to rest himself. But the imagination of the vulgar took this to signify that the sex of the pope was thereby tested, in order to prevent any further instance of a woman attaining to the Chair of St. Peter. Erroneous explanations -- such as were often excogitated in the Middle Ages in connection with ancient monuments -- and popular imagination are originally responsible for the fable of "Popess Joan" that uncritical chroniclers, since the middle of the thirteenth century, dignified by consigning it to their pages. J.P. KIRSCH Bl. Joanna of Portugal Blessed Joanna of Portugal Born at Lisbon, 16 February, 1452; died at Aveiro, 12 may, 1490; the daughter of Alfonso V, King of Portugal, and his wife Elizabeth. She was chiefly remarkable for the courage and persistency with which she opposed all attempts on the part of her father and brother to make her marry. She had resolved from childhood to be the spouse of Christ and, when possible to enter the religious state; but being the next heir to the throne in default of male issue, her wish was particularly obnoxious to her family and to the country. Joanna was very beautiful and her hand was sought by several princes. Once, in her father's absence, she had to act as regent of the kingdom, and in that office is said to have shown great capacity. After many struggles, she entered the Dominican house called the Convent of Jesus, at Aveiro, where the rule was severe and very strictly kept. For a time she was compelled, for political reasons, to leave it and go back to Court. Finally, however, she was professed; and her life in the convent was so penitential, holy, and heroically humble, that she died in the odour of sanctity, and miracles followed her decease. F. M. CAPES Joannes de Sacrobosco Joannes de Sacrobosco (John Holywood), a monk of English origin, lived in the first half of the thirteenth century as professor of astronomy at Paris; died in that city, 1256. He owed his reputation as an astronomer chiefly to his astronomical textbook "De Sphaera," which was used at many universities for several centuries. There is much difference of opinion as to the place and time of his birth. As the Latinized name de Sacrobosco (de Sacrobusto or Sacrobuschus) seems to be a translation of the English name Holywood or Holybush, many say that Holywood (now Halifax), in Yorkshire, was his birthplace. Others give it as Holywood near Dublin; others again claim that he came from Nithsdale in Scotland. John made his studies at Oxford, but soon came to France, where, as a contemporary of St. Thomas Aquinas, he proved himself an efficient teacher of mathematics and astronomy. As many were deterred from undertaking the study of astronomy by such ponderous and to a great extent obscure works as those of Ptolemy, Alfraganus, and Albategnius, Holywood wisely resolved to write a compendium of spherical astronomy, which professors of this branch of knowledge could use as a textbook in their course of instruction. How well-timed his book was is shown by the numerous editions (amounting to almost one hundred) published before the middle of the seventeenth century, that is to say, before the new Copernican theory was generally adopted. The first printed copy dates from 1472, when it appeared at Ferrara, Italy, under the title: "Johannis de Sacrobusto seu Bosco anglici Sphaera mundi." Brevity and precision were the chief characteristics of the compendium. The lecturer was thus compelled to expound and amplify a great deal. Commentaries by various scholars were also published-- e.g., by Ratdolt (1482), Cirvelli (1494), Cicchi, Capuani, Fabri (1495); Georgi, Boneti (1500), etc. Among the best known is the commentary of Father Christopher Clavius, S.J., which also saw many editions. In spite of the numerous revisions which Sacrobosco's book went through, indeed perhaps even owing to these corrections, it remains to this day a useful aid to the proper historical appreciation of the different questions which exercised men's minds from the thirteenth century onwards to the time of the reform of astronomy under Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton. Sacrobosco also wrote a treatise on the computation of feast days (Computus), a tract on arithmetic (Algorithmus), and a small work in the field of practical geometry (De Compositione quadrantis simplicis et compositi et utilitatibus utriusque). In the latter there is one of the oldest examples of the figures then found almost invariably on the reverse of the so-called astrolabe, a graduated quadrant with the help of which one could obtain the different hours of the day from the observation of the sun's height. ADOLF MULLER St. Joan of Arc St. Joan of Arc In French Jeanne d'Arc; by her contemporaries commonly known as la Pucelle (the Maid). Born at Domremy in Champagne, probably on 6 January, 1412; died at Rouen, 30 May, 1431. The village of Domremy lay upon the confines of territory which recognized the suzerainty of the Duke of Burgundy, but in the protracted conflict between the Armagnacs (the party of Charles VII, King of France), on the one hand, and the Burgundians in alliance with the English, on the other, Domremy had always remained loyal to Charles. Jacques d'Arc, Joan's father, was a small peasant farmer, poor but not needy. Joan seems to have been the youngest of a family of five. She never learned to read or write but was skilled in sewing and spinning, and the popular idea that she spent the days of her childhood in the pastures, alone with the sheep and cattle, is quite unfounded. All the witnesses in the process of rehabilitation spoke of her as a singularly pious child, grave beyond her years, who often knelt in the church absorbed in prayer, and loved the poor tenderly. Great attempts were made at Joan's trial to connect her with some superstitious practices supposed to have been performed round a certain tree, popularly known as the "Fairy Tree" (l'Arbre des Dames), but the sincerity of her answers baffled her judges. She had sung and danced there with the other children, and had woven wreaths for Our Lady's statue, but since she was twelve years old she had held aloof from such diversions. It was at the age of thirteen and a half, in the summer of 1425, that Joan first became conscious of that manifestation, whose supernatural character it would now be rash to question, which she afterwards came to call her "voices" or her "counsel." It was at first simply a voice, as if someone had spoken quite close to her, but it seems also clear that a blaze of light accompanied it, and that later on she clearly discerned in some way the appearance of those who spoke to her, recognizing them individually as St. Michael (who was accompanied by other angels), St. Margaret, St. Catherine, and others. Joan was always reluctant to speak of her voices. She said nothing about them to her confessor, and constantly refused, at her trial, to be inveigled into descriptions of the appearance of the saints and to explain how she recognized them. None the less, she told her judges: "I saw them with these very eyes, as well as I see you." Great efforts have been made by rationalistic historians, such as M. Anatole France, to explain these voices as the result of a condition of religious and hysterical exaltation which had been fostered in Joan by priestly influence, combined with certain prophecies current in the countryside of a maiden from the bois chesnu (oak wood), near which the Fairy Tree was situated, who was to save France by a miracle. But the baselessness of this analysis of the phenomena has been fully exposed by many non-Catholic writers. There is not a shadow of evidence to support this theory of priestly advisers coaching Joan in a part, but much which contradicts it. Moreover, unless we accuse the Maid of deliberate falsehood, which no one is prepared to do, it was the voices which created the state of patriotic exaltation, and not the exaltation which preceded the voices. Her evidence on these points is clear. Although Joan never made any statement as to the date at which the voices revealed her mission, it seems certain that the call of God was only made known to her gradually. But by May, 1428, she no longer doubted that she was bidden to go to the help of the king, and the voices became insistent, urging her to present herself to Robert Baudricourt, who commanded for Charles VII in the neighbouring town of Vaucouleurs. This journey she eventually accomplished a month later, but Baudricourt, a rude and dissolute soldier, treated her and her mission with scant respect, saying to the cousin who accompanied her: "Take her home to her father and give her a good whipping." Meanwhile the military situation of King Charles and his supporters was growing more desperate. Orléans was invested (12 October, 1428), and by the close of the year complete defeat seemed imminent. Joan's voices became urgent, and even threatening. It was in vain that she resisted, saying to them: "I am a poor girl; I do not know how to ride or fight." The voices only reiterated: "It is God who commands it." Yielding at last, she left Domremy in January, 1429, and again visited Vaucouleurs. Baudricourt was still skeptical, but, as she stayed on in the town, her persistence gradually made an impression on him. On 17 February she announced a great defeat which had befallen the French arms outside Orléans (the Battle of the Herrings). As this statement was officially confirmed a few days later, her cause gained ground. Finally she was suffered to seek the king at Chinon, and she made her way there with a slender escort of three men-at-arms, she being attired, at her own request, in male costume -- undoubtedly as a protection to her modesty in the rough life of the camp. She always slept fully dressed, and all those who were intimate with her declared that there was something about her which repressed every unseemly thought in her regard. She reached Chinon on 6 March, and two days later was admitted into the presence of Charles VII. To test her, the king had disguised himself, but she at once saluted him without hesitation amidst a group of attendants. From the beginning a strong party at the court -- La Trémoille, the royal favourite, foremost among them -- opposed her as a crazy visionary, but a secret sign, communicated to her by her voices, which she made known to Charles, led the king, somewhat half-heartedly, to believe in her mission. What this sign was, Joan never revealed, but it is now most commonly believed that this "secret of the king" was a doubt Charles had conceived of the legitimacy of his birth, and which Joan had been supernaturally authorized to set at rest. Still, before Joan could be employed in military operations she was sent to Poitiers to be examined by a numerous committee of learned bishops and doctors. The examination was of the most searching and formal character. It is regrettable in the extreme that the minutes of the proceedings, to which Joan frequently appealed later on at her trial, have altogether perished. All that we know is that her ardent faith, simplicity, and honesty made a favourable impression. The theologians found nothing heretical in her claims to supernatural guidance, and, without pronouncing upon the reality of her mission, they thought that she might be safely employed and further tested. Returning to Chinon, Joan made her preparations for the campaign. Instead of the sword the king offered her, she begged that search might be made for an ancient sword buried, as she averred, behind the altar in the chapel of Ste-Catherine-de-Fierbois. It was found in the very spot her voices indicated. There was made for her at the same time a standard bearing the words Jesus, Maria, with a picture of God the Father, and kneeling angels presenting a fleur-de-lis. But perhaps the most interesting fact connected with this early stage of her mission is a letter of one Sire de Rotslaer written from Lyons on 22 April, 1429, which was delivered at Brussels and duly registered, as the manuscript to this day attests, before any of the events referred to received their fulfilment. The Maid, he reports, said "that she would save Orléans and would compel the English to raise the siege, that she herself in a battle before Orléans would be wounded by a shaft but would not die of it, and that the King, in the course of the coming summer, would be crowned at Reims, together with other things which the King keeps secret." Before entering upon her campaign, Joan summoned the King of England to withdraw his troops from French soil. The English commanders were furious at the audacity of the demand, but Joan by a rapid movement entered Orléans on 30 April. Her presence there at once worked wonders. By 8 May the English forts which encircled the city had all been captured, and the siege raised, though on the 7th Joan was wounded in the breast by an arrow. So far as the Maid went she wished to follow up these successes with all speed, partly from a sound warlike instinct, partly because her voices had already told her that she had only a year to last. But the king and his advisers, especially La Trémoille and the Archbishop of Reims, were slow to move. However, at Joan's earnest entreaty a short campaign was begun upon the Loire, which, after a series of successes, ended on 18 June with a great victory at Patay, where the English reinforcements sent from Paris under Sir John Fastolf were completely routed. The way to Reims was now practically open, but the Maid had the greatest difficulty in persuading the commanders not to retire before Troyes, which was at first closed against them. They captured the town and then, still reluctantly, followed her to Reims, where, on Sunday, 17 July, 1429, Charles VII was solemnly crowned, the Maid standing by with her standard, for -- as she explained -- "as it had shared in the toil, it was just that it should share in the victory." The principal aim of Joan's mission was thus attained, and some authorities assert that it was now her wish to return home, but that she was detained with the army against her will. The evidence is to some extent conflicting, and it is probable that Joan herself did not always speak in the same tone. Probably she saw clearly how much might have been done to bring about the speedy expulsion of the English from French soil, but on the other hand she was constantly oppressed by the apathy of the king and his advisers, and by the suicidal policy which snatched at every diplomatic bait thrown out by the Duke of Burgundy. An abortive attempt on Paris was made at the end of August. Though St-Denis was occupied without opposition, the assault which was made on the city on 8 September was not seriously supported, and Joan, while heroically cheering on her men to fill the moat, was shot through the thigh with a bolt from a crossbow. The Duc d'Alençon removed her almost by force, and the assault was abandoned. The reverse unquestionably impaired Joan's prestige, and shortly afterwards, when, through Charles' political counsellors, a truce was signed with the Duke of Burgundy, she sadly laid down her arms upon the altar of St-Denis. The inactivity of the following winter, mostly spent amid the worldliness and the jealousy of the Court, must have been a miserable experience for Joan. It may have been with the idea of consoling her that Charles, on 29 December, 1429, ennobled the Maid and all her family, who henceforward, from the lilies on their coat of arms, were known by the name of Du Lis. It was April before Joan was able to take the field again at the conclusion of the truce, and at Melun her voices made known to her that she would be taken prisoner before Midsummer Day. Neither was the fulfilment of this prediction long delayed. It seems that she had thrown herself into Compiègne on 24 May at sunrise to defend the town against Burgundian attack. In the evening she resolved to attempt a sortie, but her little troop of some five hundred encountered a much superior force. Her followers were driven back and retired desperately fighting. By some mistake or panic of Guillaume de Flavy, who commanded in Compiègne, the drawbridge was raised while still many of those who had made the sortie remained outside, Joan amongst the number. She was pulled down from her horse and became the prisoner of a follower of John of Luxemburg. Guillaume de Flavy has been accused of deliberate treachery, but there seems no adequate reason to suppose this. He continued to hold Compiègne resolutely for his king, while Joan's constant thought during the early months of her captivity was to escape and come to assist him in this task of defending the town. No words can adequately describe the disgraceful ingratitude and apathy of Charles and his advisers in leaving the Maid to her fate. If military force had not availed, they had prisoners like the Earl of Suffolk in their hands, for whom she could have been exchanged. Joan was sold by John of Luxembourg to the English for a sum which would amount to several hundred thousand dollars in modern money. There can be no doubt that the English, partly because they feared their prisoner with a superstitious terror, partly because they were ashamed of the dread which she inspired, were determined at all costs to take her life. They could not put her to death for having beaten them, but they could get her sentenced as a witch and a heretic. Moreover, they had a tool ready to their hand in Pierre Cauchon, the Bishop of Beauvais, an unscrupulous and ambitious man who was the creature of the Burgundian party. A pretext for invoking his authority was found in the fact that Compiègne, where Joan was captured, lay in the Diocese of Beauvais. Still, as Beauvais was in the hands of the French, the trial took place at Rouen -- the latter see being at that time vacant. This raised many points of technical legality which were summarily settled by the parties interested. The Vicar of the Inquisition at first, upon some scruple of jurisdiction, refused to attend, but this difficulty was overcome before the trial ended. Throughout the trial Cauchon's assessors consisted almost entirely of Frenchmen, for the most part theologians and doctors of the University of Paris. Preliminary meetings of the court took place in January, but it was only on 21 February, 1431, that Joan appeared for the first time before her judges. She was not allowed an advocate, and, though accused in an ecclesiastical court, she was throughout illegally confined in the Castle of Rouen, a secular prison, where she was guarded by dissolute English soldiers. Joan bitterly complained of this. She asked to be in the church prison, where she would have had female attendants. It was undoubtedly for the better protection of her modesty under such conditions that she persisted in retaining her male attire. Before she had been handed over to the English, she had attempted to escape by desperately throwing herself from the window of the tower of Beaurevoir, an act of seeming presumption for which she was much browbeaten by her judges. This also served as a pretext for the harshness shown regarding her confinement at Rouen, where she was at first kept in an iron cage, chained by the neck, hands, and feet. On the other hand she was allowed no spiritual privileges -- e.g. attendance at Mass -- on account of the charge of heresy and the monstrous dress (difformitate habitus) she was wearing. As regards the official record of the trial, which, so far as the Latin version goes, seems to be preserved entire, we may probably trust its accuracy in all that relates to the questions asked and the answers returned by the prisoner. These answers are in every way favourable to Joan. Her simplicity, piety, and good sense appear at every turn, despite the attempts of the judges to confuse her. They pressed her regarding her visions, but upon many points she refused to answer. Her attitude was always fearless, and, upon 1 March, Joan boldly announced that "within seven years' space the English would have to forfeit a bigger prize than Orléans." In point of fact Paris was lost to Henry VI on 12 November, 1437 -- six years and eight months afterwards. It was probably because the Maid's answers perceptibly won sympathizers for her in a large assembly that Cauchon decided to conduct the rest of the inquiry before a small committee of judges in the prison itself. We may remark that the only matter in which any charge of prevarication can be reasonably urged against Joan's replies occurs especially in this stage of the inquiry. Joan, pressed about the secret sign given to the king, declared that an angel brought him a golden crown, but on further questioning she seems to have grown confused and to have contradicted herself. Most authorities (like, e.g., M. Petit de Julleville and Mr. Andrew Lang) are agreed that she was trying to guard the king's secret behind an allegory, she herself being the angel; but others -- for instance P. Ayroles and Canon Dunand -- insinuate that the accuracy of the procès-verbal cannot be trusted. On another point she was prejudiced by her lack of education. The judges asked her to submit herself to "the Church Militant." Joan clearly did not understand the phrase and, though willing and anxious to appeal to the pope, grew puzzled and confused. It was asserted later that Joan's reluctance to pledge herself to a simple acceptance of the Church's decisions was due to some insidious advice treacherously imparted to her to work her ruin. But the accounts of this alleged perfidy are contradictory and improbable. The examinations terminated on 17 March. Seventy propositions were then drawn up, forming a very disorderly and unfair presentment of Joan's "crimes," but, after she had been permitted to hear and reply to these, another set of twelve were drafted, better arranged and less extravagantly worded. With this summary of her misdeeds before them, a large majority of the twenty-two judges who took part in the deliberations declared Joan's visions and voices to be "false and diabolical," and they decided that if she refused to retract she was to be handed over to the secular arm -- which was the same as saying that she was to be burned. Certain formal admonitions, at first private, and then public, were administered to the poor victim (18 April and 2 May), but she refused to make any submission which the judges could have considered satisfactory. On 9 May she was threatened with torture, but she still held firm. Meanwhile, the twelve propositions were submitted to the University of Paris, which, being extravagantly English in sympathy, denounced the Maid in violent terms. Strong in this approval, the judges, forty-seven in number, held a final deliberation, and forty-two reaffirmed that Joan ought to be declared heretical and handed over to the civil power, if she still refused to retract. Another admonition followed in the prison on 22 May, but Joan remained unshaken. The next day a stake was erected in the cemetery of St-Ouen, and in the presence of a great crowd she was solemnly admonished for the last time. After a courageous protest against the preacher's insulting reflections on her king, Charles VII, the accessories of the scene seem at last to have worked upon mind and body worn out by so many struggles. Her courage for once failed her. She consented to sign some sort of retraction, but what the precise terms of that retraction were will never be known. In the official record of the process a form of retraction is in inserted which is most humiliating in every particular. It is a long document which would have taken half an hour to read. What was read aloud to Joan and was signed by her must have been something quite different, for five witnesses at the rehabilitation trial, including Jean Massieu, the official who had himself read it aloud, declared that it was only a matter of a few lines. Even so, the poor victim did not sign unconditionally, but plainly declared that she only retracted in so far as it was God's will. However, in virtue of this concession, Joan was not then burned, but conducted back to prison. The English and Burgundians were furious, but Cauchon, it seems, placated them by saying, "We shall have her yet." Undoubtedly her position would now, in case of a relapse, be worse than before, for no second retractation could save her from the flames. Moreover, as one of the points upon which she had been condemned was the wearing of male apparel, a resumption of that attire would alone constitute a relapse into heresy, and this within a few days happened, owing, it was afterwards alleged, to a trap deliberately laid by her jailers with the connivance of Cauchon. Joan, either to defend her modesty from outrage, or because her women's garments were taken from her, or, perhaps, simply because she was weary of the struggle and was convinced that her enemies were determined to have her blood upon some pretext, once more put on the man's dress which had been purposely left in her way. The end now came soon. On 29 May a court of thirty-seven judges decided unanimously that the Maid must be treated as a relapsed heretic, and this sentence was actually carried out the next day (30 May, 1431) amid circumstances of intense pathos. She is said, when the judges visited her early in the morning, first to have charged Cauchon with the responsibility of her death, solemnly appealing from him to God, and afterwards to have declared that "her voices had deceived her." About this last speech a doubt must always be felt. We cannot be sure whether such words were ever used, and, even if they were, the meaning is not plain. She was, however, allowed to make her confession and to receive Communion. Her demeanour at the stake was such as to move even her bitter enemies to tears. She asked for a cross, which, after she had embraced it, was held up before her while she called continuously upon the name of Jesus. "Until the last," said Manchon, the recorder at the trial, "she declared that her voices came from God and had not deceived her." After death her ashes were thrown into the Seine. Twenty-four years later a revision of her trial, the procès de réhabilitation, was opened at Paris with the consent of the Holy See. The popular feeling was then very different, and, with but the rarest exceptions, all the witnesses were eager to render their tribute to the virtues and supernatural gifts of the Maid. The first trial had been conducted without reference to the pope, indeed it was carried out in defiance of St. Joan's appeal to the head of the Church. Now an appellate court constituted by the pope, after long inquiry and examination of witnesses, reversed and annulled the sentence pronounced by a local tribunal under Cauchon's presidency. The illegality of the former proceedings was made clear, and it speaks well for the sincerity of this new inquiry that it could not be made without inflicting some degree of reproach upon both the King of France and the Church at large, seeing that so great an injustice had been done and had so long been suffered to continue unredressed. Even before the rehabilitation trial, keen observers, like Eneas Sylvius Piccolomini (afterwards Pope Pius II), though still in doubt as to her mission, had discerned something of the heavenly character of the Maid. In Shakespeare's day she was still regarded in England as a witch in league with the fiends of hell, but a juster estimate had begun to prevail even in the pages of Speed's "History of Great Britaine" (1611). By the beginning of the nineteenth century the sympathy for her even in England was general. Such writers as Southey, Hallam, Sharon Turner, Carlyle, Landor, and, above all, De Quincey greeted the Maid with a tribute of respect which was not surpassed even in her own native land. Among her Catholic fellow-countrymen she had been regarded, even in her lifetime, as Divinely inspired. At last the cause of her beatification was introduced upon occasion of an appeal addressed to the Holy See, in 1869, by Mgr Dupanloup, Bishop of Orléans, and, after passing through all its stages and being duly confirmed by the necessary miracles, the process ended in the decree being published by Pius X on 11 April, 1909. A Mass and Office of St. Joan, taken from the "Commune Virginum," with "proper" prayers, have been approved by the Holy See for use in the Diocese of Orléans. [ Note: St. Joan was canonized in 1920 by Pope Benedict XV.] HERBERT THURSTON Job Job One of the books of the Old Testament, and the chief personage in it. In this article it is primarily the book which is treated. As opportunity, however, occurs, and so far as is permissible, Job himself will be considered. The subject will be discussed under the following heads: I. Position of the Book in the Canon; II. Authority; III. The Characters of the Poem; IV. Contents; V. Arrangement of the Main, Poetic Portion of the Book; VI. Design of the Book; VII. Teaching as to the Future Life; VIII. Integrity of the Book; IX. Condition of the Text; X. Technical Skill of the Author and the Metre; XI. Time of its Composition. I. POSITION OF THE BOOK IN THE CANON In the Hebrew Bible Psalms, Proverbs, and Job are always placed together, the Psalms coming first, while Job is put between the other two or, at times, comes last. The three books form a part of the Hagiographa (Kethubim), having sometimes the first place among the Hagiographa, while again they may be preceded by Ruth, or Paralipomenon, or Paralipomen with, Ruth (cf. lists in Ginsburg, "Introduction to Heb. Bible", London, 1897, 7). In the Greek Bible and the Vulgate Job now stands before Psalms and follows directly after the historical books. The old Greek and the Latin MSS., however, assign it the most varied positions; see, for exemple, the list of Melito of Sardis, and that of Origen as given by Eusebius, "Hist. Eccle.", IV, iv, 26, and vi, 25 (in P.G., XX., 398, 582). In the Syriac Bible Job is placed directly after the Pentateuch and before Josue (cf. the lists in Hodius, "De Bibliorum textibus", Oxford, 1705, 644 sqq.; Samuel Berger, "Hist. de la Vulgate", Paris, 1893, 331-39). II. AUTHORITY (1) Historical Accuracy Many look upon the entire contents of the book as a freely invented parable which is neither historical nor intended to be considered historical; no such man as Job ever lived. Catholic commentators, however, almost without exception, hold Job to have actually existed and his personality to have been preserved by popular tradition. Nothing in the text makes it necessary to doubt his historical existence. The Scriptures seem repeatedly to take this for granted (cf. Ezech., xiv, 14; James, v, I 1; Tob., ii, 12-15, according to the Vulgate -- in the Greek text of Tobias there is no mention of Job). All the Fathers considered Job an historical person; some of their testimonies may be found in Knabenbauer, "Zu Job" (Paris, 1886), 12-13. The Martyrology of the Latin Church mentions Job on 10 May, that of the Greek Church on 6 May (cf. Acta SS.' II, May, 494). The Book of Job, therefore, has a kernel of fact, with which have been united many imaginative additions that are not strictly historical. What is related by the poet in the prose prologue and epilogue is in the main historical: the persons of the hero and his friends; the region where be lived; his good fortune and virtues; the great misfortune that overwhelmed him and the patience with which lie bore it; the restoration of his Prosperity. It is also to be accepted that Job and his friends discussed the origin of his sufferings, and that in so doing views were expressed similar to those the poet puts into the mouths of his characters. The details of the execution, the poetic form, and the art shown in the arrangement of the arguments in the dispute are, however, the free creation of the author. The figures expressive of the wealth of Job both before and after his trial are imaginatively rounded. Also in the narrative of the misfortunes it is impossible not to recognize a poetic conception which need not be considered as strictly historical. The scene in heaven (i, 6; ii, 1) is plainly an allegory which shows that the Providence of God guides the destiny of man (cf. St. Thomas, "In Job"). The manifestation of God (xxxviii, 1) generally receives a literal interpretation from commentators. St. Thomas, however, remarks that it may also be taken metaphorically as an inner revelation accorded to Job. (2) Divine Authority of the Book The Church teaches that the book was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Thus all that its author gives as historical fact or otherwise guarantees possesses unfailing Divine truth. The question, however, arises, what does the book guarantee? (a) Everything in prologue or epilogue that is the comment of the author is Divine truth; nevertheless, what is perhaps poetic ornament must not be confounded with historical verity or objective dogmatic precepts. The same authority is possessed by the utterances assigned by the poet to God. The like is true of the speeches of Eliu. Some think the speeches of Eliu are to be judged just as are those of Job and his friends. (b) The speeches of Job and his three friends have in themselves no Divine authority, but only such human importance as Job and his three friends are Personally entitled to. They have, however, Divine authority when, and in as far as, they are approved by the author expressly or tacitly. In general, such tacit approbation is to be understood for all points concerning which the disputants agree, unless the author, or God, or Eliu, shows disapproval. Thus the words of Job have in large degree Divine authority, because the view be maintains against the three friends is plainly characterized by the author as the one relatively correct. Yet much that the three friends say is of equal importance, because it is at least tacitly approved. St. Paul argues (I Cor., iii, 19) from a speech of Eliphaz (Job, v, 13) as from an inspired writing. (c) In particular places, especially where descriptions of nature are given or other secular matters are referred to, the caution prescribed by the rules of hermeneutics should be observed. III. THE CHARACTERS OF THE POEM Apart from the prologue and epilogue, the Book of Job consists of a succession of speeches assigned to distinct persons. There are six speakers: Yahweh, Eliu, Job, and Job's three friends, Eliphaz, Baldad, and Sophar. (1) Job The chief personage is Job. (a) Name He is called the "persecuted one", that is, the one tempted by (personified) suffering, the one hard beset, the patient sufferer. It is no longer possible to decide whether the name was originally different and was later changed into the expressive form in folklore on account of Job's fate. Many commentators do not accept this explanation of the name. (b) Age in which Job lived According to the usual and well-founded assumption, Job lived long before Moses. This is shown by the great age he attained. He was no longer young when overtaken by his great misfortune (xii, 12; xxx, 1); after his restoration he lived one hundred and forty years longer (xlii, 16). His wealth like that of the Patriarchs, consisted largely in flocks and herds (i, 3; xlii, 12). The kesitah or piece of money mentioned in xlii, 11, belongs to patriarchal times; the only other places in which the expression occurs are Gen., xxxiii, 19, and Jos., xxiv, 32. The musical instruments referred to (xxi, 12; xxx, 31) are only those mentioned in Genesis (Gen. iv, 21; xxxi, 27): organ, harp, and timbrel. Job himself offers sacrifice as the father of the family (i, 5), as was also the custom of the Patriarchs. An actual offering for sin in the Mosaic sense he was not acquainted with; the holocaust took its place (i, 5; xlii, 8). (c) Religion of Job Job evidently did not belong to the chosen people. He lived, indeed, outside of Palestine. He and the other characters betray no knowledge of the specifically Israelitic institutions. Even the name of God peculiar to the chosen people, Yahweh, is carefully avoided by the speakers in the poetic part of the book, and is only found, as if accidentally, in xii, 9, and according to some MSS. in xxviii, 28. The sacrifice in xlii, 8, recalls the sacrifice of Balaam (Num., xxiii, 1), consequently a custom outside of Israel. For the solution of the problem of suffering the revelations made to the Patriarchs or even Moses are never referred to. Nevertheless Job and his friends venerated the one true God. They also knew of the Flood (xxii, 16), and the first man (xv, 7, and Hebrew, xxxi, 33). (d) Country in which Job lived Job belonged to the "people of the East" (i, 3). Under this name were included the Arabian (Gen., xxv, 6) and Aramaean (Num., xxxiii, 7) tribes which lived east of the Jordan basin and in the region of the Euphrates (Gen., xxix, 1). Job seems to have been an Aramaean, for he lived in the land of Hus (i, I; Ausitis). Hus, a man's name in Genesis, is always used there in close connection with Aram and the Aramaean (Gen., x, 23; xxii, 21; xxxvi, 28). His home was certainly not far from Edom where Eliphaz lived, and it must be sought in Eastern Palestine, not too far north, although in the region inhabited by the Aramaeans. It was located on the border of the Syro-Arabian desert, for it was exposed to the attacks of the marauding bands which wandered through this desert: the Chaldeans (i, 17) of the lower Euphrates and the Sabeans (i, 15), or Arabs. Many. following an old tradition, place the home of Job in the Hauran, in the district of Naiwa (or Neve), which is situated about 36° East of Greenwich and in almost the same latitude as the northern end of Lake Genesareth. The location is possible, but positive proof is lacking. Some seek the home of Job in Idumea, others in the land of the Ausitai, who, according to Ptolemy (Geogr., V, xix, par. 18, 2), lived in Northern Arabia near the Babylon. The land of Hus is also mentioned in Jer., xxv, 20, and Lam., iv, 21. In the first reference it is used in a general sense for the whole East; in the latter it is said that the Edomites live there. (e) The Standing of Job Job was one of the most important men of the land (i, 3; xxix, 25) and had many bondsmen (xxxi, 39). The same is true of the friends who visited him; in the Book of Tobias these are called "kings" (Tob., ii, 15, in Vulgate). In the Book of Job also Job seems to be described as a king with many vassals under him (xxix). That he had brothers and relations is seen in xix and in the epilogue. (f) Job and Jobab An appendix to the Book of Job in the Septuagint identifies Job with King Jobab of Edom (Gen. xxxvi, 33). Nothing in the book shows that Job was ruler of Edom; in Hebrew the two names have nothing in common. (2) Eliphaz, Baldad and Sophar The most important of Job's three friends was Eliphaz of Theman. The name shows him to be an Edomite (Gen., xxxvi, 11, 15). The Themanites of Edom were famous for their wisdom (Jer., xlix, 7; Abd., S; Bar., iii, 22 sq.). Eliphaz was one of these sages (xv, 9). He was far advanced in years (xv, 10), and much older than the already elderly Job (xxx, 1). The second of Job's friends was Baidad the Suhite, who seems to have belonged to Northern Arabia, for Sue was a son of Abraham by Cetura (Gen., xxv, 2, 6). He may have been of the same age as Job. The third friend, Sophar, was probably also an Arabian. The Hebrew text calls him a Naamathite. Naama was a small town in the territory belonging to Juda (Jos., xv, 41), but Sophar hardly lived there. Perhaps the preferable reading is that of the Septuagint which calls Sophar always a Minaean; the Minaeans were an Arabian tribe. Sophar was far younger than Job (cf. Job's reply to Sophar, xii, 11-12; xiii, 1-2). (3) Eliu Like Job, Eliu the Buzite was an Aramean; at least this is indicated by his native country, Buz, for Buz is closely connected (Gen., xxii, 21) with Hus. Eliu was much younger than Sophar (xxxii, 6). (4) Besides the speakers a large number of listeners were present at the discussion (xxxiv, 2, 34); some maintained a neutral position, as did Eliu at first. IV. CONTENTS The Book of Job consists of (1) a prologue in prose (i-ii), (2) a poetic, main division (iii-xlii, 6), and (3) an epilogue also in prose (xlii, 7-17). (1) The prologue narrates how, with the permission of God, a holy man Job is tried by Satan with severe afflictions, in order to test his virtue. In succession Job bears six great temptations with heroic patience, and without the slightest murmuring against God or wavering in loyalty to him. Then Job's three friends, Eliphaz, Baldad, and Sophar, come to console him. Their visit is to become the seventh and greatest trial. (2) The poetical, main division of the book presents in a succession of speeches the course of this temptation. The three friends are fully convinced that trouble is always a result of wrongdoing. They consider Job, therefore, a great sinner and stigmatize his assertions of innocence as hypocrisy. Job is hurt by the suspicion of his friends. He protests that he is no evil-doer, that God punishes him against his deserts. In the course of his speech he fails in reverence towards God, Who appears to him not unrighteous, but more as a severe, hard, and somewhat inconsiderate ruler than as a kind Father. Taking into consideration that the language is poetic, it is true that his expressions cannot be pushed too far, but the sharp reproofs of Eliu (xxxiv, 1-9, 36-37; xxxv, 16) and of Yahweh (Xxxviii, 2; xl, 3-9) leave no doubt of his sin. In answering his friends Job emphasizes that God indeed is accustomed to reward virtue and to punish wickedness (xxvii, 7-23; xxxi). He even threatens his friends with the judgment of God on account of their unfriendly suspicion (vi, 14; xiii, 7-12; xvii,, 4; xix, 29). He rightly proves, however violently, that in this world the rule has many exceptions. Almost universally, he says, the wicked triumph and the innocent suffer (ix, 22-24, xxi, xxiv). Yet for all this Job, like his friends, regards all suffering as a punishment for personal sins, although he does not, as his friends, consider it a punishment of gross sin. Job looks upon the sufferings of the righteous as an almost unjust severity of God, which he inflicts for the slightest mistakes, and which the most virtuous man cannot escape (vii, 21; ix 30-21; X, 6, 13-14). The expressions of depression and irreverence uttered by Job are, besides, only venial sins, which human beings can never fully avoid. Job himself says that his words are not to be taken too exactly, they are almost the involuntary expression of his pain (vi, 2-10, 26-27). Many of his utterances the character of temptations in thought which force themselves out almost against the will, rather than of voluntary irreverence towards God, although Job's error was greater than he was willing to acknowledge. Thus Job bore all the tests triumphantly, even those caused by his friends. No matter how terrible the persecutions of God might be, Job held fast to Him (vi, 8-10) and drew ever closer to Him (xvii, 9). In the midst of his sufferings he lauds God's power (xxvi, 5-14) and wisdom (xxviii). Satan, who had boasted that he could lead Job into sin against God (i, 11; ii, 5), is discredited. The epilogue testifies expressly to Job's faithfulness (xlii, 7-9). After much discourse (iii-xxii) Job finally succeeds in silencing the three friends, although he is not able to convince them of his innocence. In a series of monologues (xxiii-xxxi), interrupted only by a short speech by Baldad (xxv), he once more renews his cornplaints (xxiii-xxiv), extols the greatness of God (xxvi-xxviii), and closes with a forcible appeal to the Almighty to, examine his case and to recognize his innocence (xxix-xxxi). At this juncture Eliu, a youth who was one of the company of listeners, is filled by God with the spirit of prophecy (xxxii, 18-22; xxxvi, 2-4). In a long discourse he solves the problem of suffering, which Job and his friends had failed to explain. He says that suffering, whether severe or light, is not always a result of sin; it is a means by which God tries and promotes virtue (xxxvi, 1-21), and is thus a proof of God's love for his friends. The sufferings of Job are also such a testing (xxxvi, 16-21). At the same time Eliu emphasizes the fact that the dispensations of God remain inexplicable and mysterious (xxxvi, 22; xxxvii, 24). Yahweh speaks at the end (xxxviii-xlii, 6). He confirms the statements of Eliu, carrying further Eliu's last thought of the inexplicability of the Divine decrees and works by a reference to the wonder of animate and inanimate nature. Job is severely rebuked on account of his irreverence; he confesses briefly his guilt and promises amendment in the future. (3) In the epilogue Yahweh bears witness in a striking manner to the innocence of His servant, that is to Job's freedom from gross transgression. The three friends are commanded to obtain Job's intercession, otherwise they will be severely punished for their uncharitable complaints against the pious sufferer. Yahweh forgives the three at the entreaty of Job, who is restored to double his former prosperity. In his lectures on "Babel und Bibel" Delitzsch says that the Book of Job expresses doubt, in language that borders on blasphemy, of even the existence of a just the God. These attacks arise from an extreme view of expressions of despondency. Further, the assertions often heard of late that the book contains many mythological ideas prove to be mere imagination. V. ARRANGEMENT OF THE MAIN, POETIC PORTION OF THE BOOK (1)The poetic portion of the book may be divided into two sections: chs. iii-xxii and xxiii-xlii, 6. The first section consists of colloquies: the three friends in turn express their views, while to each speech Job makes a rejoinder. In the second section the three friends are silent, for Baldad's interposition (xxv) is as little a formal discourse as Job's brief comments (xxxix, 34-35 and xlii, 2-6). Job, Eliu, and Yahweh speak successively, and each utters a series of monologues. The length of the two sections is exactly, or almost exactly, the same, namely 510 lines each (cf. Hontheim "Das Buch Job", Freiburg im Br., 1904, 44). The second division begins with the words: "Now also my words are in bitterness" (xxiii, 2; A.V.: "Even to-day is my complaint bitter"). This shows not only that with these words a new section opens, but also that the monologues were not uttered on the same day as the colloquies. The first monologue is evidently the opening of a new section, not a rejoinder to the previous speech of Eliphaz (xxii). (2) The colloquies are divided into two series: chs. iii-xiv and xv-xxii. In each series Eliphaz, Baldad, and Sophar speak in turn in the order given (iv-v, viii, xi, and xv, xviii, xx), while Job replies to each of their discourses (vi-vii, ix-x, xii-xiv, xvi-xvii, xix, xxi). The first series, furthermore, is opened by a lament from Job (iii), and the second closes with a speech by Eliphaz in which he weakly reproaches Job (xxii -- it is generally held that this chapter begins a new series), who rightly leaves this address unanswered. Each series contains seven speeches. In the first the friends try to convince Job of his guilt and of the necessity and good results of amendment. Eliphaz appeals to Revelation (iv, 12-21), Baldad to the authority of the Fathers 8-10), Sophar to understanding or philosophy (xi, 5-12). Eliphaz lays weight on the goodness of God (v, 9-27), Baldad on His justice (viii, 2-7), Sophar on His all-seeing power and wisdom, to which Job's most secret sins were plain, even those which Job himself had almost forgotten (xi, 5-12). In the second series of speeches the friends try to terrify Job: one after the other, and in much the same form of address, they point out the terrible punishment which overtakes hidden sin. During the first series of speeches Job's despondency continually increases, even the thought of the future bringing him no comfort (xiv, 7-22); in the second series the change to improvement has begun, and Job once more feels joy and hope in the thought of God and the future life (xvi, 18-22; xix, 23-28). (3) The monologues may also be divided into two series. The first includes the monologues of Job, seven in number. First Job repeats is complaint to God (xxiii-xxiv), asserts, however, in three speeches his unchangeable devotion to God by lauding in brilliant discourse the power (xxvi), justice (xxvii), and wisdom (xxviii) of the Almighty. Finally in three further speeches be lays his case before God, imploring investigation and recognition of his innocence: How happy was I once (xxix), how unhappy am I now (xxx), and I am not to blame for this change (xxxi). The second series contains the discourses of Eliu and Yahweh, also seven in number. In three speeches Eliu explains the sufferings which befall men. Trouble is often a Divine instruction, a warning to the godless to reform (xxxii-xxxiii, 30), thus revealing the goodness of God; it is often simply a punishment of the wicked who are perhaps in no way bettered by it (xxxiii, 31-xxxv), thus revealing the justice of God. (4) Finally, troubles can also overtake the just as a trial which purifies and increases their virtue (xxxvi-xxxvii), thus revealing God's unfathomable wisdom. The following four utterances of Yahweh illustrate the inscrutableness, already touched upon by Eliu, of the Divine wisdom by dwelling upon the wonders of inanimate nature (xxxviii, 1-38), of the animal world (xxxviii, 39-xxxix), and especially by referring to the great monsters of the animal world, the hippopotamus and the crocodile (xl, 10-xli). He then closes with a rebuke to Job for expressing himself too despondently and irreverently concerning his sufferings, upon which Job confesses his guilt and promises amendment (xxxix, 31-xl, 9 and xlii, 1-6); it appears that xxxix, 31-xl, 9, should be inserted after xli. VI. DESIGN OF THE BOOK The Book of Job is intended to give instruction. What it lays special stress on is that God's wisdom and Providence guide all the events of this world (cf. xxviii, xxxviii-xii). The main subject of investigation is the problem of evil and its relation to the Providence of God; particularly considered is the suffering of the upright in its bearing on the ends intended in the government of the world. The Book of Job is further intended for edification, for Job is to us an example of patience. It is, finally, a book of consolation for all sufferers. They learn from it that misfortune is not a sign of hatred, but often a proof of special Divine love. For the mystical explanation of the book, especially of Job as a type of Christ, cf. Knabenbauer, "In Job", 28-32. VII. TEACHING AS TO THE FUTURE LIFE In his sufferings Job abandoned all hope for the restoration of health and good fortune in this world (xvii, 11-16; xxi). If he were to continue to hold to the hope of reward here Satan would not be defeated. In the complete failure of all his earthly hopes, Job fastens his gaze upon the future. In the argument of the first series of speeches Job in his depression regards the future world only as the end of the present existence. The soul indeed lives on, but all ties with the present world so dear to us are forever broken. Death is not only the end of all earthly suffering (ii, 13-19), but also of all earthly life (vii, 6-10), and all earthly joys (x, 21-22), with no hope of a return to this world (xiv, 7-22). It is not until the second series that Job's thoughts on the future life grow more hopeful. However, he expects as little as in the first discussion a renewal of the life here, but hopes for a higher life in the next world. As early as chapter xvi (19-22) his hope in the recognition of his virtue in the next world is strengthened. It is, however, in xix (23-28) that Job's inspired hope rises to its greatest height and he utters his famous declaration of the resurrection of the body. Notwithstanding this joyous glimpse into the future, the difficult problem of the present life still remained: "Even for this life how can the wisdom and goodness of God be so hard towards His servants?" Of this the complete solution, so far as such was possible and was included in the plan of the book, does not appear until the discourses of Eliu and Yahweh are given. Great efforts have been made by critics to alter the interpretation of ch. xix, and to remove from it the resurrection of the body; the natural meaning of the words, the argument of the book, and the opinion of all early commentators make this attempt of no avail (cf. commentaries, as those of Knabenbauer, Hontheim, etc.; also the article "Eine neue Uebersetzung von Job xix, 25-27" in the "Zeitschrift für kath. Theologie", 1907, 376 sqq.). See the commentaries for the doctrines of the Divine wisdom (xxviii), etc. VIII. INTEGRITY OF THE BOOK Prologue and epilogue (i-ii; xlii, 7 sqq.) are regarded by many as not parts of the original work. The prologue, though, is absolutely essential. Without it the colloquies would be unintelligible, nor would the reader know the end whether to believe the assertion of Job as to his innocence or not. Upon hearing the rebukes of Eliu and Yahweh, he might be exposed to the danger of siding against Job. Without the epilogue the close of the work would be insatisfactory, an evident humiliation of the righteous. For detailed treatment of this and kindred questions see Hontheim, op. cit. (2) Many also regard ch. xxvii, 7-23, as a later addition; in this passage Job maintains that the wicked suffer in this world, while elsewhere he has declared the contrary. The answer is: Job teaches that God is accustomed even in this world to reward the good in some measure and to punish the wicked. In other passages he does not deny this rule, but merely says it has many exceptions. Consequently there is no contradiction. [See above, IV (2).] Besides it may be conceded that Job is not always logical. At the beginning, when his depression is extreme, he lays too much emphasis on the prosperity of the godless; gradually he becomes more composed and corrects earlier extreme statements. Not everything that Job says is the doctrine of the book. [See above, II (2).] (3) Many regard ch. xxviii as doubtful, because it has no connection with what goes before or follows and is in no way related to the subject-matter of the book. The answer to this is that the poet has to show how the suffering of Job does not separate him from God, but, against the intent of Satan, drives him into closer dependence on God. Consequently he represents Job, after his complaints (xxiii-xxv), as glorifying God again at once, as in xxvi-xxvii, in which Job lauds God's power and righteousness. The praise of God is brought to a climax in xxviii, where Job extols God's power and righteousness. After Job has thus surrendered himself to God, he can with full confidence, in xxix-xxxi, lay his sorrowful condition before God for investigation. Consequently xxviii is in its proper place, connects perfectly with what precedes and follows, and harmonizes with the subject-matter of the book. (4) Many regard the description of hippopotamus and crocodile (xl, 10-xli) as later additions, because they lack connection with xxxix, 31-xl, 9, belonging rather to the description of animals in xxxix. In reply it may be said that this objection is not without force. Who ever agrees with the present writer in this opinion need only hold that xxxix, 31-xl, 9, originally followed xli. The difficulty is then settled, and there is no further reason for considering the splendid description of the two animals as a later insertion. (5) There is much disagreement as to the speeches of Eliu (xxxii-xxxvii). With the exception of Budde, nearly all Protestant commentators regard them as a later insertion, while the great majority of Catholic investigators rightly defend them as belonging to the original work. The details of this discussion cannot be entered upon here, and the reader is referred to the commentaries of Budde and Hontheim. The latter sums up his long investigation in these words: "The section containing the speeches of Eliu has been carefully prepared by the poet and is closely and with artistic correctness connected with the previous and following portions. It is united with the rest of the book by countless allusions and relations. It is dominated by the same ideas as the rest of the poem. It makes use also of the same language and the same method of presentation both in general and in detail. All the peculiarities exhibited by the author of the argumentative speeches are reproduced in the addresses of Eliu. The content of this portion is the saving of the honour of Job and is essential as the solution of the subject of discussion. Consequently there is no reason whatever for assuming that it is an interpolation; everything is clearly against this" (Hontheim, op. cit., 20-39. Cf. also Budde, "Beiträge zur Kritik des Buches Hiob", 1876; Knabenbauer, "In Job"). Anyone who desires to consider the speeches of Eliu as a later addition must hold, by the teaching of the Church, that they are inspired. (6) There is in general no reason whatever for considering any important part of the book either large or small as not belonging to the original text. Equally baseless is the supposition that important portions of the original composition are lost. IX. CONDITION OF THE TEXT The most important means for judging the Massoretic Text are the old translations made directly from the Hebrew: the Targum, Peshito, Vulgate, Septuagint, and the other Greek translations used by Origen to supplement the Septuagint. with the exception of the Septuagint, the original of all these translations was essentially identical with the Massoretic Text; only unimportant differences can be proved. On the other hand, the Septuagint in the form it had before Origen, was about four hundred lines, that is one-fifth shorter than the Massoretic Text. Origen supplied what was lacking in the Septuagint from the Greek translations and marked the additions by asterisks. Copyists generally omitted these critical signs, and only a remnant of them, mixed with many errors, has been reserved in a few manuscripts. Consequently knowledge of the old form of the Septuagint is very imperfect. The best means now of restoring it is the Copto-Sahidic translation which followed the Septuagint and does not contain Origen's additions. This translation was published by Ciasca, "Sacrorum Bibliorum fragments Copto-Sahidica" (2 vols., Rome, 1889), and by Amelineau in "Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archeology", IX (1893), 409-75. Hatch and Bickell claim that the shorter text of the Septuagint is in general the earlier one, consequently that the present Massoretic Text is an expansion of a shorter original. Nearly all other investigators hold the opposite, that the Septuagint was produced by cutting down an original which varied but little from the Massoretic Text. This was also Bickell's view in earlier years, and is the real state of the case. To avoid repetition and discursive statements, the translators of the Septuagint omitted much, especially where the reading seemed doubtful, translation difficult, the content anthropomorphic, unworthy of Job, or otherwise objectionable. In doing this the translation frequently disregards the fundamental principle of Hebrew poetry, the parallelism of the lines. In brief the critical value of the Septuagint is not great; in almost all instances the Massoretic Text is to be preferred. Taken altogether, the Massoretic has preserved the original form of the consonantal text fairly well, and needs but a moderate amount of critical emendation. The punctuation (vowel signs and accents), it is true, frequently requires correction, for the punctuators did not always lightly understand the often difficult text; at times also words are not properly divided. X. TECHNICAL SKILL OF THE AUTHOR AND THE METRE Chapters iii-xlii, 6, are poetical in form. This part of the book consists of about 102O lines. The verses, which do not always correspond with the Massoretic verses of our editions, are generally divided into two clauses or lines which are parallel in content. There are also a number of verses, about sixty, of three clauses each, the so-called triplets. It is an unjustifiable violence to the text when a critic by removing one clause changes these triplets into couplets. The verses form the twenty-eight speeches of the book which, as already stated, make four series of seven speeches each. The speeches are divided, not directly into lines, but into strophes. It is most probable that the speeches formed from strophes often, perhaps always follow the law of "choral structure" discovered by Father Zenner. That is, the speeches often or always consist of pairs of strophes, divided by intermediate strophes not in pairs. The two strophes forming a pair are parallel in content and have each the same number of lines. For a further discussion of this subject see Hontheim, op. cit. Investigators are not agreed as to the construction of the line. Some count the syllables, others only the stresses, others again the accented words. It would seem that the last view is the one to be preferred. There are about 2100 lines in the Book of Job, containing generally three, at times two or four, accented words. Besides the commentaries, cf. Gietmann, "Parzival, Faust, Job" (Freiburg im Br., 1887); Baumgartner, "Gesch. d. Weltliteratur", I (Freiburg im Br., 1901), 24 sqq. One peculiarity of the author of Job is his taste for play upon words; for example, ch. xxi contains a continuous double meaning. XI. TIME OF COMPOSITION The author of the book is unknown, neither can the period in which it was written be exactly determined. Many considered the book the work of Job himself or Moses. It is now universally and correctly held that the book is not earlier than the reign of Solomon. On the other hand it is earlier than Ezechiel (Ezech., xiv, 1 -20). For it is the natural supposition that the latter gained his knowledge of Job from the Book of Job, and not from other, vanished, sources. It is claimed that allusions to Job have also been found in Isaias, Amos, Lamentations, some of the Psalms, and especially Jeremias. Many Catholic investigators even at the present time assign the book to the reign of Solomon; the masterly poetic form points to this brilliant period of Hebrew poetry. The proofs, however, are not very convincing. Others, especially Protestant investigators, assign the work to the period after Solomon. They support this position largely upon religious historical considerations which do not appear to have much force. Full bibliographies are to be found in CORNELY, Introductio in U. T. libros sacros, II (2nd ed., 1897), ii, 71 sqq., and in the commentaries of DILLMANN and BUDDE, cf. also the various Introductions to the Scripture, as GIGOT (1906); TROCHON (1886); KAULEN (4th ed., 1899); CORNELY (2nd ed., Paris, 1897); further the articles on Job in the theological and Biblical encyclopedias. Of the large number of commentaries on Job the following may be mentioned. Catholic: WELTE (1849); KNABENBAUER (Paris, 1886), HONTHEIM (1904). Non-Catholic: DELITZSCH (2nd ed., 1876); DILLMANN (4th ed., 1891); DAVIDSON in Cambridge Bible (1895); BUDDE (1896); DUHM (1897); WIGHT AND HIRSCH, A Commentary on the Book of Job from a Hebrew Manuscript in the University Library, Cambridge (1905). Among special works mention may be made of: BICKELL, De indole ac ratione versionis Alexandrinae in interpretando libro Jobi (1862); IDEM, Carmina Vet. Test. metrice (18S2); GIETMANN, De re Metrica Hebraeorum (1880); VETTER, Die Metrik des Buches Job (1897); BEER, Text des Buches Hiob untersucht (1897); ROGER, Eschatologie des Buches Job (1901); POSSELT, Der Verfasser der Eliureden (1909). JOSEPH HONTHEIM Jocelin Jocelin Cistercian monk and Bishop of Glasgow; d. at Melrose Abbey in 1199. On 22 April, 1170, being then prior of Melrose, he was chosen abbot, on the resignation of Abbot William, and four years later (23 May, 1174) was elected Bishop of Glasgow at Perth, in succession to Ingelram. He was consecrated at Clairvaux on 1 June, 1175, by Eskilus, Archbishop of Lund papal legate to Denmark. In the following January he attended a council at Northampton, and Hoveden reports a speech made by him in opposition to the claims of York to jurisdiction over the Scottish Church. In 1182 Jocelin visited Rome, obtained from Lucius III the absolution of King William the Lion from ecclesiastical censures, and brought back to him the Golden Rose in token of the papal forgiveness. We find Jocelin engaged for several succeeding years in negotiations between Scotland and Rome as to the succession to the See of St. Andrews. He undertook also the restoration and enlargement of Glasgow cathedral, of which he built the beautiful crypt, and himself performed the dedication ceremony on 6 July, 1197. The member of prebends and canons of the cathedral was considerably augmented by him, and he bestowed large benefactions on Paisley, Kelso, and other monasteries. Bishop Jocelin died at Melrose in 1199, and has buried in the choir of the abbey church. The Melrose Chronicle describes him as a man of mild, courteous, and moderate character. Registrum Episcop. Glasguens. (Bann. Club. Edinburgh, 1843); Chronica de Maitros (ibid. 1835), 81, 86, 87, etc.: GORDON, Scotichonicon, II (London, 1875), 473-5 (with an engraving of Jocelin's seal), Chron. Rogeri de Hovedene, II (ed. STU8BS, London, 1869), 91-2. D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR Jocelin de Brakelond Jocelin de Brakelond An English chronicler, of the late twelfth century. He was the monk of Bury St. Edmund's whose history of the abbey under the feeble Abbot Hugh and the energetic Abbot Sampson furnished Carlyle with the material for the powerful and sympathetic second book of "Past and Present". When Jocelin entered the abbey in 1173 Sampson was his novice-master and when nine years later Sampson became abbot he chose Jocelin as his chaplain and constant companion. He filled this office from 1182 to 1188. Ten years later he was guest-master and in 1212 he was almoner. There is no record of his death. He is Iast mentioned on 24 April 1215 when Abbot Hugh II consulted him as to the abbey manors. His chronicle covers the history of the abbey from 1173 to 1202 and includes the story of Henry of Essex. It was first edited for the Camden Society by J. G. Rokewood in 1843, this edition was used by Carlyle. It has been re-edited by Thomas Arnold in the "Memorials of St. Edmund's Abbey", Rolls Series, 1890. His book on St. Robert, the boy alleged to have been murdered by Jews, is not extant. Jocelin's work is marked by shrewd observation and kindly humour. Carlyle wrote of him: "The man is of patient, peaceable, loving, clear-smiling nature; open for this and that. A wise simplicity is in him; much natural sense; a veracity that goes deeper than words." He is described by a brother monk as a man "eximiae religionis, potens sermone et opere." Memorials of St. Edmund's Abbey: Introduction by ARNOLD, I, lix in Rolls Series (London, 1890); Cronica Joscelini, ed. ROKEWOOD (Camden Soc., London, 1840); The Chronicle of Jocelin of Brakelond, ed. CLARKE (London, 1903). EDWIN BURTON Jocelin of Wells Jocelin of Wells (Or JOSCELINE) Bishop of Bath and Wells (JOCELINUS THOTEMAN), d. 19 Nov., 1242. He was probably a native of Wells in Somerset, though no details of his parentage have survived. In 1203 he was acting as one of the king's justiciars at Westminster, and in the same year he was one of the custodes of the vacant See of Lincoln. He was already a canon of Wells and in 1203-4 he received two benefices, Lugwardine and Urchenefeld in Herefordshire. When Savaric attempted to gain possession of Glastonbury Abbey, the monks appealed to the pope: whereupon Savaric sent Jocelin with the precentor of Wells to force them to withdraw their appeal. In the year 1205 Savaric died and on 3 February, 1205-6 Jocelin was elected bishop in his stead by the canons of Bath with the concurrence of the chapter of Wells. He was consecrated at Reading on 28 May, 1206. Two years later he left England in consequence of the interdict. The king outlawed him and seized his estates, but these were restored in 1213, when John submitted to the pope. In 1215 he aided Stephen Langton to obtain Magna Charta and his name occurs in the charter as one of the king's counsellors. On the death of John, Jocelin and the Bishop of Winchester anointed and crowned the boy-king, Henry III, and he actively supported Hubert de Burgh in expelling the French forces which remained in England, and in regaining for the king the royal castles which had been seized by Falkes de Breaute and other unruly barons. In 1218 he acted as one of the itinerant justiciars for the south-west of England and at the same time he brought to a close the long dispute between his diocese and the Abbey of Glastonbury. He received some manors in return for the surrender of his claims and was thenceforth known as the Bishop of Bath and Wells. The proceeds of these manors he devoted to the work of rebuilding Wells cathedral, an old English building with a Norman choir. Jocelin built the existing nave and choir. The west front and the flower part of the three towers were also his work. His cathedral was consecrated on 23 Oct., 1239. He also built the cloisters, began the bishop's palace, and erected a manor house at Wookey. He drew up constitutions for the church, insisted on the residence of the prebends, increased their common fund, and endowed the cathedral school with houses and land. He founded with his brother, Bishop Hugh of Lincoln, St. John's Hospital at Wells. At his own desire he was buried in the choir of the cathdral. A calendar of his episcopal charters and deeds is given in the report of the Historical MSS. Commission on the MSS. of Wells cathedral. MATTHEW PARIS, Chronica Majora in R. S. (London, 1874-1877); Annales Monastici R. S. (London, 1864), I; WHARTON, Anglia Sacra (London, 1691); VINCENT in The Genealogist (London, 1885); HUNT, The Somerset Diocese: Bath and Wells, (London, 1885); CHURCH in Archaelogia (London, 1888), Bk. I, 281-346; KINGSFORD in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v. EDWIN BURTON Joel Joel The son of Phatuel, and second in the list of the twelve Minor Prophets. Nothing is known of his life. The scene of his labours was the Southern Israelite Kingdom of Juda, and probably its capital Jerusalem, for he repeatedly refers to temple and altar. The frequent apostrophes to the priests (1:9, 13-14; 2:17) also lead to the inference that Joel himself was of priestly descent. CONTENTS OF JOEL The seventy-three verses of this small book, in the Massoretic text of the Old Testament, are divided into four, and in the Septuagint and Vulgate into three, chapters, the second and third chapters of the Massoretic text forming one chapter, the second in the Septuagint and Vulgate. The contents of the Prophecy of Joel may be regarded, taken altogether, as a typical presentation in miniature of the chief themes of prophetic discourse: sombre warnings of the judgment of Jahweh, intended to rouse the people from the existing moral lethargy, and joyful, glowingly expressed tidings of Jahweh's work of salvation, designed to keep alive the faith in the coming of the Kingdom of God. These two fundamental thoughts seem to be united, as the misfortunes of the judgment are a process of purification to prepare the people for the reception of salvation, and are in reality only one aspect of the Divine work of redemption. In the first main division of the Book of Joel (1:2-2:17) the prophecies are threatenings of the day of judgment; the prophecies in the second division, which embraces the rest of the book (2:18-3:21), are consolatory descriptions of the day of grace. The first section is further divided into two discourses on the judgment: Chapter 1:2-20, describes a terrible scourge, a plague of locusts, with which the Prophet's land had been visited; these pests had so completely devoured the fields that not even the material for the meat- and drink-offerings existed. For this reason the priests are to utter lamentations and to ordain a fast. Chapter 2:1-17, repeats the same thought more emphatically: all these plagues are only the forerunners of still greater scourges in the day of the Lord, when the land of the Prophet shall become a wilderness. The people must, therefore, return to Jahweh, and the priests must entreat the Lord in the holy place. the prophecies in the second section are also divided into two discourses: in 2:18-32, the Lord is appeased by the repentance of the nation and gives the blessing of bounteous harvests. Just as in the earlier part the failure of the harvests was a type and foreshadowing of the calamity in the day of judgment, so now the plenty serves as an illustration of the fullness of grace in the kingdom of grace. The Lord will pour out His Spirit upon all flesh, and all who call upon His name shall be saved. In chapter 3:1-21, the redemption of Israel is, on the other hand, a judgment upon the heathen nations: the Lord will take vengeance, in the four quarters of the earth, upon those who tyrannized over His people, upon the Philistines, Phoenicians, Edomites, and Egyptians, for the nations are ripe for the harvest in the valley of Josaphat. LITERARY AND THEOLOGICAL CHARACTER OF JOEL Examined as to logical connexion, the four discourses of Joel show a closely united, compact scheme of thought. In regard to form they are a Biblical model of rhetorical symmetry. The law of rhetorical rhythm, which as the law of harmony regulates the form of the speeches, also shows itself, particularly, in the regular alternation of descriptions in direct or indirect speech, as in the sections given in the first or third person, and in the apostrophes in the second person singular and plural. The first two speeches are alike in construction: 2:1-11 resembles 1:2-12, and 2:12-17, is like 1:13-20. Also in the latter two speeches there is a verbal similarity along with the agreement in thought; cf. in 3:17 and 2:27, the like expression. The language of Joel is full of colour, rhetorically animated, and rhythmic. The passages from 1:13 sq., and 2:17, are still used in the Liturgy of the Church during Lent. His prophecy of the pouring out of the spirit upon all flesh (2:28-32) was afterwards adopted as the first Biblical text of the first Apostolic sermon (Acts 2:16-21). Joel's discourses of the day of judgment, and of the abundance of grace which Jahweh in the fullness of time shall bestow from Sion form one of the most beautiful pages in the eschatology of the Prophets. Some of his fiery pictures seem even to have been borrowed by the writer of the Apocalypse of the New Testament (cf. Joel 3:13, and Apocalypse 14:15). The swarm of locusts, which has so frequently received a symbolical interpretation, is no apocalyptic picture; neither is it a description of the progress of a hostile army under the figure of the imaginary advance of locusts. The passages in 2:4-7, "They shall run like horsemen . . . like men of war they shall scale the wall", make it absolutely certain that a hypothetical swarm of locusts was not taken as a symbol of a hostile army, but that, on the contrary, a hostile army is used to typify an actual swarm of locusts. Consequently, Joel refers to a contemporary scourge, and in the rhetorical style of prophecy passes from this to the evils of the day of judgment. DATE OF THE PROPHECY OF JOEL The most difficult problem in the investigation of Joel is the date, and the many hypotheses have not led to any convincing result. The first verse of the book does not convey, as other prophetic books do, a definite date, nor do the discourses contain any references to the events of the period, which might form a basis for the chronology of the Prophet. General history took no notice of plagues of locusts which were of frequent occurrence, and it is an arbitrary supposition to interpret the swarm of locusts as the Scythian horde, which, according to Herodotus (I, 103 sqq.; IV, i), devastated the countries of Western Asia from Mesopotamia to Egypt between the years 630-620 b.c. The Book of Joel has been variously ascribed to nearly all the centuries of the prophetic era. Rothstein even goes so far as to assign the discourses to various dates, an attempt which must fail on account of the close connexion between the four addresses. The early commentators, in agreement with Jerome, placed the era of composition in the eighth century b.c.; they took Joel, therefore, as a contemporary of Osee and Amos. In justification of this date they pointed out that Joel is placed among the twelve Minor Prophets between Osee and Amos; further, that among the enemies of Juda the book does not mention the Assyrians, who were anathematized by each Prophet from the time they appeared as a power in Asia. However, in a book of three chapters not much weight can be attached to an argument from silence. Those also who agree in placing the book before the Exile do not agree in identifying the king in whose reign Joel lived. The assignment to the period of King Josias is supported by the fact that Joel takes for his theme the day of the Lord, as does the contemporary Prophet Sophonias; to this may be added that the anathema upon the Egyptians may be influenced by the battle of Mageddo (608 b.c.). Later commentators assign the book to the period after the Exile, both because chapter iii assumes the dispersal of the Jews among other nations, and because the eschatology of Joel presupposes the later period of Jewish theology. It is, however, impossible for Joel to have been a contemporary of the Prophet Malachias, because of the manner in which the former looks upon the priests of his period as perfect leaders and mediators for the nation. None of the chronological hypotheses concerning Joel can claim to possess convincing proof. See the introductions to the Scriptures of CORNELY, VIGOUROUX, GIGOT, DRIVER, CORNILL, and STRACK. For special questions: PEARSON, The Prophecy of Joel (Leipzig, 1885); SEBÖK, Die syrische Uebersetzung der XII kleinen Propheten (Leipzig, 1887); KESSNER, Das Zeitalter des Propheten Joel (Leipzig, 1888); SIEVERS, Alttest. Miscellen (Leipzig, 1907). Commentaries on Joel.--Catholic: SCHOLZ (Würzburg, 1885); KNABENBAUER (Paris, 1886); VAN HOONACKER (Paris, 1908); Protestant: SMITH (London, 1897); DRIVER (Cambridge, 1898); ADAMS (London, 1902); NOWACK (2nd ed., Göttingen, 1903); MARTI (Tübingen, 1904); EISELEN (New York, 1907); ORELLI (3rd ed., Munich, 1908). Further bibliography in commentaries. MICHAEL FAULHABER Jan Joest Jan Joest ( Van Kalkar). Otherwise JAN JOOST VAN CALCKER. Dutch painter, b. at Calcker, or Calcar, about 1460; d. at Haarlem in 1519. This painter was practically unknown until 1874, when Canon Wolff and Dr. Eisenmann established his identity. Joest's great work, executed between 1505 and 1508, and representing scenes from the life of Christ, painted on the wings of the high altar in the church of St. Nicholas at Calcker, had been familiar to critics, but not so the painter. Canon Wolff found many references to him in the archives of his native place, and was able to prove the date of the painting of the masterpiece, and the fact that in 1518, Joest was working at Cologne for the important family of Hackeneg. After Leaving Cologne he appears to have gone to Italy, and to have visited Genoa and Naples, returning thence to Holland, and settled down at Haarlem, where he executed a painting of St. Willibrod for the church of St. Bavon. In the last edition of Van der Willingen's work on the painters of Haarlem is the reference to the burial of the artist, there called Jan Joosten, under the date 1519. There are paintings attributed to Joest at Wesel and Rees, and the "Death of the Virgin" in Munich is believed to be his. He was an artist of very high merit, and has been compared with David and Memlinc, but he more properly belongs to the school of Scorel, and one of the special features of his work is the exquisite transparency of his colouring and the subtle and very delicate modelling of the faces. The chief account of him is that by Wolff, De Nikolas Kirche zu Kalkar, but reference should also be made to WALTMAN'S Geischichte der Malerei and the Zeitschrift fur Bildende Kunst (1876). GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON St. Isaac Jogues St. Isaac Jogues French missionary, born at Orléans, France, 10 January, 1607; martyred at Ossernenon, in the present State of New York, 18 October, 1646. He was the first Catholic priest who ever came to Manhattan Island (New York). He entered the Society of Jesus in 1624 and, after having been professor of literature at Rouen, was sent as a missionary to Canada in 1636. He came out with Montmagny, the immediate successor of Champlain. From Quebec he went to the regions around the great lakes where the illustrious Father de Brébeuf and others were labouring. There he spent six years in constant danger. Though a daring missionary, his character was of the most practical nature, his purpose always being to fix his people in permanent habitations. He was with Garnier among the Petuns, and he and Raymbault penetrated as far as Sault Ste Marie, and "were the first missionaries", says Bancroft (VII, 790, London, 1853), "to preach the gospel a thousand miles in the interior, five years before John Eliot addressed the Indians six miles from Boston Harbour". There is little doubt that they were not only the first apostles but also the first white men to reach this outlet of Lake Superior. No documentary proof is adduced by the best-known historians that Nicholet, the discoverer of Lake Michigan, ever visited the Sault. Jogues proposed not only to convert the Indians of Lake Superior, but the Sioux who lived at the head waters of the Mississippi. His plan was thwarted by his capture near Three Rivers returning from Quebec. He was taken prisoner on 3 August, 1642, and after being cruelly tortured was carried to the Indian village of Ossernenon, now Auriesville, on the Mohawk, about forty miles above the present city of Albany. There he remained for thirteen months in slavery, suffering apparently beyond the power of natural endurance. The Dutch Calvinists at Fort Orange (Albany) made constant efforts to free him, and at last, when he was about to be burnt to death, induced him to take refuge in a sailing vessel which carried him to New Amsterdam (New York). His description of the colony as it was at that time has since been incorporated in the Documentary History of the State. From New York he was sent; in mid-winter, across the ocean on a lugger of only fifty tons burden and after a voyage of two months, landed Christmas morning, 1643, on the coast of Brittany, in a state of absolute destitution. Thence he found his way to the nearest college of the Society. He was received with great honour at the court of the Queen Regent, the mother of Louis XIV, and was allowed by Pope Urban VII the very exceptional privilege of celebrating Mass, which the mutilated condition of his hands had made canonically impossible; several of his fingers having been eaten or burned off. He was called a martyr of Christ by the pontiff. No similar concession, up to that, is known to have been granted. In early spring of 1644 he returned to Canada, and in 1646 was sent to negotiate peace with the Iroquois. He followed the same route over which he had been carried as a captive. It was on this occasion that he gave the name of Lake of the Blessed Sacrament to the body of water called by the Indians Horicon, now known as Lake George. He reached Ossernenon on 5 June, after a three weeks' journey from the St. Lawrence. He was well received by his former captors and the treaty of peace was made. He started for Quebec on 16 June and arrived there 3 July. He immediately asked to be sent back to the Iroquois as a missionary, but only after much hessitation his superiors acceded to his request. On 27 September he began his third and last journey to the Mohawk. In the interim sickness had broken out in the tribe and a blight had fallen on the crops. This double calamity was ascribed to Jogues whom the Indians always regarded as a sorcerer. They were determined to wreak vengence on him for the spell he had cast on the place, and warriors were sent out to capture him. The news of this change of sentiment spread rapidly, and though fully aware of the danger Jogues continued on his way to Ossernenon, though all the Hurons and others who were with him fled except Lalande. The Iroquois met him near Lake George, stripped him naked, slashed him with their knives, beat him and then led him to the village. On 18 October, 1646, when entering a cabin he was struck with a tomahawk and afterwards decapitated. The head was fixed on the Palisades and the body thrown into the Mohawk. In view of his possible canonization a preliminary court was established in Quebec by the ecclesiastical authorities to receive testimony as to his sanctity and the cause of his death. [ Note: Isaac Jogues was canonized by Pope Pius XI on June 29, 1930, with seven other North American martyrs. Their collective feast day is October 19.] Parkman, The Jesuits in North America (1867); Bancroft, History of the United States,III; J.G. Shea, Life of Father Jogues (New York, 1885); Jesuit Relations, 1640-1647; Abbe Forest, Life of Isaac Jogues, MSS. (St, Mary's College, Montreal); Memorial of the death of Isaac Jogues and others, MSS. (University of Laval, Quebec); Dean Harris, History of the Early Missions in Western Canada (Toronto, 1893); Ecclesiastical Records of the State of New York, I (published by the State, 1891); Charlevoix, History of New France, II; Richemonteix, The Jesuits and New France, I, II. T.J. CAMPBELL Pope St. John I Pope St. John I Died at Ravenna on 18 or 19 May (according to the most popular calculation), 526. A Tuscan by birth and the son of Constantius, he was, after an interregnum of seven days, elected on 13 August, 523, and occupied the Apostolic see for two years, nine months, and seven days. We know nothing of the matter of his administration, for his Bullarium contains only the two letters addressed to an Archbishop Zacharias and to the bishops of Italy respectively, and it is very certain that both are apocryphal. We possess information -- though unfortunately very vague -- only about his journey to Constantinople, a journey which appears to have had results of great importance, and which was the cause of his death. The Emperor Justin, in his zeal for orthodoxy, had issued in 523 a severe decree against the Arians, compelling them, among other things, to surrender to the Catholics the churches which they occupied. Theodoric, King of the Ostrogoths and of Italy, the ardent defender of Arianism, keenly resented these measures directed against his coreligionists in the Orient, and was moreover highly displeased at seeing the progress of a mutual understanding between the Latin and Greek Churches, such as might favour certain secret dealings between the Roman senators and the Byzantine Court, aiming at the re-establishment of the imperial authority in Italy. To bring pressure to bear upon the emperor, and force him to moderate his policy of repression in regard to the heretics, Theodoric sent to him early in 525 an embassy composed of Roman senators, of which he obliged the pope to assume the direction, and imposed on the latter the task of securing a withdrawal of the Edict of 523 and -- if we are to believe "Anonymous Valesianus" -- of even urging the emperor to facilitate the return to Arianism of the Arians who had been converted. There has been much discussion as to the part played by John I in this affair. The sources which enable us to study the subject are far from explicit and may be reduced to four in number: "Anonymous Valesianus", already cited; the "Liber Pontificalis"; Gregory of Tours's "Liber in gloria martyrum"; and the "Liber Pontificalis Ecclesiæ Ravennatis". But it is beyond question that the pope could only counsel Justin to use gentleness and discretion towards the Arians; his position as head of the Church prevented his inviting the emperor to favour heresy. That this analysis of the situation is correct is evident from the reception which the pope was accorded in the East -- a reception which certainly would not have been kindly, had the Roman ambassadors opposed the emperor and this Catholic subjects in their struggle waged against the Arian sect. The inhabitants of Constantinople went out in throngs to meet John. The Emperor Justin on meeting him prostrated himself, and, some time afterwards, he had himself crowned by the pope. All the patriarchs of the East made haste to manifest their communion in the Faith with the supreme pontiff; only Timothy of Alexandria, who had shown himself hostile to the Council of Chalcedon, held aloof. Finally, the pope, exercising his right of precedence over Epiphanius, Patriarch of Constantinople, solemnly officiated at St. Sophia in the Latin Rite on Easter Day, 19 April, 526. Immediately afterwards he made his way back to the West. If this brilliant reception of John I by the emperor, the clergy, and the faithful of the Orient proves that he had not been wanting in his task as supreme pastor of the Church, the strongly contrasting behaviour of Theodoric towards him on his return is no less evident proof. This monarch, enraged at seeing the national party reviving in Italy, had just stained his hands with the murder of Boethius, the great philosopher, and of Symmachus his father-in-law. He was exasperated against the pope, whose embassy had obtained a success very different from that which he, Theodoric, desired and whom, moreover, he suspected of favouring the defenders of the ancient liberty of Rome. As soon as John, returning from the East, had landed in Italy, Theodoric caused him to be arrested and incarcerated at Ravenna. Worn out by the fatigues of the journey, and subjected to severe privations, John soon died in prison. His body was transported to Rome and buried in the Basilica of St. Peter. In his epitaph there is no allusion to his historical role. The Latin Church has placed him among its martyrs, and commemorates him on 27 May, the ninth lesson in the Roman Breviary for that date being consecrated to him. LÉON CLUNGNET Pope John II Pope John II (533-535). The date of the birth of this pope is not known. He was a Roman and the son of Projectus; if not born in the second region (Coelimontium) he had at least been a priest of St. Clement's Basilica on the slope of Mons Coelius. He seems to have been the first who changed his name on being raised to the papacy (2 Jan., 533). The basilica of St. Clement still retains several memorials of "Johannes surnamed Mercurius". Presbyter Mercurius is found on a fragment of an ancient ciborium, and several of the marble slabs which enclose the schola cantorum bear upon them, in the style of the sixth century, the monogram of Johannes. At this period simony in the election of popes and bishops was rife among clergy and laity. After the death of the predecessor of John II there was a vacancy of over two months, and during that period shameless trafficking in sacred things was indulged in. Even sacred vessels were exposed for sale. The matter was brought before the Senate, and before the Arian Ostrogothic Court at Ravenna. As a result the last decree (Senatus Consultum) which the Senate of Rome is known to have issued, and which, passed under Boniface II, was directed against simony in papal elections, was confirmed by the Gothic King Athalaric. He ordered it to be engraved on marble, and to be placed in the atrium of St. Peter's (533). By one of Athalaric's own additions to the decree, it was decided, that if a disputed election was carried before the Gothic officials of Ravenna by the Roman clergy and people, three thousand solidi would have to be paid into court. This sum was to be given to the poor. John himself, however, always remained on good terms with Athalaric, who referred to his tribunal all actions brought against the Roman clergy. Justinian also showed his good will to the See of Rome in John's person. He sent him his profession of faith and many valuable presents. Some time before John became pope, the East was agitated by the formula, "One of the Trinity has been crucified", which had been put forward as a means of reconciling various heretical sects. Condemned by Pope Hormisdas, the formula fell out of use. Afterwards revived, it was in a modified form defended by Justinian, and opposed by the Acoemetæ, or sleepless monks. But they were condemned by the pope who informed the emperor of his action (24 March, 534). The crimes of Contumeliosus, Bishop of Riez, in Provence, caused John to order the bishops of Gaul to confine him in a monastery. Till a new bishop should be appointed he bade the clergy of Riez obey the Bishop of Arles. Two hundred and seventeen bishops assembled in council at Carthage (535) submitted to John II the question as to whether bishops who had lapsed into Arianism should, on repentance keep their rank or be admitted to lay communion. The answer to their question was given by Agapetus, as John II died 8 May, 535. He was buried in St. Peter's. HORACE K. MANN Pope John III Pope John III (561-574). A Roman surnamed Catelinus, d. 13 July, 574. He was of a distinguished family, being the son of one Anastasius who bore the title of illustris. The year of his birth is not recorded, but he was consecrated pope seemingly on 17 July, 561. Owing to the necessity of waiting for imperial confirmation of his election, an interval of five months elapsed between the death of Pelagius I and the consecration just noted. Although John reigned nearly thirteen years very little is known of his pontificate. It fell during the stormy times of the Lombard invasion, and practically all the records of his reign have perished. He would seem, however, to have been a magnanimous pontiff, zealous for the welfare of the people. An inscription still to be seen in the fifteenth century testified that "in the midst of straits he knew how to be bountiful, and feared not to be crushed amidst a crumbling world". Two most unworthy bishops, Salonius of Embrun and Sagittarius of Gap, had been condemned in a synod at Lyons (c. 567). They succeeded, however, in persuading Guntram, King of Burgundy, that they had been condemned unjustly, and appealed to the pope. Influenced by the king's letters, John decided that they must be restored to their sees. It is to be regretted that the papal mandate was put into effect. The most important of the acts of this pope were those connected with the great general, Narses. Unfortunately the "Liber Pontificalis" is enigmatic regarding them. By feminine intrigue at the court of Constantinople, a charge of treason was trumped up against the general, and, in consequence, the only man capable of resisting the barbarians was recalled. It is quite possible that Narses may then have invited the Lombards to fall upon Italy; but it is perhaps more probable that, hearing of his recall, they invaded the country. Knowing that Narses was the hope of Italy, John followed him to Naples, and implored him not to go to Constantinople. The general hearkened to the voice of the pope, and returned with him to Rome (571). But seemingly the court party in the city was too strong for Narses and the pope. John retired to the catacomb of Prætextatus, where he remained for many months. He even held ordinations there. On the death of Narses (c. 572), John returned to the Lateran Palace. His sojourn in the catacombs gave him a great interest in them. He put them in repair, and ordered that the necessaries for Mass should be sent to them from the Lateran. John died 13 July, 574, and was buried in St. Peter's. HORACE K. MANN Pope John IV Pope John IV (640-642). A native of Dalmatia, and the son of the scholasticus (advocate) Venantius. The date of his birth is uncertain; d. 12 October, 642. At the time of his election he was archdeacon of the Roman Church. As John's consecration followed very soon after his election, it is supposed that the papal elections were now confirmed by the exarchs resident at Ravenna. Troubles in his native land, caused by invasions of Slavs, directed John's attention there. To alleviate the distress of the inhabitants, John sent the abbot Martin into Dalmatia and Istria with large sums of money for the redemption of captives. As the ruined churches could not be rebuilt, the relics of some of the more important Dalmatian saints were brought to Rome. John erected an oratory in their honour which still stands. It was adorned by the pope with mosaics depicting John himself holding in his hands a model of his oratory. John apparently did not content himself with palliating the evils wrought by the Slavs. He endeavoured to convert these barbarians. Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus says that Porga, a prince of the Croats who had been invited into Dalmatia by Heraclius I, sent to an Emperor Heraclius for Christian teachers. It is supposed that the emperor to whom this message was sent was Heraclius I himself, and that the pope to whom he sent was John IV. While still only pope-elect, John, with the other rulers of the Roman Church, wrote to the clergy of the North of Ireland to tell them of the mistakes they were making with regard to the time of keeping Easter, and exhorting them to be on their guard against the Pelagian heresy. About the same time he condemned Monothelism. Emperor Heraclius immediately disowned the Monothelite document known as the "Ecthesis". To his son, Constantine III, John addressed his apology for Pope Honorius, in which he deprecated the attempt to connect the name of Honorius with Monothelism. Honorius, he declared, in speaking of one will in Jesus Christ, only meant to assert that there were not two contrary wills in Him. John was buried in St. Peter's. HORACE K. MANN Pope John V Pope John V (685-686). A Syrian whose father was one Cyriacus; when he was born is not known; d. 2 August, 686. As a deacon he was one of those who represented the Apostolic See at the Sixth Oecumenical Council. He returned to Rome in July, 682, with the official documents of the synod. He obtained such favour in the eyes of the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus that the latter lessened the taxes which had been imposed on the papal patrimonies in Sicily and Calabria, and generally reduced the fiscal burdens from which the Church suffered. John's energy, learning, and moderation are highly praised by his biographer. It was no doubt the possession of these virtues which caused him to be elected pope in the basilica of St. John Lateran. The necessity of waiting for the imperial confirmation of papal elections having been abolished by Constantine Pognatus, John was straightway conducted to the Lateran palace as pope. He was consecrated about 23 July, 685, and reigned for a little more than a year. From the days of St. Gregory the Great, the Archbishop of Cagliari in Sardinia enjoyed certain metropolitan powers. Although the right of consecrating the bishops of the island was not one of his privileges, Citonatus of Cagliari proceeded to lay hands on the bishop-elect of Turris Libisonis. John, however, definitively declared the See of Turris directly subject to the Holy See. John's generosity showed itself in his liberal donations. In his short pontificate he distributed 1900 solidi to the clergy and to the deaconries for the poor. After a long illness, he died on 2 August, 686, and was buried in St. Peter's. HORACE K. MANN Pope John VI Pope John VI (701-705). A Greek, the date of whose birth is unknown; d. 11 January, 705. He ascended the papal throne 30 October, 701. Some time during his reign there came to Rome from Sicily Theophylactus, "chamberlain, patricius, and exarch of Italy". After the treatment which some of his predecessors in the exarchate had meted out to the popes, the Italian people suspected that his visit boded no good to John VI. Accordingly, from all parts the local militias hurriedly marched to Rome, and, encamping without the walls, made manifest their dislike of the exarch. To avoid bloodshed, John sent a number of priests to them, and succeeded in pacifying them; as far at least as the exarch himself was concerned. Before the militias would disband, however, they insisted that certain informers, whose denunciations had put the wealth of some of the citizens into the hands of the grasping officials, should be handed over to them for punishment. Taking advantage of this want of harmony between the exarch and the native Italians attached to the pope, the Lombards renewed their attacks on such parts of Italy as had hitherto resisted them. Several towns belonging to the Duchy of Rome were seized, Gisulf advanced as far as "Horrea" Puteoli -- or perhaps the "fundus Horrea" at the fifth milestone on the Via Latina. As "there was no one who had power to resist him by force of arms", the pope, distressed at the sufferings of the people, sent a number of priests furnished with money into the camp of the Lombard duke. Not only did they ransom all the captives whom Gisulf had taken, but they persuaded him to retire to his own territories. John VI was one of the popes before whom St. Wilfrid of York carried his appeals. Pointing out that the action of the Apostolic See was wont to be consistent, the saint adjured him to confirm in his behalf the decisions of his predecessors (704). This John did, and sent him back to England with letters for King Ethelred and others. It was not, however, till the following year that the papal mandates were obeyed. John sent the pallium to Brithwald, whom "he confirmed as Archbishop of Canterbury". He was buried in St. Peter's. Liber Pontificalis, I, 383 sq.; Eddius, Vita S. Wilfridi, xlvi sqq.; Bede, Hist. eccl., V, 19; Montalembert, Monks of the West, IV (Edinburgh and London, 1879), 323 sqq.; Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, VI (Oxford, 1895), 336, 363 sq.; Mann, Lives of the Popes, vol. I, pt. II, p.105 sqq. HORACE K. MANN Pope John VII Pope John VII (705-707). The year of his birth is unknown; d. 18 October, 707. Few particulars of his life remain. Like many other popes during the period of Byzantine influence in Rome, John was a Greek. Sprung from a distinguished family, he was the son of Blatta and Plato. The latter carried out various restorations in the imperial palace on the Palatine hill in Rome, and, for the sake, perhaps, of living where once his parents had lived, John after he had become pope (March 1, 705) constructed a palace (episcopium) near the church of Sancta Maria Antiqua. Before his elevation, John was the rector of the papal patrimony on the Appian way. It was in that capacity that he erected a memorial "with a broken heart to a most loving and incomparable mother, and to the kindest of fathers" (687). One of the churches which John beautified or restored during his pontificate was the afore-mentioned church of Sancta Maria Antiqua. "He adorned with frescoes the basilica of the Holy Mother of God which is known as the Old", and gave it a new ambo. When the remains of this church were brought to light in 1900, among the many figures found upon its walls, one with a square nimbus is supposed to represent John himself. There was also then discovered the base of his ambo. It bore upon it inscriptions which proclaimed him to be "the servant of Mary". John also erected a chapel to Our Lady in St. Peter's. When this oratory was destroyed, some of his mosaics were preserved, and may be seen in the Roman Church of Sancta Maria in Cosmedin and in other places. Though John was a man of learning and eloquence, and though he was remarkable for his filial affection and piety, he was of a timorous disposition. Hence, when the fierce Emperor Justinian II sent him the decrees of the Quinisext Council, "in which were many articles against the See of Rome", with a request that he would set forth what he approved in them, John simply returned them, as though there were nothing to condemn in them. He received back from the Lombard King Aripert II the papal patrimonies in the Cottian Alps, which the Lombards had confiscated. John is credited with having prevailed upon the Anglo-Saxon clergy resident in Rome to renounce their secular style of dress, and with having written to those in England bidding them follow this example. John died in the palace he had built near the Palatine, and was buried in the oratory he had erected in St. Peter's. Liber Pontificalis, I, 385 sqq.; Nicephorus and Theophanes, Chron., 696-8; Bede, De sex ætat., ad an. 708; Paul the Deacon, Hist. Lang., VI, 23 (28); Rushworth in Papers of the British School at Rome, I (London, 1902); Federici in Archivio Rom. di stor. pat., XXIII (Borne, 1900), 517 sqq.; Marucchi, Le Forum Romain (Paris, 1902), 230 sqq.; Mann, Lives of the Popes in the early Middle Ages, vol. I, pt. 1 (London and St. Louis, 1902), 109 sqq. HORACE K Pope John VIII Pope John VIII (Reigned 872-82) A Roman and the son of Gundus. He seems to have been born in the first quarter of the ninth century; d. 16 Dec., 882. In 853 and 869 he appears as archdeacon of the Roman Church, and it was as such that he became pope (14 Dec., 872). His election was opposed by Formosus, who remained in opposition to him throughout the whole of his pontificate. All modern historians are agreed that John was one of the greatest of the great popes who sat on the chair of Peter during the ninth century. Some, however, on what would seem to be insufficient grounds, regard him as cruel, passionate, worldly-minded, and inconstant. The more important acts of John's reign may be divided into four groups, according as they relate to the affairs of Eastern Europe, to the empire of the West, to Southern Italy and the Saracens, or to those persons with whom he came into more frequent contact. A year or two before John became pope, St. Methodius, the brother of St. Cyril, who had died in Rome (869), had been sent back to Moravia as an archbishop to continue his work for the conversion of the Slavs. He had received permission to use the Slavonic language in the liturgy of the Church. This action of Pope Hadrian II did not please either the German princes or bishops. The former had designs on the political, the latter on the ecclesiastical, independence of the Moravians. Methodius was seized and imprisoned (871), and it was not till 873 that any hint of his treatment and his appeal to Rome reached John. Though for the moment, in deference to German opposition, the pope prohibited the use of the Slavonic tongue in the liturgy, he insisted on the immediate restoration of Methodius. After his orders were obeyed, John bade the archbishop come to Rome, as fresh accusations had been brought against him. A careful examination convinced John of the orthodoxy of Methodius, who was sent back to Moravia with permission to use the Slavonic tongue in the liturgy. By the pope's help the saint overcame all opposition, and continued is work of conversion till his death (6 April, 885). One result of John's work among the Slavs was that several of their tribes placed themselves under the protection of the Holy See. John also had much communication with the Eastern Slavs of Bulgaria. He strove to bring them back again under the direct jurisdiction of the Holy See. Papal rights in that country had been usurped by the patriarchs of Constantinople, and, though their faith and his, as John told the Bulgarian king Boris, were the same, he justly feared that their proneness to heresy and schism would ultimately lead the Bulgarians into both. But the Bulgarians gave no lasting heed to the exhortations of the pope, and what he foretold them would happen actually came to pass. When Basil the Macedonian mounted the throne of Constantinople, he restored St. Ignatius to his see, and banished the usurper Photius (867). During his banishment, however, adroit flattery enabled the exile to win the emperor's favour, and, on the death of St. Ignatius (877), he was acknowledged as his successor. He then spared no pains to induce John to communicate with him. This at length he agreed to do on certain conditions. But, as Photius failed to observe them, he was solemnly condemned by the pope (881). Louis II, though not even master of Italy, bore at this time the title of Emperor of the Romans. To him, as a prince of character, John gave his support. He endeavoured to induce Charles the Bald, King of France, to yield up to him the kingdom of Lothaire; he aided him in his efforts against the Saracens, and, after his death (875), strove to comfort his widow Engelberga. When Louis II died, John's support of Charles the Bald resulted in his receiving the imperial crown (25 Dec., 875), and in the discomfiture of his rivals. Charles was not ungrateful for the pope's assistance, and not only decreed that the Roman Church, as head of all the Churches, must be obeyed by all, but in 876 waived in John's behalf many of "the rights and customs of the empire." John, however, did not obtain much practical help from him. Charles was a man who attempted to do great things, but knew not how to adapt his means to the ends he had in view. He did at last, however, come to help John against the Saracens, who distressed him throughout the whole of his pontificate. His expedition was, however, a failure, and, before he could renew his attempt, he died (6 Oct., 877). Among the candidates for the vacant imperial throne, John thought that the only suitable one was Boso, soon to be King of Provence. But Boso would not move in the matter, so that at length the pope, setting aside the claims of Carloman on the ground of his ill-health which had forced him to entrust the care "of the Kingdom of Italy" to John himself, fixed upon Charles the Fat as the imperial successor of Charles the Bald, successfully established his candidate on the imperial throne, and crowned him in February, 881. Before John died, Charles had become in name, at least, the recognized sovereign of most of the states over which Charlemagne had held sway. But he was physically and mentally unfit for his position; yet John was in great need of help. From the first year of his reign to the last, he was harassed by the Saracens, and was worried by the unpatriotic conduct of some of the princes of Southern Italy, by intrigues at home, and by the encroachments of Guido II, Duke of Spoleto. In 840, colonies of Saracens had begun to establish themselves in South Italy. John had to write "that all our coasts have been plundered, and the Saracens are as much at home in Fundi and Terracina as in Africa." To make head against these terrible enemies of Christianity John spared not his person, his time, nor his money. He never ceased striving to stir up the emperors to take a high view of their position and responsibilities, to put aside their miserable ambitions, and to take the field against the unrelenting foes of their faith and country. By conferences with the petty princes of Southern Italy, and by gifts of money to them, he endeavoured to detach them from alliance with the Saracens, or to unite them in battle against them. But he was not content with urging others to take action against them. He himself assumed the duties both of a general and an admiral. He fortified St. Paul's Outside-the-Walls, where his works were so extensive that they deserved to be called after his name "Johannipolis." The new fortification was over two miles in circumference. To guard the "city of the old dotard Peter," as the Saracens contemptuously called Rome, John himself patrolled the coast. He overtook the pirate fleet of the Saracens off the promontory of Circe, and was completely victorious over them (876). But knowing they were but scotched, he implored the emperor to help him to make his victory of permanent value. Charles the Bald was not unwilling to help, but died (877) before he could effect anything. John had therefore to go on fighting single-handed against the Saracens till his death. During the whole period of his pontificate, John was troubled almost as much by enemies in and around Rome as he was by the Saracens. When he mounted the throne of Peter, he found many of the chief offices of the Church in the hands of disreputable nobles, most of them connected with one another, and with a number of women who were as bad as themselves. Among the former were Gregory, the primicerius of the Roman Church, a shameless peculator; his brother Stephen, the secundicerius, as deep in crime as himself, and his infamous son-in-law, the murderer and adulterer, George of the Aventine. Allied with these, by crime at least, were Sergius and Constantiana. With some of these men, Formosus, Bishop of Porto, had the misfortune to be linked by some ties of friendship. The death of the Emperor Louis II (August, 875), who had been a patron of some of this nefarious clique, left John more at liberty to deal with them. When he began to proceed against them, they succeeded for a time in avoiding appearing before him. Meanwhile they hatched plots against him, and sought to obtain the aid of the Saracens. Finding at last that the pope was too strong for them, they fled from the city, carrying with them the treasures of the Church. Unfortunately for his reputation, Formosus fled with them. Failing to appear for trial, the exiles were degraded and excommunicated. When in France, whither Formosus bad fled, John caused the sentence passed against Gregory and his party to be repeated, and insisted on Formosus's signing a declaration that he would never return to Rome (878). John had not gone to France altogether of his own free will. Acting ostensibly in the interests of Carloman of Bavaria, who was aspiring to the empire, Lambert, Duke of Spoleto, put all the pressure he could on the pope, constantly harrying his territory (876). At length he seized Rome itself (878). Unable to endure the persecution of this petty tyrant, and anxious at the same time to come into personal contact with the different candidates for the imperial throne, vacant since the death of Charles the Bald (6 Oct., 877), John went to France. While there he crowned Louis as king (Sept., 878), but was unable to effect anything in the way of obtaining a suitable candidate for the empire. John's action was not confined to Italy, Germany, and France. In Spain we find him constituting Oviedo a metropolitan see. By his influence, also, a law against sacrilege was added to the Gothic Code of Spain. John received in Rome Burhred (Burgraed), King of Mercia, whom the miseries which the Danes were causing throughout England had driven to seek peace at the shrine of the Apostles. Edred, Archbishop of Canterbury, also turned to the pope for consolation. He was distressed by the Danes and worried by King Alfred, who in his youth was not the wise monarch he afterwards became. John wrote to commiserate with him, and told him that he had written to urge the king to offer proper obedience to him. Most contemporary historians tell us simply that John died on 16 Dec., 882. One, however, who wrote in distant Fulda, has given certain terrible details which are not accepted by the best modern historians. According to the annals of that monastery, one of John's relations, who wished to seize his treasures, tried to poison him. Finding, however, that the drug was doing its work too slowly, he killed him by striking him on the head with a hammer. Then, terrified by the hostility which was at once manifested towards him, he fell dead without any one laying a hand upon him. This introduction of the marvellous and the wrong date which the Fulda annals assign to John's death have justly rendered this narrative suspected. See the large portion of John's Register, still extant in P.L., CXXVI; also fifteen Letters in LOEWENFELD, Epp. Pont. Rom. (Leipzig, 1885); Liber Pontificalis ed. DUCHESNE, II, 221 sq.; FLODOARD, Annals; various contemporary annals and authors in Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., I and II, and ibid.: Script. Langob.; Libellus de imp. potest. in P.L., CXXIX; AUXILIUS AND VULGARIUS in DUEMMLER, Auxilius und Vulgarius (Leipzig, 1866); LAPOTRE, Le Pape Jean VIII (Paris, 1895); BALAN, Il pontificato di Giovanni VIII (Rome, 1880); GAY, L'Italie meridionale et l'empire byzantin (Paris, 1904): HERGENROETHER, Photius (Ratisbon, 1867); JAGER, Hist. de Photius (Paris, 1844); FORTESCUE, The Orthodox Eastern Church (London, 1907): D'AVRIL, St Cyrille (Paris, 1885); LEGER, Cyrille et Methode (Paris, 1868); GINZEL, Gesch. der Slavenaposteln (Vienna, 1861); MANN, Lives of the Popes, III, 231 sqq. HORACE K. MANN Pope John IX Pope John IX (898-900). Not only is the date of John's birth unknown, but the date of his election as pope, and that of his death are alike uncertain. He became pope in the early part of 898, and died in the beginning of the year 900. He was a native of Tivoli, and the son of Rampoald. Becoming a Benedictine, he was ordained priest by Pope Formosus. At this period factions filled the city of Rome, and one of them tried to force their candidate, Sergius, afterwards Sergius III, on the papal throne in opposition to John. Perhaps because he was favoured by the ducal House of Spoleto, John was able to maintain his position, and Sergius was driven from the city and excommunicated. With a view to diminish the violence of faction in Rome, John, who is acknowledged to have been both intelligent and moderate, held several synods in Rome and elsewhere (898). In them the ghastly synod of Stephen (VI) VII was condemned, and its Acts were burnt. Re-ordinations were forbidden, and those of the clergy who had been degraded by Stephen were restored to the ranks from which he had deposed them. The barbarous custom of plundering the palaces of bishops or popes on their death was ordered to be put down both by the spiritual and temporal authorities. The Synod of Rome also declared itself for Emperor Lambert and against his rival Berenger, and at the same time decided that the pope-elect was not to be consecrated except in the presence of the imperial envoys. This canon was decreed in the hope that it might lessen the evils caused by the Roman factions. A synod which John held at Ravenna decreed that steps should be taken to put an end to the deeds of violence which were being perpetrated everywhere. To keep their independence, which was threatened by the Germans, the Slavs of Moravia appealed to John to let them have a hierarchy of their own. Not heeding the hectoring letters with which some of the German bishops endeavoured to dissuade him from hearkening to the Moravians, John sanctioned the consecration of a metropolitan and three bishops for the Church of the Moravians. On John's coins the name of the emperor (Lambert) figures along with his own. He was buried just outside St. Peter's. Flodoard, De triumph. Christi, XII, 7, in P.L., CXXXV; Auxilius and Vulgarius in DÜmmler, Auxilius and Vulgarius (Leipzig, 1866); Mansi, Concilia, XVIII, 222 sqq.; Letters of John IX in P.L., CXXXI; Duchesne, The Beginnings of the Temporal Power (London, 1908), 202 sqq.; Mann, Lives of the Popes, IV (London, 1910), 91 sqq. HORACE K. MANN Pope John X Pope John X Born at Tossignano, Romagna; enthroned, 914; died at Rome, 928. First a deacon, he became Archbishop of Ravenna about 905, as successor of Kailo. In a document dated 5 February, 914, he still appears as archbishop. Shortly afterwards, owing to the influence of the nobles dominant in Rome, he was made pope in succession to Lando. The real head of this aristocratical faction was the elder Theodora, wife of the Senator Theophylactus. Liutprand of Cremona ("Antapodosis," II, ed. in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script.," II, 297) affirms that Theodora supported John's election in order to cover more easily her illicit relations with him. This statement is, however, generally and rightly rejected as a calumny. Liutprand wrote his history some fifty years later, and constantly slandered the Romans, whom he hated. At the time of John's election Theodora was advanced in years, and is lauded by other writers (e.g. Vulgarius). John was a relative of Theodora's family, and this explains sufficiently why she secured his election. The new pope was an active and energetic ruler, and exerted himself especially to put an end to the Saracen invasions. He brought about an alliance between Prince Landulph of Beneventum, Berengarius of Friuli, King of the Lombards, and other Italian rulers, and, when Berengarius came to Rome in 915, the pope crowned him emperor. John himself led against the Saracens a large army gathered by the allied Italian princes. The Saracens had built fortresses on the river Garigliano, but in August, 916, John completely routed them near the mouth of that river. Concerning the ecclesiastical administration of this pope we possess many particulars. He sent to Germany his trusted friend Petrus, Bishop of Orte, who held in 916 a synod at Hohenaltheim (near Noerdlingen), and entered into friendly relations with King Conrad. John also concerned himself with affairs in France, where Count Heribert of Aquitaine held King Charles a prisoner, and demanded the election of his five-year-old son, Hugh of Vermandois, as Archbishop of Reims. John unhappily confirmed this choice after Heribert had promised the king's release. He further sought to bring the Slavs of Dalmatia into closer relations with Rome, and strove to induce the Archbishop of Spalato to adopt Latin as the liturgical language. His efforts to promote a more intimate union between the Bulgarians and Rome were frustrated by the opposition of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Another opportunity offered, when later the Byzantine patriarch, Nicolaus Mysticus, sought the aid of the pope. The patriarch had been deposed by a synod, because he would not recognize the fourth marriage of Emperor Leo VI. Before his death, however, Leo restored Nicolaus to his office, and the new emperor (Alexander) was also on his side. But many bishops were yet opposed to the patriarch on account of his deposition by the earlier synod. Under these circumstances Nicolaus wished to have the decree of deposition declared invalid by another council, and towards this end desired the assistance of John. But John remained true to the discipline of the Western Church, which permitted as valid even a fourth marriage. Meanwhile, he was active in the political life of Italy. After the murder of King Berengarius in 924 the pope supported Hugh of Burgundy, and, when the latter landed in Pisa, John sent his legate to meet him and form an alliance. The dominant Roman faction disliked these measures. Foremost among them was the elder Marozia, daughter of Theophylactus and Theodora. After the death of her first husband Alberic, Marozia had married (926) Guido, the powerful Margrave of Tuscany. The alliance of John and Hugh of Burgundy seemed to endanger her power in Rome, and so with her husband's aid she decided to remove John. Petrus, Prefect of Rome and brother of the pope, was murdered in June, 928. The pontiff himself was seized and cast into prison, where he died shortly after. According to a rumour recorded by Liutprand, and thus little to be relied on, he was smothered in his bed. Flodoard of Reims asserts that he died of anxiety. He was probably buried in the Lateran, for the restoration of which he had been particularly zealous. Liber. Pontif., ed. DUCHESNE, II, 240-1; JAFFE, Regest. Rom. Pont., I (2nd ed.), 449 sq.; LOEWENFELD in Neues Archiv, IX, 515; LIVERANI, Giovanni da Tossignano (Macerata, 1859); LANGEN, Gesch. der roem. Kirche, II, 319-28: DUEMMLER, Gesch. des ostfrankischen Reiches, III (2nd ed.), 603 sqq.; REUMONT, Gesch. der Stadt Rom. II, 227 sqq. J.P. KIRSCH Pope John XI Pope John XI Date of birth unknown, became pope in 931; d. 936. He was the son of Marozia by her first marriage with Alberic; some, taking Liutprand and the "Liber Pontificalis" as their authority, assert that he was the natural son of Sergius III ("Johannes, natione Romanus ex patre Sergio papa", "Liber Pont." ed. Duchesne, II, 243). Through the intrigues of his mother, who ruled at that time in Rome, he was raised to the Chair of Peter, and was completely under the influence of the Senatrix et Patricia of Rome. To strengthen her own power Marozia married her brother-in-law Hugh, King of Provence and Italy, whose reign in Rome was so tyrannical that a strong opposition party sprang up among the nobles under the leadership of Alberic II, the younger son of Marozia. This party succeeded in overthrowing the rule of Marozia and Hugh; Marozia was cast into prison, but her husband escaped from the city. In this way Alberic became ruler of Rome, and the pope, who suffered by his mother's fall, now became almost entirely subject to his brother, being only free in the exercise of his purely spiritual duties. All other jurisdiction was exercised through Alberic. This was not only the case in secular, but also in ecclesiastical affairs. It was at the instance of Alberic that the pallium was given to Theophylactus, Patriarch of Constantinople (935), and also to Artold, Archbishop of Reims (933). It was this pope who sat in the Chair of Peter during its deepest humiliation, but it was also he who granted many privileges to the Congregation of Cluny, which was later on so powerful an agent of Church reform. Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, II, 243; JaffÉ, Regesta (2nd ed.), I, 454 sq.; Langen, Gesch. der röm. Kirche, II, 329-31; Reumont, Gesch. der Stadt Rom, II, 231 sqq. J.P. KIRSCH Pope John XII Pope John XII Date of birth unknown; reigned 955-64. The younger Alberic, after the downfall of his mother, Marozia (932), was absolute ruler at Rome. Before his death he administered an oath (954) to the Roman nobles in St. Peter's, that on the next vacancy of the papal chair his only son, Octavius, should be elected pope. After the death of the reigning pontiff, Agapetus II, Octavius, then eighteen years of age, was actually chosen his successor on 16 December, 955, and took the name of John. The temporal and spiritual authority in Rome were thus again united in one person -- a coarse, immoral man, whose life was such that the Lateran was spoken of as a brothel, and the moral corruption in Rome became the subject of general odium. War and the chase were more congenial to this pope than church government. He was defeated in the war against Duke Pandulf of Capua, and at the same time the Ecclesiastical States were occupied by Berengarius, King of Italy, and his son Adalbert. In this dilemma the pope had recourse to the German king, Otto I, who then appeared in Italy at the head of a powerful army. Berengarius, however, did not risk an encounter, but retired to the fortified castles. On 31 January, 962, Otto reached Rome. He took an oath to recognize John as pope and ruler of Rome; to issue no decrees without the pope's consent; and, in case of his delivering the command in Italy to any one else, to exact from such person an oath to defend to the utmost of his ability the pope and the patrimony of St. Peter. The pope on his part swore to keep faith with Otto and to conclude no alliance with Berengarius and Adalbert. On 2 February, 962, Otto was solemnly crowned emperor by the pope. On the twelfth a Roman synod took place, at which John, at Otto's desire, founded the Archbishopric of Magdeburg and the Bishopric of Morseburg, bestowed the pallium on the Archbishops of Salzburg and Trier, and confirmed the appointment of Rother as Bishop of Verona. The next day, the emperor issued a decree, the famous Diploma Ottonianum, in which he confirmed the Roman Church in its possessions, particularly those granted by Pepin and Charlemagne, and provided at the same time that in future the popes should be elected in canonical form, though their consecration was to take place only after the necessary pledges had been given to the emperor or his ambassadors. The authenticity of the contents of this much-discussed document is certain, even should the extant document be only a duplicate of the original (Sickel, "Das Privilegium Ottos I, für die römische Kirche", Innsbruck, 1883). On 14 February the emperor marched out of Rome with his army to resume the war against Berengarius and Adalbert. The pope now quickly changed his mind, while Otto on his part urged the imperial authority to excessive limits. John began secret negotiations with Adalbert, son of Berengarius, and sent envoys with letters to Hungary and to Constantinople for the purpose of inciting a war against Otto. They were, however, seized by the imperial soldiers, and the emperor thus learned of the pope's treachery. John now sent an embassy to Otto to propitiate the latter, and at the same time to explain the pope's grievance, which was that the emperor had received for himself the oath of allegiance from those cities of the Ecclesiastical States, which he had reconquered from Berengarius. Otto sent an embassy to refute this accusation. At the same time Adalbert came in person to Rome, and was ceremoniously received by the pope. The faction of the Roman nobles which sympathized with the emperor now broke into revolt against John. Otto appeared for the second time in Rome (2 November, 963), while John and Adalbert fled to Tivoli. In the emperor's entourage was Liutprand, Bishop of Cremona, who thus describes the occurrences as an eyewitness. Otto now probably renewed and extended the settlement formerly effected, by obtaining from the nobles a promise on oath not to elect or consecrate a pope without the consent of the emperor. On 6 November a synod composed of fifty Italian and German bishops was convened in St. Peter's; John was accused of sacrilege, simony, perjury, murder, adultery, and incest, and was summoned in writing to defend himself. Refusing to recognize the synod, John pronounced sentence of excommunication (ferendæ sententia) against all participators in the assembly, should they elect in his stead another pope. The emperor now came forward to accuse John of having broken the agreement ratified by oath, betrayed him, and called in Adalbert. With the imperial consent the synod deposed John on 4 December, and elected to replace him the protoscriniarius Leo, yet a layman. The latter received all the orders uncanonically without the proper intervals (interstitia), and was crowned pope as Leo VIII. This proceeding was aginst the canons of the Church, and the enthroning of Leo was almost universally regarded as invalid. Most of the imperial troops now departing from Rome, John's adherents rose against the emperor, but were suppressed on 3 January, 964, with bloodshed. Nevertheless, at Leo's request, Otto released the hundred hostages whom he had called for, and marched from Rome to meet Adalbert in the field. A new insurrection broke out in the city against the imperial party; Leo VIII fled, while John XII re-entered Rome, and took bloody vengeance on the leaders of the opposite party. Cardinal-Deacon John had his right hand struck off, Bishop Otgar of Speyer was scourged, a high palatine official lost nose and ears. On 26 February, 964, John held a synod in St. Peter's in which the decrees of the synod of 6 November were repealed; Leo VIII and all who had elected him were excommunicated; his ordination was pronounced invalid; and Bishop Sico of Ostia, who had consecrated him, was deprived forever of his dignities. The emperor, left free to act after his defeat of Berengarius, was preparing to re-enter Rome, when the pope's death changed the situation. John died on 14 May, 964, eight days after he had been, according to rumour, stricken by paralysis in the act of adultery. Luitprand relates that on that occasion the devil dealt him a blow on the temple in consequence of which he died. Liber Pontif., ed. Duchesne, II, 24609; JaffÉ, Regesta Rom. Pont., I (2nd ed.), 463 sq.; Liutprand, De rebus gestis Ottonis, ed. DÜmmler, Opp., 124-36; HergenrÖther- Kirsch, Kirchengesch., II (4th ed.), 201-7; Langen, Gesch. der römischen Kirche, II, 336-51; Reumont, Gesch. der Stadt Rom, II, 237 sqq.; Hefele, Konziliengesch., IV (2nd ed.,), 605 sqq.; DÜmmler, Otto der Gross, V, 313 sqq. J.P. Kirsch Pope John XIII Pope John XIII Date of birth unknown; enthroned on 1 Oct., 965; d. 6 Sept., 972. After the death of John XII in 964 Benedictus Grammaticus was elected his successor as Benedict V. But Otto I brought back to Rome the antipope Leo VIII, whom he had set up in 963, and banished Benedict to Hamburg. Leo VIII died in March, 965, whereupon the Romans requested the emperor to send Benedict back to them as pope. But Otto refused, and Benedict died shortly after in July, 965. In presence of the imperial envoys, Liutprand, Bishop of Cremona, and Otgar, Bishop of Speyer, the emperor's candidate, John, Bishop of Narni, was elected pope, and crowned on 1 October, 965, as John XIII. He belonged to the family of the elder Theodora, who by her marriage with the senator Theophylactus had, besides Marozia, another daughter, the younger Theodora, who married the consul John. This John later entered the ecclesiastical state and became a bishop. From his union with Theodora sprang two daughters and three sons, among the latter one called John, who, while still in his youth, entered the priesthood at Rome, and later became Bishop of Narni. It was on this scion of the Roman nobility that the choice of the electors fell. Some of the nobles were hostile to the new pope, because he was the imperial candidate, and, when he endeavoured to repress their encroachments, they plotted against him, and in December, 965, succeeded in getting possession of his person. They shut him up in the Castle of Sant' Angelo, and subsequently removed him to a fortified place in Campagna. John succeeded, however, in escaping from his prison, and found welcome and protection with Prince Pandulf of Capua. At Rome a reaction set in towards the exiled pope, and, when in 966 Emperor Otto undertook another expedition to Italy, the Romans were terrified and permitted John to return to the city on 14 November. In December the emperor arrived and dispensed stern justice to the conspirators, some of whom were hanged and others banished. The pope now allied himself closely with the emperor. On 11 January, 967, a synod was held in St. Peter's, concerning the results of which nothing is known. John travelled with Otto to Ravenna, where in April, 967, he held another synod in which the elevation of Magdeburg to metropolitan dignity was confirmed, disputes were decided, privileges conferred upon churches and convents, and Ravenna with its territory restored to the pope as part of the Ecclesiastical States. Relations between John and the emperor continued cordial. On Christmas Day, 967, the latter's thirteen-year-old son, Otto II, came to Rome, and was crowned joint emperor with his father. Shortly after, at one of the synods held in Rome, the monastery which the emperor had founded at Meissen in Saxony was made a see. John also favoured the negotiations held with the Byzantines for a matrimonial alliance between Otto II and the Princess Theophano. The marriage took place at Rome, and was blessed by the pope himself on 14 April, 972. After the death of Archbishop William of Mainz and Bishop Bernard of Halberstadt in 968, the new metropolitan see at Magdeburg in Slavic territory, for which the emperor had worked zealously and which had been confirmed by the pope, was finally realized. On Christmas Day, 968, Abbot Adalbert was consecrated first Archbishop of Magdeburg, and in turn consecrated the first Bishops of Merseburg, Meissen, and Zeitz. The pope was also active in extending the hierarchy in other countries. Early in his pontificate he had raised Capua to metropolitan rank in gratitude for the shelter which Prince Pandulf had afforded him. At a Roman synod in 969 Benevento received the same dignity. He confirmed the decrees of synods held in England and France. Privileges were granted to churches and convents, especially to Cluny, and the pope decided numerous questions of ecclesiastical law, referred to him from various countries. The plan of the Bohemian Duke Boleslaus II for the foundation of a see at Prague, though approved by the pope, had to be deferred to a later date. John XIII was succeeded by Benedict VI. Liber Pontificalis, ed. DUCHESNE, II, 252-4; JAFFE, Regesta Rom. Pont., I (2nd ed.), 470 sqq.; LANGEN, Gesch. der romischen Kirche, III, 356-64: FLOSS, Die Papstwahl unter den Ottonen (Freiburg im Br., 1858); HEFELE, Konziliengesch., IV (2nd ed.), 628-32; DUEMMLER, Otto der Grosse (Leipzig, 1876); UHLIRZ, Jahrbucher des deutschen Reiches unter Otto Il und Otto III, I (Leipzig, 1902); HAUCK, Kirchengesch. Deutschlands, III, 124 sqq.; REUMONT, Gesch. der Stadt Rom.; GREGOROVIUS, Gesch. der Stadt Rom. J.P. KIRSCH Pope John XIV Pope John XIV Date of birth unknown; d. 984. After the death of Benedict VII, Bishop Peter Campanora of Pavia, earlier imperial chancellor of Italy, was elected pope with the consent of Emperor Otto II, and was crowned at the end of November onr beginning of December, 983, when he took the name of John. On 7 December of the same year the young emperor, Otto II, died at Rome, prepared for death by the pope, and was buried in the vestibule of St. Peter's. When the antipope Boniface VII, created in 974 by the Roman adherents of Crescentius, received at Constantinople news of the emperor's death, he returned to Rome (April, 984), and with the aid of his followers made Pope John a prisoner, threw him into the dungeons of the Castle of Sant' Angelo, and mounted the papal throne. After four months the unhappy John XIV died in prison on 20 August, 984, either from starvation and misery or murdered by order of Boniface. Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, II, 259; JaffÉ, Regesta Rom. Pont., I, 484 sq.; Langen, Gesch. der römischen Kirche, III, 3;68 sqq.; Uhlirz, Jahrbücher des deutschen Reiches unter Otto II und Otto III, I (Leipzig, 1902). J.P. Kirsch. Pope John XV (XVI) Pope John XV (XVI) Enthroned 985; d. April, 996. After John XIV had been removed by force, the usurper, Boniface VII, reigned eleven months, dying in July, 985. A Roman named John, the son of a Roman presbyter Leo, was then elected pope, and crowned between 6 August and 5 September, 985. A few later chroniclers (Marianus Scotus, Godfrey of Viterbo) and some papal catalogues give as the immediate successor of Boniface another John, son of Robert, who is supposed to have reigned four months, and is placed by a few historians in the list of popes as John XV. Although this alleged Pope John never existed, still the fact that he has been catalogued by these historians has thrown into disorder the numeration of the popes named John, the true John XV being often called John XVI. At this time the patrician John Crescentius, son of Duke Crescentius, with the help of his adherents, had obtained entire control of the temporal power in Rome. According to some chroniclers the ascendancy of Crescentius became so irksome to the pope, to whom he even forbade access except in return for bribes, that John fled to Tuscany and sought aid from the Empress Theophano, but allowed himself to be induced by the promises of Crescentius to return to Rome. As a matter of fact, John remained throughout his pontificate under the influence of the powerful patricius, though he maintained friendly relations with the German court and with both empresses-Adelaide, widow of Otto I, and Theophano, widow of Otto II. The pope's mediation was sought by England in the quarrel between King Æthelred and Richard of Normandy. The papal legate, Leo of Trevi, brought about between the parties the Peace of Rouen (1 March, 991), which was ratified by a papal Bull. A serious dispute occurred during this pontificate over the archiepiscopal See of Reims, the pope's interference leading at first to no definite result. Hugh Capet, who had been raised to the throne of France, made Arnulf, a nephew of Duke Charles of Lorraine, Archbishop of Reims in 998. Charles was an adversary of Hugh Capet, and succeeded in taking Reims and making the archbishop a prisoner. Hugh, however, considered Arnulf a traitor, and demanded his deposition by the pope. Before the latter's answer was received, Hugh Capet captured both Duke Charles and Archbishop Arnulf, and called a synod at Reims in June, 991, which deposed Arnulf and chose as his successor Abbot Gerbert (afterwards Pope Sylvester II). These proceedings were repudiated by Rome, although a synod at Chela had sanctioned the decrees of that of Reims. The pope summoned the French bishops to hold an independent synod at Aachen to reconsider the case. When they refused, he called them to a synod at Rome, but they urged the unsettled conditions in France and Italy as a reason for not obeying this summons. The pope then sent Abbot Leo of St. Boniface to France as legate, with instructions to call a council of French and German bishops at Mousson. At this council only the German bishops appeared, the French being stopped on the way by Kings Hugh and Robert. Gerbert tried to exculpate himself at the synod convened on 2 June, 995, but was condemned and suspended until 1 July, when a new synod was held at Reims. Through the exertions of the legate, the deposition of Arnulf was pronounced illegal. After Hugh Capet's death (23 October, 996), Arnulf was released from his imprisonment, and in 997 the Holy See secured his restoration to all his dignities. Gerbert set out for the imperial court at Magdeburg, and became the preceptor of Otto III. At a Roman synod held in the Lateran on 31 January, 993, Bishop Ulrich of Augsburg was solemnly canonized, an event which the pope announced to the French and German bishops in a Bull dated 3 February. This was the first time that a solemn canonization had been made by a pope. John conferred many privileges on churches and convents, and was a patron and protector of the monks of Cluny. In 996 Emperor Otto undertook a journey to Italy to obtain imperial coronation from the pope, but John died early in April, while Otto lingered until 12 April in Pavia, where he celebrated Easter. Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, II, 260; JaffÉ, Regesta Rom. Pont., I (2nd ed.), 486-9; Langen, Gesch. der röm. Kirche, III, 369-80; Giesebrecht, Gesch. der deutschen Kaiserzeit, I (5th ed.), 593 sqq.; HÖfler, Deutsche Päpste, I, 74 sqq.; Hefele, Conciliengesch., IV (2nd ed.), 635 sqq.; Reumont, Gesch. der Stadt Rom., II, 296 sqq.; Gregorovius, Gesch. der Stadt Rom., III (5th ed.), 409 sqq. J.P. Kirsch John XVI (XVII), Antipope John XVI (XVII) Antipope 997-998; d. probably in 1013. After the death of John XV, Bruno, a relative of Otto III and his chaplain, was raised through the royal influence to the papal throne as Gregory V, and crowned on 3 May, 996. On 21 May the new pope placed the imperial crown on the young King Otto III in Rome. After Otto's departure the patricius Crescentius and his followers rose against the pope, and in September, 996, drove him out of the city. In the following May (997) Archbishop John Philagathus of Piacenza, who had returned shortly before from a mission to Constantinople whither he had been sent by Otto III, was made antipope by Crescentius. John was a native of Rossano in Calabria, at that time a part of the Byzantine Empire. He became a monk and was closely connected with Empress Theophano, through whose influence he received the Abbey of Nonantola from Otto II. He was the godfather of the imperial Prince Otto, afterwards emperor. After the death of Otto II he remained the trusted adviser of the empress dowager who, in 988, promoted him to the episcopal See of Piacenza, raised for him to an archbishopric, though later restored to its original rank. At the court of Otto III he retained his influential position. The king sent him at the end of 995 to Constantinople to arrange a matrimonial alliance between the sovereign and a Byzantine princess. Notwithstanding this proof of favour on the part of the imperial family, John allowed himself on his return from Constantinople to be won over to the projects of Crescentius, who wished through him to bring about an alliance with Byzantium against the German Emperor. St. Nilus of Rossano, the famous abbot and a compatriot of John, sought to dissuade him from the usurpation of the papal throne, but without avail. At the Synod of Pavia held by Gregory V at Pentecost, 997, Crescentius was excommunicated, and in July the pope issued a decree bringing Piacenza once more under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Ravenna. In the following winter Otto III returned to Italy at the head of an army, and in February, 998, entered Rome, while the antipope fled, and Crescentius entrenched himself in the Castle of Sant' Angelo. John XVI was captured by the imperial soldiers, deprived of his sight, and, his nose and ears having been mutilated, was brought in this condition to Rome. At the Lenten Synod of 998, held shortly after in Rome, Gregory V formally deposed the antipope, who, at the intercession of St. Nilus, was removed from prison to a monastery. When, in spite of all this, John again appeared before Gregory in episcopal robes, these were torn from him, and he was led through the streets of Rome on an ass amid the popular derision. According to the unreliable "Vita" of St. Nilus, he was thrown back into prison; while other sources relate that he was again confined in the monastery, where he died. The "Annales Fuldenses" record his death under date of 2 April, 1013. At Easter, 998, Otto III took the Castle of Sant' Angelo, and on 29 April Crescentius was beheaded. Letters of the Byzantine ambassador Leo to Otto III in Sotér, XV (1892), 217 sqq.; JaffÉ, Regesta Rom. Pont., II (2nd ed.), 495 sq.; Langen, Gesch. der röm. Kirche, III, 385-7; Hefele, Conciliengesch., IV (2nd ed.), 650 sq. See also the works under Otto II and Otto III and on the history of Rome given under John XIII. J.P. Kirsch Pope John XVII (XVIII) Pope John XVII (XVIII) Date of birth unknown; d. 6 Nov., 1003. When Sylvester II died on 12 May, 1003, there was no actual authority in Rome which could curb the nobles. Thus the faction of Crescentius again won the upper hand, and John Crescentius, son of the patricius whom Otto III had defeated and put to death, seized the authority for himself. The three following popes were indebted to him for their elevation, and were made to feel his supremacy. A Roman, Sicco, was first elected, and consecrated on 13 June as John XVII, but died on 6 November. Before taking orders he had been married, and had three sons who also became ecclesiastics. Concerning his activities during the few months of his pontificate nothing has come down to us. Liber Pontif., ed. Duchesne, II, 265; JaffÉ, Regesta, I (2nd ed.), 501; Langen, Gesch. der röm. Kirche, III, 401. J.P. Kirsch Pope John XVIII (XIX) Pope John XVIII (XIX) Successor of John XVII, consecrated Christmas, 1003; d. June, 1009. He was the son of a Roman priest named Leo, and, before his elevation to the papacy, his name was Phasianus. He, too, owed his elevation to the influence of Crescentius. The accounts of his pontificate consist almost exclusively of details of ecclesiastical administration. He confirmed the possessions and privileges of several churches and convents; sanctioned different gifts to religious institutions; conferred ecclesiastical privileges on the re-established See of Merseburg; gave his consent at the Roman Synod of June, 1007, to the establishment of the See of Bamberg, founded and endowed by the German king, Henry II; and conferred the pallium on Archbishops Meingaudus of Trier and Elphege of Canterbury. John XVIII energetically opposed the pretensions of Archbishop Letericus of Sens and Bishop Fulco of Orléans, who refused to allow the Abbot of Fleury, Goslin, to make use of the privileges granted him by Rome, and tried to make him burn the papal charters. The pope complained of this to the emperor, and called both bishops to his tribunal under threat of ecclesiastical censures for the entire kingdom. In Constantinople he was recognized as Bishop of Rome. His epitaph relates that he subdued the Greeks and dislodged schism. His name appears on the diptychs of the Byzantine Church. According to one catalogue of popes, he died as a monk at St. Paul's near Rome in June, 1009. Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, II, 266; Watterich, Vitæ Romanorum Pontificum, I, 89, 699 sq.; JaffÉ, Regesta, I (2nd ed.), 501-3; Langen, Gesch. der röm. Kirche, III, 401-3. J.P. Kirsch Pope John XIX (XX) Pope John XIX (XX) Enthroned in 1024; d. 1032. After the death of the last patricius of the House of Crescentius, the counts of Tusculum seized the authority in Rome, a scion of this family was raised to the papal throne as Benedict VIII, while his brother, Romanus, exercised the temporal power in the city as consul and senator. After Benedict's death Romanus, though a layman, was elected pope between 12 April and 10 May, 1024, immediately after which he received all the orders in succession, took the name of John, and sought by lavish expenditure to win the Romans to his cause. Soon after his elevation the Byzantine Emperor, Basil II, sent ambassadors to Rome to request in his name that the pope would recognize the title of oecumenical patriarch, which the patriarchs of Byzantium had assumed, thus sanctioning the latter's headship of all the Oriental Churches. Rich presents brought by the envoys were intended to win over the pope, and indeed he seemed not disinclined to accede to the Byzantine wishes. Though the negotiations were kept secret the affair became public, and roused to action the religiously minded circles, especially the promoters of ecclesiastical reform in Italy and France. Public opinion compelled the pope to refuse the Byzantine requests and gifts, whereupon Patriarch Eustachius of Constantinople caused the pope's name to be erased from the diptychs of his churches. John invited the celebrated musician, Guido of Arezzo, to visit Rome and explain the musical notation invented by him. In Germany, after the death of Henry II (1 July, 1024), Conrad the Salian was elected king, and was invited by the pope and also by Archbishop Heribert of Milan, to come to Italy. In 1026 he crossed the Alps, received the iron crown of Lombardy, and proceeded to Rome, where on 26 March, 1027, he was crowned emperor. Two kings, Rudolph of Burgundy and Canute of Denmark and England, took part in this journey to Rome. On 6 April a great synod was held in the Lateran basilica, where the dispute between the Patriarchs of Aquileia and Grado was decided, through the emperor's influence, in favour of the former. Poppo of Aquileia was to be sole patriarch, with the Bishop of Grado under his jurisdiction. Moreover, the Patriarch of Aquileia was to take precedence over all the Italian bishops. Two years later (1029) John XIX revoked this decision, and at a new synod restored to the Patriarch of Grado all his former privileges. King Canute of Denmark and England obtained from the pope a promise that his English and Danish subjects should not be annoyed by customs duties on their way to Italy and Rome, and that the archbishops of his kingdom should not be so heavily taxed for the bestowal of the pallium. John granted the Bishop of Silva Candida, near Rome, a special privilege to say Mass in St. Peter's on certain days. A dispute regarding precedence between the Archbishops of Milan and Ravenna was settled by the pope in favour of the former. He took the Abbey of Cluny under his protection, and renewed its privileges in spite of the protests of Goslin, Bishop of Macon; at the same time he rebuked Abbot Odilo of Cluny for not accepting the See of Lyons. The feast of St. Martial, reputed disciple of the Apostles and founder of the church of Limoges, was raised by John to the rank of the feast of an Apostle. In the case of certain French bishops the pope maintained the rights of the Holy See. He seems to have been the first pope to grant an indulgence in return for alms bestowed. He died towards the end of 1032, probably on 6 November. Liber Pontificalis, ed. DUCHESNE, II, 269; JAFFE, Regesta, I (2nd ed.), 514-9: WATTERICH, Vitoe Rom. Pont., I, 70, 708-11; LANGEN, Gesch. der rom. Kirche, III, 418 sqq.: HEFELE, Conciliengesch., IV (2nd ed.), 683 sqq.; HERGENROETHER, Photius, III (Ratisbon, 1869), 729 sq.: HARTMANN in Mitteilungen des Instituts fuer oesterr. Gesch., XV (1894), 488: REUMONT, Gesch. der Stadt Rom.; GREGOROVIUS, Gesch. der Stadt Rom. Concerning all the popes from John X to John XIX see MANN, Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages (London, 1902). J.P. KIRSCH Pope John XXI (XX) Pope John XXI (XX) Born at Lisbon between 1210 and 1220; enthroned, 1276; died at Viterbo, 20 May, 1277. The son of one Julianus, he was baptized Peter, and was known as Petrus Juliani or Petrus Hispanus. After his earlier studies in the cathedral school at Lisbon, he entered the University of Paris and attended lectures on dialectics, logic, and, more particularly, those on Aristotelean physics and metaphysics then being given by Albertus Magnus. The natural philosophy of Aristotle had a special attraction for Peter. He zealously pursued the study of medicine, and also that of theology, attaching himself especially to the Minorite magister, John of Parma. On completing his studies, he was called in 1247 as professor of medicine to the University of Siena, which was at that time being greatly enlarged. Here he wrote his "Summulæ logicales", for almost three hundred years the favourite textbook on logic. Stapper's investigations (see below) have now established beyond question the authorship of this work. In the fifteenth century the "Summulæ" was translated into Greek by George Scholarius, and was also translated into other languages. In content and form the book is based on the method current at the University of Paris, and on the compendium of William Shyreswood, Peter's professor there. While teaching at Siena, he also made a collection of medical prescriptions. About 1261 Peter appears in the retinue of Cardinal Ottoboni Fieschi; towards this time also he was made deacon of the Church of Lisbon, an office which he later exchanged for the archidiaconate of Vermuy in the Diocese of Braga. From this period probably dates his acquaintance with Teobaldo Visconti. When, in 1272, Teobaldo came to Viterbo after his election to the papacy as Gregory X, he appointed Petrus Hispanus his physician in ordinary. While occupying this position, the latter wrote his "Thesaurus pauperum", in which he gives a remedy for the diseases of every part of the body. This book was widely used, but was in time variously interpolated. Peter's wide reputation for learning led to his selection as Archbishop of Braga by the cathedral chapter in spring, 1273. Shortly afterwards Gregory X appointed him Cardinal-Bishop of Tusculum, and as such he is referred to on 5 June, 1273. But he continued to govern temporarily the See of Braga until 23 May, 1275, when the pope appointed another archbishop. In June, 1273, Peter accompanied Gregory X to the General Council of Lyons, where he was consecrated bishop. Gregory X's two successors in the Holy See, Innocent V and Adrian V, ruled only a very short time. The latter died at Viterbo on 18 August, 1276, having been elected on the preceding 11 July. In a consistory of cardinals, he had spoken of an alteration in the decrees of Lyons concerning the papal conclave, and had suspended them temporarily. After the death of Adrian V, the conclave in Viterbo was protracted, in consequence of which disturbances broke out in the town, thus hastening the election, so that in the week following 13 September Petrus Juliani, Cardinal-Bishop of Tusculum, was chosen pope, and crowned as John XXI (really XX) the following Sunday (20 September). The new pope wished forthwith to arrange the rules for the conclave. In the Bull "Licet felicis recordationis", ratifying his predecessor's decision, he also suspended with the consent of the cardinals the decrees issued at Lyons, and declared his intention of issuing in the near future the new regulations. On the same day (20 September, 1276) he issued another Bull, directed against those who had taken part in the disturbances during the last council (see CONCLAVE). The pope was now in a position to turn his attention to the political situation. Since 1263, when Urban IV had bestowed the Kingdom of Sicily upon Charles of Anjou, the latter had tried little by little to strengthen his political power in Rome and the Papal States. Charles himself went to Viterbo to win over the new pope, but the latter did not assent to his plans. On 7 October, the king took the oath of fealty for Sicily, in which it was provided that Sicily should never be united with Tuscany or Lombardy, nor yet with the Roman Empire. The pope, however, did not reappoint him Roman senator, neither did he make him Vicar of Tuscany or Lombardy, honours which Innocent IV had bestowed upon him. In November, John sent an ambassador with letters to Rudolf of Hapsburg, inviting him to send a plenipotentiary to the Curia to negotiate with the plenipotentiary sent by Charles of Anjou concerning the conclusion of peace. As soon as this should be accomplished, Rudolf was to set out for Rome to receive the imperial crown. Soon after, John began negotiations with Rudolf relative to Romagna, the ancient Exarchate of Ravenna, which he wished definitely restored to the Papal States, as Innocent V had already claimed. Concerning the collection and employment of the tithes levied on all ecclesiastical benefices, which the Council of Lyons had ordered in preparation for a crusade, the pope issued various instructions for the different countries. The cross had been taken by Philip III of France and Alfonso of Castile and Leon, and in February, 1276, Philip solemnly declared that he would lead the army in person against the Saracens. But the two kings found themselves involved in a quarrel over the Kingdom of Navarre. The pope laboured to avert the outbreak of hostilities by sending, in November, 1276, legates to both kings, and by remonstrating with the parties in earnest and urgent letters. Soon after this Philip had to disband the large army he had assembled, and a treaty was arranged between the rulers. But in the spring of 1277 the two kings began again to make preparations for war, and again the pope was obliged to send his legates to mediate, wherein they were again successful. John also endeavoured to secure from the King of Portugal an amelioration of the ecclesiastical conditions in that country, but his pontificate was too short to witness the realization of his purpose. He demanded from Edward I of England the arrears of tribute which that country had owed the Holy See since the reign of King John (1215). He also sought the release of Eleanor, Countess of Montfort, and her brother Amaury, whom King Edward held prisoners. Many letters were sent by the pope to the king and the English bishops relative to this matter. The envoys sent out by the Byzantine emperor, Michael Palæologus, to the Council of Lyons swore that the emperor had renounced the schism, and wished to return to the obedience of the Holy See. In this way the emperor sought to obtain the pope's protection against the Western princes, who threatened his domination. An embassy from Constantinople had already been sent to the Curia in Innocent V's reign, and that pontiff had appointed an envoy to the Byzantine Court, but died before the latter left Italy. Pope John appointed other envoys, two bishops and two Dominicans, and furnished them with minute instructions, as well as with letters for the Emperor Michael, his son Andronicus, and the Greek clergy. In April, 1277, a synod was held at Constantinople under the presidency of the new patriarch, John Beccus, who was an earnest supporter of the union of the Churches. At this synod the emperor and his son embraced the Roman Catholic Faith, and ratified all the promises previously made in their name at the Council of Lyons. The bishops assembled at the synod acknowledged the papal primacy and the doctrine of the Roman Church, and the patriarch addressed a letter to the pope, in which all minor discrepancy in teaching was satisfactorily explained. The messenger, who had charge of this epistle as well as of the documents drawn up by the emperor, did not arrive until after John's death. From the Far East, ambassadors came to the pope from Abaga, Khan of Tatary, who had also sent an embassy to the Council of Lyons. The khan wished to enter into an alliance with the Crusaders and to give them his support; he also asked to have missionaries sent to him. The pope sent the ambassadors to Charles of Sicily, Peter of Aragon, Philip of France, and Edward of England, but none of these sovereigns had any serious intention of undertaking a crusade. John himself appointed missionaries to go to Tatar, but died before they set out on their journey. Although John showed especial favour towards the University of Paris, he took care to exclude all erroneous teaching from this famous seat of ecclesiastical learning. Some chroniclers maintain that this pope was an enemy of the monks and friars. However, among the documents sent from the papal chancellery under John XXI, there are numerous letters in which he grants privileges and ratifies donations to monasteries. On many occasions, also, he gave evidence of his great respect for the monastic orders. On what particular act of the pope's this adverse criticism is based, is unknown; however, in the most trustworthy accounts of his life, no foundation is found for this reproach. During this pontificate Cardinal Giovanni Gaetano Orsini, who later ascended the papal throne as Nicholas III, exercised a great influence on the government of the Church. Amid the cares of the papacy John found time for his scientific studies, which were more congenial to him than the business of the Curia. To secure the necessary quiet for these studies, he had an apartment added to the papal palace at Viterbo, to which he could retire when he wished to work undisturbed. On 14 May, 1277, while the pope was alone in this apartment, it collapsed; John was buried under the ruins, and died on 20 May in consequence of the serious injuries he had received. Soon after the death of this scholarly pope, various rumours were circulated, based upon his great medical learning; he was even accused of dealing in the magic arts. A few monastic chroniclers, seeing in him an enemy, contributed to these baseless tales, and thus an undeserved stigma was cast upon the memory of John XXI. GIURAUD AND CADIER, Les Registres de Grégoire X et de Jean XXI (Paris, 1892-8); POTTHAST, Regesta Rom. Pont., II, 1710 sqq.; KOHLER, Vollständige Nachricht von Papst Johann XXI (Göttingen, 1760); STAPPER, Papst Johannes XXI in Kirchengesch. Studen, IV (Münster, 1899), 4; IDEM, Die Summæ logicales des Petrus Hispanus und ihr Verhaltnis zu Michael Psellus in Festschrift des deutschen Campo santo in Rom (Freiburg, 1897), 130-8; GOTTLOB, Die papstlichen Kreuzzugsteuern des 13 Jahrhunderts (Heiligenstadt, 1892); NEUBERGER AND PAGEL, Handbuch der Gesch. der Medezin, I (Jena, 1902), 682, doubt his authorship of the Thesaurus pauperum. For his work on the diseases of the eye, Liber de oculo, see PETELLA, Les connaissances philosophiques d'un médecin philosophe devenu pape in Janus, II (Amsterdam, 1897-98), 405-20, 570-96. The Liber de oculo was first edited, with a German version, by BERGER (Munich, 1899). J.P. KIRSCH Pope John XXII Pope John XXII (JACQUES D'EUSE) Born at Cahors in 1249; enthroned, 5 September, 1316; died at Avignon, 4 December, 1334. He received his early education from the Dominicans in his native town, and later studied theology and law at Montpellier and Paris. He then taught both canon and civil law at Toulouse and Cahors, came into close relations with Charles II of Naples, and on his recommendation was made Bishop of Frejus in 1300. In 1309 he was appointed chancellor of Charles II, and in 1310 was transferred to the See of Avignon. He delivered legal opinions favourable to the suppression of the Templars, but he also defended Boniface VIII and the Bull "Unam Sanctam". On 23 December, 1312, Clement V made him Cardinal-Bishop of Porto. After the death of Clement V (20 April, 1314) the Holy See was vacant for two years and three and a half months. The cardinals assembled in Carpentras for the election of a pope were divided into two violent factions, and could come to no agreement. The electoral college was composed of eight Italian cardinals, ten from Gascony, three from Provence, and three from other parts of France. After many weeks of unprofitable discussion as to where the conclave should be held, the electoral assembly was entirely dissolved. Ineffectual were the efforts of several princes to induce the cardinals to undertake an election: neither party would yield. After his coronation Philip V of France was finally able to assemble a conclave of twenty-three cardinals in the Dominican monastery at Lyons on 26 June, 1316, and on 7 August, Jacques, Cardinal-Bishop of Porto, was chosen pope. After his coronation at Lyons on 5 September as John XXII, the pope set out for Avignon, where he fixed his residence. His vast correspondence shows that John XXII followed closely the political and religious movements in all countries, and sought on every possible occasion the advancement of ecclesiastical interests. Nor was he less insistent than his predecessors on the supreme influence of the papacy in political matters. For this reason he found himself involved in grievous disputes which lasted throughout the greater portion of his pontificate. Great difficulties were also raised for the pope by the controversies among the Franciscans, which Clement V had tried in vain to settle. A number of Franciscans, the so-called "Spirituals," or "Fraticelli," adherents of the most rigorous views, refused to submit to that pope's decision, and after the deaths of Clement V and Gonzalvez, General of the Minorites, they rebelled, especially in the South of France and in Italy, declaring that the pope had no power to dispense them from their rule, since this was nothing other than the Gospel. They then proceeded to drive the Conventuals from their houses, and take possession of the same, thereby causing scandal and much disorder. The new general, Michael of Cesena, appealed to John, who in 1317 ordered the refractory friars to submit to their superiors, and caused the doctrines and opinions of the Spirituals to be investigated. On 23 January, 1318, many of their doctrines were declared erroneous. Those who refused to yield were treated as heretics: many were burned at the stake, and some escaped to Sicily. These troubles among the Franciscans were increased by the quarrel about evangelical poverty which broke out among the Conventuals themselves. The general chapter of Perugia, through their general, Michael of Cesena, and other learned men of the order (including William Occam), defended the opinion of Berenger Talon, that Christ and His Apostles had no possessions either individually or in common. In 1322 Pope John declared this statement null and void, and in 1323 denounced as heretical the assertion that Christ and the Apostles had no possessions either individually or in common, and could not even legitimately dispose of what they had for personal use. Not only the Spirituals, but also the adherents of Michael of Cesena and William Occam, protested against this decree, whereupon in 1324 the pope issued a new Bull, confirming his former decision, setting aside all objections to it, and declaring those who opposed this decision heretics and enemies of the Church. Summoned to appear at Avignon, Michael of Cesena obeyed the summons, but refused to yield and, when threatened with imprisonment, sought safety in flight. Leaving Avignon on 25 May, 1328, and accompanied by William Occam and Bonagratia di Bergamo, he betook himself to Louis of Bavaria for protection. Political conditions in Germany and Italy moved the pope to assert over the latter far-reaching political claims, and similarly with regard to the German Crown, because of the latter's union with the imperial office. On this score a violent quarrel broke out between the pope and King Louis of Bavaria. During the vacancy that followed the death of Clement V, there had arisen a disputed election for the throne of Germany, Louis of Bavaria having been crowned at Aachen, and Frederick of Austria at Bonn (25 Nov., 1314). The electors of both candidates wrote to the future pope to obtain recognition of their choice, and also to seek for him imperial coronation. On the day of his coronation (5 Sept., 1315) John wrote to both Louis and Frederick and also to the other German princes, admonishing them to settle their disputes amicably. As there was no universally acknowledged German king, and the pope had not given preference to either candidate, neither could hope to exercise imperial authority. Nevertheless, in 1315 Louis appointed Jean de Belmont imperial vicar for Italy, and at the same time supported Galeazzo Visconti of Milan, then in open opposition to the pope. The latter maintained (13 March, 1317) that, by reason of the vacancy of the Roman Empire, all imperial jurisdiction resided with the pope, and, following the example of his predecessor Clement V, he appointed King Robert of Sicily imperial vicar for Italy (July, 1317). On 28 September, 1322, Louis of Bavaria informed the pope that he had overcome his opponent, Frederick of Austria, upon which John wrote him a friendly letter. Louis, however, took no further steps to effect a reconciliation with the pope. On the contrary, he supported in their opposition to the papal legates the excommunicated Visconti of Milan and the Italian Ghibellines, acted as legitimate emperor, and proclaimed, on 2 March, 1323, Berthold von Neiffen imperial vicar for Italy. Thereupon John, following the precedent of Gregory VII and Innocent III, warned Louis of Bavaria that the examination and approval of the chosen German king with a view to the consequent bestowal of the imperial dignity belonged to the pope; that he must refrain from exercising royal rights until the legitimacy of his election had been settled; that he must recall all commands already issued, give no further aid to the enemies of the Church -- especially the Visconti of Milan, condemned as heretics -- and within three months present himself before the pope. Should Louis not submit to this admonition, he was threatened with excommunication. The subsequent behaviour of Louis was very equivocal. He sent an embassy to the pope, asking for and obtaining a delay of two months before appearing in the papal presence. At the same time he declared at Nuremberg on 16 November, 1323, that he did not recognize the pope's action or his claim to examine into the election of a German king; he also accused John of countenancing heretics, and proposed the calling of a general council to sit in judgment on him. During this respite, lengthened at his own request, Louis took no steps towards a reconciliation, and on 23 March, 1324, John pronounced on the king the sentence of excommunication. On the other hand the latter published at Sachsenhausen on 22 May, 1324, an appeal in which he accused the pope of enmity to the empire, of heresy and protection of heretics, and appealed from John's decision to a general council. An open breach henceforth existed, followed by disastrous results. Louis persecuted the few German cardinals, who recognized the papal Bull, whereupon John on 11 July, 1324, declared all his rights to imperial recognition forfeited. The pope further ratified the treaty between Duke Leopold of Austria and Charles I of France, in which the former promised to help the latter to the title of German King, and then of Roman Emperor. However, as Leopold died on 28 Feb., 1326, and Louis of Bavaria and Frederick of Austria became reconciled, the king's power in Germany became firmly established. The quarrel between John XXII and Louis of Bavaria stirred up a vigorous literary feud concerning the relations of Church and State. Louis was supported by the Franciscan Spirituals, e.g. Ubertino da Casale, Michael of Cesena, William Occam, Bonagratia di Bergamo, and many others whose extreme ideas on the question of religious poverty had been condemned by the pope; also by two theologians of the University of Paris, Marsilius of Papua and John of Gentian (de Gentian), joint authors of the famous "Defensor Paces," which was intended to prove that the only way to maintain peace is by the complete subordination of the ecclesiastical power to that of the State. Denying the primacy of the pope, the authors asserted that the emperor alone could authorize ecclesiastics to exercise criminal jurisdiction, that all temporal goods of the Church belonged to the emperor, etc. Other theologians -- e.g. Henry von Kelheim, provincial of the Minorites, Ulrich Hanganoer, the king's private secretary, Abbot Engelbert of Admont, Lupold of Bebenburg, afterwards Bishop of Bamberg, and William Occam, though not so extreme in their views as the authors of the "Defensor Paces," willingly exalted the imperial above the papal power. It was unfortunate for the fickle and, in theological matters, inexperienced king that he fell into the hands of such advisers. The "Defensor Paces" was anathematized by a papal Bull of 23 October, 1327, and some of its theses were condemned as heretical by the University of Paris. Many theologians in their writings defended the ecclesiastical hierarchy and the primacy of the pope, among them the Augustinian Alexander a Sancto Elpidio, later Archbishop of Ravenna, the Minorite, Alvarius Pelagius, the Augustinian Augustinus Triumphus of Ancona, and Conrad of Megenberg. On their side, however, the defence was carried too far, some of them even extolling the pope as absolute ruler of the world. When Louis of Bavaria saw his power firmly established in Germany, he set out early in 1327 for Italy, where in February, with the chiefs of the Italian Ghibellines, he held a congress at Trent. In March he passed through Bergamo on his way to Milan. On 3 April John XXII declared forfeited all rights of Louis to the German Crown, also to all fiefs held from the Church and from former sovereigns, and finally to the Duchy of Bavaria. Moreover, he summoned Louis to appear before the Holy See within six months, and accused him of heresy for defending a doctrine which the Head of the Church had repudiated, and for taking under his protection the heretics, Marsilius and John of Gentian. Louis paid no attention to this notice, which indeed only aggravated his opposition to the pope. In Milan he received (30 May) the crown of Lombardy from the hands of two deposed bishops, and arbitrarily appointed several new bishops. The pope on his side appointed bishops to sees falling vacant within the empire, and continued to fill the various reserved prelacies, so that an open schism henceforth existed. In 1328 Louis set out for Rome, where the Guelphs had been overthrown with their senator, King Robert of Naples. On 17 January, 1328, the excommunicated German king received in Rome the imperial crown from Sciarra Colonna, who on 18 April, after a farcical proceeding, and in the name of Louis of Bavaria, proclaimed John XXII a heretic, usurper, and oppressor of the Church, and deprived him of all his papal dignities. A straw image of the pope was publicly burned in Rome, and on 12 May the Franciscan Spiritual, Pietro Rainalducci of Corbario, was proclaimed antipope by Louis, taking at his consecration (22 May) the name of Nicholas V. But Louis had made himself so universally obnoxious in Italy, on account of his tax levies, that the position of the antipope was untenable. Many Ghibelline cities and rulers became reconciled with the pope, and finally Pietro of Corbario himself wrote to John, asking for pardon and absolution. At Avignon on 25 August, 1330, he publicly acknowledged his guilt in the presence of the pope and the cardinals, whereupon the former gave him absolution and the kiss of peace. Nevertheless, Pietro was not allowed to leave the city, where he spent the three remaining years of his life in voluntary penance and study. By degrees the whole of Italy returned to the obedience of the legitimate pope. The latter meanwhile had renewed his sentence against Louis of Bavaria, and proclaimed in Italy a crusade against him (1328). At the same time he summoned the German princes to hold another election, and excommunicated Michael of Cesena, William Occam, and Bonagratia. The adherents of Louis in Lombardy soon dwindled away, and he returned to Germany in the beginning of 1330. Here too, the people were weary of the long conflict, and wished for peace, so that Louis was compelled to take steps towards a reconciliation with the pope. In May, 1330, he entered into negotiations with Avignon through the mediation of Archbishop Baldwin of Trier, King John of Bohemia, and Duke Otto of Austria. The pope demanded from Louis renunciation of all claims on the imperial title. Louis on that occasion refused to entertain the idea, but was later (1333) willing to discuss the project of his abdication. The matter, however, was then postponed. Whether John XXII arbitrarily severed Italy from the empire has never been definitely settled, for the authenticity of the Bull "Ne praetereat" is not certain. In the last years of John's pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on by himself, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical. A great commotion was aroused in the University of Paris when the General of the Minorites and a Dominican tried to disseminate there the pope's view. Pope John wrote to King Philip IV on the matter (November, 1333), and emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter. In December, 1333, the theologians at Paris, after a consultation on the question, decided in favour of the doctrine that the souls of the blessed departed saw God immediately after death or after their complete purification; at the same time they pointed out that the pope had given no decision on this question but only advanced his personal opinion, and now petitioned the pope to confirm their decision. John appointed a commission at Avignon to study the writings of the Fathers, and to discuss further the disputed question. In a consistory held on 3 January, 1334, the pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any decision whatever. Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision. The Spirituals, always in close alliance with Louis of Bavaria, profited by these events to accuse the pope of heresy, being supported by Cardinal Napoleon Orsini. In union with the latter, King Louis wrote to the cardinals, urging them to call a general council and condemn the pope. The incident, however, had no further consequences. With untiring energy, and in countless documents, John followed up all ecclesiastical or politico-ecclesiastical questions of his day, though no particular grandeur is remarkable in his dealings. He gave salutary advice to ruling sovereigns, especially to the Kings of France and of Naples, settled the disputes of rulers, and tried to restore peace in England. He increased the number of sees in France and Spain, was generous to many scholars and colleges, founded a law library at Avignon, furthered the fine arts, and dispatched and generously maintained missionaries in the Far East. He caused the works of Petrus Olivi and Meister Eckhardt to be examined, and condemned the former, while he censured many passages in the latter's works. He published the "Clementines" as the official collection of the "Corpus Juris Canonici," and was the author of numerous decretals ("Extravagantes Johannis XXII" in "Corp. Jur. Can."). He enlarged and partly reorganized the papal Curia, and was particularly active in the administration of ecclesiastical finances. The usual revenues of the papacy grew very meagre, owing to the disturbed condition of Italy, especially of the Papal States, consequent on the removal of the Papacy from its historic seat at Rome. Moreover, since the end of the thirteenth century the College of Cardinals had enjoyed one half of the large income from tributary kingdoms, the servitia communia of the bishops, and some less important sources. Pope John, on the other hand, had need of large revenues, not only for the maintenance of his Court, but particularly for the wars in Italy. Since the thirteenth century the papal treasury had exacted from the minor benefices, when conferred directly by the pope, a small tax (annata. -- See ANNATES; APOSTOLIC CAMERA). In 1319 John XXII reserved to himself all minor benefices falling vacant in the Western Church during the succeeding three years, and in this way collected from each of them the aforesaid annates, as often as they were conferred by the pope. Moreover, many foreign benefices were already canonically in the papal gift, and the annates from them were paid regularly into the papal treasury. John also made frequent use of the right known as jus spolii, or right of spoils, which permitted him under certain circumstances to divert the estate of a deceased bishop into the papal treasury. He procured further relief by demanding special subsidies from various archbishops and their suffragans. France, in particular, furnished him the most financial aid. The extensive reservation of ecclesiastical benefices was destined to exercise a prejudicial influence on ecclesiastical life. The centralized administration took on a highly bureaucratic character, and the purely legal standpoint was too constantly in evidence. The pope's financial measures, however, were highly successful at the time, though in the end they evoked no little resistance and dissatisfaction. In spite of the large expenditures of his pontificate, John left an estate of 800,000 gold florins -- not five millions as stated by some chroniclers. John XXII died on 4 December, 1334, in the eighty-fifth year of his age. He was a man of serious character, of austere and simple habits, broadly cultivated, very energetic and tenacious. But he held too persistently to canonico-legal traditions, and centralized overmuch the ecclesiastical administration. His financial measures, more rigorously applied by his successors, made the Curia of Avignon generally detested. The transfer of the papacy from Rome to Avignon was esteemed to have taken place in the interests of France, which impression was strengthened by the preponderance of French cardinals, and by the long-continued conflict with King Louis of Bavaria. In this way was aroused a widespread distrust of the papacy, which could not fail to result in consequences detrimental to the interior life of the Church. COULON, Lettres secretes et curiales du pape Jean XXII, relatives a la France (Paris, 1900-); MOLLAT, Lettres communes du pape Jean XXII (Paris, 1901-); GUERARD, Documents pontificaux sur la Gascogne, Pontificat de Jean XXII, I-II (Paris, 1897); FAYEN, Lettres de Jean XXII, I (Brussels, 1908); RAYNALDUS, Annales ecclesiastici ad ann. 1316-1334, XXIV (Bar-le-Duc, 1872-); RIEZLER, Vatikanische Akten zur deutschen Gesch. in der Zeit Koenig Ludwigs des Bayern (Innsbruck, 1891); BLISS, Calendar of Papal Letters, II (London, 1895); SAUERLAND, Urkunden u. Regesten zur Gesch. des Rheinlandes aus dem vatikanischen Archiv, I-Il (Bonn, 1902-3); BROM, Bullar. Trajectense, (2 vols., The Hague, 1891-6); RIEDER, Roem. Quellen zur Konstanzer Bistumsgesch. zur Zeit der Paepste in Avignon (Innsbruck, 1908): LANG, Die Urkunden über die Bezichungen der paepstlichen Kurie zur Provinz u. Dioezese Salzburg 1316-1378 (Graz, 1903); BALUZE, Vitae paparum Avinionensium, I (Paris, 1693); VILLAVI, Cronica (Florence, 1823); VERLAQUE, Jean XXII, sa vie et ses oeuvres (Paris, 1883); MUELLER, Der Kampf Ludwigs des Bayern mit der rom. Kurie, I (Tübingen, 1879); IDEM, Ludwigs d. Bayern Appellationen gegen Johann XXII. in Zeitschr. fuer Kirchenrecht, XIX (1884), 239 sqq.; SCHAPER, Die Sachsenhaeuser Appellation (Berlin, 1888); ENGELMANN, Der Anspruch der Paepste auf Konformation bei den deutschen Koenigswahlen (Breslau, 1886); ALTMANN, Der Roemerzug Ludwigs des Bayern (Berlin, 1886); CHROUST, Die Romfahrt Ludwigs d.B. (Gotha, 1887); FELTEN, Die Bulle Ne praetereat u. die Rekonziliationsverhandlungen Ludwigs d.B. mit Johann XXII. (2 vols., Trier, 1885-7); RIEZLER, Die literar. Widersacher der Paepste zur Zeit Ludwigs d.B. (Leipzig, 1874); MARCOUR, Anteil der Minoriten am Kampfe zwischen Ludwig d.B. und Johann XXII (Emmerich, 1874); EHRLE, Die Spiritualen, ihr Verhaeltnis zum Franziskanerorden u. den Fraticellen in Archiv for Literatur- u. Kirchengesch. des Mittelalters (1885), 509 sqq.: (1886), 106 sqq.; (1887), 553 sqq.; IDEM, Ludwig d.B. und die Fraticellen u. Ghibellinnen von Todi u. Amelia im Jahre 1328, ibid. (1886). 653 sqq.; IDEM, Olivi u. die Sachsenhaeuser Appellation, ibid. (1887), 540 sqq.; MUELLER, Aktenstuecke zur Gesch. der Streitigkeiten unter den Minoriten in Zeitschr. fuer Kirchengesch. (1884), 63 sqq.; TANGL, Die paepstlichen Kanzleiordnungen (Innsbruck, 1894); HAYN, Das Almosenwesen unter Johann XXII. in Roem. Quartalschr. (1892), 209 sqq.; FAUCON, La librairie des papes d'Avignon (2 vols., Paris, 1886-); EHRLE, Hist. Bibl. Roman. Pontif. tum Bonifatianoe tum Avinionensis, I (Rome, 1890); KOENIG, Die paepstliche Kammer unter Klemens V. u. Johann XXII (Vienna, 1894); SAMARAN AND MOLLAT, La fiscalite pontificale en France au XIV siecle (Paris, 1905); GOELLER, Die Einnahmen der apstol. Kammer unter Johann XXII (Paderborn, 1909). See also the bibliographies of ANNATES and APOSTOLIC CAMERA; ANDRE, Hist. de la papaute a Avignon (2nd ed., Avignon, 1888); CHRISTOPHE, Hist. de la papaute pendant le XIV siecle (3 vols., Paris, 1853); HOEFLER, Die avignones. Paepste (Vienna, 1871); MOLTENSEN, De Avignoske Pavers forhold til Danmark (Copenhagen, 1896); PASTOR, Gesch. der Paepste, I, (4th ed., Freiburg im Br., 1901), 67 sqq.; HEFELE, Konziliengesch., VI (2nd ed.), 575 sqq. J.P. KIRSCH Antipope John XXIII John XXIII Antipope of the Pisan party (1400-15), b. about 1370; d. 22 November, 1419. Cardinal Baldassare Cossa was one of the seven cardinals who, in May, 1408, deserted Gregory XII, and, with those belonging to the obedience of Benedict XIII (see Pedro de Luna), convened the Council of Pisa, of which Cossa became the leader. Descended from a noble but impoverished Neapolitan family, he embraced in his youth a military career, but later forsook it for the service of the Church. Endowed with great energy and very talented, he studied law at Bologna, where he took his doctor's degree, and then entered the service of the papal curia. On 27 February, 1402, Boniface IX made him Cardinal-Deacon of St. Eustachius, and in the following year appointed him legate of Romandiola. On 17 March, 1403, he set out for Bologna, where, until 1408, he proved himself an astute financial administrator of the papal territory, as well as a skilful statesman and able commander. At the same time he was utterly worldly-minded, ambitious, crafty, unscrupulous, and immoral, a good soldier but no churchman. He played an important part in the Council of Pisa (1409), and, when the two popes, Gregory XII of Rome and Benedict XIII of Avignon, were deposed, he conducted the election of Pietro Philarghi, who was elevate to the papacy and crowned as Alexander V. The new pope was entirely under the influence of Baldassare Cossa. The latter supported Louis of Anjou in a military expedition against Ladislaus of Naples. Louis seized on several fortresses in the Ecclesiastical States, and in 1400 captured Rome. Alexander V was now proclaimed pope at Rome, but refused to leave Bologna, where he died on 3 May, 1410. In the hope of procuring an understanding with that pope, Prince Malatesta of Rimini, protector of Gregory XII, begged the cardinals of the Pisan obedience to defer a new election. These cardinals assembled at Bologna would not consent, but, supported by Louis of Anjou and the city of Florence, elected Baldassare Cossa, 17 May, 1410. On 24 May Cossa was ordained priest, and on the following day was consecrated and crowned pope, taking the name of John XXIII. Soon after he ascended the throne, John received an ambassador from Sigismund of Hungary, who wished to confer with him about the political and religious affairs of his kingdom. On 18 May King Ruprecht of Germany, the firm supporter of Gregory XII, died. The electors of Mainz and Cologne wrote informing John that they intended to elect Sigismund, King of Hungary, as King of Germany. As Sigismund had, even before he heard of Ruprecht's death, entered into negotiations with the Pisan pope, John exerted himself all the more readily on his behalf, and on 21 July Sigismund, who had become reconciled with his brother Wenzel of Behemia, was chosen King of Germany. Sigismund's election was also recognized by Gregory XII. In April, 1411, John XXIII advanced with Louis of Anjou upon Rome, where they vigorously prosecuted the war against Ladislaus of Naples, and completely routed him at the battle of Roccasecca (19 May, 1411), but made no use of their victory. Soon afterwards, Louis of Anjou returned to France, thus enabling Ladislaus to rally his troops and strengthen his positions. Subsequently, John began negotiations with Ladislaus in spite of the excommunication of 11 August, 1411. Ladislaus thereupon abandoned the cause of Gregory, and acknowledged John as legitimate pope, in recognition of which the latter withdrew his excommunication, enfeoffed Ladislaus with the Kingdom of Naples, consented to his conquest of Sicily, appointed him gonfalonier, or standard-bearer, of the Roman Church, and gave him financial aid (16 October, 1412). In conformity with a resolution passed at the Council of Pisa, John had summoned a new council to meet at Rome on 29 April, 1412, for the purpose of carrying out ecclesiastical reforms. He also appointed a number of new cardinals, among whom were many able men, such as Francesco Zarabella of Florence, Pierre d'Ailly, Bishop of Cambrai, Guillaume Fillastre, dean of Reims, and Robert Hallam, Bishop of Salisbury. From the beginning of 1412 conferences and meetings of the clergy had been held throughout France in preparation for this council, among the representatives appointed by the king being Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly and Patriarch Cramaud, created cardinal in 1413. But, when the council was opened in April, there were so very few participants that it had to be prorogued several times. When the sessions finally began, the only thing accomplished was the condemnation of the writings of Wycliff, the council being dissolved in March, 1413. John's regrettable weakness in dealing with Ladislaus of Naples soon led to another attack by the latter upon papal territory. In May, 1413, he invaded the Roman province, and John was compelled to fly with his cardinals. He escaped to Florence, where he sought the protection of Sigismund, King of Germany, then labouring in Northern Italy for the convocation of a general council to put an end to the unfortunate schism. John's legates were authorized to come to an understanding with Sigismund on this matter, and Sigismund took advantage of the pope's predicament to insist on the selection of Constance as the meeting-place of the council. On 30 October, 1413, Sigismund invited Popes Gregory XII and Benedict XIII and all Christendom to attend, and prevailed on John XXIII, with whom he had a meeting at Lodi towards the end of November, to issue the Convocation Bull (9 December, 1413) of the general council to be opened at Constance on 1 November, 1414. By the sudden death of Ladislaus (6 August, 1414) John's position in Italy was improved, and he could now return to Rome. But the cardinals urgently protested that his presence was needed at the Council of Constance, and that he must adhere to his promise of presiding in person, and direct there the treatment of all ecclesiastical matters. On 1 October, 1414, John set out for Constance with a large following and supplied with ample means, but with heavy heart and anxious forebodings. Timidity and suspicion had replaced the warlike spirit he had shown as cardinal. On his way through the Tyrol he formed an alliance with Frederick of Austria, who was on terms of enmity with Sigismund. John and his nine cardinals made their entry into Constance on 29 October, 1414, and on 5 November the council was opened. The prospects of the Pisan pope became daily more hopeless. The emperor had not bound himself by any permanent obligation towards John. He had needed this pope, as possessing;the largest obedience, to bring about the council, but, from the summer of 1413, he had come to the conclusion that unity could be promoted only by the abdication or the deposal of all three claimants of the papacy. John at first dominated the council, while he endeavoured to increase his adherents by presents, and, by the aid of spies, to learn the temper of the members. However, the hostility of the council towards him became ever more apparent. The chief spokesmen amoang his cardinals were Pierre d'Ailly and Fillastre; after Sigismund's arrival even these plainly expressed their opinion that the only way to put an end to the schism was by the abdication of all three popes. In the second session of the council, John was persuaded to read aloud a formal promise of voluntary abdication of the papacy (2 March, 1415), and to repeat this promise in a Bull of 8 March. But on 20 March he fled secretly from Constance to Schaffhausen in the territory of Duke Frederick of Austria, and thence to Freiburg im Breisgau, which belonged to the Duke of Burgundy, also his adherent. John's flight, in consequence of the great difficulties it caused the council, only increased the hostility towards him, and, while he himself tried to negotiate further concerning his abdication, his supporters were obliged to submit to Sigismund. Formally deposed in the twelfth session (29 May, 1415), John made his submission and commended himself to the mercy of the council. John was accused of the gravest offences in several inimical writings as well as in the formal charges of the council. Undeniably secular and ambitious, his moral life was not above reproach, and his unscrupulous methods in no wise accorded with the requirements of his high office. On the other hand, the heinous crimes of which his opponents in the council accused him were certainly gravely exaggerated. After his abdication he was again known as Baldassare Cossa, and was given into the custody of the Palatine Louis, who had always been his enemy. The latter kept him confined in different places (Rudolfzell, Gottlieben, Heidelberg, and Mannheim). At the forty-second session of the council, 28 Dec., 1417, after Martin V had been elected, the release of Cossa was decreed. It was not, however, till the following year that he recovered his liberty. He then set out for Florence, where Martin V was staying, and did homage to him as the Head of the Church. On 23 June, 1419, the new pope made him Cardinal-Bishop of Tusculum. But Cossa was completely crushed, and died a few months later at Florence, where he was buried in the baptistery beside the cathedral. Cosimo de Medici erected a magnificent tomb to his memory. Vitæ Johannis XXIII in Muratori, Rerum Ital. Scriptores, III, ii, and in Liber Pontif., ed. Duchesne, II, 523 sqq., 536 sqq.; Theodoricus de Niem, Historia de vita Joannis XXIII Pont. Max. Rom., ed. von der Hardt, Constantiense Concilium, II, pt. XV, 335 sqq.; Hunger, Zur Gesch. Papst Johanns XXIII (Bonn, 1876); Schwerdfeger, Papst Johann XXIII und die Wahl Sigismunds zum römischen König (Vienna, 1895); GÖller, König Sigismunds Kirchenpolitik vom Tode Bonifaz' IX bis zur Berufung des Konstanzer Konzils (Freiburg im Br., 1902); Idem, Papst Johann XXIII u. König Sigismund im Sommer 1410 in Römische Quartalschrift (1903), 169 sqq.; Reinke, Frankreich und Papst Johann XXIII (Münster, 1900); Valois, La France et le grand schisme d'Occident, IV (Paris, 1902); Pastor, Gesch. der Päpste, I (4th ed.), 192 sqq.; Hollerbach, Die gregorianische Partei, Sigismund und das Konstanzer Konzil in Röm. Quartalschrift (1909), Geschichte, 129 sqq.; (1910), 3 sqq. See also bibliographies under Constance, Council of ; Pisa, Council of ; Schism, Western . J.P. Kirsch Epistles of Saint John Epistles of Saint John Three canonical books of the New Testament written by the Apostle St. John. The subject will be treated under the following heads: FIRST EPISTLE I. Authenticity II. Canonicity III. Integrity IV. Author V. Time and Place VI. Destination and Purpose VII. Argument SECOND EPISTLE THIRD EPISTLE FIRST EPISTLE I. Authenticity A. External evidence The very brevity of this letter (105 verses divided into five chapters) and the lateness of its composition might lead us to suspect no traces thereof in the Apostolic Fathers. Such traces there are, some unquestionable. St. Polycarp (A.D. 110-117, according to Harnack, whose chronology we shall follow in this article) wrote to the Philippians: "For whosoever confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the Flesh is Antichrist" (c. vi; Funk, "Patres Apostolici", I, 304). Here is an evident trace of I John, iv, 2-3; so evident that Harnack deems this witness of Polycarp conclusive proof that the first Epistle and, consequently, the Gospel of John were written toward the end of the reign of Trajan, i.e. not later than A.D. 117 (cf. Chronologie der Altchristlichen Litteratur, I, 658). It is true that Polycarp does not name John nor quote word for word; the Apostolic Fathers cite from memory and are not wont to name the inspired writer whom they cite. The argument from Polycarp's use of I John is strengthened by the fact that he was, according to Irenæus, the disciple of St. John. The distinctively Johannine phrase "come in the Flesh" (en sarki eleluthota) is also used by the Epistle of Barnabas (v, 10; Funk, op. cit., I, 53), which was written about A.D. 130. We have it on the authority of Eusebius (Hist. eccl., V, xx) that this First Epistle of John was cited by Papias, a disciple of John and fellow of Polycarp (A.D. 145-160). Irenæus (A.D. 181-189) not only cites I John ii, 18, and v, 1 but attributes the citation to John the Lord's disciple ("Adv. Hær." 3, 16; Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", V, viii). The Muratorian Canon (A.D. 195-205) tells the story of the writing of John's Gospel consequent upon a revelation made to the Apostle Andrew, and adds: "What wonder, then, that John so often in his letters gives us details of his Gospel and says of himself, etc." -- here I John. i, 1, is quoted. St. Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 190-203) quotes v, 3, with his usual indubitable accuracy, and expressly assigns the words to John ("Pædag.", III, xi; Kirch. Comm., ed. I, p. 281). Tertullian (A.D. 194-221, according to Sunday) tells us that John, in his Epistle, brands as Antichrist those who deny that Christ is come in the flesh (De Præscrip. 33), and clearly attributes to "John the author of the Apocalypse" several passages of the First Epistle (cf. "Adv. Marc.", III, 8, and V, 16, in P. L., II, 359 and 543; "Adv. Gnost.", 12, in P. L., II, 169; "Adv. Prax.", 15, in P. L., II, 196). B. Internal evidence So striking is the internal evidence in favour of common authorship of the Gospel and First Epistle of John, as to be almost universally admitted. It cannot be by accident that in both documents we find the ever-recurring and most distinctive words light, darkness, truth, life, and love; the strictly Johannine phrases "to walk in the light", "to be of the truth", "to be of the devil", "to be of the world", "to overcome the world", etc. Only such erratic and sceptical critics as Holtzmann and Schmiedel deny the forcefulness of this argument from internal evidence; they conclude that the two documents come from the same school, not from the same hand. II. Canonicity The foregoing citations, the fact that there never was any controversy or doubt among the Fathers in the matter of the canonicity of the First Epistle of John, the existence of this document in all the ancient translations of the New Testament and in the great uncial manuscripts (Sinaitic, Alexandrian, etc.) -- these are arguments of overwhelming cumulative force to establish the acceptance of this letter by the primitive Church as canonical Scripture, and to prove that the inclusion of the First Epistle of John in the Canon of Trent was only a conciliar acceptance of an existing fact -- the feet that the letter had always been among the Homologoumena of Holy Writ. III. Integrity The only part of the letter concerning the authenticity and canonicity whereof there is serious question is the famous passage of the three witnesses: "And there are three who give testimony (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth): the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one" (I John, v, 7-8). Throughout the past three hundred years, effort has been wade to expunge from our Clementine Vulgate edition of canonical Scripture the words that are bracketed. Let us examine the facts of the case. A. Greek Manuscripts The disputed part is found in no uncial Greek manuscripts and in only four rather recent cursives -- one of the fifteenth and three of the sixteenth century. No Greek epistolary manuscript contains the passage. B. Versions No Syriac manuscript of any family -- Peshito, Philoxenian, or Harklean -- has the three witnesses; and their presence in the printed Syriac Gospels is due to translation from the Vulgate. So too, the Coptic manuscripts -- both Sahidic and Bohairic -- have no trace of the disputed part, nor have the Ethiopic manuscripts which represent Greek influence through the medium of Coptic. The Armenian manuscripts, which favour the reading of the Vulgate, are admitted to represent a Latin influence which dates from the twelfth century; early Armenian manuscripts are against the Latin reading. Of the Itala or Old Latin manuscripts, only two have our present reading of the three witnesses: Codex Monacensis (q) of the sixth or seventh century; and the Speculum (m), an eighth or ninth century manuscript which gives many quotations from the New Testament. Even the Vulgate, in the majority of its earliest manuscripts, is without the passage in question. Witnesses to the canonicity are: the Bible of Theodulph (eighth century) in the National Library of Paris; Codex Cavensis (ninth century), the best representative of the Spanish type of text: Toletanus (tenth century); and the majority of Vulgate manuscripts after the twelfth century. There was some dispute as to the canonicity of the three witnesses as early as the sixth century: for the preface to the Catholic Epistles in Codex Fuldensis (A.D. 541-546) complains about the omission of this passage from some of the Latin versions. C. The Fathers (1) Greek Fathers, until the twelfth century, seem one and all to have had no knowledge of the three witnesses as canonical Scripture. At times they cite verses 8 and 9 and omit the disputed portions of verses 7 and 8. The Fourth Lateran (A.D. 1215), in its decree against Abbot Joachim (see Denzinger, 10th ed., n. 431) quotes the disputed passage with the remark "sicut in quibusdam codicibus invenitur". Thereafter, we find the Greek Fathers making use of the text as canonical. (2) The Syriac Fathers never use the text. (3) The Armenian Fathers do not use it before the twelfth century. (4) The Latin Fathers make much earlier use of the text as canonical Scripture. St. Cyprian (third century) seems undoubtedly to have had it in mind, when he quotes John, x, 30, and adds: "Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est -- Et hi tres unum sunt" (De Unitate Ecclesiæ, vi). Clear also is the witness of St. Fulgentius (sixth century, "Responsio contra Arianos" in P. L., LXV, 224), who refers to the above witness of St. Cyprian. In fact, outside of St. Augustine, the Fathers of the African Church are to be grouped with St. Cyprian in favour of the canonicity of the passage. The silence of the great and voluminous St. Augustine and the variation in form of the text in the African Church are admitted facts that militate against the canonicity of the three witnesses. St. Jerome (fourth century) does not seem to know the text. After the sixth century, the disputed passage is more and more in use among the Latin Fathers; and, by the twelfth century, is commonly cited as canonical Scripture. D. Ecclesiastical Documents Trent's is the first certain ecumenical decree, whereby the Church established the Canon of Scripture. We cannot say that the decree of Trent on the Canon necessarily included the three witnesses. For in the preliminary discussions signs that led up to the canonizing of "the entire books with all their parts, as these have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old Latin Vulgate", there was no reference whatsoever to this special part; hence this special part is not canonized by Trent, unless it is certain that the text of the three witnesses has "been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and is contained in the old Latin Vulgate". Both conditions must be verified before the canonicity of the text is certain. Neither condition has as yet been verified with certainty; quite the contrary, textual criticism seems to indicate that the Comma Johanninum was not at all times and everywhere wont to be read in the Catholic Church and is not contained in the original old Latin Vulgate. However, the Catholic theologian must take into account more than textual criticism; to him the authentic decisions of all Roman Congregations are guiding signs in the use of the Sacred Scripture, which the Church and only the Church has given to him as the Word of God. He cannot pass over the disciplinary decision of the Holy Office (13 January, 1897), whereby it is decreed that the authenticity of the Comma Johanninum may not with safety (tuto) be denied or called into doubt. This disciplinary decision was approved by Leo XIII two days later. Though his approval was not in forma specifica, as was Pius X's approval of the Decree "Lamentabili", all further discussion of the text in question must be carried on with due deference to this decree. (See "Revue Biblique", 1898, p. 149; and Pesch, "Prælectiones Dogmaticæ", II, 250.) IV. Author It was of chief moment to determine that this letter is authentic, i.e., belongs to the Apostolic age is Apostolic in its source, and is trustworthy. Among those who admit the authenticity and canonicity of the letter, some hold that its sacred writer was not John the Apostle but John the Presbyter. We have traced the tradition of the Apostolic origin of the letter back to the time of St. Irenæus. Harnack and his followers admit that Irenæus, the disciple of Polycarp, assigns the authorship to St. John the Apostle; but have the hardihood to throw over all tradition, to accuse Irenæus of error in this matter, to cling to the doubtful witness of Papias, and to be utterly regardless of the patent fact that throughout three centuries no other ecclesiastical writer knows anything at all of this John the Presbyter. The doubtful witness of Papias is saved for us by Eusebius ("Hist. eccl." III, xxxix, Funk, "Patres Apostolici", I, p. 350): "And if any one came my way who had been a follower of the elders, I enquired the sayings of the elders -- what had Andrew, or what had Peter said, or what Philip, or what Thomas or James, or what John (he ti Ioannes) or Matthew or any one else of the disciples of the Lord; and what were Aristion and John the elder, the disciples of the Lord, saying?" (a te Apistion kai ho presbuteros Ioannes, oi tou kuriou mathetai legousin). Harnack insists that Eusebius read his sources thoroughly; and, on the authority of Eusebius and of Papias, postulates the existence of a disciple of the Lord named John the Elder, who was distinct from John the Apostle; and to this fictitious John the Elder assigns all the Johannine writings. (See Geschichte der Altchristliche Litteratur, II, i, 657.) With all Catholic authors, we consider that either Eusebius alone, or Papias and Eusebius, erred, and that Irenæus and the rest of the Fathers were right, in fact we lay the blame at the door of Eusebius. As Bardenhewer (Geschichte der Altkirchlichen Literatur, I, 540) says, Eusebius set up a straw man. There never was a John the Elder. So think Funk (Patres Apostolici, I, 354), Dr. Salmon (Dictionary of Christian Biography, III, 398), Hausleiter (Theol. Litteraturblatt, 1896), Stilting, Guerike, and others. Eusebius is here a special pleader. He opposes the millennium. Wrongly fancying that the Apocalypse favours the Chiliasts, he assigns it to this John the Elder and tries to rob the work of its Apostolic authority, the clumsiness of expression of Papias gives occasion to Eusebius in proof of the existence of two disciples of the Lord named John. To be sure, Papias mentions two Johns -- one among the Apostles, the other in a clause with Aristion. Both are called elders; and elders here (presbuteroi) are admitted by Eusebius to be Apostles, since he admits that Papias got information from those who had met the Apostles (substituting ton apostolon for ton presbuteron; see Hist. eccl., III, xxxix, 7). Hence it is that Papias, in joining John with Aristion, speaks of John the Elder and not of Aristion the Elder; Aristion was not an elder or Apostle. The reason for joining the Aristion with John at all is that they were both witnesses of the present to Papias, whereas all the Apostles were witnesses of the past generation. Note that the second aorist (eipen) is used in regard to the group of witnesses of the past generation, since there is question of what they had said, whereas the present (legousin) is used in regard to the witnesses of the present generation, i.e. Aristion and John the Elder, since the question is what they are now saying. The Apostle John was alive in the time of Papias. He and he alone can be the elder of whom Papias speaks. How is it, then, that Papias mentions John twice? Hausleiter conjectures that the phrase he ti Ioannes is a gloss (Theol. Litteraturblatt, 1896). It is likelier that the repetition of the name of John is due to the clumsiness of expression of Papias. He does not mention all the Apostles, but only seven; though he undoubtedly means them all. His mention of John is quite natural in view of the relation in which he stood to that Apostle. After mention of the group that were gone, he names the two from whom he now receives indirect information of the Lord's teaching; these two are the disciple Aristion and John the Apostle. V. Time and Place Irenæus tells us the letter was written by St. John during his stay in Asia (Adv. Hær., III, i). Nothing certain can be determined in this matter. The arguments are probable in favour of Ephesus and also for the last few years of the first century. VI. Destination and Purpose The form is that of an encyclical letter. Its destination is clearly the churches which St. John evangelized, he speaks to his "little children", "beloved", "brethren", and is affectionate and fatherly throughout the entire letter. The purpose is identical with the purpose of the Fourth Gospel -- that his children may believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and that believing may have life eternal in His name (I John, v, 13; John, xx, 31). VII. Argument A logical analysis of the letter would be a mistake. The thought is built up not analytically but synthetically. After a brief introduction, St. John works up the thought that God is Light (i, 5); so, too, should we walk in the light (i, 7), keep from sin (i, 6-ii, 6), observe the new commandment of love (ii, 7), since he that loves is in the light and he that hates is in darkness (ii, 8-iii). Then follows the second leading Johannine thought that God is Love (iii-v, 12). Love means that we are sons of God (iii, 1-4); Divine sonship means that we are not in sin (iii, 4-13), that we love one another (iii, 13-44), that we believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God (iv, 5, 6); for it was love that impelled God to give us His only on (iv, 7-v, 12). The conclusion (v, 13-end) tells the reader that the purpose of the letter is to inculcate faith in Jesus Christ, since this faith is life eternal. In this conclusion as well as in other parts of the letter, the same salient and leading Johannine thoughts recur to defy analysis. John had two or three things to say; he said these two or three things over and over again in ever varying form. SECOND EPISTLE These thirteen verses are directed against the same Docetic errors and germs of Gnosticism which St. John strives to uproot in his Gospel and First Epistle. Harnack and some others, who admit the canonicity of the Second and Third Epistles, assign them to the authorship of John the Elder; we have shown that this John the Elder never existed. The authenticity of this second letter is attested by very early Fathers. St. Polycarp ("Phil.", VII, i; Funk, "Patres Apostolici", I, 304) cites rather II John, 7, than I John, 4. St. Irenæus expressly quotes II John, 10, as the words of "John the Disciple of the Lord". The Muratorian Canon speaks of two Epistles of John. St. Clement of Alexandria speaks of the larger Epistle of John; and, as a consequence, knows at least two. Origen hears witness to the two shorter letters, which "both together do not contain a hundred lines" and are not admitted by all to be authentic. The canonicity of these two letters was long disputed. Eusebius puts them among the Antilegomena. They are not found in the Peshito. The Canon of the Western Church includes them after the fourth century; although only Trent's decree set the question of their canonicity beyond the dispute of such men as Cajetan. The Canon of the Eastern Church, outside that of Antioch, includes them after the fourth century. The style and manner of the second letter are very like to those of the first. The destination of the letter has been much disputed. The opening words are variously interpreted -- "The ancient to the lady Elect, and her children" (ho presbuteros eklekte kuria kai tois teknois autes). We have seen that the elder means the Apostle. Who is the lady elect? Is she the elect Kyria? The lady Eklekte? A lady named Eklekte Kyria? A lady elect, whose name is omitted? A Church? All these interpretations are defended. We consider, with St. Jerome, that the letter is addressed to a particular church, which St. John urges on to faith in Jesus Christ, to the avoidance of heretics, to love. This interpretation best fits in with the ending to the letter -- "The children of thy sister Elect salute thee." THIRD EPISTLE Fourteen verses addressed to Gaius, a private individual. This Gaius seems to have been not an ecclesiastic but a layman of means. He is praised by John for his hospitality to visiting brethren (verses 2-9). The Apostle then goes on: "I had written perhaps to the church; but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them, doth not receive us" (verse 9). This Diotrephes may have been the bishop of the Church. He is found fault with roundly, and Demetrius is set up for an example. This short letter, "twin sister", as St. Jerome called it, to the second of John's letters, is entirely a personal affair. No doctrine is discussed. The lesson of hospitality, especially of care for the preachers of the Gospel is insisted on. The earliest certain recognition of this letter as Apostolic is by St. Denis of Alexandria (third century). Eusebius refers to the letters called "the second and third of John, whether these chance to belong to the evangelist or to someone else with a name like to his" ("Hist. eccl.", III xxv; Schwartz, II, 1, p. 250). The canonicity of the letter has already been treated. The greeting and ending of this letter are internal evidence of composition by the author of the previous Johannine letter. The simple and affectionate style, the firmness of the rebuke of Diotrephes are strictly Johannine. Nothing certain is known as to time and place of writing; but it is generally supposed that the two small letters were written by John towards the end of his long life and in Ephesus. WALTER DRUM Gospel of Saint John Gospel of St. John This subject will be considered under the following heads: I. Contents and Scheme of the Gospel; II. Distinctive Peculiarities; III. Authorship; IV. Circumstances of the Composition; V. Critical Questions Concerning the Text; VI. Historical Genuineness; VII. Object and Importance. I. CONTENTS AND SCHEME OF THE GOSPEL According to the traditional order, the Gospel of St. John occupies the last place among the four canonical Gospels. Although in many of the ancient copies this Gospel was, on account of the Apostolic dignity of the author inserted immediately after or even before the Gospel of St. Matthew, the position it occupies today was from the beginning the most usual and the most approved. As regards its contents, the Gospel of St. John is a narrative of the life of Jesus from His baptism to His Resurrection and His manifestation of Himself in the midst of His disciples. The chronicle falls naturally into four sections: + the prologue (i, 1-18), containing what is in a sense a brief epitome of the whole Gospel in the doctrine of the Incarnation of the Eternal Word; + the first part (i, 19-xii, 50), which recounts the public life of Jesus from His baptism to the eve of His Passion, + the second part (xiii-xxi, 23), which relates the history of the Passion and Resurrection of the Saviour; + a short epilogue (xxi, 23-25), referring to the great mass of the Saviour's words and works which are not recorded in the Gospel. When we come to consider the arrangement of matter by the Evangelist, we find that it follows the historical order of events, as is evident from the above analysis. But the author displays in addition a special concern to determine exactly the time of the occurrence and the connection of the various events fitted into this chronological framework. This is apparent at the very beginning of his narrative when, as though in a diary he chronicles the circumstances attendant on the beginning of the Saviour's public ministry, with four successive definite indications of the time (i, 29, 35, 43, ii, 1). He lays special emphasis on the first miracles: "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee" (ii, 11), and "This is again the second miracle that Jesus did, when he was come out of Judea into Galilee" (iv, 54). Finally, he refers repeatedly throughout to the great religious and national festivals of the Jews for the purpose of indicating the exact historical sequence of the facts related (ii, 13; v, 1; vi, 4; vii, 2; x, 22; xii, 1, xiii, 1). All the early and the majority of modern exegetes are quite justified, therefore, in taking this strictly chronological arrangement of the events as the basis of their commentaries. The divergent views of a few modern scholars are without objective support either in the text of the Gospel or in the history of its exegesis. II. DISTINCTIVE PECULIARITIES The Fourth Gospel is written in Greek, and even a superficial study of it is sufficient to reveal many peculiarities, which give the narrative a distinctive character. Especially characteristic is the vocabulary and diction. His vocabulary is, it is true, less rich in peculiar expressions than that of Paul or of Luke: he uses in all about ninety words not found in any other hagiographer. More numerous are the expressions which are used more frequently by John than by the other sacred writers. Moreover, in comparison with the other books of the New Testament, the narrative of St. John contains a very considerable portion of those words and expressions which might be called the common vocabulary of the Four Evangelists. What is even more distinctive than the vocabulary is the grammatical use of particles, pronouns, prepositions, verbs, etc., in the Gospel of St. John. It is also distinguished by many peculiarities of style, -- asyndeta, reduplications, repetitions, etc. On the whole, the Evangelist reveals a close intimacy with the Hellenistic speech of the first century of our era. which receives at his hands in certain expressions a Hebrew turn. His literary style is deservedly lauded for its noble, natural, and not inartistic simplicity. He combines in harmonious fashion the rustic speech of the Synoptics with the urban phraseology of St. Paul. What first attracts our attention in the subject matter of the Gospel is the confinement of the narrative to the chronicling of events which took place in Judea and Jerusalem. Of the Saviour's labours in Galilee John relates but a few events, without dwelling on details, and of these events only two -- the multiplication of the loaves and fishes (vi, 1-16), and the sea-voyage (vi, 17-21) -- are already related in the Synoptic Gospels. A second limitation of material is seen in the selection of his subject-matter, for compared with the other Evangelists, John chronicles but few miracles and devotes his attention less to the works than to the discourses of Jesus. In most cases the events form, as it were, but a frame for the words, conversation, and teaching of the Saviour and His disputations with His adversaries. In fact it is the controversies with the Sanhedrists at Jerusalem which seem especially to claim the attention of the Evangelist. On such occasions John's interest, both in the narration of the circumstances and in the recording of the discourses and conversation of the Saviour, is a highly theological one. With justice, therefore, was John conceded even in the earliest ages of Christianity, the honorary title of the "theologian" of the Evangelists. There are, in particular, certain great truths, to which he constantly reverts in his Gospel and which may be regarded as his governing ideas, special mention should be made of such expressions as the Light of the World, the Truth, the Life, the Resurrection, etc. Not infrequently these or other phrases are found in pithy, gnomic form at the beginning of a colloquy or discourse of the Saviour, and frequently recur, as a leitmotif, at intervals during the discourse (e. g. vi, 35, 48, 51, 58; x, 7, 9; xv, 1, 5; xvii, 1, 5; etc.). In a far higher degree than in the Synoptics, the whole narrative of the Fourth Gospel centres round the Person of the Redeemer. From his very opening sentences John turns his gaze to the inmost recesses of eternity, to the Divine Word in the bosom of the Father. He never tires of portraying the dignity and glory of the Eternal Word Who vouchsafed to take up His abode among men that, while receiving the revelation of His Divine Majesty, we might also participate in the fullness of His grace and truth. As evidence of the Divinity of the Saviour the author chronicles some of the great wonders by which Christ revealed His glory, but he is far more intent on leading us to a deeper understanding of Christ's Divinity and majesty by a consideration of His words, discourses, and teaching, and to impress upon our minds the far more glorious marvels of His Divine Love. III. AUTHORSHIP If we except the heretics mentioned by Irenaeus (Adv. haer., III, xi, 9) and Epiphanius (Haer., li, 3), the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel was scarcely ever seriously questioned until the end of the eighteenth century. Evanson (1792) and Bretschneider (1820) were the first to run counter to tradition in the question of the authorship, and, since David Friedrich Strauss (1834-40) adopted Bretschneider's views and the members of the Tübingen School, in the wake of Ferdinand Christian Baur, denied the authenticity of this Gospel, the majority of the critics outside the Catholic Church have denied that the Fourth Gospel was authentic. On the admission of many critics, their chief reason lies in the fact that John has too clearly and emphatically made the true Divinity of the Redeemer, in the strict metaphysical sense, the centre of his narrative. However, even Harnack has had to admit that, though denying the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel, he has sought in vain for any satisfactory solution of the Johannine problem: "Again and again have I attempted to solve the problem with various possible theories, but they led me into still greater difficulties, and even developed into contradictions." ("Gesch. der altchristl. Lit.", I, pt. ii, Leipzig, 1897, p. 678.) A short examination of the arguments bearing on the solution of the problem of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel will enable the reader to form an independent judgment. Direct Historical Proof If, as is demanded by the character of the historical question, we first consult the historical testimony of the past, we discover the universally admitted fact that, from the eighteenth century back to at least the third, the Apostle John was accepted without question as the author of the Fourth Gospel. In the examination of evidence therefore, we may begin with the third century, and thence proceed back to the time of the Apostles. The ancient manuscripts and translations of the Gospel constitute the first group of evidence. In the titles, tables of contents, signatures, which are usually added to the text of the separate Gospels, John is in every case and without the faintest indication of doubt named as the author of this Gospel. The earliest of the extant manuscripts, it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century, but the perfect unanimity of all the codices proves to every critic that the prototypes of these manuscripts, at a much earlier date, must have contained the same indications of authorship. Similar is the testimony of the Gospel translations, of which the Syrian, Coptic, and Old Latin extend back in their earliest forms to the second century. The evidence given by the early ecclesiastical authors, whose reference to questions of authorship is but incidental, agrees with that of the above mentioned sources. St. Dionysius of Alexandria (264-5), it is true, sought for a different author for the Apocalypse, owing to the special difficulties which were being then urged by the Millennarianists in Egypt; but he always took for granted as an undoubted fact that the Apostle John was the author of the Fourth Gospel. Equally clear is the testimony of Origen (d. 254). He knew from the tradition of the Church that John was the last of the Evangelists to compose his Gospel (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", VI, xxv, 6), and at least a great portion of his commentary on the Gospel of St. John, in which he everywhere makes clear his conviction of the Apostolic origin of the work has come down to us. Origen's teacher, Clement of Alexandria (d. before 215-6), relates as " the tradition of the old presbyters", that the Apostle John, the last of the Evangelists, "filled with the Holy Ghost, had written a spiritual Gospel" (Eusebius, op. cit., VI, xiv, 7). Of still greater importance is the testimony of St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (d. about 202), linked immediately with the Apostolic Age as he is, through his teacher Polycarp, the disciple of the Apostle John. The native country of Irenaeus (Asia Minor) and the scene of his subsequent ministry (Gaul) render him a witness of the Faith in both the Eastern and the Western Church. He cites in his writings at least one hundred verses from the Fourth Gospel, often with the remark, "as John, the disciple of the Lord, says". In speaking of the composition of the Four Gospels, he says of the last: " Later John, the disciple of the Lord who rested on His breast, also wrote a Gospel, while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia" (Adv. Haer., III, i, n. 2). As here, so also in the other texts it is clear that by "John, the disciple of the Lord," he means none other than the Apostle John. We find that the same conviction concerning the authorship of the Fourth Gospel is expressed at greater length in the Roman Church, about 170, by the writer of the Muratorian Fragment (lines 9-34). Bishop Theophilus of Antioch in Syria (before 181) also cites the beginning of the Fourth Gospel as the words of John (Ad Autolycum, II, xxii). Finally, according to the testimony of a Vatican manuscript (Codex Regin Sueci seu Alexandrinus, 14), Bishop Papias of Hierapolis in Phrygia, an immediate disciple of the Apostle John, included in his great exegetical work an account of the composition of the Gospel by St. John during which he had been employed as scribe by the Apostle. It is scarcely necessary to repeat that, in the passages referred to, Papias and the other ancient writers have in mind but one John, namely the Apostle and Evangelist, and not some other Presbyter John, to be distinguished from the Apostle. (See JOHN THE EVANGELIST, SAINT.) Indirect External Evidence In addition to the direct and express testimony, the first Christian centuries testify indirectly in various ways to the Johannine origin of the Fourth Gospel. Among this indirect evidence the most prominent place must be assigned to the numerous citations of texts from the Gospel which demonstrate its existence and the recognition of its claim to form a portion of the canonical writings of the New Testament, as early as the beginning of the second century. St. Ignatius of Antioch, who died under Trajan (98-117), reveals in the quotations, allusions, and theological views found in his Epistles, an intimate acquaintance with the Fourth Gospel. In the writings of the majority of the other Apostolic Fathers, also, a like acquaintance with this Gospel can scarcely be disputed, especially in the case of Polycarp, the "Martyrium of Polycarp", the "Epistle to Diognetus", and the "Pastor" of Hermas (cf. the list of quotations and allusions in F. X. Funk's edition of the Apostolic Fathers). In speaking of St. Papias, Eusebius says (Hist. eccl., III, xxxix, 17) that he used in his work passages from the First Epistle of St. John. But this Epistle necessarily presupposes the existence of the Gospel, of which it is in a way the introduction or companion work. Furthermore, St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., V, xxxii, 2) cites a sentence of the "presbyters" which contains a quotation from John, xiv, 2, and, according to the opinion of those entitled to speak as critics, St. Papias must be placed in the front rank of the presbyters. Of the second-century apologists, St. Justin (d. about 166), in an especial manner, indicates by his doctrine of the Logos, and in many passages of his apologies the existence of the Fourth Gospel. His disciple Tatian, in the chronological scheme of his " Diatessaron", follows the order of the Fourth Gospel, the prologue of which he employs as the introduction to his work. In his "Apology" also he cites a text from the Gospel. Like Tatian, who apostatized about 172 and joined the Gnostic sect of the Encratites, several other heretics of the second century also supply indirect testimony concerning the Fourth Gospel. Basilides appeals to John, i, 8, and ii, 4. Valentine seeks support for his theories of the ons in expressions taken from John; his pupil Heracleon composed, about 160, a commentary on the Fourth Gospel, while Ptolemy, another of his followers, gives an explanation of the prologue of the Evangelist. Marcion preserves a portion of the canonical text of the Gospel of St. John (xiii, 4-15; xxxiv, 15, 19) in his own apocryphal gospel. The Montanists deduce their doctrine of the Paraclete mainly from John, xv and xvi. Similarly in his "True Discourse" (about 178) the pagan philosopher Celsus bases some of his statements on passages of the Fourth Gospel. On the other hand, indirect testimony concerning this Gospel is also supplied by the oldest ecclesiastical liturgies and the monuments of early Christian art. As to the former, we find from the very beginning texts from the Fourth Gospel used in all parts of the Church, and not infrequently with special predilection. Again, to take one example, the raising of Lazarus depicted in the Catacombs forms, as it were, a monumental commentary on the eleventh chapter of the Gospel of St. John. The Testimony of the Gospel Itself The Gospel itself also furnishes an entirely intelligible solution of the question of authorship. (1) The general character of the work In the first place from the general character of the work we are enabled to draw some inferences regarding its author. To judge from the language, the author was a Palestinian Jew, who was well acquainted with the Hellenic Greek of the upper classes. He also displays an accurate knowledge of the geographical and social conditions of Palestine even in his slightest incidental references. He must have enjoyed personal intercourse with the Saviour and must even have belonged to the circle of his intimate friends. The very style of his chronicle shows the writer to have been an eyewitness of most of the events. Concerning the Apostles John and James the author shows a thoroughly characteristic reserve. He never mentions their names, although he gives those of most of the Apostles, and once only, and then quite incidentally, speaks of "the sons of Zebedee" (xxi, 2). On several occasions, when treating of incidents in which the Apostle John was concerned, he seems intentionally to avoid mentioning his name (John, i, 37-40; xviii, 15, 16; cf. xx, 3-10). He speaks of John the precursor nine times without giving him the title of "the Baptist", as the other Evangelists invariably do to distinguish him from the Apostle. All these indications point clearly to the conclusion that the Apostle John must have been the author of the Fourth Gospel. (2) The express testimony of the author Still clearer grounds for this view are to be found in the express testimony of the author. Having mentioned in his account of the Crucifixion that the disciple whom Jesus loved stood beneath the Cross beside the mother of Jesus (John, xix, 26 sqq.), he adds, after telling of the Death of Christ and the opening of His side, the solemn assurance: "And he that saw it hath given testimony; and his testimony is true. And he knoweth that he saith true: that you also may believe" (xix, 35). According to the admission of all John himself is the "disciple whom the Lord loved". His testimony is contained in the Gospel which for many consecutive years he has announced by word of mouth and which he now sets down in writing for the instruction of the faithful. He assures us, not merely that this testimony is true, but that he was a personal witness of its truth. In this manner he identifies himself with the disciple beloved of the Lord who alone could give such testimony from intimate knowledge. Similarly the author repeats this testimony at the end of his Gospel. After again referring to the disciple whom Jesus loved, he immediately adds the words: "This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things; and we know that his testimony is true" (John, xxi, 24). As the next verse shows, his testimony refers not merely to the events just recorded but to the whole Gospel. It is more in accordance with the text and the general style of the Evangelist to regard these final words as the author's own composition, should we prefer, however, to regard this verse as the addition of the first reader and disciple of the Apostle, the text constitutes the earliest and most venerable evidence of the Johannine origin of the Fourth Gospel. (3) Comparison of the Gospel to the Johannine epistles Finally we can obtain evidence Concerning the author from the Gospel itself, by comparing his work with the three Epistles, which have retained their place among the Catholic Epistles as the writings of the Apostle John. We may here take for granted as a fact admitted by the majority of the critics, that these Epistles are the work of the same writer, and that the author was identical with the author of the Gospel. In fact the arguments based on the unity of style and language, on the uniform Johannine teaching, on the testimony of Christian antiquity, render any reasonable doubt of the common authorship impossible. At the beginning of the Second and Third Epistles the author styles himself simply "the presbyter" -- evidently the title of honour by which he was commonly known among the Christian community. On the other hand, in his First Epistle, he emphasizes repeatedly and with great earnestness the feet that he was an eyewitness of the facts concerning the life of Christ to which he (in his Gospel) had borne testimony among the Christians: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and our hands have handled, of the word of life: for the life was manifested; and we have seen and do bear witness, and declare unto you the life eternal, which was with the Father, and hath appeared to us: that which we have seen and have heard, we declare unto you" (I John, i, 1-3; cf. iv, 14). This "presbyter" who finds it sufficient to use such an honorary title without qualification as his proper name, and was likewise an eye- and earwitness of the incidents of the Saviour's life, can be none other than the Presbyter John mentioned by Papias, who can in turn be none other than John the Apostle (cf. JOHN THE EVANGELIST, SAINT). We can therefore, maintain with the utmost certainty that John the Apostle, the favourite disciple of Jesus, was really the author of the Fourth Gospel. IV. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE COMPOSITION Passing over the intimate circumstances with which early legend has clothed the composition of the Fourth Gospel, we shall discuss briefly the time and place of composition, and the first readers of the Gospel. As to the date of its composition we possess no certain historical information. According to the general opinion, the Gospel is to be referred to the last decade of the first century, or to be still more precise, to 96 or one of the succeeding years. The grounds for this opinion are briefly as follows: + the Fourth Gospel was composed after the three Synoptics; + it was written after the death of Peter, since the last chapter - especially xxi, 18-19 presupposes the death of the Prince of the Apostles; + it was also written after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, for the Evangelist's references to the Jews (cf. particularly xi, 18; xviii, 1; xix, 41) seem to indicate that the end of the city and of the people as a nation is already come; + the text of xxi, 23, appears to imply that John was already far advanced in years when he wrote the Gospel; + those who denied the Divinity of Christ, the very point to which St. John devotes special attention throughout his Gospel, began to disseminate their heresy about the end of the first century; + finally, we have direct evidence concerning the date of composition. The so-called "Monarchian Prologue" to the Fourth Gospel, which was probably written about the year 200 or a little later, says concerning the date of the appearance of the Gospel: "He [sc. the Apostle John] wrote this Gospel in the Province of Asia, after he had composed the Apocalypse on the Island of Patmos". The banishment of John to Patmos occurred in the last year of Domitian's reign (i.e. about 95). A few months before his death (18 September, 96), the emperor had discontinued the persecution of the Christians and recalled the exiles (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", III, xx, nn. 5-7). This evidence would therefore refer the composition of the Gospel to A.D. 96 or one of the years immediately following. The place of composition was, according to the above-mentioned prologue, the province of Asia. Still more precise is the statement of St. Irenaeus, who tells us that John wrote his Gospel "at Ephesus in Asia" (Adv. haer., III, i, 2). All the other early references are in agreement with these statements. The first readers of the Gospel were the Christians of the second and third generations in Asia Minor. There was no need of initiating them into the elements of the Faith; consequently John must have aimed rather at confirming against the attacks of its opponents the Faith handed down by their parents. V. CRITICAL QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE TEXT As regards the text of the Gospel, the critics take special exception to three passages, 5:3-4; 7:53-8:11; and 21. John 5:3-4 The fifth chapter tells of the cure of the paralytic at the pool of Bethsaida in Jerusalem. According to the Vulgate the text of the second part of verse three and verse four runs as follows: " . . . waiting for the moving of the water. And an angel of the Lord descended at certain times into the pond, and the water was moved. And he that went down first into the pond after the motion of the water, was made whole, of whatsoever infirmity he lay under." But these words are wanting in the three oldest manuscripts, the Codex Vaticanus (B), Codex Sinaiticus (aleph), and Codex Bez (D), in the original text of the palimpsest of St. Ephraem (C), in the Syrian translation of Cureton, as well as in the Coptic and Sahidic translations, in some minuscules, in three manuscripts of the Itala, in four of the Vulgate, and in some Armenian manuscripts. Other copies append to the words a critical sign which indicates a doubt as to their authenticity. The passage is therefore regarded by the majority of modern critics, including the Catholic exegetes, Schegg, Schanz, Belser, etc., as a later addition by Papias or some other disciple of the Apostle. Other exegetes, e.g. Corluy, Comely, Knabenbauer, and Murillo, defend the authenticity of the passage urging in its favour important internal and external evidence. In the first place the words are found in the Codex Alexandrinus (A), the emended Codex Ephraemi (C), in almost all minuscule manuscripts, in six manuscripts of the Itala, in most of the Bodices of the Vulgate, including the best, in the Syrian Peshito, in the Syrian translation of Philoxenus (with a critical mark), in the Persian, Arabic, and Slavonic translations, and in some manuscripts of the Armenian text. More important is the fact that, even before the date of our present bodices, the words were found by many of the Greek and Latin Fathers in the text of the Gospel. This is clear from Tertullian [De bapt., i (before 202)], Didymus of Alexandria [De Trin., II, xiv (about 381)], St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine [Sermo xv (al. xii), De verbis Evangelii S. Joannis), although the last-mentioned, in his tractate on the Gospel of St. John, omits the passage. The context of the narrative seems necessarily to presuppose the presence of the words. The subsequent answer of the sick man (v. 7), "Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pond. For whilst I am coming, another goeth down before me", could scarcely be intelligible without verse 4, and the Evangelist is not accustomed to omit such necessary information from his text. Thus both sides have good grounds for their opinions, and no final decision on the question, from the standpoint of the textual critic, seems possible. John 7:53-8:11 This passage contains the story of the adulteress. The external critical evidence seems in this ease to give still clearer decision against the authenticity of this passage. It is wanting in the four earliest manuscripts (B, A, C, and aleph) and many others, while in many copies it is admitted only with the critical mark, indicative of doubtful authenticity. Nor is it found in the Syrian translation of Cureton, in the Sinaiticus, the Gothic translation, in most codices of the Peshito, or of the Coptic and Armenian translations, or finally in the oldest manuscripts of the Itala. None of the Greek Fathers have treated the incident in their commentaries, and, among Latin writers, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Hilary appear to have no knowledge of this pericope. Notwithstanding the weight of the external evidence of these important authorities, it is possible to adduce still more important testimony in favour of the authenticity of the passage. As for the manuscripts, we know on the authority of St. Jerome that the incident "was contained in many Greek and Latin codices" (Contra Pelagium, II, xvii), a testimony supported today by the Codex Bez of Canterbury (D) and many others. The authenticity of the passage is also favoured by the Vulgate, by the Ethiopians Arabic, and Slavonic translations, and by many manuscripts of the Itala and of the Armenian and Syrian text. Of the commentaries of the Greek Fathers, the books of Origen dealing with this portion of the Gospel are no longer extant; only a portion of the commentary of St. Cyril of Alexandria has reached us, while the homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Fourth Gospel must be considered a treatment of selected passages rather than of the whole text. Among the Latin Fathers, Sts. Ambrose and Augustine included the pericope in their text, and seek an explanation of its omission from other manuscripts in the fact that the incident might easily give rise to offense (cf. especially Augustine, " De coniugiis adulteris", II, vii). It is thus much easier to explain the omission of the incident from many copies than the addition of such a passage in so many ancient versions in all parts of the Church. It is furthermore admitted by the critics that the style and mode of presentation have not the slightest trace of apocryphal origin, but reveal throughout the hand of a true master. Too much importance should not be attached to variations of vocabulary, which may be found on comparing this passage with the rest of the Gospel, since the correct reading of the text is in many places doubtful, and any such differences of language may be easily harmonized with the strongly individual style of the Evangelist. It is thus possible, even from the purely critical standpoint, to adduce strong evidence in favour of the canonicity and inspired character of this pericope, which by decision of the Council of Trent, forms a part of the Holy Bible. John 21 Concerning the last chapter of the Gospel a few remarks will suffice. The last two verses of the twentieth chapter indicate clearly indeed that the Evangelist intended to terminate his work here: "Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name " (xx, 30 sq.). But the sole conclusion that can be deduced from this is that the twenty-first chapter was afterwards added and is therefore to be regarded as an appendix to the Gospel. Evidence has yet to be produced to show that it was not the Evangelist, but another, who wrote this appendix. The opinion is at present fairly general, even among critics, that the vocabulary, style, and the mode of presentation as a whole, together with the subject-matter of the passage reveal the common authorship of this chapter and the preceding portions of the Fourth Gospel. VI. HISTORICAL GENUINENESS Objections Raised against the Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel The historical genuineness of the Fourth Gospel is at the present time almost universally denied outside the Catholic Church. Since David Friedrich Strauss and Ferdinand Christian Baur this denial has been postulated in advance in most of the critical inquiries into the Gospels and the life of Jesus. Influenced by this prevailing tendency, Alfred Loisy also reached the point where he openly denied the historicity of the Fourth Gospel; in his opinion the author desired, not to write a history, but to clothe in symbolical garb his religious ideas and theological speculations. The writings of Loisy and their rationalistic prototypes, especially those of the German critics, have influenced many later exegetes, who while wishing to maintain the Catholic standpoint in general, concede only a very limited measure of historical genuineness to the Fourth Gospel. Among this class are included those who acknowledge as historical the main outlines of the Evangelist's narrative, but see in many individual portions only symbolical embellishments. Others hold with H. J. Holtzmann that we must recognize in the Gospel a mixture of the subjective, theological speculations of the author and the objective, personal recollections of his intercourse with Christ, without any possibility of our distinguishing by sure criteria these different elements. That such a hypothesis precludes any further question as to the historical genuineness of the Johannine narrative, is evident, and is indeed candidly admitted by the representatives of these views. On examining the grounds for this denial or limitation of the historical genuineness of John we find that they are drawn by the critics almost exclusively from the relation of the Fourth Gospel to the Synoptic narrative. On comparison three points of contrast are discovered: (1) with respect to the events which are related; (2) in regard to the mode of presentation; and (3) in the doctrine which is contained in the narrative. (1) The events related As regards the events related, the great contrast between John and the Synoptists in the choice and arrangement of materials is especially accentuated. The latter show us the Saviour almost exclusively in Galilee, labouring among the common people: John, on the other hand, devotes himself chiefly to chronicling Christ's work in Judea, and His conflicts with the Sanhedrists at Jerusalem. An easy solution of this first difficulty is found in the special circumstances attending the composition of the Fourth Gospel. John may - in fact must - have assumed that the Synoptic narrative was known to his readers at the end of the first century. The interest and spiritual needs of these readers demanded primarily that he supplement the evangelical story in such a manner as to lead to a deeper knowledge of the Person and Divinity of the Saviour, against which the first heresies of Cerinthus, the Ebionites, and the Nicolaites were being already disseminated in Christian communities. But it was chiefly in His discussions with the Scribes and Pharisees at Jerusalem that Christ had spoken of His Person and Divinity. In his Gospel, therefore John made it his primary purpose to set down the sublime teachings of Our Saviour, to safeguard the Faith of the Christians against the attacks of the heretics. When we come to consider the individual events in the narrative, three points in particular are brought forward: + the duration of Christ's public ministry extends in the Fourth Gospel over at least two years, probably indeed over three years, and some months. However, the Synoptic account of the public life of Jesus can by no means be confined within the narrow space of one year, as some modern critics contend. The three earliest Evangelists also suppose the space of at least two years and some months. + The purification of the Temple is referred by John to the beginning of the Saviour's ministry, while the Synoptists narrate it at the close. But it is by no means proven that this purification occurred but once. The critics bring forward not a single objective reason why we should not hold that the incident, under the circumstances related in the Synoptics, as well as those of the Fourth Gospel, had its historical place at the beginning and at the end of the public life of Jesus. + Notwithstanding all the objections brought forward, John is in agreement with the Synoptists as to the date of the Last Supper. It occurred on Thursday, the thirteenth day of Nisan, and the Crucifixion took place on Friday, the fourteenth. The fact that according to John, Christ held the Supper with His Apostles on Thursday, while, according to the Synoptists, the Jews ate the paschal lamb on Friday, is not irreconcilable with the above statement. The most probable solution of the question lies in the legitimate and widespread custom, according to which, when the fifteenth of Nisan fell on the Sabbath, as it did in the year of the Crucifixion, the paschal lamb was killed in the evening hours of the thirteenth of Nisan and the paschal feast celebrated on this or the following evening, to avoid all infringement of the strict sabbatic rest. (2) The mode of presentation As regards the mode of presentation, it is especially insisted that the great sublimity of the Fourth Gospel is difficult to reconcile with the homely simplicity of the Synoptics. This objection, however, entirely disregards the great differences in the circumstances under which the Gospels were written. For the Christians of the third generation in Asia living in the midst of flourishing schools, the Fourth Evangelist was forced to adopt an entirely different style from that employed by his predecessors in writing for the newly-converted Jews and pagans of the earlier period. Another difficulty raised is the fact that the peculiar Johannine style is found not only in the narrative portions of the Gospel, but also in the discourses of Jesus and in the words of the Baptist and other personages. But we must remember that all the discourses and colloquies had to be translated from Aramaic into Greek, and in this process received from the author their distinctive unity of style. Besides in the Gospel, the intention is by no means to give a verbatim report of every sentence and expression of a discourse, a sermon, or a disputation. The leading ideas alone are set forth in exact accordance with the sense, and, in this manner, also, they come to reflect the style of the Evangelist. Finally, the disciple surely received from his Master many of the distinctive metaphors and expressions which imprint on the Gospel its peculiar character. (3) The doctrinal content The difference in doctrinal content lies only in the external forms and does not extend to the truths themselves. A satisfactory explanation of the dogmatic character of John's narrative, as compared with the stress laid on the moral side of the discourses of Jesus by the Synoptists, is to be found in the character of his first readers, to which reference has already been repeatedly made. To the same cause, also, must be ascribed the further difference between the Gospels namely, why John makes his teaching centre around the Person of Jesus, while the Synoptics bring into relief rather the Kingdom of God. At the end of the first century there was no need for the Evangelist to repeat the lessons concerning the Kingdom of Heaven, already amply treated by his predecessors. His was the especial task to emphasize, in opposition to the heretics, the fundamental truth of the Divinity of the Founder of this Kingdom, and by chronicling those words and works of the Redeemer in which He Himself had revealed the majesty of His glory, to lead the faithful to a more profound knowledge of this truth. It is superfluous to say that in the teaching itself, especially regarding the Person of the Redeemer, there is not the slightest contradiction between John and the Synoptists. The critics themselves have to admit that even in the Synoptic Gospels Christ, when He speaks of His relations with the Father, assumes the solemn "Johannine" mode of speech. It will be sufficient to recall the impressive words: "And no one knoweth the Son, but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him" (Matt., xi, 27; Luke, x, 22). (4) Positive Evidence for the Historical Genuineness of the Gospel The reasons urged against the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel are devoid of all conclusive force. On the other hand, its genuineness is vouched for by the whole character of the narrative. From the very beginning the events are portrayed with the precision of an eyewitness; the most minute subsidiary circumstances are mentioned; not the least suggestion can be found that the author had any other object in mind than the chronicling of the strict historical truth. A perusal of the passages describing the call of the first disciples (i, 35-51), the Marriage at Cana (ii, 1-11), the conversation with the Samaritan woman (iv, 3-42), the healing of the man born blind (ix, 1-41), the raising of Lazarus (xi, 1-47), is sufficient to convince one that such a chronicle must necessarily lead the readers into error, if the events which are described be otherwise than true in the historical sense. To this must be added the express assertion made repeatedly by the Evangelist that he speaks the truth and claims for his words unqualified belief (xix, 35; xx, 30 sq.; xxi, 24; I John, i, 1-4). To reject these assurances is to label the Evangelist a worthless impostor, and to make of his Gospel an unsolvable historical and psychological enigma. And finally, the verdict of the entire Christian past has certainly a distinct claim to consideration in this question, since the Fourth Gospel has always been unhesitatingly accepted as one of the chief and historically credible sources of our knowledge of the life of Jesus Christ. With entire justice, therefore, have the contrary views been condemned in clauses 16-18 of the Decree "Lamentabili" (3 July, 1907) and in the Decree of the Biblical Commission of 29 May, 1907. VII. OBJECT AND IMPORTANCE The intention of the Evangelist in composing the Gospel is expressed in the words which we have already quoted: "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" (xx, 31). He wished also by his work to confirm the faith of the disciples in the Messianic character and the Divinity of Christ. To attain his object, he selected principally those discourses and colloquies of Jesus in which the self-revelation of the Redeemer laid clearest emphasis on the Divine Majesty of His Being. In this manner John wished to secure the faithful against the temptations of the false learning by means of which the heretics might prejudice the purity of their faith. Towards the narrative of the earlier Evangelists John's attitude was that of one who sought to fill out the story of the words and works of the Saviour, while endeavouring to secure certain incidents from misinterpretation. His Gospel thus forms a glorious conclusion of the joyous message of the Eternal Word. For all time it remains for the Church the most sublime testimony of her faith in the Son of God, the radiant lamp of truth for her doctrine, the never-ceasing source of loving zeal in her devotion to her Master, Who loves her even to the end. Commentaries on the Gospel of St. John. In early Christian times: the Homilies of ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM and the Tractates of ST. AUGUSTINE; the extant portions of the commentaries of ORIGEN and ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA; the expositions of THEOPHYLACTUS and EUTHYMIUS, who generally follow Chrysostom, and the exegetical works of ST. BEDE, who follows Augustine. In the Middle Ages: the interpretations of ST. THOMAS AQUINAS and ST. BONAVENTURE, of Blessed ALBERTUS MAGNUS, RUPERT of DEUTZ, and ST. BRUNO OF SEGNI. LEOPOLD FONCK Sts. John and Paul Sts. John and Paul Martyred at Rome on 26 June. The year of their martyrdom is uncertain according to their Acts, it occurred under Julian the Apostate (361-3). In the second half of the fourth century, Byzantius, the Roman senator, and Pammachius, his son, fashioned their house on the Cælian Hill into a Christian basilica. In the fifth century the presbyteri tituli Byzantii (priests of the church of Byzantius) are mentioned in an inscription and among the signatures of the Roman Council of 499. The church was also called the titulus Pammachii after Byzantius's son, the pious friend of St. Jerome. In the ancient apartments on the ground-floor of the house of Byzantius, which were still retained under the basilica, the tomb of two Roman martyrs, John and Paul, was the object of veneration as early as the fifth century. The Sacramentarium Leonianum already indicates in the preface to the feast of the saints, that they rested within the city walls ("Sacr. Leon.", ed. Feltoe, Cambridge, 1896, 34), while, in one of the early itineraries to the tombs of the Roman martyrs, their grave is assigned to the church on the Cælian (De rossi, "Roma sotterrania", I, 138, 175). The titulus Byzantii or Pammachii was consequently known at a very early date by the names of the two martyrs (titulus SS. Joannis et Pauli). That the two saints are martyrs of the Roman Church, is historically certain; as to how and when their bodies found a resting-place in the house of Pammachius under the basilica, we only know that it certainly occurred in the fourth century. The year and circumstances of their martyrdom are likewise unknown. According to their Acts, which are of a purely legendary character and without historical foundation, the martyrs were eunuchs of Constantina, daughter of Constantine the Great, and became acquainted with a certain Gallicanus, who built a church in Ostia. At the command of Julian the Apostate, they were beheaded secretly by Terentianus in their house on the Cælian, where their church was subsequently erected, and where they themselves were buried. The rooms on the ground-floor of the above-mentioned house of Pammachius were rediscovered under the Basilica of SS. Giovanni e Paolo in Rome. They are decorated with important and interesting frescoes, while the original tomb (confessio) of Sts. John and Paul is covered with paintings of which the martyrs are the subject. The rooms and the tomb form one of the most important early Christian memorials in Rome. Since the erection of the basilica, the two saints have been greatly venerated, and their names have been inserted in the Canon of the Mass. Their feast is kept on 26 June. MOMBRITIUS, Sanctuarium, I, 317 sq.; Acta SS., V, June, 159-60 -- cf. ibid., 37-9; Bibl. hagior. latina, ed. BOLLANDISTS, I, 484 sq. (s. v. Gallicanus); GERMANO DI S. STANISLAO, La casa celimontana dei ss. martiri Giovanni e Paolo (Rome, 1894); DUFOURCQ, Gesta mart. rom. (Paris 1900), 145-52; ALLARD, Etudes d'histoire et d'archéologie (Paris, 1899), 159 sqq.; FRANCHI DE' CAVALIERI, Nuove note agiografiche in Studi e testi, IX (Rome, 1902). J. P. KIRSCH St. John Baptist de la Salle St. John Baptist de la Salle Founder of the Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools, educational reformer, and father of modern pedagogy, was born at Reims, 30 April, 1651, and died at Saint-Yon, Rouen, on Good Friday, 7 April, 1719. The family of de la Salle traces its origin to Johan Salla, who, in the early part of the ninth century, was Commander-in-chief of the Royal forces of Alfonso the Chaste. It was not, however, until about 1350 that the younger branch of this family, from which our saint is descended, removed to France and settled in Champagne. John Baptist was the eldest child of Louis de la Salle and Nicolle de Moet de Brouillet. His parents were very solicitous in the care they bestowed upon their child, especially in regard to is moral and intellectual development. After due preparation, he was sent to the College des Bons Enfants, where he pursed the higher studies and, on 10 July, 1669, he took the degree of Master of Arts. Canon Pierre Dozet, chancellor of the University of Reims, was the presiding officer at the academic sessions, and in the discharge of his function had opportunity to study the character of his young cousin, de la Salle, with the result that he determined on resigning his canonry in his favour. Louis de la Salle, however, cherished the hope that John Baptist would select the profession of law, and thereby maintain the family tradition. But young de la Salle insisted that he was called to serve the Church, and accordingly he received the tonsure 11 March, 1662, and wa solemnly installed as a canon of the metropolitan See of Reims, 7 January, 1667. When de la Salle had completed his classical, literary, and philosophical courses and had read the Schoolmen, he was sent to Paris to enter the Seminary of Saint-Sulpice on 18 October, 1670. While residing here he attended the lectures in theology at the Sorbonne. There, under the direction of Louis Tronson, he made such rapid progress in virtue, that M. Lechassier, superior general of the Congregation of Saint-Sulpice, renders this testimony of him: "De la Salle was a constant observer of the rule. His conversation was always pleasing and above reproach. He seems never to have given offence to any one, nor to have incurred any one's censure." While at the seminary de la Salle distinguished himself by his piety as well as by the vigour of his intellectual progress and the ability with which he handled theological subjects. Nine months after his arrival in Paris, his mother died, 19 July, 1671, and on 9 April, 1672, his father died. This circumstance obliged him to leave Saint-Sulpice, 19 April, 1672. He was now twenty-one, the head of the family, and as such had the responsibility of educating his brothers and sisters. His whole attention was devoted to his domestic affairs, and he provided for every circumstance by his discreet, businesslike administration. Canon Blain says that he underwent at this time many mental struggles. Distrusting his own lights, de la Salle had recourse to prayer and the guidance of discreet advisers, among them, Nicolas Roland, canon and theologian of Reims, a man of great spiritual discernment. Acting upon the advice of the latter, the future founder was ordained subdeacon at Cambrai, by Archbishop Ladislas Jonnart, 2 June, 1672. When not occupied with the duties of his canonry or with his theological studies, he was engaged in good works, under the guidance of his spiritual director. After four years, he was ordained deacon at Paris, 21 March, 1676, by Francois Batailler, Bishop of Bethlehem. On this occasion de la Salle sought to obtain the permission of Maurice Le Tellier, Archbishop of Reims, to resign his canonry and prepare for parish work. Nicolas Roland urged him to take this step, alleging that a rich canonry was little in harmony with youthful zeal and activity. His archbishop, however refused his request. With humble submission, de la Salle accepted the decision and returned to Reims to pursue his studies and to make final preparations for his ordination to the priesthood. He was ordained priest by the Archbishop of Reims, on Holy Saturday, 9 April, 1678. The young priest was a model of piety, and his biographers say that persons went to assist at his Mass to be edified, and to share his piety. After Mass there were many who sought his counsel and put themselves under his spiritual guidance. De la Salle never omitted Holy Mass, save when prevented by sickness. In June, 1680, he submitted to his final examination and took his doctorate in theology. At this period of his life de la Salle evinced a docility of spirit, a self-diffidence, that bespoke the character of the man and saint. In physical appearance he was of commanding presence, somewhat above the medium height, and well-proportioned. He had large, penetrating blue eyes and a broad forehead. His portraits present a picture of sweetness and dignity, beaming with intelligence and breathing an air of modesty and refined grace. A smile plays about the finely chiseled lips and illumines a countenance to which the large lustrous eyes give an air of commanding intelligence. During the few years that intervened between his ordination to the priesthood and the establishing of the institute, de la Salle was occupied in carrying out the last will and testament of Nicolas Roland, who, when dying, had confided to him the newly established Congregation of the Sisters of the Child Jesus. "Your zeal will bring it to prosperity", said Nicolas Roland to him. "You will complete the work which I have begun. In all this, Father Barre will be your model and guide." Thus was de la Salle imperceptibly drawn towards his life-work. "The idea never occurred to me", de la Salle wrote in a memoir. "If I had ever though that what I did out of pure charity for the poor school teachers would make it incumbent upon me to live with them, I would have given it up at once." This sentiment he again expressed towards the close of his life in these emphatic words: "If God had revealed to me the good that could be accomplished by this institute, and had likewise made known to me the trials and sufferings which would accompany it, my courage would have failed me, and I would never have undertaken it." At this period de la Salle was still occupied with his functions as canon. He was, however, aroused to the higher calling by a message from Madame Maillefer, in March, 1679, requesting him to aid Adrien Nyel in opening a free school at Reims. But hardly had he succeeded in establishing the school of St-Maurice when he quietly withdrew from the work, as if it were not his mission. Shortly afterwards the opening of another free school in St-Jacques parish lured him again from his seclusion, but he soon retired again. Although instrumental in opening these elementary free schools at Reims, de la Salle seemed to allow Adrien Nyel to share all the honours resulting therefrom, while he was content to labour assiduously for the real progress of both schools. He was unconsciously attracted to the work. Daily he visited the teachers to encourage the or suggest practical methods to attain definite results. But when he found that the teachers became discouraged, owing to the lack of proper guidance after school hours, he undertook to house them, that he might be able to direct them and give them practical lessons in the useful employment of time, and to prevent weariness and disgust. Not only did he aid them in class and after class, but he made good any deficit in the cost of living. He even admitted them to his own table and later on sheltered them under his roof. Thus was he drawn closer and closer to them, forming an intimate fellowship with the teachers of the poor. "It was, indeed", says Mgr. Guibert, "his love that induced de la Salle to devote himself to the young teachers of Reims. They were like abandoned sheep without a shepherd. He assumed the responsibility of uniting them." As yet de la Salle had no definitive plans for the future, even as late as 2 June, 182, when he transferred his little community to the vicinity of rue Neuve. He simply kept himself in readiness to follow the guidance of Providence. He resigned his canonry in July, 1683, and he distributed his fortune to the poor in the winter of 184, thus giving convincing proofs that he would not hesitate to make any sacrifices necessary to complete the good work he had begun. Pere Barre counselled de la Salle to give up whatever might divert his attention from procuring God's glory. In reply to the earnest remonstrances of his friends and kinsfolk, he meekly answered: "I must do the work of God, and if the worst should come to pass, we shall have to beg alms." Reliance upon Providence was henceforth to be the foundation of the Christian Schools. Up to this period (1684) the institute had lacked the characteristics of a permanent organization. From 1694 to 1717, the struggle for existence was most critical. In 1692 the institute was so weakened by deaths and defections that de la Salle could hardly find two Brothers who were willing to bind themselves by vow to maintain the free schools. The death of Henri L'Heureux in December, 1690, materially affected the rules of the Brothers of the Christian Schools. De la Salle, intending this gifted young Brother to be the future superior of the congregation, entertained the hope of having him ordained priest, and with this view he sent him to Paris to pursue his theological studies at the Sorbonne. After a brilliant course, Brother Henri L'Heureux was ready for ordination, but before this event took place the young candidate fell sick and died. The loss of this Brother was a blow to the founder. After passing the whole night in prayer, he rose up, not only comforted but strengthened, but also enlightened as to the character of his future institute. He then determined that there should be no priests among the members of his institute. Although there were priests and lay brothers in nearly all existing religious orders, de la Salle was convinced that the time had come for a change in this matter in the new congregation. Brother Lucard, the Annalist of the institute, thus sums up the matter: "Since the death of Henri L'Heureux, de la Salle was firmly convinced that his institute was to be founded on simplicity and humility. No Brother could, without compromising his congregation, allow himself to be diverted from his functions as a teacher, by devoting himself to special studies, the saying of the Divine Office, or the fulfillment of other duties obligatory on the sacred ministry." Therefore, no Brother can aspire to the priesthood nor perform any priestly function, and no ecclesiastic can become a member of the institute. This is the new rule that de la Salle added, and it is embodied in the Constitution of the institute. From 1702 the founder began to endure a long period of trial, aggravated by persecution on the part of certain ecclesiastical authorities. In November, 1702, he was deposed by Cardinal de Noailles, and supplanted for a time by the Rev. B. Bricot. In 1703 one of his most trusted disciples, Nicolas Vuyart, treacherously deserted him. For the next ten years the holy founded was engaged in a series of struggles for the preservation of his institute, in the course of which his name was attacked, and justice denied him before the civil tribunals. After thirty-five years of hard labour, his work seemed to be almost on the verge of ruin. His confidence in God was so firm and unshaken that he was never really discouraged. In 171 he convoked a chapter for the purpose of solidifying the work and for the election of a superior general. His aim was to have a Brother elected during his lifetime and thus perfect the government of the institute in accordance with the rule he had formulated. The choice of the assembled Brothers fell upon Brother Barthelemy, a man whom all esteemed for his learning and virtue. The institute was now an accomplished fact. And from the first interview with Adrien Nyel, in 1679, de la Salle belonged wholly to the Brothers, sharing with them the burden of labour and observing the common rule. He never left them to engage in other works. De la Salle was too prudent and too well inspired by God, not to give his institute a positive character in its twofold object: the Christian education of youth and the cultivation of that spirit of faith, piety, mortification, and obedience which should characterize its members. His gift of gaining souls to God, and of leading them to make great sacrifices, was supplemented by the splendid executive ability that enabled him to found an institute and to supervise and direct its gradual development. A study of the extraordinary religious, social, and educational conditions, at the time the institute was founded by de la Salle, will show the peculiar character of the difficulties he had to encounter and overcome. Jansenism had gained the ascendancy in France and spread broadcast its pernicious doctrines; it fostered internal dissensions and promoted Gallicanism, to the great detriment of the Faith and of loyalty to the Holy See. In the social order, a spirit of exaggerated independence was abroad, condemning authority or thrusting it aside. When such conditions prevailed in the upper classes, one may well ask, what must have been the condition of the masses? The incessant foreign and internal wars, with their consequent evils, told with disastrous effect upon the people. Exorbitant demands on the part of army officials, the violence of the soldiery, the rapine of supervisors, the wholesale plunder of crops, followed by famine and ruin, left whole provinces of France under the weight of terrible sufferings and untold misery. The peasants frequently had no bread, and when they had it the circumstances were such as to deprive them of any hope of sustenance for the morrow. Even when the gloom of internal turmoil had been momentarily brightened by the splendid victories abroad, the sad effect of the glory of the reign of Louis XIV made the mourning in cottages only the more bitter owing of the loss of the loved ones on foreign battlefields. Evidently, morals among the masses under these dire circumstances were threatened with ruin, as were the social and economic conditions; for false doctrines were spread and took hold among the people, destroying their faith and stultifying their consciences. Schools there were, but they were poorly attended and shamefully neglected. The children and the people generally were ignorant, and vice, according to contemporary authorities, was rampant among all classes. De la Salle carefully studied these conditions and, moved to compassion for the poor, resolved to improve their social and moral status. The founder grasped the situation and proposed as a remedy, popular free schools thoroughly graded and supplied with zealous teachers, who would implant in the hearts of the children the germs of those virtues that would tend towards the regeneration of both the pupils and the parents. He saw that a religious congregation composed of enlightened men, eager for the salvation of souls, could alone stem the tide of irreligion, vice, and ignorance. He clearly perceived that, in the peculiar conditions which surround any institute at the period of its origin, the work proposed to be done should embody in its ends the special requirements of the age in which it originates. He also foresaw that, while the guiding spirit of such an institute must ever remain fundamentally the same, its scope, as a permanent organization working for the welfare of humanity, should have the character of a social force answering to the needs and conditions of any age and country. The various educational reforms which de la Salle introduced prove that he legislated wisely. The courses of study for elementary free schools, technical schools, and colleges are evidences of his broad culture and wide grasp of educational problems. Hence, if the needs of a certain locality called for special branches, or if the times and conditions demanded certain advanced studies, de la Salle was not slow in responding nor in giving these subjects a place commensurate in importance with their educational value. De la Salle, furthermore, displayed his genius in giving is institute a distinctive character, that of a teaching body, consecrated to the work of popular education. Thus he became the author of a system of psychologic pedagogy which included the essential principles adopted by later workers in the field of educational reforms, notably by Pestalozzi, Fröbel, Herbart, and others. In making the vernacular the basis of all instruction, de la Salle appealed to the intelligence of the child, prepared the way for the study of national literature, and opened up to the grown man those avenues of real knowledge and delight that had hitherto been closed against the eager multitude. With true scientific insight he perceived the absurdity of retaining Latin texts to teach the art of reading. For this change he gave the following reasons: + The teaching of the art of reading, in primary and elementary schools, through the vernacular, is of greater and wider utility than by Latin texts. + The vernacular is more easily taught to children, who already possess some knowledge of it, than the Latin of which they are wholly ignorant. + It requires considerably less time to learn the art of reading through the vernacular than through a foreign tongue. + The boys and girls attending the primary and elementary schools, can spend only a few years under instruction. Now, if thy are taught reading from a Latin text, they generally leave school without being able to read the vernacular, and with only an imperfect knowledge of how to read the Latin. Hence, they will soon forget the little they have learned, and, perhaps, even how to read the vernacular. + Reading is one of he most efficacious means of acquiring knowledge. With due care in the selection of books, children who can read in the vernacular could spread the Christian doctrine in the family circle, and, on evenings, read some useful or instructive books to the assembled household; whereas, if they could read the Latin only, without understanding it, they would be deprived of many valuable benefits resulting from the intelligent reading of a good book. + It is impossible for children in primary and elementary schools to master the reading of Latin texts, because they are not acquainted with its subject matter. It is, therefore, the part of wisdom to train children thoroughly to the intelligent reading of works written in the vernacular. Thus, having mastered the art of reading in the vernacular, a few months would suffice to make them read the Latin fluently, whereas, if the traditional method were followed, it would require at least several years [Annales de l'Institut, I (1883), pp. 140, 141]. This fact proves that de la Salle was a profound thinker, a genius in the work of popular education. He embraced all classes, all conditions of society. By making the free schools popular, he grasped the growing needs of society in his own day and for all times. No phase of the educational problem escaped his penetrating vision. As de la Salle is especially identified with the "Simultaneous Method" of teaching, an explanation of the method and its history will prove of interest to the educator. By the "Simultaneous Method" the pupils are graded according to their capacity, putting those of equal attainments in the same class, giving them the same text-books, and requiring them to follow the same lesson under one and the same teacher. This method has best stood the test of time and experience, and is that which the Brothers of the Christian Schools employ in all grades of instruction even at the present day. Like all fruitful ideas, the "Simultaneous Method" is not the exclusive property of any one man. Others besides de la Salle discerned its value, and even partially applied its essential principles, long before the founder of the Christian Schools made it live in his institute. It had no place in the university system of the Middle Ages. The plan adopted n those time was that which prevails to a great extent in the universities of our own day, namely, listening to lectures, taking notes thereon, and holding disputations upon the subject-matter. The Jesuits organized each class in subdivisions; each division being headed by an advanced pupil called a decurion, to whom the boys recited their lessons at stated times, while the teacher corrected exercises or heard the lessons of particular pupils. The whole class afterwards received explanations form the teacher. St. Peter Fourier (1565-1640) saw in Christian education the remedy for many of the disorders existing among the poor and labouring class. He was far-seeing, and anticipated more than one of our modern educational improvements. Indeed, he was one of the first to apply some of the principles of the "Simultaneous Method". In his constitutions he prescribes that, as far as it can possibly be carried out, all the pupils of the same mistress shall have each the same book, in order to learn and read therein the same lesson; so that, whilst one is reading hers in an audible and intelligible voice before the mistress, all the others, hearing her and following this lesson in their books at the same time, may earn it sooner, more readily, and more perfectly. Herein the principle of the "Simultaneous Method" s for the first time, clearly stated. Yet, when he enters into the details of practice he seems to lose sight of the principle which he lays down. In the very next paragraph of the Constitutions, it is provided that the mistress shall call up two pupils at a time, and place them one at each side of her desk. The more advanced pupil shall read her lesson; the other shall listen to her, shall correct all the faults she may make, in the use of words, in pronunciation, or in the observance of pauses. This is the individual method. For the smaller pupils he recommends that four or six at a time come to her desk, and to make use of some graded cards, containing letters and syllables. (Sommaire des Constitutions des Religieuses de la Congrégation de Notre-Dame, 1649, 3rd part.) Cornelius (or Amos Komensky, 1592-1674), in his "Didactica Magna", requires the teacher to instruct his pupils semel et omnes simul, "all together at one and the same time" (edit. 1647, cap. xix, Probl. I, Col, 102, 103). Mgr. de Nesmond (1629-1715) divided the class into four or five groups, each having the same book, "in order that all the children of the same group or bench may receive the same lesson, and when one begins to read, the others are to read in a low voice at the same time" (Méthode pour instruire en peu de temps les Enfants, p. 59). About 1674, Charles Démia, of Lyons, adopted the method of Mgr. de Nesmond. Life him, he gave the same reading-book to each group, requiring that each one follow, holding his finger or a marker on the words that are being read. The immediate precursor of St. John Baptist de la Salle was a theorist, the anonymous author of "Avis touchant les Petites Exoles" (Bibl. Nat., 40 R. 556). In this little work, which Leopold Delisle places prior to 1680, the author complains of the condition of the primary schools and proposes a method by which a large number of pupils might be taught, by one teacher, one book, and one voice. The school, he tells us, should be so regulated that one and the same book, one and the same teacher, one and the same lesson, one and the same correction, should serve for all, so that each pupil would thereby possess his teacher wholly and entirely, and occupy all his care, all his time, and all his attention, as if he were the only pupil (pp. 14 and 19). It is reasonable to presume that de la Salle frequented the schools taught by the Congregation of Notre-Dame, which were founded at Reims in 1634, and observed the method of teaching employed in that congregation. We can have no doubt that he was equally well acquainted with the defects which rendered such methods useless. In 1682 de la Salle had organized the Brothers of the Christian Schools, and had given them the "Simultaneous Method". Brother Azarias says: "What St. Peter Fourier touched, what Komensky and Mgr. de Nesmond and Charles Démia had glimmerings of, what the anonymous author could nowhere find and thought to realize, had become a fact". De la Salle applied the Simultaneous Method not only to reading, as was done by his predecessors, but also to catechism, writing, spelling, and arithmetic in the elementary classes, and then to all the specialties taught in the colleges which he founded. He is, therefore, the genius who introduced and perfected the Simultaneous Method in all its practical details. De la Salle definitely points out the "Simultaneous Method" as the one which he wished his disciples to follow. It is no longer the one teacher governing a whole school; it is two or three, or more, according to the number of pupils, each taking those of the same capacity and teaching them together. His instructions on these heads are exact: The Brothers shall pay special attention to three things in class: (1) During the lessons, to correct every word that the pupil who is reading pronounces badly; (2) To make all who read in the same lesson to follow therein; (3) To have silence strictly observed in the school. (Common Rules) The pupils follow in the same lesson, they observe strict silence, the teacher in correcting one, is correcting all. Here is the essence of the "Simultaneous Method". De la Salle generalizes the principles for all lessons, thus: in all the lessons from alphabet-cards, syllabaries, and other books, whether French or Latin, and even during arithmetic, while one reads, all the others of the same lesson shall follow; that is, they shall read to themselves from their books without making noises with their lips, what the one reading pronounces aloud from his book. (Conduite des ecoles chrétiennes, Avignon, 1724) With truth has Matthew Arnold said, in speaking of this handbook of Method: "Later works on the same subject have little improved the precepts, while they entirely lack the unction." In the management of Christian schools, de la Salle states concisely the following practical rules for teaching methodically: 1. The teacher determines the relative intelligence of every pupil in his class. 2. He adapts his language and explanations to the capacity of his class, and is careful never to neglect the duller pupils. 3. He makes sure that the pupils know the meaning of the words they employ. 4. He advances from the simple to the complex, from the easy to the difficult. 5. He makes it a special point to insist greatly on the elementary part of each subject; not to advance until the pupils are well grounded on what goes before . . . 9. To state but few principles at a time, but to explain them well . . . 10. To speak much to the eyes of the pupils, making sue of the blackboard . . . 11. To prepare every lesson carefully. 12. To place no faulty models or standards before the pupils; always to speak to them in a sensible manner, expressing one's self in correct language, good English, and with clearness and precision. 13. To employ none but exact definitions and well-founded divisions . . . 18. To assert nothing without being positively certain of its truth, especially as regards facts, definitions, or principles. 19. To make frequent use of the system of question and answer. (Chap. V, art. ii, pp. 31-33) It is true that de la Salle, in establishing his institute, had in mind principally the primary and elementary school, which was the real raison d'etre for the existence of the Brothers of the Christian Schools. He was the organizer of the public instruction of his time, and no master of pedagogical science will deny him that distinction. But, if the primary and elementary school was the principal masterwork of de la Salle, there was yet another field of labour which likewise reveals his creative genius. At the opening of the eighteenth century, he was confronted with singularly perplexing conditions. The rising generation was weary of past glories, disgusted with the present and was ambitious to achieve renown in hitherto unexplored fields of activity. As education was gradually extending to the masses, with the light of instruction came new ideas, new occupations, new ventures, and a breaking away from the old civilization, with the desire to wrestle with the problems born of the new conditions. Even those who were trained in traditional methods became aware of a mighty change in men and things. They felt that there was a desideratum in the actual educational system. With their sons, they experienced the world-spirit breathing upon the moribund civilization of Louis XIV. The political horizon had changed, society became more degenerate, the intellectual world was awakened and cast off its lethargy, assuming a bolder attitude and aspiring to greater freedom in the realm of thought and research. De la Salle had been struck with the serious hiatus in the instruction reserved for the wealthy children, who were destined for the liberal professions. So, while organizing the primary and elementary school, he also created, in 1705, a special establishment until then unknown in the educational world. This new creation was the boarding college at Saint-Yon, wherein he inaugurated the system of modern secondary instruction. Saint-Yon became the type of all such colleges, and that of Passy, Paris, became the modern exemplar of similar institutions in France and elsewhere. M. Drury, in his report upon technical education, states that France is indebted to de la Salle for the practical installation and popularization of that form of instruction. Hence, from the origin of the institute, there was a constant adaptation of programmes to the needs created by the social transformations which were taking place. This flexibility, which contrasted with the fixedness of the university programmes, excited surprise and no little opposition among the representatives of academic authority in those days. The instruction given in the college founded by de la Salle and his successors was peculiarly adapted of the needs of a very interesting class of young men. The educational reforms thus planned and carried out by him give unmistakable evidence that Providence had raised him up to be the lawgiver of primary and elementary teaching, as well as the creator of a new system of intellectual training, combining the precision of the traditional method with the wider scope of the new one. It was but natural that de la Salle, who had assimilated the best that the seventeenth century could give, and who had become cognizant of the inefficiency of the old system to meet the requirements of the new conditions, should create schools which were then, and have been since, the admiration of educators. The boarding colleges founded by de la Salle for the modern secondary instruction are, therefore, a distinct creation. The date of the Saint-Yon college is 1705. He later added a technical school to develop the mechanical skill of the students, and also a special garden for botany. There were Sunday schools prior to the seventeenth century. But the Christian Academy, founded by de la Salle for adults in the parish of Saint-Sulpice, in 1699, was of a different character, the first of its kind in the history of education. The programme of this academy, or Sunday school, included not only the ordinary branches taught in the other Sunday schools, but it added geometry, architecture, and drawing. Alain claims that the first normal schools were the novitiates of the teaching orders. But there were no normal schools for lay teachers. De la Salle had been frequently asked by clergy to send a Brother to take charge of their school. This request was refused, for he had established the rule that not less than two Brothers teach in any school. Accordingly, he offered to open a seminary for teachers, an institution in which young men would be trained in the principles and practices of the new method of teaching. The normal school was opened at Reims in 1684. Indeed, thirteen years before Francke organized his teachers' class at Halle, and fifty years before Hecker founded the Prussian normal college at Stettin, de la Salle had given a programme which is even today deemed excellent. In the same year he established for youths who were destined to enter the brotherhood, a Christian academy, or preparatory novitiate, in which they were taught the sciences, literature, and the principles of scientific pedagogy. De la Salle is entitled to be ranked among the advanced educators of the eighteenth century and among the greatest thinkers and educational reformers of all time. His system embraces the best in the modern educational methods. He gave an impetus to the higher educational progress which is the distinctive mark of modern times, and bequeathed to is own disciples, and to educators in general, a system of teaching which is adaptable to the wants of school-going youth in every country. But it was especially as a priest that John Baptist de la Salle loved his vocation as an educator. Like St. Ignatius Loyola, he taught letters that he might have the right to teach Christian doctrine. In claiming this privilege de la Salle was actuated by the highest and purest motives. There was nothing narrow in his educational plans. He was too wise not to realize the necessity that the truest and best children of the Church should be among the most skilled in human affairs. His view was from the summit, therefore, broad and comprehensive. Intellectual training was supplemented by a complete course of Christian morals. Man had a destiny, and the teacher was to inculcate this truth by cultivating and developing the theological virtues in the souls of the children. This thought seemed to be uppermost in the mind and to haunt the soul of de la Salle, when he drew up those excellent programmes for his schools, colleges, and technical institutions. His pedagogic principle was that nothing human should be foreign to the students, and the teaching of science and letters appeared to him to take nothing from the teacher in his ministry as an apostle. In September, 1713, Clement XI issued the Bull "Unigenitus", condemning the errors of Quesnel, culled from his "Moral Reflections". M. de Montmartin, Bishop of Grenoble, promulgated the Bull in a circular letter, in February, 1714. De la Salle was then making a retreat at Parmenie. When he left this place, he entered the arena to defend the Church against Jansenism. He assembled the Brothers of Grenoble and explained the meaning of the Bull, in order to safeguard the purity of their faith. Not satisfied with this manifestation of loyalty, he published several articles in defence of the true doctrine. This irritated the Jansenists, but their opposition only served to give greater lustre to the purity of his faith and zeal. He was a fearless and uncompromising champion, and he seemed to forget his habitual calm and reserve when there was question of the integrity and purity of the Faith. To show his inviolable attachment to the Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff, he always signed himself Roman Priest. "Hold fast to what is of faith", he writes to the Brothers; "shun novelties; follow the traditions of the Church; receive only what she receives; condemn what she condemns; approve what she approves, either by her Councils or by the Sovereign Pontiffs. In all things render her prompt obedience". He was even eager to go to Rome to cast himself at the feet of the pope and request his blessing for the institute. However, not being able to go himself, he sent Brother Gabriel Drolin to establish a school there in 1700. Even the consolation of seeing his rule approved by the Holy See was denied the saint, for he had been dead nearly six years when, on 26 February, 1725, Benedict XIII, by his Bull, "In apostolicae dignitatis solio", placed the seal of approbation upon the institute, empowering the members to teach and explain Christian doctrine, and constituting them a religious congregation. The last years of de la Salle were spent in close retirement at Saint-Yon. There he revised his rule before giving it to Brother Barthélemy, the first superior general. During the last days of his life he showed the same spirit of sacrifice which had marked his earlier years. In Holy Week of 1719, he gave unmistakable signs that the end was near. On Holy Thursday, at the request of Brother Barthelemy, he blessed the Brothers assembled at his bedside, and gave them his last words of counsel. His final words were: "In all things I adore the will of God in my regard." On Good Friday morning, 7 April, 1719, he breathed his soul into the hands of his Creator. He was canonized by Leo XIII on 24 May 1900. His feast is celebrated on 15 May. The principal writings which he has bequeathed to his spiritual children are: "Conduite des écoles" (1717), a treatise on pedagogic method, presenting fundamental principles in a scientific manner. It is remarkable that the methods herein given have not been considerably changed since the time of its author, and that the principles laid down are as applicable today as when they were written. "Les Règles de la bienséance et de la civilité chrétiennes", is a volume written in 1695, and used as a treatise on politeness and as a text in the reading of manuscripts. The style is simple and direct. It contains excellent rules for cultured manners. Les devoirs du chrétien" (73), a simple and precise exposition of Christian doctrine is remarkable for its accuracy, and for the practical lessons it inculcates. It was intended as a reader and a catechism. It still retains its place in many schools and colleges. "Recueil de différents petits traités à Pusage des Frères des Ecoles chrétiennes" (1711) is a noteworthy treatise, stating in remarkably simple terms the fundamental principles of the religious life. It abounds in Scriptural quotations and is a valuable guide for persons striving after perfection. "Explication de la méthode d'oraison" (1st printed ed., 1739). In point of clearness and adaptation, this method of mental prayer is eminently suited to the needs of the Brothers. It appeals to every degree of capacity, for all can find therein the spiritual food necessary for their special condition and state of perfection. "Méditations pour le temps de la Retraite" (1st printed ed. 1730), written for the exercises of the annual retreat, and, combining he principles of the spiritual life with pedagogics, tends to promote the Christian Apostolate in the school. These méditations contain some of the soundest principles of pedagogy ever enunciated. "Meditations pour tous les Dimanches de Panée, avec les Evangiles de tous les Dimanches; Meditations pour les principales fetes de Panee" (Rouen, 1710?), is an epitome of spiritual doctrine, based upon the Gospels of the year and applied to the needs of the teaching profession and the principles of the religious life. This treatise reveals the greatness of de la Sale and shows him to be a man of deep religious conviction. His language is always simple, direct, and vigorous. The spirit of de la Salle has even permeated other religious families, either in giving them a special character or suggesting their rules. Thus, the Brothers of St. Gabriel, founded by Blessed Grignon de Montfort and M. Deshayes, in 1795 and 1821; The Brothers of Christian Instruction of Ploërmel, founded by J.-M. de Lamennais, in 1816; The Brothers of Christian Doctrine of Nancy, founded by Father Fréchard, in 1817; The Little Brothers of Mary (Marists), founded by Père Champagnat, in 1817; The Brothers of the Sacred Heart of Paradis, founded by Father Coindre, in 1821; The Brothers of the Society of Mary, founded by Père Chaminade, in 1817; The Brothers of the Holy Family, founded by Brother Gabriel Taborin, in 1821; The Brothers of the Cross of Jesus, founded by Père Bochard, in 1824; The Clerics of St-Viateur, founded by Père Guerbes, in 1829; The Congregation of the Holy Cross, founded by M. Moreau and M. Dujarris, in 1835; The Congregation of the Holy Ghost and the Sacred Heart of Mary, founded by Father Liebermann, in 1841; The Brothers of Mercy, founded by M. Delamare, in 1842; The Christian Brothers of Ireland, founded by Brother Ignatius Rice, in 1805; and the Institute of the Sisters of the Christian Schools of Mercy, founded by Ven. Julie Postel, in 1802-all exemplify in the character of their work and in the rules adopted, a striking similarity to the methods and aims proposed by Saint John Baptist de la Salle in founding the Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools. BLAIN, Vie de M. Jean-Baptiste de la Salle (Rouen, 1733); CARRON, Une Vie (Paris, 1885); IDEM, L'Esprit et les Vertus du bienheureux J.-B. de la Salle (Paris, 1890); The Spirit and Virtues of Bl. J.-B. de la Salle (Tours, 1895); GARREAU, Vie de M. J.-B. de la Salle (Paris, 1875); CARRON, Le Tendre Ami des Enfants du Peuple (Lyons, 1828); L'Ami de l'Enfance (Lille, 1831); Le Veritable Ami de l'Enfance (Paris, 1838); DUROZIER, L'Abbe de la Salle (Paris, 1842); SALVAN, Vie de M. Ven de la Salle (Toulouse, 1852); AYMA, Vie de M. de la Salle (Aix, 1858); LUCARD, Vie du Ven. de la Salle (Paris, 1876); RAVELET, Vie du B. J.-B. de la Salle (Paris, 1888); GAVEAU, Vie de M. de la Salle (Paris, 1883); Life of M. de la Salle (Italian) (Rome, 1888); KREBS, Leben von J.-B. de la Salle (Ratisbon, 1859); GUIBERT, Histoire de Jean-Baptiste de la Salle (Paris, end ed., 1901); IDEM, Vie et Vertus de S. J.-B. de la Salle (Tours, 1901); DELAIRE, Saint Jean Baptiste de la Salle (4th ed., Paris, 1902); BAINVEL, Saint Jean Baptiste de la Salle (Paris, 1901); GUIBERT, Renouvellement religieux (Paris, 1903); IDEM, Doctrine spirituelle de Saint J.-B. de la Salle (Paris, 1900); BROTHER NOAH, Life and Work of the Ven. J.-B. de la Salle (New York, 1878); WILSON, The Christian Brothers, their Origin and their Work (London, 1883); DE DONCOURT, Remarques Historiques (Paris, 1773); FELLER, Dictionnaire Historique (Paris, 1797); CERF, Maison ou dut naitre le B. J.-B. de la Salle (Reims, 1870); CHEVALIER, Les Freres des ecoles chretiennes (Paris, 1887); RAVELET-O'MEARA, The Life of Bl. J.-B. de la Salle (Tours, 1888); BONVALLET, Sur la Noblesse de la Salle in La Revue de Champagne (December, 1888); PIN DE LA GUERIVIERE, Les aieuls maternels du Bienheureux J.-B. de la Salle (Reims, 1897); KNECHT, Leben von Johan Baptist de la Salle (Freiburg, 1879); SPEH., Der Heilige Johannes Baptista de la Salle und sine Stiftung (Kaufbeuren, 1907); HUBERT, Leben von Johan Baptist de la Salle (Mainz, 1887); LUCARD, Annales de l'Institut des Freres des Ecoles Chretiennes (Tours, 1883); CONSTANTIUS (M.M. GRAHAM) in Am. Cath. Review (July, 1900); IDEM, in Cath. World (August, 1900); BEDEL, La Vie du Rev. Pierre Fourier (Paris, 1666); ARNOLD, The Popular Education of France (London, 1861); SAINT-SIMON, Memoires (Paris, 1886); ALAIN, L'Instruction primaire avant la Revolution (Paris, 1881); ARNOLD, Notes et Documents sur les Etablissements d'Instruction Primaire de la Ville Reims (Reims, 1848); BABEAU, L'Instruction Primaire dans les campagnes avant 1789 (Paris, 1896); BUISSON, Dictionnaire de Pedagogie (Paris, 1887); RENDU, De l'Instruction Publique (Paris, 1819); BARNARD, De l'Enseignement elementaire en France (Paris, 1894); H. BARNARD, Normal Schools and other Institutions (Hartford); JUSTINUS, The Educational System of the Brothers of the Christian Schools in France; Report of the Commissioner of Education (Washington, 1898-1899). BROTHER CONSTANTIUS John Baptist de Rossi St. John Baptist de Rossi (De Rubeis). Born at Voltaggio in the Diocese of Genoa, 22 February, 1698; died at Rome, 23 May, 1764; feast on 23 May. His parents, Charles de Rossi and Frances Anfossi, were not rich in earthly goods, but had solid piety and the esteem of their fellow-citizens. Of their four children, John excelled in gentleness and piety. At the age of ten he was taken to Genoa by friends for his education. There he received news of the death of his father. After three years he was called to Rome by a relative, Lorenzo de Rossi, who was canon at St. Mary in Cosmedin. He pursued his studies at the Collegium Romanum under the direction of the Jesuits, and soon became a model by his talents, application to study, and virtue. As a member of the Sodality of the Blessed Virgin and of the Ristretto of the Twelve Apostles established at the college, he led the members in the meetings and pious exercises, in visits to the sick in the hospitals and in other works of mercy, and merited even then the name of apostle. At the age of sixteen he entered the clerical state. Owing to indiscreet practices of mortification he contracted spells of epilepsy, notwithstanding which he made his course of scholastic philosophy and theology, in the college of the Dominicans, and, with dispensation, was ordained priest on 8 March, 1721. Having reached the desired goal, he bound himself by vow to accept no ecclesiastical benefice unless commanded by obedience. He fulfilled the duties of the sacred ministry by devoting himself to the labourers, herds, and teamsters of the Campagna, preaching to them early in the morning, or late in the evening, at the old Forum Romanum (Campo Vaccino), and by visiting, instructing, and assisting the poor at the hospital of St. Galla. In 1731 he established near St. Galla another hospital as a home of refuge for the unfortunates who wander the city by night ("Rom. Brev.", tr. Bute, Summer, 573). In 1735 he became titular canon at St. Mary in Cosmedin, and, on the death of Lorenzo two years later, obedience forced him to accept the canonry. The house belonging to it, however, he would not use, but employed the rent for good purposes. For a number of years John was afraid, on account of his sickness, to enter the confessional, and it was his custom to send to other priests the sinners whom he had brought to repentance by his instructions and sermons. In 1738 a dangerous sickness befell him, and to regain his health he went to Cività Castellana, a day's journey from Rome. The bishop of the place induced him to hear confessions, and after reviewing his moral theology he received the unusual faculty of hearing confessions in any of the churches of Rome. He showed extraordinary zeal in the exercise of this privilege, and spent many hours every day in hearing the confessions of the illiterate and the poor whom he sought in the hospitals and in their homes. He preached to such five and six times a day in churches, chapels, convents, hospitals, barracks, and prison cells, so that he became the apostle of the abandoned, a second Philip Neri, a hunter of souls. In 1763, worn out by such labours and continued ill-health, his strength began to ebb away, and after several attacks of paralysis he died at his quarters in Trinità de' Pellegrini. He was buried in that church under a marble slab at the altar of the Blessed Virgin. God honoured his servant by miracles, and only seventeen years after his death the process of beatification was begun, but the troubled state of Europe during the succeeding years prevented progress in the cause until it was resumed by Pius IX, who on 13 May, 1860, solemnly pronounced his beatification. As new signs still distinguished him, Leo XIII, on 8 December, 1881, enrolled him among the saints. HERBERT, St. John B. de Rossi (New York, 1906), Roman Breviary; SEEBÖCK, Herrlichkeit der kath. Kirche (Innsbruck 1900), 1; BELLESHEIM, Der hl. Joh. B, de Rossi (Mainz, 1882): CORMIER (Rome, 1901); Theol. prakt. Quartal-Schrift, XXV, 752. FRANCIS MERSHMAN St. John Berchmans St. John Berchmans Born at Diest in Brabant, 13 March, 1599; died at Rome, 13 August, 1621. His parents watched with the greatest solicitude over the formation of his character. He was naturally kind, gentle, and affectionate towards them, a favourite with his playmates, brave and open, attractive in manner, and with a bright, joyful disposition. Yet he was also, by natural disposition, impetuous and fickle. Still, when John was but seven years of age, M. Emmerick, his parish priest, already remarked with pleasure that the Lord would work wonders in the soul of the child. Many are the details that reveal him to us as he was in the Society of Jesus. He was but nine years of old when his mother was stricken with a long and serious illness. John would pass several hours each day by her bedside, and console her with his affectionate though serious, words. Later, when he lived with some other boys at M. Emmerick's house, he would undertake more than his share of the domestic work, selecting by preference the more difficult occupations. If he was loved by his comrades, he repaid their affection by his kindness, without, however, deviating from the dictates of his conscience. It was noticed even that he availed himself discreetly of his influence over them to correct their negligences and to restrain their frivolous conversation. Eager to learn, and naturally endowed with a bright intellect and a retentive memory, he enhanced the effect of these gifts by devoting to study whatever time he could legitimately take from his ordinary recreation. What, however, distinguished him most from his companions was his piety. When he was hardly seven years old, he was accustomed to rise early and serve two or three Masses with the greatest fervour. He attended religious instructions and listened to Sunday sermons with the deepest recollection, and made pilgrimages to the sanctuary of Montaigu, a few miles from Diest, reciting the rosary as he went, or absorbed in meditation. As soon as he entered the Jesuit college at Mechlin, he was enrolled in the Society of the Blessed Virgin, and made a resolution to recite her Office daily. He would, moreover, ask the director of the sodality every month to prescribe for him some special acts of devotion to Mary. On Fridays, at nightfall, he would go out barefooted and make the Stations of the Cross in the town. Such fervent, filial piety won for him the grace of a religious vocation. Towards the end of his rhetoric course, he felt a distinct call to the Society of Jesus. His family was decidedly opposed to this, and on 24 September, 1616, he was received into the novitiate at Mechlin. After two years passed in Mechlin he made his simple vows, and was sent to Antwerp to begin the study of philosophy. Remaining there only a few weeks, he set out for Rome, where he was to continue the same study. After the journeying three hundred leagues on foot, carrying a wallet on his back, he arrived at the Roman College, he studied for two years and passed on to the third year class in philosophy in the year 1621. One day early in August of that same year he was selected by the prefect of studies to take part in a philosophical disputation at the Greek College, at that time under the charge of the Dominicans. He opened the discussion with great perspicuity and erudition, but, on returning to his own college, he was seized with a violent fever of which he died, on 13 August, at the age of twenty-two years and five months. During the second part of his life, John offered the type of the saint who performs ordinary actions with extraordinary perfection. In his purity, obedience, and admirable charity he resembled many religious, but he surpassed them all by his intense love for the rules of his order. The Constitutions of the Society of Jesus lead those who observe them exactly to the highest degree of sanctity, as has been declared by Pope Julius III and his successors. The attainment of that ideal was what John proposed to himself. "If I do not become a saint when I am young", he used to say "I shall never become one". That is why he displayed such wisdom in conforming his will to that of his superiors and to the rules. He would have preferred death to the violation of the least of the rules of his order. "My penance", he would say, "is to live the common life... I will pay the greatest attention to the least inspiration of God." He observed this fidelity in the performance of all his duties till the last day of his life, as is attested by Fathers Bauters, Cepari, Ceccoti, Massucci, and Piccolomini, his spiritual directors. When he died, a large multitude crowded for several days to see him and to invoke his intercession. The same year, Phillip, Duke of Aerschot, had a petition presented to Pope Gregory XV for the taking of information with a view to his beatification . John Berchmans was declared Blessed in 1865, and was canonized in 1888. His statues represent him with hands clasped, holding his crucifix, his book of rules, and his rosary. H. DEMAIN Ven. John Buckley Venerable John Buckley ( Alias John Jones; alias John Griffith; in religion, Godfrey Maurice). Priest and martyr, born at Clynog Fawr, Carnarvonshire, Wales, England, 12 July 1598. There is much confusion between the above and Robert (or Herbert; in religion, Sigebert) Buckley, the monk of Westminster who was the sole connecting link between the pre- and post-Reformation English Benedictines. This accounts for any apparent discrepancy in John's history. Thus it is said that he was a native of Shropshire, also that he was imprisoned in the Marshalsea, 1582-4, both of which statements are incorrect. He was of a good Welsh family, which had remained faithful to the Church. As a youth, he entered the Franciscan convent at Greenwich; at its dissolution in 1559 he went to the Continent, and was professed at Pontoise, France. After many years he journeyed to Rome, where he stayed at the Ara Coeli convent of the Observantines. Although he was a Conventual, he joined the Roman province of the Reformati in 1591, as he had become imbued with the ideals of the Strict Observance. He then begged to be allowed to go upon the English mission, which his superiors permitted, and he also received a special blessing and commendation from Clement VIII. He reached London about the end of 1592, and stayed temporarily at the house which Father John Gerard had provided for missionary priests; he then laboured in different parts of the country, and his brother Franciscans in England elected him their provincial. In 1596 the priest-catcher Topcliffe was informed by a spy that Buckley had visited two Catholics and had said Mass in their house, but it was afterwards shown that these people were in prison when the alleged offence took place. However, Father Buckley was promptly arrested and severely tortured. He was also cruelly scourged, and Topcliffe took him to his house and practised unspeakable barbarities upon him, all of which he endured with a surprising fortitude. He was then imprisoned for nearly two years, and on 3 July, 1598, was tried on the charge of "going over the seas in the first year of Her majesty's reign (1558) and there being made a priest by the authority from Rome and then returning to England contrary to statute" (27 Eliz. c. 2). He was convicted of high treason and sentenced to be hanged, drawn, and quartered. As by this time the people had grown tired of these butcheries, the execution was arranged for a early hour in the morning. The place was St. Thomas's Watering, in what is now the Old Kent Road, at the site of the junction of the old Roman road to London with the main line of Watling Street. Such ancient landmarks had been immemorially used as places of execution, Tyburn itself being merely the point where Walting Street crossed the Roman road to Silchester. In spite of the earliness of the hour, a large crowd had gathered. On the gallows he declared that he was dying for his Faith, and he was innocent of any political offence, in which declaration the people clearly showed their belief and sympathy. The usual atrocities were carried out; his dismembered remains were fixed on the poles on the roads to Newington and Lambeth (now represented by Tabard Street and Lambeth Road respectiverly); they were removed by some young Catholic gentlemen, one of whom suffered a long imprisonment for this offence alone. One of the relics eventually reached Pontoise, where the martyr had been professed. He was declared Venerable by Leo XIII. C. F. WEMYSS BROWN St. John Cantius St. John Cantius Born at Kenty, near Oswiecim, Diocese of Krakow, Poland, 1412 (or 1403); died at Krakow, 1473, and was buried there under the church of St. Anne; his feast is on 20 October. He was the son of Stanislaus and Anne who were pious country people; he received his primary education at his native town, and then being sent by his parents to the Academy of Krakow, he soon impressed his professors and colleagues with his pleasant and amiable disposition; always happy, but serious, humble, and godly, he won the hearts of all who came in contact with him,. Having made excellent progress in the study of philosophical and theological sciences, he was graduated first as bachelor, then as master and doctor, was ordained priest and then appointed professor of theology at the Academy of Krakow, from where he was sent, after a short time, by his superiors to olkusz, Diocese of Krakow, to be parish priest. Being afraid of the great responsiblity of parish work, he very soon left the parish, and was again appointed professor of Sacres Scripture at the Academy of Krakow, which position he held without interruption until his death. As testified by Michael Miechowita, the medieval Polish historian and the saint's first biographer, extreme humility and charity were conspicuous in his life; he took as his motto: Conturbare cave: non est placare suave, Infamare cave; nam revocare grave. He distributed to the poor all the money and clothes he had, retaining only what was absolutely necessary to support himself. He slept but little, and on the floor, ate very sparingly, and was a total abstainer from meat after he became a doctor. He made one pilgrimage to Jerusalem with the desire of becoming a martyr among the Turks, and four pilgrimages to Rome on foot. Durng his life he performed various miracles, which were multiplied after his death at his tomb. He was canonized by Clement XIII in 1767. The Roman Breviary distinguishes him with three hymns; he is the only confessor not a bishop who is thus honoured. J. GODRYCZ St. John Capistran St. John Capistran Born at Capistrano, in the Diocese of Sulmona, Italy, 1385; died 23 October, 1456. His father had come to Naples in the train of Louis of Anjou, hence is supposed to have been of French blood, though some say he was of German origin. his father dying early, John owed his education to his mother. She had him at first instructed at home and then sent him to study law at Perugia, where he achieved great success under the eminent legist, Pietro de Ubaldis. In 1412 he was appointed governor of Perugia by Ladislaus, King of Naples, who then held that city of the Holy See. As governor he set himself against civic corruption and bribery. War broke out in 1416 between Perugia and the Malatesta. John was sent as ambassador to propose peace to the Malatesta, who however cast him into prison. It was during this imprisonment that he began to think more seriously about his soul. He decided eventually to give up the world and become a Franciscan Friar, owing to a dream he had in which he saw St. Francis and was warned by the saint to enter the Franciscan Order. John had married a wealthy lady of Perugia immediately before the war broke out, but as the marriage was not consummated he obtained a dispensation to enter religion, which he did 4 October, 1416. After he had taken his vows he came under the influence of St. Bernardine of Siena, who taught him theology: he had as his fellow-student St. James of the Marches. He accompanied St. Bernardine on his preaching tours in order to study his methods, and in 1420, whilst still in deacon s orders, was himself permitted to preach. But his apostolic life began in 1425, after he had received the priesthood. From this time until his death he laboured ceaselessly for the salvation of souls. He traversed the whole of Italy; and so great were the crowds who came to listen to him that he often had to preach in the public squares. At the time of his preaching all business stopped. At Brescia on one occasion he preached to a crowd of one hundred and twenty-six thousand people, who had come from all the neighbouring provinces. On another occasion during a mission, over two thousand sick people were brought to him that he might sign them with the sign of the Cross, so great was his fame as a healer of the sick. Like St. Bernardine of Siena he greatly propagated devotion to the Holy Name of Jesus, and, together with that saint, was accused of heresy because of this devotion. While he was thus carrying on his apostolic work, he was actively engaged in assisting St. Bernardine in the reform of the Franciscan Order. In 1429 John, together with other Observant friars, was cited to Rome on the charge of heresy, and he was chosen by his companions to defend their cause; the friars were acquitted by the commission of cardinals. After this, Pope Martin V conceived the idea of uniting the Conventual Friars Minor and the Observants, and a general chapter of both bodies of Franciscans was convoked at Assisi in 1430. A union was effected, but it did not last long. The following year the Observants held a chapter at Bologna, at which John was the moving spirit. According to Gonzaga, John was about this time appointed commissary general of the Observants, but his name does not appear among the commissaries and vicars in Holzapfel's list (Manuale Hist. Ord. FF. Min., 624-5) before 1443. But it was owing to him that St. Bernardine was appointed vicar-general in 1438. Shortly after this, whilst visiting France he met St. Colette, the reformer of the Second Franciscan Order or Poor Clares, with whose efforts he entirely sympathized. He was frequently employed on embassies by the Holy See. In 1439 he was sent as legate to Milan and Burgundy, to oppose the claims of the antipope Felix V; in 1446 he was on a mission to the King of France; in 1451 he went at the request of the emperor as Apostolic nuncio to Austria. During the period of his nunciature John visited all parts of the empire, preaching and combatting the heresy of the Hussites; he also visited Poland at the request of Casimir IV. In 1454 he was summoned to the Diet at Frankfort, to assist that assembly in its deliberation concerning a crusade against the Turks for the relief of Hungary: and here, too, he was the leading spirit. When the crusade was actually in operation John accompanied the famous Hunyady throughout the campaign: he was present at the battle of Belgrade, and led the left wing of the Christian army against the Turks. He was beatified in 1694, and canonized in 1724. He wrote many books, chiefly against the heresies of his day. Three lives written by the saint's companions, NICHOLAS OF FARA, CHRISTOPHER OF VARESE, and JEROME OF UNDINE, are given by the Bollandists, Acta SS. X, October; WADDING, Annales, IX-XIII; GUIRARD, St. Jean de Capistran et son temps (Bourges, 1865); JACOB, Johannes von Capistrano (Doagh, 1903); ALLIES, Three Catholic Reformers (London, 1872); PASTOR, History of the Popes, II (London, 1891); LEO, Lives of the Saints and Blessed of the three Orders of St. Francis, III (Taunton, 1886). FATHER CUTHBERT St. John Chrysostom St. John Chrysostom ( Chrysostomos, "golden-mouthed" so called on account of his eloquence). Doctor of the Church, born at Antioch, c. 347; died at Commana in Pontus, 14 September, 407. John -- whose surname "Chrysostom" occurs for the first time in the "Constitution" of Pope Vigilius (cf. P.L., LX, 217) in the year 553 -- is generally considered the most prominent doctor of the Greek Church and the greatest preacher ever heard in a Christian pulpit. His natural gifts, as well as exterior circumstances, helped him to become what he was. I. LIFE (1) Boyhood At the time of Chrysostom's birth, Antioch was the second city of the Eastern part of the Roman Empire. During the whole of the fourth century religious struggles had troubled the empire and had found their echo at Antioch. Pagans, Manichaeans, Gnostics, Arians, Apollinarians, Jews, made their proselytes at Antioch, and the Catholics were themselves separated by the schism between the bishops Meletius and Paulinus. Thus Chrysostom's youth fell in troubled times. His father, Secundus, was an officer of high rank in the Syrian army. On his death soon after the birth of John, Anthusa, his wife, only twenty years of age, took the sole charge of her two children, John and an elder sister. Fortunately she was a woman of intelligence and character. She not only instructed her son in piety, but also sent him to the best schools of Antioch, though with regard to morals and religion many objections could be urged against them. Beside the lectures of Andragatius, a philosopher not otherwise known, Chrysostom followed also those of Libanius, at once the most famous orator of that period and the most tenacious adherent of the declining paganism of Rome. As we may see from the later writings of Chrysostom, he attained then considerable Greek scholarship and classical culture, which he by no means disowned in his later days. His alleged hostility to classical learning is in reality but a misunderstanding of certain passages in which he defends the philosophia of Christianity against the myths of the heathen gods, of which the chief defenders in his time were the representatives and teachers of the sophia ellenike (see A. Naegele in "Byzantin. Zeitschrift", XIII, 73-113; Idem, "Chrysostomus und Libanius" in Chrysostomika, I, Rome, 1908, 81-142). (2) Chrysostom as Lector and Monk It was a very decisive turning-point in the life of Chrysostom when he met one day (about 367) the bishop Meletius. The earnest, mild, and winning character of this man captivated Chrysostom in such a measure that he soon began to withdraw from classical and profane studies and to devote himself to an ascetic and religious life. He studied Holy Scriptures and frequented the sermons of Meletius. About three years later he received Holy Baptism and was ordained lector. But the young cleric, seized by the desire of a more perfect life, soon afterwards entered one of the ascetic societies near Antioch, which was under the spiritual direction of Carterius and especially of the famous Diodorus, later Bishop of Tarsus (see Palladius, "Dialogus", v; Sozomenus, "Hist. eccles.", VIII, 2). Prayer, manual labour and the study of Holy Scripture were his chief occupations, and we may safely suppose that his first literary works date from this time, for nearly all his earlier writings deal with ascetic and monastic subjects [cf. below Chrysostom writings: (1) "Opuscuia"]. Four years later, Chrysostom resolved to live as an anchorite in one of the caves near Antioch. He remained there two years, but then as his health was quite ruined by indiscreet watchings and fastings in frost and cold, he prudently returned to Antioch to regain his health, and resumed his office as lector in the church. (3) Chrysostom as Deacon and Priest at Antioch As the sources of the life of Chrysostom give an incomplete chronology, we can but approximately determine the dates for this Aniochene period. Very probably in the beginning of 381 Meletius made him deacon, just before his own departure to Constantinople, where he died as president of the Second Ecumenical Council. The successor of Meletius was Flavian (concerning whose succession see F. Cavallera, "Le Schime d'Antioche", Paris, 1905). Ties of sympathy and friendship connected Chrysostom with his new bishop. As deacon he had to assist at the liturgical functions, to look after the sick and poor, and was probably charged also in some degree with teaching catechumens. At the same time he continued his literary work, and we may suppose that he composed his most famous book, "On the Priesthood", towards the end of this period (c. 386, see Socrates, "Hist. eccl.", VI, 3), or at latest in the beginning of his priesthood (c. 387, as Nairn with good reasons puts it, in his edition of "De Sacerd.", xii-xv). There may be some doubt if it was occasioned by a real historical fact, viz., that Chrysostom and his friend Basil were requested to accept bishoprics (c. 372). All the earliest Greek biographers seem not to have taken it in that sense. In the year 386 Chrysostom was ordained priest by Flavian, and from that dates his real importance in ecclesiastical history. His chief task during the next twelve years was that of preaching, which he had to exercise either instead of or with Bishop Flavian. But no doubt the larger part of the popular religious instruction and education devolved upon him. The earliest notable occasion which showed his power of speaking and his great authority was the Lent of 387, when he delivered his sermons "On the Statues" (P.G., XLVIII, 15, xxx.). The people of Antioch, excited by the levy of new taxes, had thrown down the statues of Emperor Theodosius. In the panic and fear of punishment which followed, Chrysostom delivered a series of twenty or twenty-one (the nineteenth is probably not authentic) sermons, full of vigour, consolatory, exhortative, tranquilizing, until Flavian, the bishop, brought back from Constantinople the emperor's pardon. But the usual preaching of Chrysostom consisted in consecutive explanations of Holy Scripture. To that custom, unhappily no longer in use, we owe his famous and magnificent commentaries, which offer us such an inexhaustible treasure of dogmatic, moral, and historical knowledge of the transition from the fourth to the fifth century. These years, 386-98, were the period of the greatest theological productivity of Chrysostom, a period which alone would have assured him for ever a place among the first Doctors of the Church. A sign of this may be seen in the fact that in the year 392 St. Jerome already accorded to the preacher of Antioch a place among his Viri illustres ("De Viris ill.", 129, in P.L., XXIII, 754), referring expressly to the great and successful activity of Chrysostom as a theological writer. From this same fact we may infer that during this time his fame had spread far beyond the limits of Antioch, and that he was well known in the Byzantine Empire, especially in the capital. (4) St. Chrysostom as Bishop of Constantinople In the ordinary course of things Chrysostom might have become the successor of Flavian at Antioch. But on 27 September 397, Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople, died. There was a general rivalry in the capital, openly or in secret, for the vacant see. After some months it was known, to the great disappointment of the competitors, that Emperor Areadius, at the suggestion of his minister Eutropius, had sent to the Prefect of Antioch to call John Chrysostom out of the town without the knowledge of the people, and to send him straight to Constantinople. In this sudden way Chrysostom was hurried to the capital, and ordained Bishop of Constantinople on 26 February, 398, in the presence of a great assembly of bishops, by Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, who had been obliged to renounce the idea of securing the appointment of Isidore, his own candidate. The change for Chrysostom was as great as it was unexpected. His new position was not an easy one, placed as he was in the midst of an upstart metropolis, half Western, half Oriental, in the neighbourhood of a court in which luxury and intrigue always played the most prominent parts, and at the head of the clergy composed of most heterogeneous elements, and even (if not canonically, at least practically) at the head of the whole Byzantine episcopate. The first act of the new bishop was to bring about a reconciliation between Flavian and Rome. Constantinople itself soon began to feel the impulse of a new ecclesiastical life. The necessity for reform was undeniable. Chrysostom began "sweeping the stairs from the top" (Palladius, op. cit., v). He called his oeconomus, and ordered him to reduce the expenses of the episcopal household; he put an end to the frequent banquets, and lived little less strictly than he had formerly lived as a priest and monk. With regard to the clergy, Chrysostom had at first to forbid them to keep in their houses syneisactoe, i.e. women housekeepers who had vowed virginity. He also proceeded against others who, by avarice or luxury, had given scandal. He had even to exclude from the ranks of the clergy two deacons, the one for murder and the other for adultery. Of the monks, too, who were very numerous even at that time at Constantinople, some had preferred to roam about aimlessly and without discipline. Chrysostom confined them to their monasteries. Finally he took care of the ecclesiastical widows. Some of them were living in a worldly manner: he obliged them either to marry again, or to observe the rules of decorum demanded by their state. After the clergy, Chrysostom turned his attention to his flock. As he had done at Antioch, so at Constantinople and with more reason, he frequently preached against the unreasonable extravagances of the rich, and especially against the ridiculous finery in the matter of dress affected by women whose age should have put them beyond such vanities. Some of them, the widows Marsa, Castricia, Eugraphia, known for such preposterous tastes, belonged to the court circle. It seems that the upper classes of Constantinople had not previously been accustomed to such language. Doubtless some felt the rebuke to be intended for themselves, and the offence given was the greater in proportion as the rebuke was the more deserved. On the other hand, the people showed themselves delighted with the sermons of their new bishop, and frequently applauded him in the church (Socrates, "Hist. eccl." VI). They never forgot his care for the poor and miserable, and that in his first year he had built a great hospital with the money he had saved in his household. But Chrysostom had also very intimate friends among the rich and noble classes. The most famous of these was Olympias, widow and deaconess, a relation of Emperor Theodosius, while in the Court itself there was Brison, first usher of Eudoxia, who assisted Chrysostom in instructing his choirs, and always maintained a true friendship for him. The empress herself was at first most friendly towards the new bishop. She followed the religious processions, attended his sermons, and presented silver candlesticks for the use of the churches (Socrates, op. cit., VI, 8; Sozomenus, op. cit., VIII, 8). Unfortunately, the feelings of amity did not last. At first Eutropius, the former slave, now minister and consul, abused his influence. He deprived some wealthy persons of their property, and prosecuted others whom he suspected of being adversaries of rivals. More than once Chrysostom went himself to the minister (see "Oratio ad Eutropium" in P.G., Chrys. Op., III, 392) to remonstrate with him, and to warn him of the results of his own acts, but without success. Then the above-named ladies, who immediately surrounded the empress, probably did not hide their resentment against the strict bishop. Finally, the empress herself committed an injustice in depriving a widow of her vineyard (Marcus Diac., "Vita Porphyrii", V, no. 37, in P.G., LXV, 1229). Chrysostom interceded for the latter. But Eudoxia showed herself offended. Henceforth there was a certain coolness between the imperial Court and the episcopal palace, which, growing little by little, led to a catastrophe. It is impossible to ascertain exactly at what period this alienation first began; very probably it dated from the beginning of the year 401. But before this state of things became known to the public there happened events of the highest political importance, and Chrysostom, without seeking it, was implicated in them. These were the fall of Eutropius and the revolt of Gainas. In January, 399, Eutropius, for a reason not exactly known, fell into disgrace. Knowing the feelings of the people and of his personal enemies, he fled to the church. As he had himself attempted to abolish the immunity of the ecclesiastical asylums not long before, the people seemed little disposed to spare him. But Chrysostom interfered, delivering his famous sermon on Eutropius, and the fallen minister was saved for the moment. As, however, he tried to escape during the night, he was seized, exiled, and some time later put to death. Immediately another more exciting and more dangerous event followed. Gainas, one of the imperial generals, had been sent out to subdue Tribigild, who had revolted. In the summer of 399 Gainas united openly with Tribigild, and, to restore peace, Arcadius had to submit to the most humiliating conditions. Gainas was named commander-in-chief of the imperial army, and even had Aurelian and Saturninus, two men of the highest rank at Constantinople, delivered over to him. It seems that Chrysostom accepted a mission to Gainas, and that, owing to his intervention, Aurelian and Saturninus were spared by Gainas, and even set at liberty. Soon afterwards, Gainas, who was an Arian Goth, demanded one of the Catholic churches at Constantinople for himself and his soldiers. Again Chrysostom made so energetic an opposition that Gainas yielded. Meanwhile the people of Constantinople had become excited, and in one night several thousand Goths were slain. Gainas however escaped, was defeated, and slain by the Huns. Such was the end within a few years of three consuls of the Byzantine Empire. There is no doubt that Chrysostom's authority had been greatly strengthened by the magnanimity and firmness of character he had shown during all these troubles. It may have been this that augmented the jealousy of those who now governed the empire -- a clique of courtiers, with the empress at their head. These were now joined by new allies issuing from the ecclesiastical ranks and including some provincial bishops -- Severian of Gabala, Antiochus of Ptolemais, and, for some time, Acacius of Beroea -- who preferred the attractions of the capital to residence in their own cities (Socrates, op. cit., VI, 11; Sozomenus, op. cit., VIII, 10). The most intriguing among them was Severian, who flattered himself that he was the rival of Chrysostom in eloquence. But so far nothing had transpired in public. A great change occurred during the absence of Chrysostom for several months from Constantinople. This absence was necessitated by an ecclesiastical affair in Asia Minor, in which he was involved. Following the express invitation of several bishops, Chrysostom, in the first months of 401, had come to Ephesus, where he appointed a new archbishop, and with the consent of the assembled bishops deposed six bishops for simony. After having passed the same sentence on Bishop Gerontius of Nicomedia, he returned to Constantinople. Meanwhile disagreeable things had happened there. Bishop Severian, to whom Chrysostom seems to have entrusted the performance of some ecclesiastical functions, had entered into open enmity with Serapion, the archdeacon and oeconomus of the cathedral and the episcopal palace. Whatever the real reason may have been, Chrysostom, found the case so serious that he invited Severian to return to his own see. It was solely owing to the personal interference of Eudoxia, whose confidence Serapion possessed, that he was allowed to come back from Chalcedon, whither he had retired. The reconciliation which followed was, at least on the part of Severian, not a sincere one, and the public scandal had excited much ill-feeling. The effects soon became visible. When in the spring of 402, Bishop Porphyrius of Gaza (see Marcus Diac., "Vita Porphyrii", V, ed. Nuth, Bonn, 1897, pp. 11-19) went to the Court at Constantinople to obtain a favour for his diocese, Chrysostom answered that he could do nothing for him, since he was himself in disgrace with the empress. Nevertheless, the party of malcontents were not really dangerous, unless they could find some prominent and unscrupulous leader. Such a person presented himself sooner than might have been expected. It was the well-known Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria. He appeared under rather curious circumstances, which in no way foreshadowed the final result. Theophilus, toward the end of the year 402, was summoned by the emperor to Constantinople to apologize before a synod, over which Chrysostom should preside, for several charges, which were brought against him by certain Egyptian monks, especially by the so-called four "tall brothers". The patriarch, their former friend, had suddenly turned against them, and had them persecuted as Origenists (Palladius, "Dialogus", xvi; Socrates, op. cit., VI, 7; Sozomenus, op. cit., VIII, 12). However, Theophilus was not easily frightened. He had always agents and friends at Constantinople, and knew the state of things and the feelings at the court. He now resolved to take advantage of them. He wrote at once to St. Epiphanius at Cyprus, requesting him to go to Constantinople and prevail upon Chrysostom at to condemn the Origenists. Epiphanius went. But when he found that Theophilus was merely using him for his own purposes, he left the capital, dying on his return in 403. At this time Chrysostom delivered a sermon against the vain luxury of women. It was reported to the empress as though she had been personally alluded to. In this way the ground was prepared. Theophilus at last appeared at Constantinople in June, 403, not alone, as he had been commanded, but with twenty-nine of his suffragan bishops, and, as Palladius (ch. viii) tells us, with a good deal of money and all sorts of gifts. He took his lodgings in one of the imperial palaces, and held conferences with all the adversaries of Chrysostom. Then he retired with his suffragans and seven other bishops to a villa near Constantinople, called epi dryn (see Ubaldi, "La Synodo ad Quercum", Turin, 1902). A long list of the most ridiculous accusations was drawn up against Chrysostom (see Photius, "Bibliotheca", 59, in P.G., CIII, 105-113), who, surrounded by fourty-two archbishops and bishops assembled to judge Theophilus in accordance with the orders of the emperor, was now summoned to present himself and apologize. Chrysostom naturally refused to recognize the legality of a synod in which his open enemies were judges. After the third summons Chrysostom, with the consent of the emperor, was declared to be deposed. In order to avoid useless bloodshed, he surrendered himself on the third day to the soldiers who awaited him. But the threats of the excited people, and a sudden accident in the imperial palace, frightened the empress (Palladius, "Dialogus", ix). She feared some punishment from heaven for Chrysostom's exile, and immediately ordered his recall. After some hesitation Chrysostom re-entered the capital amid the great rejoicings of the people. Theophilus and his party saved themselves by flying from Constantinople. Chrysostom's return was in itself a defeat for Eudoxia. When her alarms had gone, her rancour revived. Two months afterwards a silver statue of the empress was unveiled in the square just before the cathedral. The public celebrations which attended this incident, and lasted several days, became so boisterous that the offices in the church were disturbed. Chrysostom complained of this to the prefect of the city, who reported to Eudoxia that the bishop had complained against her statue. This was enough to excite the empress beyond all bounds. She summoned Theophilus and the other bishops to come back and to depose Chrysostom again. The prudent patriarch, however, did not wish to run the same risk a second time. He only wrote to Constantinople that Chrysostom should be condemned for having re-entered his see in opposition to an article of the Synod of Antioch held in the year 341 (an Arian synod). The other bishops had neither the authority nor the courage to give a formal judgment. All they could do was to urge the emperor to sign a new decree of exile. A double attempt on Chrysostom's life failed. On Easter Eve, 404, when all the catechumens were to receive baptism, the adversaries of the bishop, with imperial soldiers, invaded the baptistery and dispersed the whole congregation. At last Arcadius signed the decree, and on 24 June, 404, the soldiers conducted Chrysostom a second time into exile. (5) Exile and Death They had scarcely left Constantinople when a huge conflagration destroyed the cathedral, the senate-house, and other buildings. The followers of the exiled bishop were accused of the crime and prosecuted. In haste Arsacius, an old man, was appointed successor of Chrysostom, but was soon succeeded by the cunning Atticus. Whoever refused to enter into communion with them was punished by confiscation of property and exile. Chrysostom himself was conducted to Cucusus, a secluded and rugged place on the east frontier of Armenia, continually exposed to the invasions of the Isaurians. In the following year he had even to fly for some time to the castle of Arabissus to protect himself from these barbarians. Meanwhile he always maintained a correspondence with his friends and never gave up the hope of return. When the circumstances of his deposition were known in the West, the pope and the Italian bishops declared themselves in his favour. Emperor Honorius and Pope Innocent I endeavoured to summon a new synod, but their legates were imprisoned and then sent home. The pope broke off all communion with the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch (where an enemy of Chrysostom had succeeded Flavian), and Constantinople, until (after the death of Chrysostom) they consented to admit his name into the diptychs of the Church. Finally all hopes for the exiled bishop had vanished. Apparently he was living too long for his adversaries. In the summer, 407, the order was given to carry him to Pithyus, a place at the extreme boundary of the empire, near the Caucasus. One of the two soldiers who had to lead him caused him all possible sufferings. He was forced to make long marches, was exposed to the rays of the sun, to the rains and the cold of the nights. His body, already weakened by several severe illnesses, finally broke down. On 14 September the party were at Comanan in Pontus. In the morning Chrysostom had asked to rest there on the account of his state of health. In vain; he was forced to continue his march. Very soon he felt so weak that they had to return to Comana. Some hours later Chrysostom died. His last words were: Doxa to theo panton eneken (Glory be to God for all things) (Palladius, xi, 38). He was buried at Comana. On 27 January, 438, his body was translated to Constantinople with great pomp, and entombed in the church of the Apostles where Eudoxia had been buried in the year 404 (see Socrates, VII, 45; Constantine Prophyrogen., "Cæremoniale Aul Byz.", II, 92, in P.G., CXII, 1204 B). II. THE WRITINGS OF ST. CHRYSOSTOM Chrysostom has deserved a place in ecclesiastical history, not simply as Bishop of Constantinople, but chiefly as a Doctor of the Church. Of none of the other Greek Fathers do we possess so many writings. We may divide them into three portions, the "opuscula", the "homilies", and the "letters". (1) The chief "opuscula" all date from the earlier days of his literary activity. The following deal with monastical subjects: "Comparatio Regis cum Monacho" ("Opera", I, 387-93, in P.G., XLVII-LXIII), "Adhortatio ad Theodorum (Mopsuestensem?) lapsum" (ibid., 277-319), "Adversus oppugnatores vitae monasticae" (ibid., 319-87). Those dealing with ascetical subjects in general are the treatise "De Compunctione" in two books (ibid., 393-423), "Adhortatio ad Stagirium" in three books (ibid., 433-94), "Adversus Subintroductas" (ibid., 495-532), "De Virginitate" (ibid., 533-93), "De Sacerdotio" (ibid., 623-93). (2) Among the "homilies" we have to distinguish commentaries on books of Holy Scripture, groups of homilies (sermons) on special subjects, and a great number of single homilies. (a) The chief "commentaries" on the Old Testament are the sixty-seven homilies "On Genesis" (with eight sermons on Genesis, which are probably a first recension) (IV, 21 sqq., and ibid., 607 sqq.); fifty-nine homilies "On the Psalms" (4-12, 41, 43-49, 108-117, 119-150) (V, 39-498), concerning which see Chrys. Baur, "Der urspr ngliche Umfang des Kommentars des hl. Joh. Chrysostomus zu den Psalmen" in Chrysostomika, fase. i (Rome, 1908), 235-42, a commentary on the first chapters of "Isaias" (VI, 11 sqq.). The fragments on Job (XIII, 503-65) are spurious (see Haidacher, "Chrysostomus Fragmente" in Chrysostomika, I, 217 sq.); the authenticity of the fragments on the Proverbs (XIII, 659-740), on Jeremias and Daniel (VI, 193-246), and the Synopsis of the Old and the New Testament (ibid., 313 sqq.), is doubtful. The chief commentaries on the New Testament are first the ninety homilies on "St. Matthew" (about the year 390; VII), eighty-eight homilies on "St. John" (c. 389; VIII, 23 sqq. -- probably from a later edition), fifty-five homilies on "the Acts" (as preserved by stenographers, IX, 13 sqq.), and homilies "On all Epistles of St. Paul" (IX, 391 sqq.). The best and most important commentaries are those on the Psalms, on St. Matthew, and on the Epistle to the Romans (written c. 391). The thirty-four homilies on the Epistle to the Galatians also very probably comes to us from the hand of a second editor. (b) Among the "homilies forming connected groups", we may especially mention the five homilies "On Anna" (IV, 631-76), three "On David" (ibid., 675-708), six "On Ozias" (VI, 97-142), eight "Against the Jews" (II, 843-942), twelve "De Incomprehensibili Dei Natur" (ibid., 701-812), and the seven famous homilies "On St. Paul" (III, 473-514). (c) A great number of "single homilies" deal with moral subjects, with certain feasts or saints. (3) The "Letters" of Chrysostom (about 238 in number: III, 547 sqq.) were all written during his exile. Of special value for their contents and intimate nature are the seventeen letters to the deaconess Olympias. Among the numerous "Apocrypha" we may mention the liturgy attributed to Chrysostom, who perhaps modified, but did not compose the ancient text. The most famous apocryphon is the "Letter to C sarius" (III, 755-760). It contains a passage on the holy Eucharist which seems to favour the theory of "impanatio", and the disputes about it have continued for more than two centuries. The most important spurious work in Latin is the "Opus imperfectum", written by an Arian in the first half of the fifth century (see Th. Paas, "Das Opus impefectum in Matthæum", Tübingen, 1907). III. CHRYSOSTOM'S THEOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE (1) Chrysostom as Orator The success of Chrysostom's preaching is chiefly due to his great natural facility of speech, which was extraordinary even to Greeks, to the abundance of his thoughts as well as the popular way of presenting and illustrating them, and, last but not least, the whole-hearted earnestness and conviction with which he delivered the message which he felt had been given to him. Speculative explanation did not attract his mind, nor would they have suited the tastes of his hearers. He ordinarily preferred moral subjects, and very seldom in his sermons followed a regular plan, nor did he care to avoid digressions when any opportunity suggested them. In this way, he is by no means a model for our modern thematic preaching, which, however we may regret it, has to such a great extent supplanted the old homiletic method. But the frequent outbursts of applause among his congregation may have told Chrysostom that he was on the right path. (2) Chrysostom as an exegete As an exegete Chrysostom is of the highest importance, for he is the chief and almost the only successful representative of the exegetical principles of the School of Antioch. Diodorus of Tarsus had initiated him into the grammatico-historical method of that school, which was in strong opposition to the eccentric, allegorical, and mystical interpretation of Origen and the Alexandrian School. But Chrysostom rightly avoided pushing his principles to that extreme to which, later on, his friend Theodore of Mopsuestia, the teacher of Nestorius, carried them. He did not even exclude all allegorical or mystical explanations, but confined them to the cases in which the inspired author himself suggests this meaning. (3) Chrysostom as Dogmatic Theologian As has already been said, Chrysostom's was not a speculative mind, nor was he involved in his lifetime in great dogmatic controversies. Nevertheless it would be a mistake to underrate the great theological treasures hidden in his writings. From the very first he was considered by the Greeks and Latins as a most important witness to the Faith. Even at the Council of Ephesus (431) both parties, St. Cyril and the Antiochians, already invoked him on behalf of their opinions, and at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, when a passage of Chrysostom had been read in favour of the veneration of images, Bishop Peter of Nicomedia cried out: "If John Chrysostom speaks in the way of the images, who would dare to speak against them?" which shows clearly the progress his authority had made up to that date. Strangely enough, in the Latin Church, Chrysostom was still earlier invoked as an authority on matters of faith. The first writer who quoted him was Pelagius, when he wrote his lost book "De Naturæ" against St. Augustine (c. 415). The Bishop of Hippo himself very soon afterwards (421) claimed Chrysostom for the Catholic teaching in his controversy with Julian of Eclanum, who had opposed to him a passage of Chrysostom (from the "Hom. ad Neophytos", preserved only in Latin) as being against original sin (see Chrys. Baur, "L'entrée littéraire de St. Jean Chrys. dans le monde latin" in the "Revue d'histoire ecclés.", VIII, 1907, 249-65). Again, at the time of the Reformation there arose long and acrid discussions as to whether Chrysostom was a Protestant or a Catholic, and these polemics have never wholly ceased. It is true that Chrysostom has some strange passages on our Blessed Lady (see Newman, "Certain difficulties felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teachings", London, 1876, pp. 130 sqq.), that he seems to ignore private confession to a priest, that there is no clear and any direct passage in favour of the primacy of the pope. But it must be remembered that all the respective passages contain nothing positive against the actual Catholic doctrine. On the other side Chrysostom explicitly acknowledges as a rule of faith tradition (XI, 488), as laid down by the authoritative teaching of the Church (I, 813). This Church, he says, is but one, by the unity of her doctrine (V, 244; XI, 554); she is spread over the whole world, she is the one Bride of Christ (III, 229, 403; V, 62; VIII, 170). As to Christology, Chrysostom holds clearly that Christ is God and man in one person, but he never enters into deeper examination of the manner of this union. Of great importance is his doctrine regarding the Eucharist. There cannot be the slightest doubt that he teaches the Real Presence, and his expressions on the change wrought by the words of the priest are equivalent to the doctrine of transubstantiation (see Naegle, "Die Eucharistielehre des hl. Joh. Chry.", 74 sq.). A complete analysis and critique of the enormous literature on Chrysostom (from the sixteenth century to the twentieth) is given in BAUR, S. Jean Chrysostome et ses oeuvres dans l'histoire litt raire (Paris and Louvain, 1907), 223-297. (1) LIFE OF CHRYSOSTOM. (a) Sources. -- PALLADIUS, Dialogue cum Theodoro, Ecclesioe Romanoe Diacono, de vit et conversatione b. Joh. Chrysostomi(written c. 408; best source; ed. BIGOT, Paris, 1680; P.G., XLVII, 5-82) MARTYRIUS, Panegyricus in S. Joh. Chrysostomum (written c. 408; ed. P.G., loc. cit., XLI-LII); SOCRATES, Hist. Eccl., VI, 2-23, and VII, 23, 45 (P.G., LXVII, 661 sqq.); SOZOMENUS, Hist. eccl., VIII, 2-28 (P.G., ibid., 1513 sqq.), more complete than Socrates, on whom he is dependent; THEODORET, Hist. eccl., V, 27-36; P.G., LXXXII, 1256-68, not always reliable; ZOSIMUS, V, 23-4 (ed. BEKKER, p. 278-80, Bonn. 1837), not trustworthy. (b) Later Authors. -- THEODORE OF THRIMITUS, (P.G., XLVII, col. 51-88), without value, written about the end of the seventh century; (PSEUDO-) GEORGIUS ALEXANDRINUS, ed. SAVILE, Chrys. opera omnia (Eton, 1612), VIII, 157-265 (8th - 9th century); LEO IMPERATOR, Laudatio Chrys. (P.G., CVII, 228 sqq.); ANONYMUS, (ed. SAVILE, loc. cit., 293-371); SYMEON METAPHRASTES, (P.G., CXIV, 1045-1209). (c) Modern Biographies. -- English: STEPHENS, Saint John Chrysostom, his life and times, a sketch of the Church and the empire in the fourth century (London, 1871; 2nd ed., London, 1880), the best English biography, but it anglicanizes the doctrine of Chrysostom; BUSH, The Life and Times of Chrysostom (London, 1885), a popular treatise. French: HERMANT, La Vie de Saint Jean Chrysostome . . . divis e en 12 livres (Paris, 1664; 3rd ed., Paris, 1683), the first scientific biography; DE TILLEMONT, M moires pour servir l'histoire eccl siastique des six premiers si cles, XI, 1-405, 547-626 (important for the chronology); STILTING, De S. Jo. Chrysostomo . . . Commentarius historicus in Acta SS., IV, Sept., 401-700 (1st ed., 1753), best scientific biography in Latin; THIERRY, S. Jean Chrysostome et l'imp ratrice Eudoxie (Paris, 1872; 3rd ed., Paris, 1889), "more romance than history"; PUECH, Saint Jean Chrysostome (Paris, 1900); 5th ed., Paris, 1905), popular and to be read with caution. German: NEANDER, Der hl. Joh. Chrysostomus und die Kirche, besonders des Orients, in dessen Zeitalter, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1821 - 22; 4th ed., Berlin 1858); first vol., translated into English by STAPLETON (London, 1838), gives an account of the doctrine of Chrysostom with Protestant views; LUDWIG, Der hl. Joh. Chrys. in seinem Verh liniss zum byzantinischen Hof. (Braunsberg, 1883), scientific. Chrysostom as orator: ALBERT, S. Jean Chrysostome consid r comme orateur populaire (Paris, 1858); ACKERMANN, Die Beredsamkeit des hl. Joh. Chrys. (W rzburg, 1889); cf. WILLEY, Chrysostom: The Orator (Cincinnati, 1908), popular essay. (2) CHRYSOSTOM'S WRITINGS. (a) Chronology. -- See TILLEMONT, STILTING, MONTFAUCON, Chrys. Opera omnia; USENER, Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, I (Bonn, 1889), 514-40; RAUSCHEN, Jahrb cher der christl. Kirche unter dem Kaiser Theodosius dem Grossen (Freiburg im Br., 1897), 251-3, 277-9, 495-9; BATIFFOL, Revue bibl., VIII, 566-72; PARGOIRE, Echos d'Orient, III 151-2; E. SCHARTZ, J dische und chrisl. Ostertafeln (Berlin, 1905), 169-84. (b) Authenticity. -- HAIDACHER, Zeitschr. f r Kath. Theologie, XVIII-XXXII; IDEM, Deshl. Joh. Chrys. Buchlein ber Hoffart u. Kindererziehung (Freiburg, im Br., 1907). (3) CHRYSOSTOM'S DOCTRINE. MAYERUS, Chrysostomus Lutheranus (Grimma, 1680: Wittenberg, 1686); HACKI, D. Jo. Chrysostomus . . . a Lutheranismo . . . vindicatus (Oliva, 1683); F RSTER, Chrysostomus in seinem Verh ltniss zur antiochen. Schule (Gotha, 1869); CHASE, Chrysostom, A Study in the History of Biblical Interpretation (London, 1887); HAIDACHER, Die Lehre des hl. Joh. Chrys. ber die Schriftinspiration (Salzburg, 1897); CHAPMAN, St. Chrysostom on St. Peter in Dublin Review (1903), 1-27; NAEGLE, Die Eucharistielehre des hl. Johannes Chrysostomus, des Doctor Eucharisti (Freiburg im Br., 1900). (4) EDITIONS. (a) Complete. -- SAVILE (Eton, 1612), 8 volumes (the best text); DUCAEUS, (Paris, 1609-1636), 12 vols.; DE MONTFAUCON, (Paris, 1718-1738), 13 vols.; MIGNE, P.G., XLVII - LXIII. (b) Partial. -- FIELD, Homilies in Matth. (Cambridge, 1839), 3 vols., best actual text reprinted in MIGNE, LVII - LVIII; IDEM, Homilioe in omnes epistolas Pauli (Oxford, 1845-62), VII. The last critical edition of the De Sacerdotio was edited by NAIRN (Cambridge, 1906). There exist about 54 complete editions (in five languages), 86 percent special editions of De Sacerdotio (in twelve languages), and the whole number of all (complete and special) editions is greatly over 1000. The oldest editions are the Latin; of which forty-six different incunabula editions (before the year 1500) exist. See DIODORUS OF TARSUS, METETIUS OF ANTIOCH, ORIGENISTS, PALLADIUS, THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA. CHRYS. BAUR. St. John Climacus St. John Climacus Also surnamed SCHOLASTICUS, and THE SINAITA, b. doubtlessly in Syria, about 525; d. on Mount Sinai. 30 March, probably in 606, according the credited opinion -- others say 605. Although his education and learning fitted him to live in an intellectual environment, he chose, while still young, to abandon the world for a life of solitude. The region of Mount Sanai was then celebrated for the holiness of the monks who inhabited it; he betook himself thither and trained himself to the practice of the Christian virtues under the direction of a monk named Martyrius. After the death of Martyrius John, wishing to practise greater mortifications, withdrew to a hermitage at the foot of the mountain. In this isolation he lived for some twenty years, constantly studying the lives of the saints and thus becoming one of the most learned doctors of the Church. In 600, when he was about seventy-five years of age, the monks of Sinai persuaded him to put himself at their head. He acquitted himself of his functions as abbot with the greatest wisdom, and his reputation spread so far that the pope (St. Gregory the Great) wrote to recommend himself to his prayers, and sent him a sum of money for the hospital of Sinai, in which the pilgrims were wont to lodge. Four years later he resigned his charge and returned to his hermitage to prepare for death. St. John Climacus has left us two important works: the "Scala [ Klimax] Paradisi", from which his surname comes, composed at the request of John, Abbot of Raithu, a monastery situated on the shores of the Red Sea; and the "Liber ad Pastorem". The "Scala", which obtained an immense popularity and has made its author famous in the Church, is addressed to anchorites and cenobites, and treats of the means by which the highest degree of religious perfection may be attained. Divided into thirty parts, or "steps", in memory of the thirty years of the hidden life of Christ, the Divine model of the religious, it presents a picture of all the virtues and contains a. great many parables and historical touches, drawn principally from the monastic life, and exhibiting the practical application of the precepts. At the same time, as the work is mostly written in a concise, sententious form, with the aid of aphorisms, and as the reasonings are not sufficiently closely connected, it is at times somewhat obscure. This explains its having been the subject of various commentaries, even in very early' times. The most ancient of the manuscripts containing the "Scala" is found in the Bibliothèque Rationale in Paris, and was probably brought from Florence by Catharine de' Medici. In some of these manuscripts the work bears the title of "Spiritual Tables" (Plakes pneumatikai). It was translated into Latin by Ambrogio the Camaldolese (Ambrosius Camaldulensis) (Venice, 1531 and 1569; Cologne, 1583, 1593, with a commentary by Denis the Carthusian; and 1601, 8vo). The Greek of the "Scala", with the scholia of Elias, Archbishop of Crete, and also the text of the "Liber ad Pastoem", were published by Matthæus Raderus with a Latin translation (fol., Paris, 1633). The whole is reproduced in P.G., LXXXVIII (Paris, 1860), 5791248. Translations of the "Scala" have been published in Spanish by Louis of Granada (Salamanca, 1551), in Italian (Venice, 1585), in modern Greek by Maximus Margunius, Bishop of Cerigo (Venice, 1590), and in French by Arnauld d'Andilly (12mo, Paris, 1688). The last-named of these translations is preceded by a life of the saint by Le Maistre de Sacy. There is also in existence an ancient life of the saint by a monk named Daniel. Acta SS., III, March, 834-5; CEILLIER Hist. Gén. des auteurs sacrés et ecclés., XVII (Paris, 1750), 569-96; FABRICIUS, Bibl. Græca, VIII (Hamburg, 1717), 615-20; KRUMBACHER, Gesch byz. Litt. (Munich, 1897), 143-4; SURIUS, Vitæ SS., II (Vernice, 1681), 133. LÉON CLUGNET Bl. John Colombini Blessed John Colombini Founder of the Congregation of Jesuati; b. at Siena, Upper Italy, about 1300; d. on the way to Acquapendente, 31 July, 1367. There was nothing in his early life to indicate the presence in his character of any unusual seeds of holiness. Belonging to an old patrician family, he devoted himself, like thousands of his class in Italy, to commerce, swelled his already substantial fortune, and rose to a position of great prominence and influence among his fellow-citizens, who on several occasions elected him gonfalonier. Fortunate in his marriage, of which two children -- Peter and Angela -- were the fruit, his private life was marred by his avarice, his ambition, and his proneness to anger. One day, while still suffering under a sense of mortification after one of his passionate outbursts occasioned by a petty domestic disappointment, he chanced to take up a biography of St. Mary of Egypt, whose later life had been as conspicuous for penance as her earlier had been for sin. The perusal of this narrative brought a new light into his fife; henceforth ambition and anger gave way to an almost incredible humility and meekness. The great transformation of his life extended to his business affairs, and excited in the purely mercenary-minded a ridicule easy to understand. Heedless, however, of raillery, he did not rest content with selling cheaper than any other merchant, but persisted in paying more for his purchases than the sum demanded. With the consent of his wife he soon abandoned his former patrician associates, visited hospitals, tended the sick, and made large donations to the poor. Then casting aside the clothes usual to his station, he assumed the garments of the most indigent, and, having fallen ill and believing himself treated with too much delicacy at home, deserted his luxurious house for the ordinary ward of a poor hospital. His relations urged him to return, and finally elicited his consent on the condition that thenceforth he would be given only the coarser forms of nourishment. Nursed back to health, he insisted on making his house the refuge of the needy and the suffering, washing their feet with his own hands, dispensing to them bodily and spiritual comfort, leaving nothing undone that the spirit of charity could suggest. Among the wonders recorded to have taken in this abode of Christian mercy was the miraculous disappearance of a leper, leaving the room permeated with an indescribable fragrance. It required eight years to render his wife reconciled to the extraordinary philanthropy of her husband. His son having meanwhile died and his daughter taken the veil, Colombini with the approval of his wife, on whom he first settled a life-annuity, divided his fortune into three parts: the first went to endow a hospital, the second and third to two cloisters. Together with his friend Francisco Mini, who had been associated with him in all charitable labours, Colombini lived henceforward a life of apostolic poverty, begged for his daily bread, and esteemed it a favour to be allowed to wait on the sick poor, while in public and in their dwellings he stimulated the people to penance. He was soon joined by three of the Piccolomini and by members of other patrician families, who likewise distributed all their goods among the poor. Alarmed at these occurrences, many of the Sienese now raised an outcry, complaining that Colombini was inciting all the most promising young men of the city to "folly", and succeeded in procuring his banishment. Accompanied by twenty-five companions, Colombini left his native city without a protest and visited in succession Arezzo, Città di Castello, Pisa and many other Tuscan cities, making numerous conversions, reconciling sundered friends, and effecting the return of much property to its rightful owners. An epidemic which broke out at Siena shortly after his departure, was generally regarded as a heavenly chastisement for his banishment, and there was a universal clamour for his recall. Regardless alike of derision and insult, he resumed on his return his former charitable occupations, in his humility rejoicing to perform the most menial services at houses where he had once been an honoured guest. On the return of Urban V from Avignon to Rome (1367), Colombini and his followers hastened to meet him, and begged him to sanction the foundation of their Institution. A commission appointed by Urban and presided over by Cardinal William Sudre, Bishop of Marseilles, having attested their freedom from every taint of the error of the Fraticelli, whose views some evil-intentioned people had accused them of holding, the pope gave his consent to the foundation of their congregation. The name Jesuati (Jesuites) had already been given them by the populace of Viterbo because of their constant use of the ejaculation "Praise be to Jesus Christ." From the very beginning they had a special veneration for St. Jerome, and, to this fact and to the apostolic life they led, they are indebted for their longer title, Clerici apostolici s. Hieronymi (Apostolic Clerics of St. Jerome). Urban appointed as their habit a white soutan, a white four-cornered hood hanging round the neck and falling in folds over the shoulders, and a mantle of a dun colour; the soutan was encircled by a leathern girdle, and sandals were worn on the feet. Their occupations were to be the care of the sick, particularly the plague-stricken, the burial of the dead, prayer, and strict mortification (including daily scourging). Their statutes were at first based on the Rule of St. Benedict, modified to suit the aims of the congregation, but the Rule of St. Augustine was later adopted. Colombini died a week after the foundation of his institute, having appointed Mini his successor. After many miracles had occurred at his tomb, Gregory XIII inserted Colombini's name in the Roman Martyrology, fixing 31 July for the celebration of his feast, which is of obligation at Siena. Under Mini and his successor, Blessed Jerome Dasciano, the Jesuati spread rapidly over Italy. and in 1606 the Holy See allowed. the reception of priests into the congregation. Abuses, however, crept in subsequently, and the congregation was suppressed by Clement IX in 1668 as of little advantage to the interests of the Church. The Jesuatesses or Sisters of the Visitation of Mary, founded about 1367 at the suggestion of Colombini by his cousin Blessed Catharine Colombini of Siena (d. 20 October, 1387), spoke as little as possible, fasted very strictly, and chastised their bodies twice daily. The also spread very rapidly, and survived in Italy until 1872. BALUZE, Miscell., ed. MANSI, IV, 566; PARDI, Della vita e degli scritti di Giovanni Colunbini da Siena in Bull. Senese stor., II (1895), 1-50, 202-30; PÖSL, Leben des sel. Joh. Colombini aus Siena (Ratisbon, 1846); RAMBUTEAU, Le bienheureux Colombini, histoire d'un toscan au XIV, s. (3rd ed., Paris, 1893), Ital. tr. by LUSINI, II b. Giov. Colombini (Siena,1894), HÉLYOT, Hist. des ordres religieux (Paris, 1792), s. v. Jésuates; HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden u. Kongreg. der kathol. Kirche, II (Paderbom, 1896), 240 sqq.; HEFELE in Kirchenlex., s. v. Jesuati. THOMAS KENNEDY Ven. John Cornelius and Companions Venerables John Cornelius and Companions John Cornelius (called also Mohun) was born of Irish parents at Bodmin, in Cornwall, on the estate of Sir John Arundell, of Lanherne, in 1557; martyred at Dorchester, 4 July, 1594. Sir John Arundell took an interest in the talented boy and sent him to Oxford. Not satisfied with the new religion taught there, John Cornelius went to the great "seminary of martyrs", then at Reims, and a little later, on 1 April, 1580, entered the English College, Rome, to pursue his theological studies. After his ordination he was sent as a missionary to England and laboured there for nearly ten years. He practised mortification, was devoted to meditation, and showed much zeal in the ministry. While acting as chaplain to Lady Arundell, he was arrested on 24 April, 1594, at Chideock Castle, by the sheriff of Dorsetshire. He was met on the way by Thomas Bosgrave, a relative of the Arundell family, who offered him his own hat, as he had been dragged out bareheaded. Thereupon Bosgrave was arrested. Two servants of the castle, John (or Terence) Carey and Patrick Salmon, natives of Dublin, shared the same fate. When they reached the sheriff's house a number of Protestant clergymen heaped abuse upon the Catholic religion, but were so well answered that the sheriff stopped the disputation. The missionary was sent to London and brought before the Lord Treasurer, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and others, who, by words and torture, tried in vain to obtain the names of such as had given him shelter or assistance. He was brought back to Dorchester and with his three companions condemned to death, 2 July, 1594. He was accused of high treason, because he was a priest and had returned to England; the others were charged with felony, for having rendered assistance to one whom they knew to be a priest; but all were assured that their lives would be spared if they embraced Protestantism. While in prison, John Cornelius was admitted to membership in the Society of Jesus. On the way to execution none of the confessors showed signs of fear. The first to ascend the scaffold was John Carey; he kissed the rope, exclaiming "O precious collar", made a solemn profession of faith and died a valiant death. Before his execution Patrick Salmon, a man much admired for his virtues, exhorted the spectators to embrace the Faith, for which he and his companions were giving their lives. Then followed Thomas Bosgrave, a man of education, who delivered a stirring address on the truth of his belief. The last to suffer was John Cornelius, who kissed the gallows with the words of St. Andrew, "O Cross, long desired", etc. On the ladder he tried to speak to the multitude, but was prevented. After praying for his executioners and for the welfare of the queen, John Cornelius also was executed. The body was taken down and quartered, his head was nailed to the gibbet, but soon removed. The bodies were buried by the Catholics. FRANCIS MERSHMAN Saint John Damascene St. John Damascene Born at Damascus, about 676; died some time between 754 and 787. The only extant life of the saint is that by John, Patriarch of Jerusalem, which dates from the tenth century (P.G. XCIV, 429-90). This life is the single source from which have been drawn the materials of all his biographical notices. It is extremely unsatisfactory from the standpoint of historical criticism. An exasperating lack of detail, a pronounced legendary tendency, and a turgid style are its chief characteristics. Mansur was probably the name of John's father. What little is known of him indicates that he was a sterling Christian whose infidel environment made no impression on his religious fervour. Apparently his adhesion to Christian truth constituted no offence in the eyes of his Saracen countrymen, for he seems to have enjoyed their esteem in an eminent degree, and discharged the duties of chief financial officer for the caliph, Abdul Malek. The author of the life records the names of but two of his children, John and his half-brother Cosmas. When the future apologist had reached the age of twenty-three his father cast about for a Christian tutor capable of giving his sons the best education the age afforded. In this he was singularly fortunate. Standing one day in the market-place he discovered among the captives taken in a recent raid on the shores of Italy a Sicilian monk named Cosmas. Investigation proved him to be a man of deep and broad erudition. Through the influence of the caliph, Mansur secured the captive's liberty and appointed him tutor to his sons. Under the tutelage of Cosmas, John made such rapid progress that, in the enthusiastic language of his biographer, he soon equalled Diophantus in algebra and Euclid in geometry. Equal progress was made in music, astronomy, and theology. On the death of his father, John Damascene was made protosymbulus, or chief councillor, of Damascus. It was during his incumbency of this office that the Church in the East began to be agitated by the first mutterings of the Iconoclast heresy. In 726, despite the protests of Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, Leo the Isaurian issued his first edict against the veneration of images. From his secure refuge in the caliph's court, John Damascene immediately entered the lists against him, in defence of this ancient usage of the Christians. Not only did he himself oppose the Byzantine monarch, but he also stirred the people to resistance. In 730 the Isaurian issued a second edict, in which he not only forbade the veneration of images, but even inhibited their exhibition in public places. To this royal decree the Damascene replied with even greater vigour than before, and by the adoption of a simpler style brought the Christian side of the controversy within the grasp of the common people. A third letter emphasized what he had already said and warned the emperor to beware of the consequences of this unlawful action. Naturally, these powerful apologies aroused the anger of the Byzantine emperor. Unable to reach the writer with physical force, he sought to encompass his destruction by strategy. Having secured an autograph letter written by John Damascene, he forged a letter, exactly similar in chirography, purporting to have been written by John to the Isaurian, and offering to betray into his hands the city of Damascus. The letter he sent to the caliph. Notwithstanding his councillor's earnest avowal of innocence, the latter accepted it as genuine and ordered that the hand that wrote it be severed at the wrist. The sentence was executed, but, according to his biographer, through the intervention of the Blessed Virgin, the amputated hand was miraculously restored. The caliph, now convinced of John's innocence, would fain have reinstated him in his former office, but the Damascene had heard a call to a higher life, and with his foster-brother entered the monastery of St. Sabas, some eighteen miles south-east of Jerusalem. After the usual probation, John V, Patriarch of Jerusalem, conferred on him the office of the priesthood. In 754 the pseudo-Synod of Constantinople, convened at the command of Constantine Copronymus, the successor of Leo, confirmed the principles of the Iconoclasts and anathematized by name those who had conspicuously opposed them. But the largest measure of the council's spleen was reserved for John of Damascus. He was called a "cursed favourer of Saracens", a "traitorous worshipper of images", a "wronger of Jesus Christ", a "teacher of impiety", and a "bad interpreter of the Scriptures". At the emperor's command his name was written "Manzer" (Manzeros, a bastard). But the Seventh General Council of Nicea (787) made ample amends for the insults of his enemies, and Theophanes, writing in 813, tells us that he was surnamed Chrysorrhoas (golden stream) by his friends on account of his oratorical gifts. In the pontificate of Leo XIII he was enrolled among the doctors of the Church. His feast is celebrated on 27 March. John of Damascus was the last of the Greek Fathers. His genius was not for original theological development, but for compilation of an encyclopedic character. In fact, the state of full development to which theological thought had been brought by the great Greek writers and councils left him little else than the work of an encyclopedist; and this work he performed in such manner as to merit the gratitude of all succeeding ages. Some consider him the precursor of the Scholastics, whilst others regard him as the first Scholastic, and his "De fide orthodoxa" as the first work of Scholasticism. The Arabians too, owe not a little of the fame of their philosophy to his inspiration. The most important and best known of all his works is that to which the author himself gave the name of "Fountain of Wisdom" (pege gnoseos). This work has always been held in the highest esteem in both the Catholic and Greek Churches. Its merit is not that of originality, for the author asserts, at the end of the second chapter of the "Dialectic", that it is not his purpose to set forth his own views, but rather to collate and epitomize in a single work the opinions of the great ecclesiastical writers who have gone before him. A special interest attaches to it for the reason that it is the first attempt at a summa theologica that has come down to us. The "Fountain of Wisdom" is divided into three parts, namely, "Philosophical Chapters" (Kephalaia philosophika), "Concerning Heresy" (peri aipeseon), and "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" (Ikdosis akribes tes orthodoxou pisteos). The title of the first book is somewhat too comprehensive for its contents and consequently is more commonly called "Dialectic". With the exception of the fifteen chapters that deal exclusively with logic, it has mostly to do with the ontology of Aristotle. It is largely a summary of the Categories of Aristotle with Porphyry's "Isagoge" (Eisagoge eis tas kategorias). It seems to have been John Damascene's purpose to give his readers only such philosophical knowledge as was necessary for understanding the subsequent parts of the "Fountain of Wisdom". For more than one reason the "Dialectic" is a work of unusual interest. In the first place, it is a record of the technical terminology used by the Greek Fathers, not only against the heretics, but also in the exposition of the Faith for the benefit of Christians. It is interesting, too, for the reason that it is a partial exposition of the "Organon", and the application of its methods to Catholic theology a century before the first Arabic translation of Aristotle made its appearance. The second part, "Concerning Heresy", is little more than a copy of a similar work by Epiphanius, brought up to date by John Damascene. The author indeed expressly disclaims originality except in the chapters devoted to Islamism, Iconoclasm, and Aposchitae. To the list of eighty heresies that constitute the "Panarion" of Epiphanius, he added twenty heresies that had sprung up since his time. In treating of Islamism he vigorously assails the immoral practices of Mohammed and the corrupt teachings inserted in the Koran to legalize the delinquencies of the prophet. Like Epiphanius, he brings the work to a close with a fervent profession of Faith. John's authorship of this book has been challenged, for the reason that the writer, in treating of Arianism, speaks of Arius, who died four centuries before the time of Damascene, as still living and working spiritual ruin among his people. The solution of the difficulty is to be found in the fact that John of Damascene did not epitomize the contents of the "Panarion", but copied it verbatim. Hence the passage referred to is in the exact words of Epiphanius himself, who was a contemporary of Arius. "Concerning the Orthodox Faith", the third book of the "Fountain of Wisdom", is the most important of John Damascene's writings and one of the most notable works of Christian antiquity. Its authority has always been great among the theologians of the East and West. Here, again, the author modestly disavows any claim of originality -- any purpose to essay a new exposition of doctrinal truth. He assigns himself the less pretentious task of collecting in a single work the opinions of the ancient writers scattered through many volumes, and of systematizing and connecting them in a logical whole. It is no small credit to John of Damascus that he was able to give to the Church in the eighth century its first summary of connected theological opinions. At the command of Eugenius III it was rendered into Latin by Burgundio of Pisa, in 1150, shortly before Peter Lombard's "Book of Sentences" appeared. This translation was used by Peter Lombard and St. Thomas Aquinas, as well as by other theologians, till the Humanists rejected it for a more elegant one. The author follows the same order as does Theodoret of Cyrus in his "Epitome of Christian Doctrine". But, while he imitates the general plan of Theodoret, he does not make use of his method. He quotes, not only form the pages of Holy Writ, but also from the writings of the Fathers. As a result, his work is an inexhaustible thesaurus of tradition which became the standard for the great Scholastics who followed. In particular, he draws generously from Gregory of Nazianzus, whose works he seems to have absorbed, from Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Leo the Great, Athanasius, John Chrysostum, and Epiphanius. The work is divided into four books. This division, however, is an arbitrary one neither contemplated by the author nor justified by the Greek manuscript. It is probably the work of a Latin translator seeking to accommodate it to the style of the four books of Lombard's "Sentences". The first book of "The Orthodox Faith" treats of the essence and existence of God, the Divine nature, and the Trinity. As evidence of the existence of God he cites the concurrence of opinion among those enlightened by Revelation and those who have only the light of reason to guide them. To the same end he employs the argument drawn from the mutability of created things and that from design. Treating, in the second book, of the physical world, he summarizes all the views of his times, without, however, committing himself to any of them. In the same treatise he discloses a comprehensive knowledge of the astronomy of his day. Here, also, place is given to the consideration of the nature of angels and demons, the terrestrial paradise, the properties of human nature, the foreknowledge of God, and predestination. Treating of man (c.xxvii), he gives what has been aptly called a "psychology in nuce". Contrary to the teachings of Plotinus, the master of Porphyry, he identifies mind and soul. In the third book the personality and two-fold nature of Christ are discussed with great ability. This leads up to the consideration of the Monophysite heresy. In this connexion he deals with Peter the Fuller's addition to the "Trisagion", and combats Anastasius's interpretation of this ancient hymn. The latter, who was Abbot of the monastery of St. Euthymius in Palestine, referred the "Trisagion" only to the Second Person of the Trinity. In his letter "Concerning the Trisagion" John Damascene contends that the hymn applies not to the Son alone, but to each Person of the Blessed Trinity. This book also contains a spirited defence of the Blessed Virgin's claim to the tile of "Theotokos." Nestorius is vigorously dealt with for trying to substitute the title of "Mother of Christ" for "Mother of God". The Scriptures are discussed in the fourth book. In assigning twenty-two books to the Old Testament Canon he is treating of the Hebrew, and not the Christian, Canon, as he finds it in a work of Epiphanius, "De ponderibus et mensuris". His treatment in this book of the Real Presence is especially satisfactory. The nineteenth chapter contains a powerful plea for the veneration of images. The treatise, "Against the Jacobites", was written at the request of Peter, Metropolitan of Damascus, who imposed on him the task of reconciling to the Faith the Jacobite bishop. It is a strong polemic against the Jacobites, as the Monophysites in Syria were called. He also wrote against the Manicheans and Monothelites. The "Booklet Concerning Right Judgment" is little more than a profession of Faith, confirmed by arguments setting forth the mysteries of the Faith, especially the Trinity and the Incarnation. Though John of Damascus wrote voluminously on the Scriptures, as in the case of so much of his writing, his work bears little of the stamp of originality. His "Select Passages" (Loci Selecti), as he himself admits, are taken largely from the homilies of St. John Chrysostom and appended as commentaries to texts from the Epistles of St. Paul. The commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians is taken from Cyril of Alexandria. The "Sacred Parallels" (Sacra parallela) is a kind of topical concordance, treating principally of God, man, virtues, and vices. Under the general title of "Homilies" he wrote fourteen discourses. The sermon on the Transfiguration, which Lequien asserts was delivered in the church on Mt. Tabor, is of more than usual excellence. It is characterized by dramatic eloquence, vivid description, and a wealth of imagery. In it he discourses on his favorite topic, the twofold nature of Christ, quotes the classic text of Scripture in testimony of the primacy of Peter, and witnesses the Catholic doctrine of sacramental Penance. In his sermon on Holy Saturday he descants on the Easter duty and on the Real Presence. The Annunciation is the text of a sermon, now extant only in a Latin version of an Arabic text, in which he attributes various blessings to the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. The second of his three sermons on the Assumption is especially notable for its detailed account of the translation of the body of the Blessed Virgin into heaven, an account, he avers, that is based on the most reliable and ancient tradition. Both Liddledale and Neale regard John of Damascus as the prince of Greek hymnodists. His hymns are contained in the "Carmina" of the Lequien edition. The "canons" on the Nativity, Epiphany, and Pentecost are written in iambic trimeters. Three of his hymns have become widely known and admired in their English version -- "Those eternal bowers", "Come ye faithful raise the strain", and "Tis the Day of Resurrection". The most famous of the "canons" is that on Easter. It is a song of triumph and thanksgiving -- the "Te Deum" of the Greek Church. It is a traditional opinion, lately controverted, that John Damascene composed the "Octoëchos", which contains the liturgical hymns used by the Greek Church in its Sunday services. Gerbet, in his "History of Sacred Music", credits him with doing for the East what Gregory the Great accomplished for the West -- substitution of notes and other musical characters for the letters of the alphabet to indicate musical quantities. It is certain he adapted choral music to the purposes of the Liturgy. Among the several works that are dubiously attributed to John Damascene the most important is the romance entitled "Barlaam and Josaphat". Throughout the Middle Ages it enjoyed the widest popularity in all languages. It is not regarded as authentic by Lequien, and the discovery of a Syriac version of the "Apology of Aristides" shows that what amounts to sixteen printed pages of it was taken directly from Aristides. The panegyric of St. Barbara, while accepted as genuine by Lequien, is rejected by many others. The treatise entitled "Concerning those who have died in the Faith" is rejected as spurious by Suarez, Bellarmine, and Lequien, not only on account of its doctrinal discrepancies, but for its fabulous character as well. The first Greek edition of any of the works of John Damascene was that of the "Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" brought out at Verona (1531) under the auspices of John Matthew Gibertus, Bishop of Verona. Another Greek edition of the same work was published at Moldavia (1715) by John Epnesinus. It was also printed in a Latin edition at Paris (1507), by James Faber. Henry Gravius, O.P., published a Latin edition at Cologne (1546) which contained the following works: "Dialectic", "Elementary and Dogmatic Instruction", "Concerning the two Wills and Operations", and "Concerning Heresy". A Greek-Latin edition with an introduction by Mark Hopper made its appearance at Basle (1548). A similar edition, but much more complete was published at the same place in 1575. Another Latin edition, constituting a partial collection of the author's works is that by Michael Lequien, O.P., published at Paris (1717) and Venice (1748). To the reprint of this edition, P.G., XCIV-XCVI (Paris, 1864), Migne has added a supplement of works attributed by some to the authorship of John Damascene. JOHN B. O'CONNOR Bl. John de Britto Blessed John de Britto Martyr; born in Lisbon, 1 March, 1647, and was brought up in court; martyred in India 11 February, 1693. Entering the Society of Jesus at fifteen, he obtained as his mission-field Madura in southern India. In September, 1673, he reached Goa. Before taking up his work he spent thirty days in the Exercises of St. Ignatius at Ambalacate near Cranganore. De Britto apparently entered the Kshatriyas, a noble caste. His dress was yellow cotton; he abstained from every kind of animal food and from wine. Setting out early in 1674, he traversed the Ghauts on foot and reached Colei in the Cauvery Delta, where he perfected himself in the language. He journeyed northward at least as far as Madras and Vellore, but Cauvery Delta, Tanjore, Madura, and Marava, between Madura and the sea, were his chief field. In 1684 he was imprisoned in Marava, and, though freed by the king, he was expelled from the country. In 1688 he was sent to Europe as deputy to the triennial Congregation of Procurators. Resisting urgent attempts to keep him in Portugal, and refusing the Archbishopric of Cranganore, he returned in 1691 to the borders of Madura and Marava. Having converted Teriadeven, a Maravese prince, he required him to dismiss all his wives but one. Among them was a niece of the king, who took up her quarrel and began a general persecution. De Britto and others were taken and carried to the capital, Ramnad, the Brahmins clammering for his death. Thence he was led to Oreiour, some thirty miles northward along the coast, where his head was struck off, 11 February, 1693. He had wrought many conversions during his life, established many stations, and was famous for his miracles before and after his death. He was beatified by Pius IX, 21, August, 1853. H. WOODS Bl. John Felton Blessed John Felton Martyr, date and place of birth unknown, was executed in St. Paul's Churchyard, London, 8 August, 1570, for having, about eleven o'clock at night on the previous 24 May, affixed a copy of the Bull of St. Pius V excommunicating the queen to the gates of the Bishop of London's palace near St. Paul's. His daughter, Frances Salisbury, says that this exploit actually took place between two and three on the morning of the next day, on which that year the feast of Corpus Christi happened to fall. The MS. which preserves- her narrative contains a blank where the age of her father should be recorded, but she gives us other particulars fully. He was a wealthy gentleman of Norfolk extraction, and lived at Bermondsey Abbey near Southwark. He had married a lady who had been maid of honour to Queen Mary and playmate of Queen Elizabeth, and who was the widow of an auditor of the former queen. He himself "was a man of stature little and of complexion black". Of the copies of the Bull which he had received at Calais he had given one to William Mellowes of Lincoln's Inn, a special friend of his. This copy was discovered on 25 May, and Mellowes on the rack confessed to having received it from him. On 26 May he was arrested and taken to the Tower, where he was thrice racked, though he from the first confessed and gloried in his deed. He was condemned on 4 August and executed four days later. He was cut down alive, and his daughter says that he uttered the holy name of Jesus once or twice when the hangman had his heart in his hand. POLLEN, Acts of English Martyrs (London, 1891), 209; CAMM, Lives Of English Martyrs, II (London, 1904-5), 1, and xix, n. 2; COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v. JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT St. John Fisher St. John Fisher Cardinal, Bishop of Rochester, and martyr; born at Beverley, Yorkshire, England, 1459 (?1469); died 22 June, 1535. John was the eldest son of Robert Fisher, merchant of Beverley, and Agnes his wife. His early education was probably received in the school attached to the collegiate church in his native town, whence in 1484 he removed to Michaelhouse, Cambridge. He took the degree of B.A. in 1487, proceeded M.A. in 1491, in which year he was elected a fellow of his college, and was made Vicar of Northallerton, Yorkshire. In 1494 he resigned his benefice to become proctor of his university, and three years later was appointed Master of Michaelhouse, about which date he became chaplain and confessor to Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby, mother of King Henry VII. In 1501 he received the degree of D.D., and was elected Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University. Under Fisher's guidance, the Lady Margaret founded St. John's and Christ's Colleges at Cambridge, and also the two "Lady Margaret" professorships of divinity at Oxford and Cambridge respectively, Fisher himself being the first occupant of the Cambridge chair. By Bull dated 14 October, 1504, Fisher was advanced to the Bishopric of Rochester, and in the same year was elected Chancellor of Cambridge University, to which post he was re-elected annually for ten years and then appointed for life. At this date also he is said to have acted as tutor to Prince Henry, afterwards Henry VIII. As a preacher his reputation was so great that in 1509, when King Henry VII and the Lady Margaret died, Fisher was appointed to preach the funeral oration on both occasions; these sermons are still extant. In 1542 Fisher was nominated as one of the English representatives at the Fifth Council of Lateran, then sitting, but his journey to Rome was postponed, and finally abandoned. Besides his share in the Lady Margaret's foundations, Fisher gave further proof of his genuine zeal for learning by inducing Erasmus to visit Cambridge. The latter indeed (Epist., 6:2) attributes it to Fisher's protection that the study of Greek was allowed to proceed at Cambridge without the active molestation that it encountered at Oxford. He has also been named, though without any real proof, as the true author of the royal treatise against Luther entitled "Assertio septem sacramentorum", published in 1521, which won the title Fidei Defensor for Henry VIII. Before this date Fisher had denounced various abuses in the Church, urging the need of disciplinary reforms, and in this year he preached at St. Paul's Cross on the occasion when Luther's books were publicly burned. When the question of Henry's divorce from Queen Catherine arose, Fisher became the Queen's chief supporter and most trusted counsellor. In this capacity he appeared on the Queen's behalf in the legates' court, where he startled his hearers by the directness of his language and most of all by declaring that, like St. John the Baptist, he was ready to die on behalf of the indissolubility of marriage. This statement was reported to Henry VIII, who was so enraged by it that he himself composed a long Latin address to the legates in answer to the bishop's speech. Fisher's copy of this still exists, with his manuscript annotations in the magin which show how little he feared the royal anger. The removal of the cause to Rome brought Fisher's personal share therein to an end, but the king never forgave him for what he had done. In November, 1529, the "Long Parliament" of Henry's reign began its series of encroachments on the Church. Fisher, as a member of the upper house, at once warned Parliament that such acts could only end in the utter destruction of the Church in England. On this the Commons, through their speaker, complained to the king that the bishop had disparaged Parliament. Dr. Gairdner (Lollardy and the Reformation, I, 442) says of this incident "it can hardly be a matter of doubt that this strange remonstrance was prompted by the king himself, and partly for personal uses of his own". The opportunity was not lost. Henry summoned Fisher before him, demanding an explanation. Thisbeing given, Henry declared himself satisfied, leaving it to the Commons to declare that the explanation was inadequate, so that he appeared as a magnanimous sovereign, instead of Fisher's enemy. A year later (1530) the continued encroachments on the Church moved the Bishops of Rochester, Bath, and Ely to appeal to the Apostolic see. This gave the king his opportunity. An edict forbidding such appeals was immediately issued, and the three bishops were arrested. Their imprisonment, however, can have lasted a few months only, for in February, 1531, Convocation mmet, and Fisher was present. This was the occasion when the clergy were forced, at a cost of 1000,000 pounds, to purchase the king's pardon for having recognized Cardinal Wolsey's authority as legate of the pope; and at the same time to acknowledge Henry as Supreme Head of the Church in England, to which phrase, however, the addition "so far as God's law permits" was made, through Fisher's efforts. A few days later, several of the bishop's servants were taken ill after eating some porridge served to the household, and two actually died. Popular opinion at the time regarded this as an attempt on the bishop's life, although he himself chanced not to have taken any of the poisoned food. To disarm suspicion, the king not only expressed strong indignation at the crime, but caused a special Act of Parliament to be passed, whereby poisoning was to be accounted high treason, and the person guilty of it boiled to death. This sentence was actually carried out on the culprit, but it did not prevent what seems to have been a second attempt on Fisher's life soon afterwards. Matters now moved rapidly. In May, 1532, Sir Thomas More resigned the chancellorship, and in June, Fisher preached publicly against the divorce. In August, Warham, Archbishop of Canterbury, died, and Cranmer was at once nominated to the pope as his successor. In January, 1533, Henry secretly went through the form of marriage with Anne Boleyn; Cranmer's consecration took place in March of the same year, and, a week later, Fisher was arrested. It seems fairly clear that the purpose of this arrest was to prevent his opposing the sentence of divorce which Cranmer pronounced in May, or the coronation of Anne Boleyn which followed on 1 Hune; for Fisher was set at liberty again within a fortnight of the latter event, no charge being made against him. In the autumn of this year (1533), various arrests were made in connexion with the so-called revelations of the Holy Maid of Kent (see BARTON, ELIZABETH), but as Fisher was taken seriously ill in December, proceedings against him were postponed for a time. In March, 1534, however, a special bill of attainder against the Bishop of Rochester and others for complicity in the matter of the Nun of Kent was introduced and passed. By this Fisher was condemned to forfeiture of all his personal estate and to be imprisoned during the king's pleasure. Subsequently a pardon was granted him on payment of a fine of 300 pounds. In the same session of Parliamment was passed the Act of Succession, by which all who should be called upon to do so were compelled to take an oath of succession, acknowledging the issue of Henry and Anne as legitimate heirs to the throne, under pain of being guilty of misprision of treason. Fisher refused the oath and was sent to the Tower of London, 26 April, 1534. Several efforts were made to induce him to submit, but without effect, and in November he was a second time attained of misprision of treason, his goods being forfeited as from 1 March preceding, and the See of Rochester being declared vacant as from 2 June following. A long letter exists, written from the Tower by the bishop to Thomas Cromwell, which records the severity of his confinement and the sufferings he endured. In may, 1535, the new pope, Paul III, created Fisher Cardinal Priest of St. Vitalis, his motive being apparently to induce Henry by this mark of esteem to treat the bishop less severely. The effect was precisely the reverse. Henry forbade the cardinal's hat to be brought into England, declaring that he would send the head to Rome instead. In June a special commission for Fisher's trial was issued, and on 17 June he was arraigned in Westminster Hall on a charge of treason, in that he denied the king to be supreme head of the Church. Since he had been deprived of his bishopric by the Act of Attainder, he was treated as a commoner, and tried by jury. He was declared guilty, and condemned to be hanged, drawn, and quartered at Tyburn, but the mode of excution was changed, and instead he was beheaded on Tower Hill. The martyr's last moments were thoroughly in keeping with his previous life. He met death with a calm dignified courage which profoundly impressed all present. His headless body was stripped and left on the scaffold till evening, when it was thrown naked into a grave in the churchyard of Allhallows, Barking. Thence it was removed a fortnight later and laid beside that of Sir Thomas More in the church of St. Peter ad Vincula by the Tower. His head was stuck upon a pole on London Bridge, but its ruddy and lifelike appearance excited so much attention that, after a fortnight, it was thrown into the Thames, its place being taken by that of Sir Thomas More, whose martyrdom occurred on 6 July next following. Several portraits of Fisher exist, the best being by Holbein in the royal collection; and a few secondary relics are extant. In the Decree of 29 December, 1886, when fifty-four of the English martyrs were beatified by Leo XIII, the best place of all is given to John Fisher. [He was canonized in 1935 by Pope Pius XI -- Ed.]. A list of Fisher's writings will be found in Gillow, "Bibliographical Dictionary of the English Catholics" (London, s.d.), II, 262-270. There are twenty-six works in all, printed and manuscript, mostly ascetical or controversial treatises, several of which have been reprinted many times. The original editions are very rare and valuable. The principal are: + "Treatise concernynge...the seven penytencyall Psalms" (London, 1508); + "Sermon...agayn ye pernicyous doctrin of Martin Luther" (London, 1521); + "Defensio Henrici VIII" (Cologne, 1525); + "De Veritate Corporis et Sanguinis Christi in Eucharistia, adversus Johannem Oecolampadium" (Cologne, 1527); + "De Causa Matrimonii...Henrici VIII cum Catharina Aragonensi" (Alcalá de Henares, 1530); + "The Wayes to Perfect Religion" (London, 1535); + "A Spirituall Consolation written...to hys sister Elizabeth" (London, 1735). G. ROGER HUDLESTON Bl. John Forest Blessed John Forest Born in 1471, presumably at Oxford, where his surname was then not unknown; suffered 22 May, 1538. At the age of twenty he received the habit of St. Francis at Greenwich, in the church of the Friars Minor of the Regular Observance, called for brevity's sake "Observants". Nine years later we find him at Oxford, studying theology. He is commonly styled "Doctor" though, beyond the steps which he took to qualify as bachelor of divinity, no positive proof of his further progress has been found. Afterwards he became one of Queen Catherine's chaplains, and was appointed her confessor. In 1525 he appears to have been provincial, which seems certain from the fact that he threatened with excommunication the brethren who opposed Cardinal Wolsey's legatine powers. Already in 1531 the Observants had incurred the king's displeasure by their determined opposition to the divorce; and no wonder that Father Forest was soon singled out as an object of wrath In November, 1532, we find the holy man discoursing at Paul's Cross on the decay of the realm and pulling down of churches. At the beginning of February, 1533 an attempt at reconciliation was made between him and Henry: but a couple of months later he left the neighbourood of London, where he was no longer safe. He was probably already in Newgate prison 1534, when Father Peto his famous sermon before the king at Greenwich. In his confinement Father Forest corresponded with the queen and Blessed Thomas Abel and wrote a book or treatise against Henry, which began with the text: "Neither doth any man take the honour to himself, but he that is called by God as Aaron was. On 8 April, 1538, the holy friar was taken to Lambeth, where, before Cranmer, he was required to make an act of abjuration. This, however, he firmly refused to do; and it was then decided that the sentence of death should be carried out. On 22 May following he was taken to Smithfield to be burned. The statue of "Darvell Gatheren" which had been brought from the church of Llanderfel in Wales, was thrown on the pile of firewood; and thus, according to popular belief, was fulfilled an old prophecy, that this holy image would set a forest on fire. The holy man's martyrdom lasted two hours, at the end of which the executioners threw him, together with the gibbet on which he hung, into the fire. Father Forest, together with fifty-three other English martyrs, was declared Blessed by Pope Leo XIII, on 9 December, 1886, and his feast is kept by the Friars Minor on 22 May. Some years ago rumour was current that the relics of the martyr had been taken to Spain, and were preserved at a residence of the Friars Minor somewhere in the north of that country. In 1904 the writer of this article made inquiries, to which the Provincial of Cantabria replied that the fathers there were not aware of the existence of the holy relics in any part of Spain, and that they thought the rumour was unfounded. It seems therefore most probable that the mortal remains of Father Forest still lie hidden at Smithfield, near the corner of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, opposite the gate of the ancient priory. GARZIA'S MS. at Stonyhurst; Calendar of State Papers; Grey Friars Chron.; Wriothesley's Chron.; Spanish Chron., Wood, Athenæ Oxon. (London, 1691); THARDDEUS, Life of Bl. John Forest (London, 1888); BOURCHIER De Martyrio Fantrum Min. (Ingolstadt, 1583); HÜ, Menotogium Franc. (Munich, 1698) FATHER THADDEUS St. John Francis Regis St. John Francis Regis Born 31 January, 1597, in the village of Fontcouverte (department of Aude); died at la Louvesc, 30 Dec., 1640. His father Jean, a rich merchant, had been recently ennobled in recognition of the prominent part he had taken in the Wars of the League; his mother, Marguerite de Cugunhan, belonged by birth to the landed nobility of that part of Languedoc. They watched with Christian solicitude over the early education of their son, whose sole fear was lest he should displease his parents or his tutors. The slightest harsh word rendered him inconsolable, and quite paralyzed his youthful faculties. When he reached the age of fourteen, he was sent to continue his studies in the Jesuit college at Béziers. His conduct was exemplary and he was much given to practices of devotion, while his good humour, frankness, and eagerness to oblige everybody soon won for him the good-will of his comrades. But Francis did not love the world, and even during the vacations lived in retirement, occupied in study and prayer. On one occasion only he allowed himself the diversions of the chase. At the end of his five years' study of the humanities, grace and his ascetic inclinations led him to embrace the religious life under the standard of St. Ignatius Loyola. He entered the Jesuit novitiate of Toulouse on 8 December, 1616, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Here he was distinguished for an extreme fervour, which never afterwards flagged, neither at Cahors, where he studied rhetoric for a year (Oct., 1618-Oct., 1619), nor during the six years in which he taught grammar at the colleges of Billom (1619-22), of Puy-en-Velay (1625-27), and of Auch (1627-28), nor during the three years in which he studied philosophy in the scholasticate at Tournon (Oct., 1622-Oct., 1625). During this time, although he was filling the laborious office of regent, he made his first attempts as a preacher. On feast-days he loved to visit the towns and villages of the neighbourhood, and there give an informal instruction, which never failed--as attested by those who heard him--to produce a profound impression on those present. As he burned with the desire to devote himself entirely to the salvation of his neighbour, he aspired with all his heart to the priesthood. In this spirit he began in October, 1628, his theological studies. The four years he was supposed to devote to them seemed to him so very long that he finally begged his superiors to shorten the term. This request was granted, and in consequence Francis said his first Mass on Trinity Sunday, 15 June, 1631; but on the other hand, in conformity with the statutes of his order, which require the full course of study, he was not admitted to the solemn profession of the four vows. The plague was at that time raging in Toulouse. The new priest hastened to lavish on the unfortunate victims the first-fruits of his apostolate. In the beginning of 1632, after having reconciled family differences at Fontcouverte, his birthplace, and having resumed for some weeks a class in grammar at Pamiers, he was definitively set to work by his superiors at the hard labour of the missions. This became the work of the last ten years of his life. It is impossible to enumerate the cities and localities which were the scene of his zeal. On this subject the reader must consult his modern biographer, Father de Curley, who has succeeded best in reconstructing the itinerary of the holy man. We need only mention that from May, 1632, to Sept., 1634, his head-quarters were at the Jesuit college of Montpellier, and here he laboured for the conversion of the Huguenots, visiting the hospitals, assisting the needy, withdrawing from vice wayward girls and women, and preaching Catholic doctrine with tireless zeal to children and the poor. Later (1633-40) he evangelized more than fifty districts in le Vivarais, le Forez, and le Velay. He displayed everywhere the same spirit, the same intrepidity, which were rewarded by the most striking conversions. "Everybody", wrote the rector of Montpellier to the general of the Jesuits, "agrees that Father Regis has a marvellous talent for the Missions" (Daubenton, "La vie du B. Jean-François Régis", ed. 1716, p. 73). But not everyone appreciated the transports of his zeal. He was reproached in certain quarters with being impetuous and meddlesome, with troubling the peace of families by an indiscreet charity, with preaching not evangelical sermons, but satires and invectives which converted no one. Some priests, who felt their own manner of life rebuked, determined to ruin him, and therefore denounced him to the Bishop of Viviers. They had laid their plot with such perfidy and cunning that the bishop permitted himself to be prejudiced for a time. But it was only a passing cloud. The influence of the best people on the one hand, and on the other the patience and humility of the saint, soon succeeded in confounding the calumny and caused the discreet and enlightened ardour of Regis to shine forth with renewed splendour (Daubenton, loc. dit., 67- 73). Less moderate indeed was his love of mortification, which he practiced with extreme rigour on all occasions, without ruffling in the least his evenness of temper. As he returned to the house one evening after a hard day's toil, one of his confrères laughingly asked: "Well, Father Regis, speaking candidly, are you not very tired?" "No", he replied, "I am as fresh as a rose." He then took only a bowl of milk and a little fruit, which usually constituted both his dinner and supper, and finally, after long hours of prayer, lay down on the floor of his room, the only bed he knew. He desired ardently to go to Canada, which at that time was one of the missions of the Society of Jesus where one ran the greatest risks. Having been refused, he finally sought and obtained from the general permission to spend six months of the year, and those the terrible months of winter, on the missions of the society. The remainder of the time he devoted to the most thankless labour in the cities, especially to the rescue of public women, whom he helped to persevere after their conversion by opening refuges for them, where they found honest means of livelihood. This most delicate of tasks absorbed a great part of his time and caused him many annoyances, but his strength of soul was above the dangers which he ran. Dissolute men often presented a pistol at him or held a dagger to his throat. He did not even change colour, and the brightness of his countenance, his fearlessness, and the power of his words caused them to drop the weapons from their hands. He was more sensitive to that opposition which occasionally proceeded from those who should have seconded his courage. His work among penitents urged his zeal to enormous undertakings. His superiors, as his first biographers candidly state, did not always share his optimism, or rather his unshaken faith in Providence, and it sometimes happened that they were alarmed at his charitable projects and manifested to him their disapproval. This was the cross which caused the saint the greatest suffering, but it was sufficient for him that obedience spoke: he silenced all the murmurs of human nature, and abandoned his most cherished designs. Seventy-two years after his death a French ecclesiastic, who believed he had a grievance against the Jesuits, circulated the legend that towards the end of his life St. John Francis Regis had been expelled from the Society of Jesus. Many different accounts were given, but finally the enemies of the Jesuits settled on the version that the letter of the general announcing to John his dismissal was sent from Rome, but that it was late in reaching its destination, only arriving some days after the death of the saint. This calumny will not stand the slightest examination. (For its refutation see de Curley, "St. Jean-François Régis", 336-51; more briefly and completely in "Analecta Bollandiana", XIII, 78-9.) It was in the depth of winter, at la Louvesc, a poor hamlet of the mountains of Ardèche, after having spent with heroic courage the little strength that he had left, and while he was contemplating the conversion of the Cévennes, that the saint's death occurred, on 30 December, 1640. There was no delay in ordering canonical investigations. On 18 May, 1716, the decree of beatification was issued by Clement XI. On 5 April, 1737, Clement XII promulgated the decree of canonization. Benedict XIV established the feast-day for 16 June. But immediately after his death Regis was venerated as a saint. Pilgrims came in crowds to his tomb, and since then the concourse has only grown. Mention must be made of the fact that a visit made in 1804 to the blessed remains of the Apostle of Vivarais was the beginning of the vocation of the Blessed Curé of Ars, Jean-Baptiste Vianney, whom the Church has raised in his turn to her altars. "Everything good that I have done", he said when dying, "I owe to him" (de Curley, op. cit., 371). The place where Regis died has been transformed into a mortuary chapel. Near by is a spring of fresh water to which those who are devoted to St. John Francis Regis attribute miraculous cures through his intercession. The old church of la Louvesc has received (1888) the title and privileges of a basilica. On this sacred site was founded in the beginning of the nineteenth century the Institute of the Sisters of St. Regis, or Sisters of Retreat, better known under the name of the Religious of the Cenacle; and it was the memory of his merciful zeal in behalf of so many unfortunate fallen women that gave rise to the now flourishing work of St. Francis Regis, which is to provide for the poor and working people who wish to marry, and which is chiefly concerned with bringing illegitimate unions into conformity with Divine and human laws. Besides the biographies mentioned in CARAYON, Bibliographic historique de la Compagnie de Jésus, nn. 2442-84, must be mentioned the more recent lives: DE CURLEY, St. Jean-François Régis (Lyons, 1893), which, together with DAUBENTON'S work--often reprinted--is the most complete history of Regis; CROS, Saint Jean-François Régis (Toulouse, 1894), in which the new portion consists of unedited papers regarding the saint's family. Among the early biographers LABRONE, a pupil of the saint, occupies an unparalleled place for the charm, the sincerity, and the documentary value of the relation. His book appeared in 1690, ten years after the death of the saint. FRANCIS VAN ORTROY Blessed John Houghton Blessed John Houghton Protomartyr of the persecution under Henry VIII, b. in Essex, 1487; d. at Tyburn, 4 May, 1535. He was educated at Cambridge, graduating LL.B. about 1497, and later LL.D. and D.D.; he was ordained priest in 1501 and entered the Carthusian novitiate at the London Charterhouse in 1505, where he was professed in 1516. He filled the office of sacristan, 1523-28; of procurator, 1528-31; of prior of Beauvale, Nottinghamshire, from June to November, 1531; of prior of the London Charterhouse, 1531-35; and of provincial visitor, 1532-35. He was imprisoned in the Tower for about a month, with the procurator, Blessed Humphrey Middlemore, for refusing to swear that the king's marriage with Queen Catharine was invalid, but took the oath of succession under the condition quatenus licitum esset, with some of his monks, 29 May, 1534, the others being sworn 6 June. On or about 13 April, 1535, he was committed again to the Tower for refusing the oath of supremacy. With him were sent Blessed Robert Laurence, who had succeeded him as prior of Beauvale, and had previously been chaplain to the Duke of Norfolk and then a monk of the London Charterhouse; and Blessed Augustine Webster, prior of Axholme, Lincolnshire, formerly a monk of Sheen. These priors, who were on a visit to the London Charterhouse, had not had the oath tendered to them, but were brought before the Rolls for that purpose on 20 April, and, on refusing it, were sent back to the Tower. There they were joined by Blessed Richard Reynolds, a Brigittine of Syon, born about 1492, educated at Christ's and Corpus Christi colleges, Cambridge, Fellow of Corpus Christi, 1510, B.D. 1513, subsequently D.D. He became a Brigittine in 1513, and was considered one of the foremost scholars of his day. All four were indicted 28 April, 1535, under 26 Henry VIII, c. 1, for refusing the oath of supremacy. The jury at first refused to find them guilty, but were intimidated by Cromwell into doing so the next day. All were hanged in their habits without being previously degraded, and all were disembowelled while fully conscious, Houghton being the first to suffer and Reynolds the last. With them died a secular priest, Blessed John Hale, LL.B., Fellow of King's Hall, Cambridge, and Vicar of Isleworth, Middlesex, since 13 August, 1521. He took this living in exchange for the Rectory of Cranford, Middlesex, which he had held since 11 September, 1505. There is nothing to identify him with the Rector of Chelmsford of 1492. He may possibly be the person of this name who became scholar of Eton in 1485. He was indicted 20 April, 1535, with the perpetual curate of Teddington, Middlesex, named Robert Feron, for offenses against 25 Henry VIII, c. 22. Both pleaded guilty and were condemned; but Feron was pardoned. Hale was the fourth to suffer. CAMM, Lives of the English Martyrs (London, 1904-05), I, 1-36; HENDRIKS, The London Charterhouse (London, 1889), passim; COOPER, in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v.; HAMILTON, The Angel of Syon (Edinburgh and London, 1905), passim; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. vv.; GASQUET, Henry VIII and the English Monasteries (London, 1906), passim; HENNESSY, Novum Repertorium Parochiale Londinense (London, 1898), 133, 229; HAMILTON, Wriothesley's Chronicle, I (London, 1875), 27, 184. JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT St. John Joseph of the Cross St. John Joseph of the Cross Born on the Island of Ischia, Southern Italy, 1654; d. 5 March, 1739. From his earliest years he was given to prayer and virtue. So great was his love of poverty that he would always wear the dress of the poor, though he was of noble birth. At the age of sixteen years he entered the Order of St. Francis at naples, amongst the Friars of the Alcantarine Reform, being the first Italian to join this reform which had been instituted in Spain by St. Peter of Alcantara. Throughout his life he was given to the greatest austerity: he fasted constantly, never drank wine, and slept but three hours each night. In 1674 he was sent to found a friary at Afila, in Piedmont; and he assisted with his own hands in the building. Much against his will, he was raised to the priesthood. As superior, he always insisted upon performing the lowliest offices in the community. In 1702 he was appointed Vicar Provincial of the Alcantarine Reform in Italy. He was favoured in a high degree with the gift of miracles, people of every condition being brought to him in sickness. His zeal for souls was such that even in sickness he would not spare any labour for them. His great devotion was to our Blessed Lady, and he was urgent with his penitents that they also should cultivate this. He was beatified in 1789, and canonized in 1839. Compendium Vitae. . .B. Joannis Josephi a Cruce (Rome, 1839); Vita di S. Gian Giuseppe della Croce, dal P. Diodata dell' Assunta (Rome, 1839); MANNING, Lives of the Saints and Blessed of the Three Orders of St. Francis (London, 1886). FATHER CUTHBERT Bl. John Larke Bl. John Larke English martyr; died at Tyburn, 7 March, 1543-4. He was rector of St. Ethelburga's Bishopsgate, London, from 30 January, 1504-5, till his resignation in 1542; rector of Woodford, Essex, 18 January, 1526-7, till his resignation in the following April; and rector of Chelsea (on the presentation of Bl. Thomas More, [Tr. note: Thomas More was subsequently canonized] then lord chancellor, whose parish priest and personal friend he became) from 29 March, 1530, till his attainder. Cresacre More styles him doctor, but it is not known in what faculty he obtained this degree. He was indicted 15 February, 1543-44, with another priest and two laymen. The priest was Ven. John Ireland, of whom nothing is known, save that, having been chaplain of the Roper chantry annexed to St. Dunstan's, Canterbury, for a year (1535-36), he became vicar of Eltham, Kent, and, as such, parish priest to Bl. Thomas More's son-in-law, William Roper of Well Hall. Of the laymen the more prominent is Bl. German Gardiner, a kinsman (probably either cousin or nephew) to Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, whose secretary he was. Educated at Cambridge, probably at Trinity Hall, he wrote against John Frith in 1534, and gave evidence against Cranmer in 1543. He resided at Southwark. The other layman wa John Heywood, or Hayward, of London. All were condemned, but Heywood recanted on the hurdle, and made his recantation public at Paul's Cross on 6 July following. The other three suffered together, in the company of Robert Singleton, a priest, the cause of whose execution is uncertain, and their heads and quarters were buried under the gallows. CAMM, Lives of the English Martyrs, I (London, 1904-5), 541-7; HENNESSY, Novum Repertorium (London, 1898), 120, 153; NEWCOURT, Repertorium, II (London, 1708-10), 680; GILLOW, Bibl. Dic. Eng. Cath. s. vv.; IV, 134; NICHOLS, Grey Friars' Chronicle (London, 1852), 46; STOW, Annales (London, 1615), 386; Archaeologia Cantiana, XVI (London, 1886), 289. JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT John Malalas John Malalas A Monophysite Byzantine chronicler of the sixth century, born at Antioch where he spent most if not the whole of his life. His surname Malalas, from the Syriac malâlâ, "the rhetor", points to a Syrian origin. John Malalas was a contemporary of Emperors Anastasius I, Justin I, Justinian I, and Justin II. His "Chronographia" if, for which he is famous, was originally but a chronicle of the city of Antioch, expanded later by the author himself into a general history of the world up to the last years of Justinian (d. 565). It is divided into eighteen books, the last of which, however, originally a chronicle of Constantinople, cannot be ascribed to John Malalas, being evidently the work of an orthodox writer. Giving up the Hellenic and Byzantine traditions John Malalas struck a new path in historiography, and created the type of the Byzantine chronicle. He wrote not for the cultured public but for the bulk of the lay-men and monks, seeking to gratify their naive curiosity in matters of history and narrating such facts only and in such manner as could interest the people. The "Chronographia" is uncritical and teems with legends, anachronisms, repetitions, and inconsistencies, and its style and language are in keeping with the nature of the concept of history it exhibits; it is the earliest important monument of low Greek. In spite of the many authors he so ostentatiously names, it is highly probable that, beyond the archives of the city of Antioch and the current ecclesiastical and civil calendars, John Malalas had but very few reliable written sources. If he used at all Julius Africanus, it must have been through the now lost chronicles of Nestorianus, Pausanias, Domninus, Theophilus, and Timotheus whom he frequently cites. John Malalas enjoyed great authority with subsequent generations of Byzantine chroniclers who quote him quite freely and often worked whole books ot his "Chronographia" into their own compositions. Such is tho case with John of Ephesus and through him Bar-Hebraus (two Syrian writers) the church historian Evagrius, the author of the "Tusculan Fragments", John of Antioch, and especially the author of the "Chronicon Paschale", John of Nikiu, the author of the "Chronicon Palatinum", Theophanes, George the Monk, Cedrenus, the author of the "Excerpta Constantiniana" and the authors of several similar compilations. John Malalas's vvork had the honour of a Slavonic translation (now lost) from which it passed into several Slavonic chronicles; it was also translated into Georgian. It is from those various sources that it was reconstructed, for strange to say for such a popular work, independently of the above-named writings it has been preserved only in a single manuscript (Baroccianus, 128, c. 12, Oxford, Bodleian Library; mutilated at both ends) and that an the shape of an epitome. The "Chronographia" was first edited by Edm. Chilmead (Oxford, 1691), with a Latin translation and a commentary by the editor, a treatise of H. Hody, and a letter from R. Bentley to J. Mill. A new critical and complete up-to-date edition is highly desirable. KRUMBACHER, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteretur (2nd ed., Munich, 1887), pp. 325-354, where an exhaustive literature of the subject will be found. DIDOT, Nouvelle Biographie Generale, vol. XXXII, col. 1007. H. HYVERNAT Blessed John Nelson Blessed John Nelson English Jesuit martyr, b. at Skelton, four miles from York, in 1534; d. at Tyburn, 3 February, 1577-78. He went to Douay in 1573, and two of his four brothers followed his example and became priests. He was ordained priest at Binche, in Hainault, by Mgr Louis de Berlaymont, Archbishop of Cambrai, 11 June, 1576. He was sent on the mission on 7 November following, and appears to have laboured in London. His apprehension took place 1 December, 1577, "late in the evening as he was saying the Nocturne of the Matins for the next day following", and he was committed to Newgate as a suspected Papist. His arrest and its issue had been foretold by a demon he had exercised a week before. The High Commissioners in a few days by cross-examination induced him to say that the queen was a schismatic. This constituted high treason under the legislation of 1571. He was providentially enabled to say Mass in Newgate, 30 January, 1577-8, and two days later he was brought to the bar and condemned. Thenceforward he was confined "in a most filthy underground dungeon", doubtless the Pit of the Tower, preparing by prayer and fasting for his end. He was cut down alive, and his last words, when the hangman plucked out his heart, are reported to have been: "I forgive the queen and all the authors of my death." The date and place of his admission to the Society of Jesus are unknown. CAMM, Lives of the English Martyrs, II (London, 1004-5), 223; ALLEN, A Briefe Historie (POLLEN's edition London, 1908) 111; GILLOW, Bibliographical Dictionary of tie English Catholics, V (London and New York, 1885-1902), 160. JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT St. John Nepomucene St. John Nepomucene Born at Nepomuk about 1340; died 20 March, 1393. The controversy concerning the identity of John of Pomuk or Nepomuk (a small town in the district of Pilsen, Bohemia), started in the eighteenth century, is not yet decided. The principal question at issue is whether there was only one John of Nepomuk, or whether two persons of that name lived in Prague in the second half of the fourteenth century and met with precisely the same fate. This inquiry leads naturally to the further question, as to the true cause of John's violent death. In a controversy of this character it is of primary importance to set down clearly the information given in the original sources. Extant documents, ecclesiastical records, and contemporaneous accounts of the second half of the fourteenth century relate in unmistakable fashion that in 1393 a certain John of Nepomuk was Vicar-General of the Archdiocese of Prague, and that on 20 March of the same year by command of King Wenceslaus IV of Bohemia he was thrown into the Moldau and drowned. This John was the son of Welflin (or Wölflin), a burger of Pomuk (Nepomuk), and studied theology and jurisprudence at the University of Prague. In 1373 he took orders and became public notary in the archiepiscopal chancery, and in 1374 was made prothonotary and first secretary of Archbishop John of Jenzenstein (Jenstein). In 1389 he received the parish of St. Gallus in Prague, and, continuing meanwhile his studies of jurisprudence at the university, was promoted in 1387 to the doctorate of canon law. He was also a canon in the church of St. Ægidius in Prague, and became in 1389 canon of the cathedral in Wyschehrad. In 1390 he gave up the parish of St. Gallus to become Archdeacon of Sasz, and at the same time canon of the Cathedral of St. Vitus, without receiving however any cathedral benefice. Shortly afterwards the archbishop named him president of the ecclesiastical court, and in 1393 his vicar-general. King Wenceslaus IV of Bohemia, wishing to found a new bishopric for one of his favourites, ordered that at the death of Abbot Rarek of Kladrau no new abbot should be elected, and that the abbey church should be turned into a cathedral. The archbishop's vicar-general, however, interposed energetically on this occasion in defence of canon law. When Abbot Rarek died in 1393, the monks of Kladrau immediately held a new election, the choice falling on the monk Odelenus, and John, as vicar-general, promptly confirmed this election without referring to the wishes of the king. Upon hearing this Wenceslaus fell into a violent rage, and had the vicar-general, the cathedral official, Provost Wenceslaus of Meissen, the archbishop's steward, and later the dean of the cathedral thrown into prison. The first four were even tortured on 4 March, but, although the others were thus brought to acquiesce in the wishes of the king and the official even proposed everlasting secrecy concerning all that had occurred, John of Nepomuk resisted to the last. He was made to undergo all manner of torture, including the burning of his sides with torches, but even this could not move him. Finally, the king ordered him to be put in chains, to be led through the city with a block of wood in his mouth, and to be thrown from the Karlsbrücke into the river Moldau. This cruel order was executed on 20 March, 1393. We possess four contemporaneous accounts concerning these proceedings. First of all, the extant bill of indictment against the king, presented to Benedict IX by Archbishop John of Jenzenstein, who went to Rome with the new Abbot of Kladrau on 23 April, 1393 (Pubitschka, Gesch., IV, app.; ed. Pelzel, "Geschichte König Wenzels", I: "Urkundenbuch", 143-63). Some years later Abbot Ladolf of Sagan gives an account of it in a somewhat abbreviated form in the catalogue of the Abbots of Sagan completed in 1398 (ed. Stenzel in "Script. rerum Silesiacarum", I, 1835, pp. 213 sqq.), as well as in the treatise "De longævo schismate", lib. VII, c. xix (Archiv für österreichische Geschichte, LX, 1880, pp. 418 sq.). A fourth reference is to be found in the "Chronik des Deutschordens", a chronicle of the Teutonic Knights which was compiled by John of Posilge who died in 1405 ("Scriptores rerum Prussicarum", III, Leipzig, 1860-, 87). For the discussion of the question it is important to remark that Archbishop John of Jenzenstein in his above-mentioned indictment (art. 26) calls John of Nepomuk "martyr sanctus", and that, in the biography of John of Jenzenstein by his chaplain, John of Nepomuk is described as "gloriosum Christi martyrem miraculisque coruscum". It is thus clear that his contemporaries had already begun to honour as a martyr and a saint the vicar-general put to death by the cruel and licentious tyrant for his defence of the law of the Church. The body of John of Nepomuk was drawn out of the Moldau and entombed in the cathedral of Prague, where in fact, as is proved by later documents, his grave was honoured. In his "Chronica regum Romanorum", finished in 1459, Thomas Ebendorfer (d. 1464) relates that King Wenceslaus had Magister John, the father confessor of his wife, drowned in the Moldau, not only because he had said that "only he who rules well is worthy of the name of king", but also because he had refused to violate the seal of the confessional. The refusal to violate the seal of the confessional is here for the first time given as the reason for John's violent death. The chronicler, who speaks of only the one John drowned by order of King Wenceslaus, evidently refers to the John of Pomuk put to death in 1393. In the other chronicles written in the second half of the fifteenth century, we find the reason regularly assigned for the execution of John, that he had refused to tell the king what the queen had confessed to him. Paul Zidek's "Instructions for the King" (sc. George of Podiebrad), completed in 1471, contains still more details (cf. Schmude in "Zeitschrift für kathol. Theologie", 1883, 90 sqq.). He says that King Wenceslaus suspected his wife, who was accustomed to confess to Magister John, and called upon the latter to declare the name of her paramour. On John's refusal to say anything, the king ordered him to be drowned. In this old account we do not find the name of the queen or any date assigned to this occurrence; a little later the year 1383 is given, when Wenceslaus's first wife, Johanna (d. 1389), still lived. In his "Annales Bohemorum" ("Kronika ceská", first printed in Bohemian, Prague, 1541; translated into Latin and published by Gel. Dobner in 6 vols., Prague, 1761-83) the Bohemian historian, Hajek von Liboczan (d. 1553), in view of these varying accounts, is the first to speak of two Johns of Nepomuk, who were put to death by order of King Wenceslaus: one, the queen's confessor, and martyred for refusing to violate the secret of the confessional, having been thrown into the Moldau in 1383; the other, auxiliary Bishop of Prague, drowned in 1393 because he confirmed the election of the monk Albert as Abbot of Kladrau. The later historians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries give more or less legendary details of the universally accepted martyrdom of John, because he refused to violate the secret of the confessional. Bohuslav Balbinus, S.J., in his "Vita b. Joannis Nepomuceni martyris" (Prague, 1670; "Acta SS.", III, May, 668-80) gives the most complete account. He relates with many details how on 16 May, 1383 (this date is already found in old accounts), John of Nepomuk, because he steadily refused to betray the confession of Queen Johanna to King Wenceslaus, was by order of the latter thrown into the Moldau and drowned. From the year 1675 the cathedral chapter of Prague repeatedly petitioned Rome for the canonization of Blessed John of Nepomuk, who enjoyed special veneration in Bohemia. In the years 1715-20 evidence was gathered and the cause examined; in 1721 followed the beatification, and in 1729 the canonization. The acts of the canonization are based on the statements, according to which John died on 16 May, 1383, a martyr to the secrecy of the confessional. But ever since 1777, when the Augustinian Hermit, Athanasius a Sancto Josepho, sought to prove by the testimony of Archbishop Jenzenstein's written accusation, which did not become known till 1752, that John of Pomuk was put to death by Wenceslaus in 1393 for the reason given above, the controversy has never ceased. We still find defenders of the opinion advanced by Hajek, that there are two Johns of Pomuk. Most modern historians, however, are probably correct in regarding the vicar-general murdered in 1393 as the only historical personage. A few of these, however, do not look upon the confirmation of the election of the Abbot of Kladrau as the true reason for John's murder; they hold that Wenceslaus IV was already exasperated against John, because he would not violate the secret of the queen's confession, and took this opportunity for revenge. These details can in no way affect the validity of the canonization of the vicar-general, who had been recognized as a martyr immediately after his death. Consequently, when Protestant historians, as Abel, assert that the veneration of St. John Nepomucene was first introduced by the Jesuits to banish the cult of John Hus from Bohemia, their contention is both unhistorical and without justification: the veneration of John of Nepomuk was widespread long before the Jesuits ever existed. St. John Nepomucene is patron saint of Bohemia. When in 1719 his grave in the Prague cathedral was opened, his tongue was found to be uncorrupted though shrivelled. His feast is celebrated on 16 May. Acta SS., May, III, 668 sqq.; Berghauer, Protomartyr poenitentiæ (2 vols., Graz and Augsburg, 1736-61); Athanasius a S. Josepho, Dissertatio historico-chronologico-critica de Joanne de Pomuk (Prague, 1777); Dohner, Vindiciæ sigillo confessionis divi Joannis nepomuc. Protomartyris poenitentiæ assertæ (Prague and Vienna, 1784); Pubitschka, Chronologische Gesch. Böhmens VII (Prague, 1788); Idem, Unusne an duo ecclesiæ metropolitanæ Pragensis canonici Joannis de Pomuk nomine in Moldavæ fluvium proturbati fuere? (Prague, 1791); Zimmermann, Verbote einer Lebensgesch. des hl. Johannes von Nepomuk (Prague, 1829); Frind, Der geschictl. hl. Johannes von Nepomuk (Eger, 1861; 2nd ed., Prague, 1871); Idem, Der hl. Johannes von Nepomuk (Prague, 1879); Abel, Die Legende vom hl. Johannes von Nepomuk in Zeitschr. für kath. Theol. (1883), 52-123; Amrhein, Historisch-chronolog. Untersuchungen über das Tedesjahr des hl. Johannes von Nepomuk (Würzburg, 1864); NÜrnberger in Jahresbericht der schlesischen gesellschaft für vaterländischer Kultur (1904), 17-35; Potthast, Bibl. hist. medii ævi II (2nd ed.), 1400-1. J.P. KIRSCH John of Antioch John of Antioch There are four persons commonly known by this name. I. John, Patriarch of Antioch (428-41) at the time of the Council of Ephesus. He was a friend and had been a fellow-student of Nestorius. When the trouble about the word theotokos began, he wrote and warned Nestorius not to make a disturbance, showing that this title of the Blessed Virgin had been constantly used, by orthodox Fathers. Later, Nestorius wrote to him enclosing Cyril of Alexandria's twelve anathemas and some of his own sermons, and defending himself. John then decided for his friend against his natural rival, "the Egyptian". He was summoned to Ephesus by the emperor in November, 430, with all the other bishops. But when the council was opened in June, 431, he had not come. The Fathers waited for him some time; then two of his metropolitans (those of Apamea and Hierapolis) declared in his name that the council was to begin without him. It was thought that he did not wish to be present at the condemnation of the friend, so the first session was held in his absence. Six days later John arrived with a great number of his bishops, refused all invitations to take part in the council, and opened at his own lodging a rival synod, which defended Nestorius and condemned Cyril. This rival assembly (in which the emperor's commissioner, Candidian, took part) caused the great trouble at Ephesus (see EPHESUS, COUNCIL OF). From this time John took the side of Nestorius, declared his deposition unjust, refused to acknowledge the new Bishop of Constantinople, Maximian, and was in schism with Alexandria and Rome. Later, he held a synod at Antioch, in which he anathematized Cyril and all his partisans. Eventually, however, he was reconciled. Emperor Theodosius II (408-50) sent a tribune, Aristolas, to Antioch and then to Alexandria to make peace. John was persuaded to send one of his bishops, Paul of Emsa, to Alexandria with an orthodox profession of faith in 433. Cyril accepted Paul's message and allowed him to preach at Alexandria. After a few more disputes about minor points, John, in April, 433, signed a formula, prepared by Cyril, condemning Nestorius; so that Cyril was able to write to Pope Pope Sixtus III (432-40) that peace was restored between the two Eastern patriarchates. The result of this was that many bishops in Syria declared that John had fallen away from the Faith, and broke communion with him. Towards these bishops (the first founders of the Nestorian Church in East Syria) John used a policy of moderation and concession, as far as was possible without sacrificing the Faith of Ephesus, from which he did not again swerve. On the other hand there were Catholics, such as the deacon Maximus, who thought that the patriarch was too conciliatory to the heretics, and who threatened to make a schism on their side too. Cyril wrote to warn these zealots not to cause further complications, and loyally helped John to reconcile the Nestorian party by his letters. John did not again tamper with Nestorianism. When a definite Nestorian schism organized itself at Edessa, it was by renouncing the obedience of Antioch. John even invoked the civil power to put an end to the schism, and so began the persecution of the Nestorians that ended an their escaping across the frontier to Persia. John died unimpeachably orthodox in 441. (For all this see EPHESUS, COUNCIL OF, and NESTORIANISM.) Four letters of this John of Antioch are extant (Mansi, "Conc. Coll.", V, 813-14; cf. P.G., LXXVII, 1449-58). II. John of Antioch, chronicler in the seventh century. He was a monk, apparently contemporary with Emperor Heraclius (610-41). He composed a chronicle (Historia chronike) from Adam to the death of Phokas (610), using for this purpose Sextus Julius Africanus, Eusebius, Ammianus Marcellinus, and other standard authorities. It is one of the many adaptations and imitations of the better knonwn chronicle of John Malalas. Only fragments of it remain. Gelzer (Sextus Julius Africanus 41) identifies the author with the Monophysite Patriarch John of Antioch, who ruled from 630 to 648. The fragments of the chronicle are contained in two collections, the Codex Parisinus, 1763, written Salmasius and the encyclopedia of history made by order of Constantine VII, Porphyrogenitus (912-59), in fifty-three chapters, or titles with different headings. Of this collection of excerpts only parts remain (Krumbacher, "Byz. Litt.", 258-60). Two titles: "Of Virtue and Vice" and "Of Conspiracies against Emperors" contain the literary remains of John of Antioch. A difficulty arises from the fact that a great part of the extracts (from the Roman Commonwealth of Justin I) differs considerably from the corresponding quotations in the Salmasian collection. The Constantinian passages are of the nature old the old Hellenic writing of history, the Salmasian ones are rather Byzantine and Christian. The Salmasian compilation is older, and so appears to be the original text; the other is no doubt a re-arrangement made under the influence of the Hellenic Renaissance since Photius. But some authorities see in them two different originals and speak of a "Constantinian" and a "Salmasian" John of Antioch. The Salmasian excerpts are edited by Cramer, "Anecdota Graeca e cod. mss. regiae Parisiensis", II, Oxford 1839, 383-401. Both series of fragments are in C. Muller, "Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum", IV Paris, 1883, 535-622; V, 27-8. III. John Scholasticus of Antioch, the canonist, afterwards Patriarch of Constantinople (565-77). (See JOHN SCHOLASTICUS.) IV. John of Antioch, Orthodox patriarch at the time of Alexius I Comnenus (1081-1118), formerly a monk in Oxia one of the Echinades Islands in the Ionian Sea. He was a reformer of monasticism and a deserving ascetic writer. Towards the end of the tenth century a custom grew up in the East of bequeathing property to a monastery on condition that some prominent layman should be its patron or guardian (ephoros). The monastery then owed something like feudal service to its protector. Such benefices were called charistikaria. The result was that frequently the lay "ephoros" misused the property of the monastery for his own enrichment. Against this abuse John wrote a work "Of the (true) Teaching concerning Monasteries" (peri monastikes didaskalias), in which he shows its evils in a tone of dignified indignation. Theodore Balsamon in the twelth century refers to this work in his commentary on the "Nomocanon". John also wrote a work of anti-Latin controversy, "Of Azymes", that is still unedited. Leo Allatius quotes a passage frown a letter from John of Antioch to Theodore of Ephesus ("De aetate et interstitiis in collatione ordinum etiam apud Graecos servandis", Rome, 1638, 215). The work about monasteries is in P.G., CXXXII, 1117-49. II. GELZER, Sextus Julius Africanus (Leipzig 1898); IDEM in Byzantinische Zeitschrift (1894), 394; KOCHER, De Joannis Antiocheni fontium auctoritate (Bonn 1871); KRUMBACHER, Byzantinische Litteraturgebchichte (Munich, 1897), 334-36. For his identification with the Monophysite patriarch, see GELZER, Die politische and kirchliche Stellung und Byzans (Proceeding of the thirty-third congress of German philologists at Gera) (Leipzig, 1879), 47 sq. IV. KRUMBSCHER, Byzantinische Litteraturgeschichte (Munich, 1897), 156. ADRIAN FORTESCUE Bl. John of Avila Bl. John of Avila Apostolic preacher of Andalusia and author, b. at Almodóvar del Campo, a small town in the diocese of Toledo, Spain, 6 January, 1500; d. at Montilla, 10 May, 1569. At the age of fourteen he was sent to the University of Salamanca to study law. Conceiving a distaste for jurisprudence he returned after a year to his father's home, where he spent the next three years in the practice of most austere piety. His wonderful sanctity impressed a Franciscan journeying through Almodóvar, and at the friar's advice he took up the study of philosophy and theology at Alcalá, where he was fortunate to have as his teacher the famous Dominican De Soto. His parents died while he was a student and after his ordination he celebrated his first Mass in the church where they were buried, sold the family property and gave the proceeds to the poor. He saw in the severing of natural ties a vocation to foreign missionary work and made preparation to go to Mexico in America. While awaiting, at Seville in 1527, a favorable opportunity to start for his new field of labour, his extraordinary devotion in celebrating Mass attracted the attention of Hernando de Contreras, a priest of Seville, who reported his observations to the archbishop and general inquisitor, Don Alphonso Manrique. The archbishop saw in the young missionary a powerful instrument to stir up the faith of Andalusia, and after considerable persuasion Blessed John was induced to abandon his journey to America. His first sermon was preached on 22 July, 1529, and immediately his reputation was established; crowds thronged the churches at all his sermons. His success, however, brought with it the hatred of a certain class, and while living at Seville he was brought before the inquisitor and charged with exaggerating the dangers of wealth and closing the gates of heaven to the rich. His innocence of the charges was speedily proved, and by special invitation of the court he was appointed to preach the sermon on the next great feast in the church of San Salvador, in Seville. His appearance was a cause of public rejoicing. He began his career as apostolic preacher of Andalusia at the age of thirty. After nine years in that province he returned to Seville only to depart for the wider fields of Cordova, Granada, Bolza, Montilla, and Zafra. For eighteen years before his death he was the victim of constant illness, the results of the hardships of his apostolate of forty years. He was declared Venerable by Clement XIII, 8 Feb., 1799, and beatified by Leo XIII, 12 Nov., 1893. Among the disciples drawn to him by his preaching and saintly reputation may be named St. Theresa, St. John of God, St. Francis Borgia, and Ven. Louis of Granada. The spread of the Jesuits in Spain is attributed to his friendship for that body. Blessed John of Avila's works were collected at Madrid in 1618, 1757, 1792, 1805; a French translation by d'Andilly was published at Paris in 1673; and a German translation by Schermer in six volumes was issued at Ratisbon between 1856 and 1881. His best known works are the "Audi Fili" (English translation, 1620), one of the best tracts on Christian perfection, and his "Spiritual Letters" (English translation, 1631, London, 1904) to his disciples. IGNATIUS SMITH Saint John of Beverley St. John of Beverley Bishop of Hexham and afterwards of York; b. at Harpham, in the East Riding of Yorkshire; d. at Beverley, 7 May, 721. In early life lie was under the care of Archbishop Theodore, at Canterbury, who supervised his education, and is reputed to have given him the name of John. He became a member of the Benedictine Order, and for a time was an inmate of St. Hilda's monastery at Streaneshaleh (Whitby). Afterwards he won renown as a preacher, displayed marked erudition in expounding Scripture, and taught amongst other subjects. On 25 August, 687 was consecrated Bishop of Hexham, a district with which he was not unfamiliar, as he had for a period led a life of retreat at Erneshowe (Herneshou), on the opposite bank of the Tyne. Here, too, he was afterwards wont to resort for seclusion, especially during Lent, when the cares of his episcopal ministration permitted of his so doing. John was present at the synod on the Nidd in 705, convened by Osred, King Of Northumbria, to decide on Wilfrid's case. In the same year (703), on the death of Bosa, John was translated to York after eighteen years of labour in the See of Hexham, where he was succeeded by Wilfrid. Of his new activity little is known beyond that he was diligent in visitation, considerate towards the poor, and exceedingly attentive to the training of students whom he maintained under his personal charge. His little company of pupils is said to have included: Bede, whom he ordained; Berethume, afterwards Abbot of Beverley; Herebald, Abbot of Tynemouth; and Wilfrid "the Younger", John's successor (718) in the See of York. Having purchased a place called Inderawood, to which a later age has given the name of Beverley, John established a monastery there and also handsomely endowed the place, which became even in its founder's day an important ecclesiastical centre. To this monastery of Beverley, after resigning the See of York to his pupil Wilfrid, John retired and spent the remainder of his life with Abbot Berethune, a one time favourite scholar. In 1037 he was canonized by Benedict IX; His bones were translated by Ælfric, Archbishop of York, and placed in a costly shrine. A second translation took place in 1197. The remains were discovered in 1664 and again brought to light in 1736. (See BEVERLEY MINSTER.) Acta SS. Bolland., II, 165 sqq.; Sanct. Dunelm. et Beverlac., edited by SURTEES SOCIETY, P. 98; DUGDALE, Monasticon, II, 127; WILKINS, Concilia, III, 379; RAINE in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v. Joannes Beverlacensis, JOCHAM in Kirchenlex., s. v. Johannes von Beverley; HUNT in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.; BIHLMEYFR in BUCHBERGER, Kirchliches Handlex., s. v. J. v. Beverley. The authenticity of the works ascribed to John of Beverley in BALE, Script. Illustr. Brit. Catal., is doubtful. P.J. MACAULEY John of Biclaro John of Biclaro (Johannes Biclariensis.) Chronicler, born in Portugal, probably about the middle of the sixth century; died after 621. He was educated at Constantinople, where he devoted at least seven years to the study of Latin and Greek. When he returned an attempt was made to force him to join the State Church, then Arian in character. As he stanchly resisted, he was banished by King Leovigild to Barcelona. After Leovigild's death in 586, John founded the Benedictine monastery of Biclaro, the site of which has not yet been exactly determined, and presided over it as abbot for several years, until he was appointed Bishop of Gerona (the bishop known as "Johannes Gerundensis" seems to have been an early successor of the chronicler). John took part in the synod of Saragossa (592), of Barcelona (599), and of Egara (614). His chronicle reaches to the year 590, and is a continuation (from 567) of the chronicle of Victor of Tunnuna, in Africa (Chronicon continuans Victorem Tunnunensem). It was edited by H. Canisius (Ingolstadt, 1600), by Scaliger in "Thesaurus Temporum" (Leyden, 1606), and in Migne, P. L., LXXII (1849). The best edition, with copious prolegomena, is by Mommsen in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Auct. ant.", XI (1893), 211-220. This chronicle is the most complete and reliable authority on the stormy period of Leovigild's reign, and on the Visigothic conversion from Germanizing Arianism to Romanizing Catholicism. The narrative is religiously impartial, despite the preceding bitter religious conflicts during which the writer himself had to suffer. Görres, Johannes von Biclaro in Theologische Studien und Kritiken, LXVIII (1895), 103-135; Wattenbach, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen, I (Leipzig, 18930, 83.) PATRICIUS SCHLAGER John of Cornwall John of Cornwall (JOHANNES CORNUBIENSIS, JOHANNES DE SANCTO GERMANO). John of Cornwall lived about 1176. He was the author of a treatise written against the doctrine of Abelard, "Eulogium ad Alexandrum Papam III, quod Christus sit aliquis homo". Scarcely anything is known of his life except the few facts to which he alludes by chance in this work. Though he is claimed by some French writers as a Bas-Breton, it appears certain from the varied forms of his name that he was a native of St. German's in Cornwall. He was a student under Peter Lombard and Robert of Melum at Paris, and subsequently became a teacher himself. From Peter Lombard he seems to have derived the view which that scholar held for a time, that Christ's humanity was but the vesture or garment wherewith the Logos was clothed; but he abandoned this doctrine, which was condemned at the Council of Tours held by Alexander III in 1163, and advocated the orthodox teaching. In support of this he wrote the "Eulogium", though not for many years after the council, since a reference in the preface to William, formerly Archbishop of Sens, as being then Archbishop of Reims, shows that it could not have been written before 1176, in which year the translation took place. It was first published by Martène in the "Thesaurus novus anecdotum" (Paris, 1717), and is reprinted in Migne, P.L., CXCIX. This is the only work which was certainly written by him. The "Apologia de Christi Incarnatione", usually attributed to Hugh of St. Victor, has been assigned to John without sufficient grounds, as also a treatise "Summa qualiter fiat Sacramentum Altaris per virtutem sanctae crucis et de septem canonibus vel ordinibus Missae" (Migne, P.L. CLXXVII). There is at Magdalen College, Oxford, a "Commentarius in Aristotelis libros duo analyticorum posteriorum", which may be his, and the Latin hexameters "Merlini prophetia cum expositione", written at the request of Bishop Warelwast of Exeter, have been ascribed to him by reason of the references to Cornwall it contains. Nothing is known of his death, nor can he be identified with the John of Cornwall who was archdeacon of Worcester in 1197. PITTS, De ill. Angliae scriptoribus (Paris, 1623); OUDIN, Scriptores eccle. II (Frankfort, 1722), 1223-4, 1529-30; FABRICUS, Bibl. med. aet. IV (1735), 189-91; TANNER, Bibl. Brit. Hib. (London, 1748); WRIGHT, Biographia Britannia Litteraria: Anglo-Norman Period (London, 1846); HARDY, Descriptive Catalogue, II (London, 1865); KINGSFORD in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.; GROSS, Sources and Literature of English History (London, 1900). EDWIN BURTON John of Ephesus John of Ephesus (Also known as JOHN OF ASIA). The earliest, and a very famous, Syriac historian. He was born at Amida (Diarbekir, on the upper Tigris), about 505; d. about 585. In 529 he was ordained deacon in St. John's monastery of the same city, but on account of his monophysitic doctrine was soon obliged to take refuge in Palestine, where we find him in 534; thence he came to Constantinople, driven from Palestine by the great pestilence of 534-7. In the capital he found a friend in Jacob Baradaeus, the organizer of the Jacobite Church; a protector in Justinian; and a life-long collaborator in a certain Deuterius. The emperor placed him at the head of the Monophysite community of Constantinople, and soon entrusted him with the mission of converting the heathens of Asia proper and the neighbouring provinces. Eventually John was consecrated (by Jacob Baradaeus), Bishop of Ephesus, the heart of the Monophysite territory, but his official residence, it seems, was always Constantinople. In 546 he helped Justinian to search out and quash the secret practice of idolatry in the capital and its surroundings. Hence his beloved titles of "Teacher of the Heathens", and "Idol-breaker." Soon after Justinian's death (565), John's fortunes began to decline. When the persecution broke out in 571 he was one of its very first victims, and had to suffer imprisonment, banishment, and all sorts of vexations at the hands of the orthodox patriarchs. He soon resigned, in favour of Deuterius, his position as head of the communities he had converted from heathenism, and consecrated Deuterius Bishop of Caria. We do not know where nor exactly when he died, it must have been shortly after 585, for his history comes to an end with that year, and he was then about eighty years of age. His principal work was an "Ecclesiastical History", from Julius Caesar to A.D. 585. It was divided into three parts of six books each. The first part has entirely perished; of the second part we have copious excerpts in two manuscripts in the British Museum, and possibly the whole of it in the third part of the "Chronicle" of Denys of Tell-Mahre. These excerpts have been edited by Land (Anecdota Syriaca; Leyden, 1868, II, 289-329, 385-390), and translated into Latin by von Douwen and Land (Joannis Episcopi Ephesi, Syri Monophysitae Commentarii de Beatis Orientalibus et Historia Ecclesiasticae fragmenta, Amsterdam, 1889). The third part, which opens with the beginning of the persecution under Justin II (571), has come down to us, though not without some important gaps. There is an edition of it by Cureton (The Third Part of the Ecclesiastical History of John, Bishop of Ephesus, Oxford, 1853), also two translations, one English by Payne Smith (1860), and another in German by Schonfelder (1862). John of Ephesus is also the author of the "Biographies of the Eastern Saints", written at different times and gathered into a "corpus" about 569. They were published by Land (op. et loc. cit., pp. 2-228), and done into Latin by von Douwen and Land (ibid.). Both works are of the greatest importance for the history of the writer's times. He evidently strove to be impartial, for which he is very much to be commended, considering the part he played in the events he related; he is also accurate and full of details. The troubled times in which he wrote the third part of the "History" and his unsettled condition during that period of his life easily explain the disorder and repetitions to be found in the last six books. They account also for the style, which is rude, entangled, and abounds with Greek words and phrases; besides, we must not overlook the fact that the water spent most of his life outside the zone of spoken Syriac. ASSEMANI, Bibl. orient. Vatic. (Rome, 1721) II, 83-90; DUCHESNE, Memoire lu a l'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (Paris, 25 Oct., 1892); NAU, Analyse des Parties inedites de la chronique attribuee a Denys de Tell-Mahre (Paris, 1898), reprint from Supplement trimestriel de l'Orient Chretien (Paris, April, 1897) IDEM, Analyse de la Seconde partie inedite de l'histoire ecclesiastique de Jean d'Asie in Revue de l'Orient Chretien, II (Paris, 1897), 455-493; LAND, Johannes Bischof von Ephesos (Leyden, 1856); DUVAL, Litterature Syriaque {Paris, 1907), 181-184, 362-363; WRIGHT, A Short History of Syriac Literature (London, 1894), 102-107; SCHONFELDER in Kirchenlex., s. v. Johonnes von Ephesus. H. HYVERNAT John of Falkenberg John of Falkenberg Author, b. at Falkenberg, Pomerania, Prussia, date unknown; d. about 1418 in Italy--or, according to other accounts, in his native town. Of his early life little is known, save that he entered the Order of St. Dominic and spent his novitiate in the convent at Kammin, a town of the above-named province. The fact that he was a master in Sacred Theology indicates that for a number of years he taught philosophy and theology in his order. His prominence in medieval history is due partly to the share he took in the great papal schism which wrought such confusion in the Church during the first part of the fifteenth century, but chiefly to his involving himself in the long-standing troubles between the Teutonic Order of Knights of Livonia and the King of Poland. In opposition to the general of his order, Bernard de Datis, and to many of the brethren of his province who were firm adherents of the antipopes Alexander V and John XXIII, he was a strong and ardent adherent of Gregory XII, the legitimate pope; and, being of a quick and passionate temperament, he carried his opposition so far as to refuse publicly in the Council of Constance to acknowledge Bernard as his superior. In the protracted and disastrous conflict between the Teutonic Order of Knights and Prussia on the one side and King Wladislaw of Poland and Duke Withold of Lithuania on the other, his sympathies for the former found expression in a book in which he undertook to show that the King of Poland and his adherents were idolators and unbelievers and that the opposition against them was noble and praiseworthy. In this violent work he maintained the principles of the licitness of tyrannicide, advocated by the Franciscan, Jean Petit: that it was lawful to kill the King of Poland and his associates (Mansi, "Conc." XXVII, 765). A little later he wrote "Tres tractatuli" (given as appendix to the works of Gerson in the edition of Dupin, V, 1013-32) in justification of his position and against Gerson, d'Ailly, and other doctors of the University of Paris, who had condemned the works of Jean Petit. In this work, moreover, he denied the bishops the right to declare his book or any part of it heretical, claiming that in matters of faith the pope and general councils alone are infallible. By order of Nicolaus, Archbishop of Gnesen, Falkenberg was thrown into prison. The committee appointed to examine the work recommended that it be burned. A similar verdict was given by a chapter of his order assembled at Strasburg from 30 May to June, 1417 which besides condemned the author to life imprisonment. The Poles earnestly demanded the condemnation of Falkenberg by the council, but in vain. When finally in the forty-fifth (last) session they attempted to force Martin V to give a definitive sentence, he imposed silence on their representatives and declared that in matters of faith and in this particular matter he would approve only what had been decided by the general council conciliariter. On his return to Rome, Martin V took Falkenberg with him and kept him for several years in close confinement. Whether he eventually regained his liberty or died there is uncertain. QUETIF AND ECHAD, Script. Ord. Praed. I, 760; Allgem. Deut. Biogr., VI, 554-5; SCHULTE, Gesch. Canon. Rechts, Ii, (1877), 381-2; HUBLER, Die Konstanzer Reformation (Leipzig, 1867), 263; DLUGOSS, Hist. Poloniae, I (Leipzig, 1711, 2, 376. JOSEPH SCHROEDER John of Fecamp John of Fécamp (Also known as JEANNELIN on account of his diminutive stature). Ascetic writer, b. near Ravenna about the beginning of the eleventh century; d. at Fécamp, Normandy, 22 February, 1079. He studied at Dijon under his compatriot William, Abbot of St. Benignus, whom he had accompanied to France. Under this skilled master John acquired an extensive acquaintance with all the sciences, making a special study of medicine, of which he is reckoned by Bernier among the cleverest exponents trained in the monastic schools of the Middle Ages. When William was commissioned to reform the Abbey of Fécamp and to establish there a colony of Benedictine monks, John again accompanied him and discharged under him the office of prior until 1028. In this year, worn out by his labours in the service of the Church, and seeking a more tranquil refuge for his old age, William appointed John his successor as abbot and retired to Italy. Taking his master for his model, John succeeded in winning an almost equal renown, and, if his authority was exercised with an defending the privileges of his house against every attack. In 1052, on the elevation of Helinard to the archiepiscopal See of Lyons, John was invited to succeed him as Abbot of Dijon. At first he retained also the abbacy of Fécamp, but, finding himself unable to carry the double burden, he resigned this office in 1056. Towards the close of his life he undertook a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, desiring to see before his death the sanctified places towards which his thoughts had so often turned during his meditations. Seized and thrown into prison by the Turks, it was only in 1076 that he could return to France. He then retired to Fécamp. As Abbot of St. Benignus John had been brought into close relations with Emperor Henry III--after 1038 also King of Burgundy--and with his spouse, Agnes of Poitiers. After Henry's death his widow placed herself entirely under the spiritual guidance of the abbot, and for her John composed a series of ascetical works. These were entitled the "Liber precum variarum", "De divina contemplatio Christique amore", "De superna Hierusalem," "De institutione viduae," "De vita et moribus virginum", "De eleemosynarum dispensatione" (P.L., CXLVII, 147 sqq., 445 sqq.). A good indication of John's value as a writer is afforded by the fact that the "De divina contemplatione" was for a long time regarded as a work of St. Augustine, although it is now certain that it was composed either wholly or partly by John. Some letters dealing with incidents in the life of the cloisters are also collected in P.L. loc. cit., 153 sq. Hist. lit. de la France, VIII. 48 sqq; Gallia Christ., XI, 206; STREBER in Kirchenlex., s. v. Johannes von Fécamp; Nouvelle biographie generale, XXVI, 531 sqq. THOMAS KENNEDY Blessed John of Fermo Blessed John of Fermo More often called JOHN OF LA VERNA, from his long sojourn on that holy mountain, b. at Fermo in the Marches, 1259; d. at La Verna in Tuscany, 10 August, 1322. After a youth of precocious piety, he was received at the age of ten among the Canons of St. Peter's at Fermo. Three years later, desirous of leading a more austere life, he entered the Order of Friars Minor, and under the direction of the celebrated brother, James of Fallerone, soon made rapid progress in perfection. Shortly after his profession, John was sent by the minister general to Mount La Verna, where St. Francis had received the stigmata, and there he spent many years in solitude, penance, and contemplation, being favoured with ecstasies and celestial visions. His late years, however, were devoted to the Apostolic ministry, and he preached at Florence, Pisa, Siena, Arezzo, Perugia, and many other towns of northern and central Italy, working wonders everywhere. His contemporaries relate much of Blessed John: they tell us that he enjoyed the gift of infused science, and that prelates and princes alike were astounded at his learning. He was linked in bonds of the warmest friendship with Jacopone of Todi, and administered the last sacraments to the dying poet in 1306. John is said to have composed the preface which is said in the Mass of St. Francis. Feeling the approach of death at Cortona while on his way to Assisi, John returned to La Verna and died there at the age of sixty-three. He was buried on the holy mountain, where many miracles were wrought through his intercession, and where his cell is still shown. The immemorial cultus of Blessed John was approved by Leo XIII in 1880, and his feast is kept in the Order of Friars Minor on 9 August. Acta SS., August, II, 453 sqq., give a contemporary life of Blessed John by an anonymous biographer with a Comment, Præv. by the Bollandist CUYPERS. Other early lives are found in the Chron. XXIV Generalium, in Anal. Francisc, III (1897), 439 sqq.; BARTHOLOMEW OF PISA, Liber de Conformitate in Anal. Francisc., IV (1906), 255 sqq. See also Bibl. Hag. Lat., I, 650; SABATIER in Collection d'études etc., II (1900), 59 sqq., IV (I 902), ch. xl, sqq.; Fioretti di S. Francesco, ch. xlix, sqq.; LEMMENS, Catalogus Sanct. Frat. Minor. (19O3), 15; CLARY, Lives of the Saints and Blessed of the Three Orders of St. Francis, II (1886),553 sqq.; MENCHERINI, Guida Illustrata della Vernã (2nd ed., Quaracchi, 1907), passim. PASCHAL ROBINSON John of Genoa John of Genoa (Often called Balbi, or de Balbis.) Grammarian; born at Genoa, date unknown; died there about 1298. Of his early life and education nothing is known. He distributed his wealth among the poor of the city, and entered the Order of St. Dominic, apparently at a somewhat advanced age. His noted work, the "Summa Grammaticalis", more commonly known as the "Catholicon", has made his name widely celebrated. The work comprises treatises on orthography, etymology, grammar, prosody, rhetoric, and an etymological dictionary of the Latin language (primae, mediae et infimae Latinitatis). The great number of manuscripts in which the "Catholicon" still exists, and the numerous editions through which it passed during the first seventy-five years after the invention of printing, attest the wide acceptance accorded it and the popularity it long enjoyed. For more than a century it was highly esteemed as a textbook. It has been the subject at once of excessive criticism and excessive praise. Erasmus, the most conspicuous of its critics, speaks of it in caustic terms in his "De Ratione Studiorum" and "Colloquia". Leander Alberti ("Viri Illustres Ord. Praed." and "Discrittione di tutta Italia") defends it against the aspersions of the humanist. If we bear in mind the materials the author had at his disposal, the purpose of the work, and the needs of the time, it must be conceded that the "Catholicon" possessed considerable merit. That it met the demands of the age is attested by its popularity. The author by his own assertion refuted those who would have made him an adept in Greek. Besides the "Catholicon", he wrote "Liber Theologiae qui vocatur Dialogus de Quaestionibus Animae ad Spiritum" and "Quoddam opus ad inveniendum festa mobilia". A "Postilla super Joannem" and a "Tractatus de Omnipotentia Dei" are also attributed to John of Genoa. Quétif-Echard, SS. Ord. Praed., I (Paris, 1719), 462; Nouvelle bibliographie générale, s. v. VICTOR F. O'DANIEL St. John of God St. John of God Born at Montemor o Novo, Portugal, 8 March, 1495, of devout Christian parents; died at Granada, 8 March, 1550. The wonders attending the saints birth heralded a life many-sided in its interests, but dominated throughout by implicit fidelity to the grace of God. A Spanish priest whom he followed to Oropeza, Spain, in his ninth year left him in charge of the chief shepherd of the place, to whom he gradually endeared himself through his punctuality and fidelity to duty, as well as his earnest piety. When he had reached manhood, to escape his mastery well-meant, but persistent, offer of his daughter's hand in marriage, John took service for a time in the army of Charles V, and on the renewal of the proposal he enlisted in a regiment on its way to Austria to do battle with the Turks. Succeeding years found him first at his birthplace, saddened by the news of his mother's premature death, which had followed close upon his mysterious disappearance; then a shepherd at Seville and still later at Gibraltar, on the way to Africa, to ransom with his liberty Christians held captive by the Moors. He accompanied to Africa a Portuguese family just expelled from the country, to whom charity impelled him to offer his services. On the advice of his confessor he soon returned to Gilbratar, where, brief as had been the time since the invention of the printing-press, he inaugurated the Apostolate of the printed page, by making the circuit of the towns and villages about Gilbratar, selling religious books and pictures, with practically no margin of profit, in order to place them within the reach of all. It was during this period of his life that he is said to have been granted the vision of the Infant Jesus, Who bestowed on him the name by which he was later known, John of God, also bidding him to go to Granada. There he was so deeply impressed by the preaching of Blessed John of Avila that he distributed his worldly goods and went through the streets of the city, beating his breast and calling on God for mercy. For some time his sanity was doubted by the people and he was dealt with as a madman, until the zealous preacher obliged him to desist from his lamentations and take some other method of atoning for his past life. He then made a pilgrimage to the shrine of Our Lady of Guadeloupe, where the nature of his vocation was revealed to him by the Blessed Virgin. Returning to Granada, he gave himself up to the service of the sick and poor, renting a house in which to care for them and after furnishing it with what was necessary, he searched the city for those afflicted with all manner of disease, bearing on his shoulders any who were unable to walk. For some time he was alone in his charitable work soliciting by night the needful supplies, and by day attending scrupulously to the needs of his patients and the rare of the hospital; but he soon received the co-operatlon of charitable priests and physicians. Many beautiful stories are related of the heavenly guests who visited him during the early days of herculean tasks, which were lightened at tirnes by St. Raphael in person. To put a stop to the saint's habit of exchanging his cloak with any beggar he chanced to meet, Don Sebastian Ramirez, Bishop of Tuy, had made for him a habit, which was later adopted in all its essentials as the religious garb of his followers, and he imposed on him for all time the name given him by the Infant Jesus, John of God. The saint's first two companions, Antonio Martin and Pedro Velasco, once bitter enemies who had scandalised all Granada with their quarrels and dissipations, were converted through his prayers and formed the nucleus of a fourishing congregation. The former advanced so far on the way of perfection that the saint on his death-bed commended him to his followers as his successor in the government of the order. The latter, Peter the Sinner, as he called himself, became a model of humility and charity. Among the many miracles which are related of the saint the most famous is the one commemorated in the Office of his feast, his rescue of all the inmates during a fire in the Grand Hospital at Granada, he himself passing through the flames unscathed. His boundless charity extended to widows and orphans, those out of employment, poor students, and fallen women. After thirteen years of severe mortification, unceasing prayer, and devotion to his patients, he died amid the lamentations of all the inhabitants of Granada. His last illness had resulted from an heroic but futile effort to save a young man from drowning. The magistrates and nobility of the city crowded about his death-bed to express their gratitude for his services to the poor, and he was buried with the pomp usually reserved for princes. He was beatified by Urban VIII, 21 September, 1638, and canonized by Alexander VIII, 16 October, 1690. Pope Leo XIII made St. John of God patron of hospitals and the dying. (See also BROTHERS HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN OF GOD.) Acta SS. 1 March, I, 813: De CASTRO, Miraculosa vida y santas obras del. b. Juan Dios (Granada, 1588); GIRARD DE VILLE-THIERY, vie de s. Dieu (Paris, 1691); BUTLER, lives of the Saints, 8 March; BEISSEL in Kircheslex., s.v. Johannes von Gott. F.M. RUDGE John of Hauteville John of Hauteville Moralist and satirical poet of the twelfth century (flourished about 1184). Little is known of his life. There is not much probability in the opinion that he was born in England, and he was not a Benedictine monk. The only work that can be attributed to him with certainty has for its title the name of its hero "Archithrenius" (The Prince of Lamentations). It is a Latin poem in eight cantos. In a prose prologue the hero deplores the unmerited woes of men, beginning with his own, and announces that he is going to Nature to seek the remedy for them. He begins by entering the palace of Venus and describes the beauty of one of the members of the goddess's retinue (I). Thence he passes to the Land of Gorging, inhabited by the Belly-worshippers (Ventricoloe), and to the prevailing sensuality he opposes the sobriety of the "White Brothers" (II). He comes to Paris and delivers a pompous eulogy of that city, describing, in contrast, the wretchedness of the students -- a valuable piece of first-hand evidence in regard to the period when the University of Paris was laboriously developing itself (III). Archithrenius then visits the Mountain of Ambition, which is situated in Macedon, near Pella, the birthplace of Alexander, greatest of conquerors, and is crowned with the palaces of kings (IV). The Mountain of Presumption forms a pendant to this, and is inhabited mostly by ecclesiastics and monks. A eulogy of Henry II, King of England and Duke of Normandy, is here dragged in clumsily. But the hero discovers a gigantic monster, Cupidity, and the encounter calls forth a picture of the greediness of prelates. In another digression the hero contrives to relate the fabulous history of the Kings of Britain, in the main following Geoffrey of Monmouth (V). In the next canto we come to Thule, the abode of the philosophers and sages of ancient Greece, and they vie with each other in declaiming against vices (VI-VIII). Lastly, Archithrenius meets Nature on a flowery plain, surrounded by a brilliant throng of attendants. He falls at her feet. She begins with a complete course of cosmography and astronomy in five hundred lines, and ends by listening to the request of Archithrenius. For remedy, she prescribed for him marriage with a young girl whose physical beauty is minutely described. In the prologue this damsel was Moderation, but here there is nothing abstract about her, and Nature instructs her disciple in his conjugal duties (IX). These and other passages in the work exhibit a certain degree of sensuality. The imitation of the Latin poets is betrayed in the plagiarizing of whole verses at a time. John of Hauteville dedicated his work to Gautier de Coutances just when the latter had left the See of Lincoln for that of Rouen (1184). The poem had a great success. It was frequently copied and commented before being published in 1517, at Paris, by Jodocus Badius Ascencius. The latest edition is that of Th. Wright in "Latin Satirical Poets of the Twelfth Century" (Rolls Series, London, 1872). GIGNUENÉ in Histoire littéraire de la France, XIV (Paris, 1817), 569; BULÆUS (DU BOULAY), Historia universitatis Parisiensis, II (Paris, 1665), 750. For a supplementary bibliography see CHEVALIER, Bio-bibliographie, II 242. PAUL LEJAY John of Janduno John of Janduno An Averroistic philosopher, theologian, and political writer of the fourteenth century. John of Janduno (Johannes de Genduno, de Ganduno, and de Gandavo) and John of Gand (or less correctly, of Ghent) are now generally said to have been two different persons. The former was born about the year 1300, graduated in arts at the College of Navarre (University of Paris), wrote a work entitled "De Laudibus Parisiis," and, in collaboration with Marsilius of Padua, composed the celebrated "Defensor pacis," directed against Pope John XXII, for which the authors were condemned in 1327. John of Gand was born about 1270 or 1280, studied theology at the Sorbonne, and after having served as curé at Kieldrecht was made a canon of the cathedral of Paris. These facts seem to be clearly established. However, there are extant a number of works, mostly philosophical, which are ascribed to Johannes de Genduno, Ganduno, or Gandavo, and it is difficult to say whether they were written by John of Janduno or by John of Gand. These works include commentaries on Peter Lombard's "Books of Sentences," on Aristotle's "Physics," "Metaphysics," and "The Soul," also a treatise entitled "Quaestio in Averroem de substantia orbis." The author is strongly inclined towards the doctrines of Averroes. He defends the principle of twofold truth, according to which what is false in philosophy may be true in theology, or vice versa. Thus, he says, the eternity of the world is demonstrated in philosophy to be true and yet in theology it is false; according to this principle, we are to believe that the world was made, while we know that it was not made. Again, he holds the Averroistic doctrine that there is only one intellect, which is common to all men, and is in no sense a part of the individual soul. Consequently, he is obliged to maintain that the immortality of the individual soul cannot be proved in philosophy. In his discussion of the nature and operations of the human mind he takes sides with the determinists, who deny that the will is free. Finally, the Averroist author of these commentaries is no friend of the Thomistic school. He tries to belittle the reputation of St. Thomas, and to prove him inferior to Averroes. Considering, therefore, the spirit and tendency of these works, one is inclined to assign them to the turbulent, anti-papal author of the "Defensor pacis," and not to the theologian and canon who, for all we know, troubled himself as little about the intellectual warfare going on between Thomists and Averroists as he did about the political conflict between Pope John XXII and Louis of Bavaria. The commentaries mentioned above and the "Quaestio" were published in Venice, 1497, 1525, etc. DE WULF, Histoire de la phil. mediev. (Louvain, 1902), 372 sqq,; HAUREAU, Histoire de la phil. scol., II (Paris, 1880), 2nd part, 281; FERET, La faculte de theologie de Paris, III (Paris, 1896), 125, 273; VALOIS, Jean de Jandun et Marsile de Padoue, auteurs du Defensor pacis (Paris, 1906). WILLIAM TURNER John of Montecorvino John of Montecorvino A Franciscan and founder of the Catholic mission in China, b. at Montecorvino in Southern Italy, in 1246; d. at Peking, in 1328. Being a member of a religious order which at that time was chiefly concerned with the conversion of unbelievers, and was commissioned by the Holy See to preach Christianity especially to the Asiatic hordes then threatening the West, he devoted himself to the Eastern missions, first that of Persia. In 1286 Argun, the khan or ruler of this kingdom, sent a request to the pope through the Nestorian bishop, Bar Sauma, to send Catholic missionaries to the Court of the great Chinese emperor, Kúblaí Khan (1260-94), who was well disposed towards Christianity. About that time John of Montecorvino came to Rome with similar promising news, and Nicholas IV entrusted him with the important mission to Farther China, where about this time Marco Polo, the celebrated traveller, still lingered. He started on his journey in 1289, provided with letters to the Khan Argun, to the great Emperor Kublai Khan, to Kaidu, Prince of the Tatars, to the King of Armenia and to the Patriarch of the Jacobites. His companions were the Dominican Nicholas of Pistoia and the merchant Peter of Lucalongo. From Persia he went by sea to India, in 1291, where he preached for thirteen months and baptized about one hundred persons. Here also his companion, Nicholas, died. Travelling by sea from Meliapur, he reached China in 1294, only to find that Kúblaí Khan had just died, and Timurleng (1294-1307) had succeeded to the throne. Though the latter did not embrace Christianity, he threw no obstacles in the way of the zealous missionary, who, in spite of the opposition of the Nestorians already settled there, soon won the confidence of the ruler. In 1299 he built a church at Peking and in 1305 a second opposite the imperial palace, together with workshops and dwellings for two hundred persons. He gradually bought from heathen parents about one hundred and fifty boys, from seven to eleven years of age, instructed them in Latin and Greek, wrote psalms and hymns for them and then trained them to serve Mass and sing in the choir. At the same time he familiarized himself with the native language, preached in it, and translated into Chinese the New Testament and the Psalms. Among the six thousand converts of John of Montecorvino was a Nestorian king named George, of the race of the priest John, a vassal of the great khan, mentioned by Marco Polo. After he had worked alone for eleven years, a German associate, Arnold of Cologne, was sent to him (1304). In 1307 Clement V, highly pleased with the missionary's success, sent seven Franciscans who were commissioned to consecrate John of Montecorvino Archbishop of Peking and chief archbishop (summus archiepiscopus) of all those countries; they were themselves to be his suffragan bishops. Only three of these envoys arrived safely: Gerardus, Peregrinus, and Andrew of Perugia. They consecrated John in 1308 and succeeded each other in the See of Zaiton, established by Montecorvino. In 1312 three more Franciscans arrived from Rome as suffragans. John of Montecorvino departed this life (1328) honoured as a saint by Christian and heathen. Our chief information about him and his work is found in two letters written in 1305 and 1306, printed in WADDING, Annales Minorum, VI (Rome, 1733), 69-72, and MOSHEIM, Historia Tartarorum (Helmstadt, 1741), append. n. 44 and 45. There is an English translation of these letters in YULE, Cathay and the Way Thither, I (London, 1866), 197-209. Biographical notices are to be found, moreover, in REMUSAT, Nouveaux melanges asiatiques, II (Paris, 1829), 193-98: KUNSTMANN, Die Missionen in Indien und China im 14. Jahrhundert in Hist.-polit-Blätter, XXXVII (Munich, 1856), 229-41; HUC, Le Christianisme en Chine, I (Paris, 1857), 383-433; HEYD, Die Kolonien der roemischen Kirche in den Tartarenlaendem im 13. u. 24. Jahrh. in Zeitschrift fuer die histor. Theol., XXVIII (Gotha, 1858), 286-96. OTTO HARTIG John of Montesono John of Montesono Theologian and controversialist, born at Monzón, Spain; dates of birth and death unknown. He joined the Dominicans probably in Valencia. In 1383 he was lecturing on theology at the cathedral in that city. Thence he went to Paris, taught in the convent of St. James there, and obtained the mastership of theology in 1387. Here he entered the field of controversy on the question of the Immaculate Conception, which was not then defined. Maintaining the proposition that the Blessed Virgin was conceived without sin was heretical, he aroused against him the faculty of the Paris university. They condemned fourteen propositions from his lectures, warned him, first privately, then publicly, to retract, and when he refused carried the matter to Pierre Orgement, Bishop of Paris, who promulgated a decree of excommunication against all who should defend the forbidden theses; and the faculty issued letters condemnatory of Montesono's errors and conduct, which Denifle conjectures, from their acerbity of speech, were written by Pierre d'Ailly. Denifle also says Montesono would not have been condemned had he not declared the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception heretical. Montesono appealed to Clement VIII, who cited him and the university faculty to Avignon. Later, foreseeing that the case was going against him, Montesono, despite the command under pain of excommunication to remain at Avignon, secretly withdrew into Aragon, then went to Sicily, changing his allegiance to Urban VI, Clement's rival. There and in Spain, wither he afterwards returned, he filled several important positions. In 1412 Alfonso, Duke of Gandia, chose him as head of a legation sent to defend his claim to the crown of Aragon. Besides four works against Clement's claim as pope, he wrote: "Tractatus de Conceptione B. Virginis", a number of sermons, and various opuscula in the vernacular. Quétif and Echard, Scriptores Ord. Praed., I (Paris, 1719), 691; Hurter, Nomenclator; Denifle, Chartul., III (Paris, 1894), 486- 533. V.F. O'DANIEL John of Nikiu John of Nikiû An Egyptian chronicler who flourished in the latter part of the seventh century. The little we know of his life is gathered from the "History of the Patriarchs" by Severus of Ashmunein. He lived under John of Semnud, Isaac, and Simeon, respectively fortieth, forty-first, and forty-second patriarchs, and seems to have played an important part in the affairs of the Egyptian Church both as Bishop of Nikiû (Coptic, Pshati in the Delta) and as general administrator of the monasteries of Egypt. But having disciplined a monk guilty of a grave offense against morals so severely that he died ten days later, he was deposed from both offices by the patriarch Simeon, and reduced to the rank of a simple monk. His "Chronicle", composed very likely before his deposition, is a work of no mean value, extending from Adam to the end of the Arabic conquest. In many respects it does not materially differ from the Byzantine chronicles, which the author often copies, especially those of John Malalas, and the monk John of Antioch. But it has preserved some local traditions, not to be found elsewhere, on the ancient history of Egypt, also some details otherwise unknown, and apparently authentic, on certain periods of Eastern Empire, in particular on the revolution which brought about the fall of Phocas and the accession of Herclius I, and the condition of Egypt during the seventh century. The last chapters contain a relation of the conquest of Egypt by the Arabs, but little posterior to the events. This chronicle was originally written in Greek, with the exception of some of the chapters concerning Egypt, vvhich were very probably written in Coptic. It has come down to us in an Ethiopic version made in 1602 by an Abyssinian scholar, with the assistance of an Egyptian monk on a much older Arabic text non lost like the original. The text, unfortunately, has suffered much at the hands of the translators and copyists, especially in passing into Arabic. Such as it is, it has been the subject of a careful study and analysis by H. Zotenberg, in the "Journal Asiatique", 7th series, vols. X, XII, XIII (Paris, 1877-79), "La Chronique de Jean de Nikioû, notice et extraits" (also in book form, Paris, 1879); later it was published in its entirety, with a French version, by the same scholar; "La Chronique de Jean de Nikioû" (Paris, 1883), in "Notices et Extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale", t. XXIV, I, pp. 125-605) (also separately, Paris, 1883). The two above-named publications of ZOTENBERG; cf. the reviews of NOLDEKE, Gittlinger gelehrte Anzeigen (Gottingen, 1881), 587- 594; DROUIN, Le Museon, III (Louvain, 1884), 235-268. H. HYVERNAT John of Paris John of Paris ( Called also Quidort and de Soardis). Theologian and controversialist; born at Paris, date unknown; died at Bordeaux, 22 September, 1306. Having obtained the degree of Master of Arts with distinction, he joined the Dominican Order, when about twenty years of age, at the convent of St. James in his native city. There he taught philosophy and theology, and obtained the degree of Master of Theology. He was endowed with great ability, was the most subtle dialectician of the age, possessed great literary and linguistic attainments, and was considered one of the best theologians of the university. Some ten of his works on theology, physics, and metaphysics, still exist in manuscript; two others, "De Antichristo" and "De modo existendi corporis Christi in sacramento altaris", appeared in print centuries after his death. A treatise, "Contra corruptorem Sancti Thomae", published in 1516 under the name of Aegidius Romanus, is commonly attributed to John of Paris; it was certainly not written by Aegidius. All these show vast erudition. In his work on the temporal and spiritual power, "De potestate regia et papali", written during the controversy between Boniface VIII and Philip the Fair, he favours the king, and advances some untenable propositions. He holds, for instance, that the pope, for grave crimes, e.g. heresy, may be deposed. The treatise on the Blessed Sacrament, in which he maintained that the Body of Christ is, or might be, present by assumption (I. e. by the body of Christ assuming the bread and wine), and that the doctrine of transubstantiation was not of faith, brought him into trouble. The faculty of the university reported the error to William of Baufet, Bishop of Paris, who forbade him under penalty of excommunication to defend such a doctrine, and deprived him of the offices of lecturing, preaching, and hearing confessions. John appealed to the Holy See, but died soon after, and the case was dropped. In justice to him, it must be said that he advanced these propositions tentatively; for in the beginning of the treatise he writes that he believes in the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, and if it is shown that transubstantiation is of faith, or should it be defined, he will willingly retract. Quétif and Echard, Scriptures Ord. Præd., I (Paris, 1719), 500; Natalis Alexander, Hist. Eccl., VII (Paris, 1714), 149; Hurter, Nomenclator, II (3rd ed.), 477-9. VICTOR F. O'DANIEL Blessed John of Parma Blessed John of Parma Minister General of the Friars Minor (1247-1257), b. at Parma about 1209; d. at Camerino 19 Mar., 1289. His family name was probably Buralli. Educated by an uncle, chaplain of the church of St. Lazarus at Parma, his progress in learning was such that he quickly became a teacher of philosophy (magister logicæ). When and where he entered the Order of Friars Minor, the old sources do not say. Affò (Vita, p. 18, see below) assigns 1233 as the year, and Parma as the probable place. Ordained priest he taught theology at Bologna and at Naples, and finally read the "Sentences" at Paris, after having assisted at the First Council of Lyons, 1245. Through his great learning and sanctity, John gained many admirers, and at the general chapter of the order at Lyons in July, 1247, was elected minister general, which office he held till 2 Feb., 1257. We may judge of the spirit that animated the new general, and of his purposes for the full observance of the rule, from the joy felt (as recorded by Angelus Clarenus) by the survivors of St. Francis's first companions at his election, though Brother Giles's words sound somewhat pessimistic: "Welcome, Father, but you come late" (Archiv. Litt., 11, 263). John set to work immediately. Wishing to know personally the state of the order, he began visiting the different provinces. His first visit was to England, with which he was extremely satisfied, and where he was received by Henry III (Anal. Franc., I, 252). At Sens in France St. Louis IX honoured with his presence the provincial chapter held by John. Having visited the provinces of Burgundy and of Provence, he set out in Sept., 1248, for Spain, whence Innocent IV recalled him to entrust him with an embassy to the East. Before departing, John appears to have held the General Chapter of Metz in 1249 (others put it after the embassy, 1251). It was at this chapter that John refused to draw up new statutes to avoid overburdening the friars (Salimbene, "Mon. Germ. Hist. Script.", XXXII, 300). Only some new rubrics were promulgated, which in a later chapter (Genoa, 1254) were included in the official ceremonial of the order, beginning: Ad omnes horas canonicas (last published by Golubovich in "Archivum Franc. Hist.", III, Quaracchi, 1910). The object of John's embassy to the East was the reunion of the Greek Church, whose representatives he met at Nice, and who saluted him as "angel of peace". John's mission bore no immediate fruit, though it may have prepared the way for the union decreed at the Council of Lyons in 1274. In his generalate occurred also the famous dispute between the Mendicants and the University of Paris. According to Salimbene (op. cit., XXXII, 299 sqq.), John went to Paris (probably in 1253), and by his mild yet strenuous arguments strove to secure peace. It been in connection with this attack on the Preachers and the Minors that John of Parma and Humbert of Romans, Master General of the Dominicans, published at Milan in 1255 a letter recommending peace and harmony between the two orders (text inWadding, 111, 380). The "Introductorius in Evangelium Æternum" of Gerard of S. Donnino (1254), John's friend, having been denounced by the professors of Paris and condemned by a commission at Anagni in 1256 (Denifle, "Arch. f. Litt.", I, 49 sqq.), John himself was in some way compromised--a circumstance which, combined with others, finally brought about the end of his generalate. He convoked a general chapter at Rome, 2 Feb., 1257. If Peregrinus of Bologna [Bulletino critico di cose francescane, I (1905), 46] be right, Alexander IV secretly intimated to John that he should resign, and decline re-election should it be offered him. On the contrary, Salimbene (1. c., 301 sqq.) insists that John resigned of his own free will. The pope may have exerted some pressure on John, who was only too glad to resign, seeing himself unable to promote henceforth the good of the order. Questioned as to the choice of a successor, he proposed St. Bonaventure, who had succeeded him as professor at Paris. John retired to the Hermitage of Greccio near Rieti, memorable for the Christmas celebrated there by St. Francis. There he lived in voluntary exile and complete solitude; his cell near a rock is still shown. But another hard trial awaited him. Accused of Joachimism, he was submitted to a canonical process at Cittá della Pieve (Umbria), presided over by St. Bonaventure and Cardinal John Gaetano Orsini, protector of the order. The mention of this cardinal as protector brings us to a chronological difficulty, overlooked by all modern writers, who assign the process against John to 1257; for Alexander IV (1254-61) retained the protectorship (Anal. Franc., 696, 710; Mon. Germ. Hist.: Scr., XXXIII, 663, 681-2); and Cardinal Orsini became protector, at the earliest, at the end of 1261; see Oliger in "Arch. Francisce. Hist.", III, 346. Angelus Clarenus tells us that the concealed motive of this process was John's attachment to the literal observance of the rule, the accusation of Joachimism, against which he professed his Catholic Faith, being only a pretext. Other sources, however (Anal. Franc., 111, 350, 698), speak of retractation. The same Clarenus relates that John would have been condemned had it not been for the powerful intervention of Innocent IV's nephew, Cardinal Ottoboni Fioschi, later Hadrian V (concerning whose letter to the judges see Arch. f. Litt., II, 286; Orbis Seraphicus, I, 120). John certainly did not profess the dogmatical errors of Joachimism, though he may have held some of its apocalyptic ideas. Upon his acquittal he returned to Greccio, and continued his life of prayer and work. It was there that an angel once served his Mass (Salimbene, 1.c., 310; Anal. Franc., 111, 289), and that in 1285 he received the visit of Ubertin of Casale, who has left a touching account of this meeting ("Arbor Vitæ", Venice, 1485, V, 3). Hearing that the Greeks were abandoning the union agreed upon in 1274, John, now 80 years old, desired to use his last energies in the cause of union. He obtained permission of Nicolas IV to go to Greece, but only travelled as far as Camerino (Marches of Ancona), where he died in the convent of the friars, 19 March, 1289. He was beatified 1777; his feast is kept 20 March. With the exception of his letters scarcely any literary work can with surety be attributed to John. He is certainly not the author of the "Introductorius in Evang. Æternum", nor of the "Visio Fr. Johannis de Parma" (Anal. Franc., 111, 646-49). With more probability can we attribute to John the "Dialogus de vitia ss. Fratrum Minorum", partly edited by L. Lemmens, O.F.M. (Rome, 1902). The "Chronicle of the XXIV Generals" (Anal. Franc., III, 283) ascribes to John the allegoric treatise on poverty: "Sacrum Commercium B. Francisci cum Domina Paupertate" (ed. Milan, 1539), edited by Ed. d'Alençon (Paris and Rome, 1900), who ascribes it (without sufficient reason) to John Parent. Carmichael has translated this edition: "The Lady Poverty, a thirteenth-century allegory" (London, 1901); another English translation is by Rawnsly (London, 1904); a good introduction and abridged version is given by Macdonell, "Sons of Francis", 189-213. Other works are mentioned by Sbaralea, "Suppl. ad Script." (Rome, 1806), 398. I. ORIGINAI, SOURCES.-SALIMBENE, Chronica (Parma, 1857), ed. also by HOLDER-EGGER in Mon. Gern. Hist.: Script., XXXII (Hanover, 1905-8); ANGEIUS CLARENUS, Historia septem tribulationum, partly edited by EHRLE in Arch. Für Litt. u. Kirchengesch., II (Berlin, 1886), 249 sqq., and by DÖLLINGER, Beiträge zur Seklengesch., II (Munich, 1890), 417 sqq.; Anal. Francisce., I (Quaracchi, 1885), 217 sqq.; III (Quaracchi, 1897); Archivum Francisanum Historicum, II (Quaracchi, 1909), 433-39; Bull. Franc., I (Rome, 1759); II (Rome, 1761); Suppl. ad Bull. Franc. of ANNIBALI A LATERA (Rome, 1780); Bull. Franc. Epitome by EUBEL (Quaracchi, 1908). Collection of good texts, especially referring to missions in the East: GOLUBOVICH, Biblioteca bio-bibliografica di Terra Santa, I (Quaracchi, 1906), 219-228; WADDING, Annales, III, IV (2nd ed., Rome, 1732). II. LITERATURE.--MACDONELL, Sons of Francis (London, 1902), 214-51; Léon [DE, CLARY], Lives of the Saints and Blessed of the Three Orders of St. Francis, I (Taunton, I885), 493-513. There are three Italian lives with the title Vita del Beato Giovanni da Parma, by CAMERINI (Ravenna, 1730), by AFFÒ (Parma, 1777), and by LUIGI DA PARMA, 2nd ed. (Quaracchi, 1900)--1st ed. had appeared in the review Beato Giovanni da Parma, Periodico Bimensile (Parmi, 1888-9); JACOBILLI, Vile de' Santi e Beati dell' Umbria, I (Foligno, 1647), 329-34; AFFÒ in Memorie degli Scrittori c Letterati Parmigiani, I (Parma, 1789), 129-45; DAUNOU in Histoire Littéraire de la France, XX (Paris, 1842), 23-36 (antiquated); FÉRET, La Faculté, de Théologie de Paris, Moyen Age, II (Paris, 1895), 94-9; PICCONI, Serie Cronologico-Bioqrafica dei Ministri e Vicari Prov. della Minoritica Provincia di Bologna (Parma, 1908), 43-44; HOLZAPFEL, Manuale Historiæ Ordinis Fratrum, Minorum (Freibug im Br., 1909), 25-30; German edition (Freibug im Br., 1909), 28 33; RENÉ DE NANTES, Histoire des Spirituels (Paris, 1909), 145 205. LIVARIUS OLIGER John of Ragusa John of Ragusa (Sometimes confounded with John of Segovia, q.v.). A Dominican theologian, president of the Council of Basle, legate to Constantinople, b. at Ragusa about 1380; d. at Argos, in the Peloponnesus, probably 1443. He entered the Dominican Order and devoted himself to the observance of the rule of his order and the study of the sacred sciences. By reason of his great attainments in theology, Scripture, and the Oriental languages, he was considered an oracle in his native Dalmatia. At the University of Paris he shone conspicuously and there received the doctor's cap about the beginning of the fifteenth century. In the year 1426 he was appointed procurator general of the Dominican Order, and went to reside at Rome under Pope Martin V. There he received marks of honour and esteem from the pope and the College of Cardinals, and the former eventually named him papal theologian for the General Council of Basle. John was, moreover, chosen to open the council, in place of Cardinal Julian Cesarini, who was detained by other business. Arriving at Basle on 19 May, 1431, he on the same day arranged with the Bishop of Basle for the opening of the council on the 23rd of the same month. The opening did not take place, however, until 23 July, 1431, in the cathedral church, when John preached from the text: "Et angelus testamenti, quem vos vultis. Ecce venit" (Mal., iii, 1). In the council he exonerated the absent cardinals from the charge of contempt (Feb., 1433). On eight mornings he spoke against the doctrines of the Hussites and crushed all that was reprehensible in that heresy. Having been sent as a legate of the council to Conatantinople to urge the reunion of the Eastern and Western Churches, John of Ragusa induced the Emperor John Paleologus and the Patriarch Joseph to send an embassy to the council through the treaty which they made with Pope Eugenius IV was broken by the Greeks. John afterwards sojourned at Constantinople to study the Greek language and to become better acquainted with the situation of ecclesiastical affairs. Here he completed an etymological work bearing upon the Greek text of Scripture and destined to be of service to Catholic controversialists in treating of the doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Ghost against the Greek schismatics. He returned to Bologna as a member of a deputation, to obtain from Eugenius IV an assurance that the pope would be present at the council. Having acceded to this request, Eugenius employed John once more to be the bearer of a document (dated 15 July, 1437) to the Greek emperor in which the emperor's assistance was invited at a meeting of the council to be held in some Italian city. John's subsequent course has been a subject of dispute: some authors assert that he remained in sympathy with the council, while others insist that he allied himself with Eugenius IV, who made him Bishop of Argos. It is probable that he took the side of Eugenius. His extant writings are: (1) Discourse against the Hussites delivered at the Council of Basle; (2) the Acts, or Reports, of his embassies to Constantinople, to be found among the Acts of the Council of Basle; (3) an account of his travels in the East, preserved by Leo Allatius. His work on Greek indeclinable nouns and Scriptural Greek etymology seems to have been lost. TOURON, Histoire des hommes illustres de l'Ordre de Saint Dominique (Paris, 1746); QUÉTIF AND ECHARD, Script. Ord. Praedicatorum (Paris, 1719). ALBERT REINHART John of Roquetaillade (De Rupescissa) John of Roquetaillade (de Rupescissa) Franciscan alchemist, date of birth unknown; d. probably at Avignon, 1362. After pursuing the study of philosophy for five years at Toulouse, he entered the Franciscan monastery at Orléans, where he continued his studies for five years longer. His experiments in distillation led to the discovery of what he termed aqua vitæ, or usually quinta essentia, and commended as a panacea for all disease. His work as an alchemist forms the subject-matter of "De consideratione quintæ essentiæ" (Basle, 1561) and "De extractione quintæ essentiæ"; likewise "Libellus de conficiendo vero lapide philosophico ad sublevandam inopiam papæ et cleri in tempore tribulationis" (Strasburg, 1659). His false prophecies and violent denunciation of ecclesiastical abuses brought him into disfavour with his superiours, resulting in his imprisonment by Clement VI (1345) and Innocent VI (1356). While there he wrote in 1349 his "Visiones seu revelationes", and in 1356 "Vade Mecum in tribulatione" and "Ostensor" (in Brown, "Fascicula rerum expetendarum et fugiendarum", III, London, 1640). His other works include commentaries on the Sentences and on the "Oraculum Cyrilli", "Fragmenta revelationum", "Apologus propheticus", "De famulatu philosphiæ ad theologiam". SBARALEA, Suppl. ad script. Ord. Min. (Rome, 1806); JEILER in Kirchenlex., s. v. Johannes von Roquetaillade; SCHNÜRER in Kirchliches Handlex.. F. M. RUDGE John of Rupella John of Rupella Franciscan theologian, b. at La Rochelle (Rupella), towards the end of the twelfth century; d. 1245 (al., 1271). He seems to have entered the Franciscan Order at an early age, and was sent to the house of studies at Paris. There he was a disciple of Alexander of Hales, by whom he was presented for the bachelorship of theology. He was the first Franciscan to receive that degree at the University of Paris. In 1238 he was already a master of theology, with his own pupils, for his name is to be found in the list of masters convoked in that year by William, Bishop of Paris, to discuss the vexed question of ecclesiastical benefices. John was of the number of those who declared against the general lawfulness of plurality, and who afterwards taught the same doctrine in their schools. He appears henceforward to have enjoyed a very considerable reputation, and is described by Bernard of Besse as a professor of great fame for holiness and learning, whose writings were both solid and extremely useful. The same writer also declares him to be the best preacher of his day. This judgment should perhaps be tempered by the consideration of Bernard's anxiety to prove that the greatest theologian (Alexander of Hales), the greatest warrior (John of Brienne), and the greatest preacher, all three belonged to his own Franciscan Order. In the dissensions which already rent the order, John was one of the most determined opponents of Brother Elias, and with Alexander of Hales placed himself at the head of the movement which brought about Elias's downfall in 1239. At the command of Haymo of Faversham, who succeeded Elias as general, he collaborated with Alexander of Hales, Robert of Bastia, Richard of Cornwall, and several others less important, on an explanation of the Rule of St. Francis. The work received the approbation of the chapter (probably definitorial) of the order held at Bologna in 1242, and subsequently became known as the "Exposition of the Four Masters." Wadding and the majority of succeeding writers place John of Rupella's death in 1271, but a letter of Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, written in Sept. or Oct., 1245, speaks of him as being then already dead: "mortuis fratribus Alexandro de Hales, et Joanne de Rupellis." The date according to Denifle was 3 Feb., but according to du Boulay, 27 Oct. The first date would preclude all possibility of attendance at the Council of Lyons; and Luguet's assertion is probably thus without foundation. It is interesting, however, to note in this connection that a manuscript published in resume by Father Fidelis a Fanna ("Ratio Novae collectionis omnium operum S. Bonaventurae," Turin, 1874, 98) contains a sermon preached by Master John de Rupella in the Dominican Monastery of Lyons, before the Roman Court. No complete edition of the works of John of Rupella has ever been published. The "Exposition of the Four Masters" was printed at Venice in 1513, in the "Firmamentum Trium Ordinum," pars 3a, p. 15b-19a. Two priests of the Diocese of La Rochelle, Canon Cholet and Fr. Grasilier, had already in 1875 prepared for the press the following: "Tractatus de anima"; "De Articulis fidei," or "Summa Theologica"; " De decem praeceptis"; "Commentaria in Matthaeum"; "Postillae in Epistolas Pauli"; "De vitiis"; "Sermones." Nothing has yet resulted from their enterprise. They had also catalogued as belonging to the same author: "Postillae super Danielem"; "in Marcum"; "in Lucam"; "in Apocalypsim." Du Boulay attributed to him a "Commentaria in quatuor Libros Sententiarum," and says he was the first to write such a commentary. His best known work is the "Summa de Anima." Father Fidelis a Fanna (op.cit., 82) says that no work on the same subject is to be found so frequently in MSS. of the thirteenth and fourteenth century in the many European libraries he searched. The author avails himself fully of the teaching of Aristotle and Avicenna, and touches upon all the important questions of psychology afterwards to be treated by the great Scholastics. The work was edited with an introduction and studies, in 1882, by Father Theophilus Domenichelli, O.F.M., from a MS. of the Biblioteca Nazionale at Florence, collated principally with two others (A, IV, 25, now no. 1288, and B, IV, 4, now no. 581) of the Casanatense, Rome. BARTHOLOMEW OF PISA, De Conformitate vitoe B. Francisci in Analecta Franciscana, IV (Quaracchi, 1906) 337, 379, 544; BERNARD OF BESSE, Liber de Laudibus in Anal. Fran. (Quaracchi, 1897), III, 686; CANTIMPRATANUS, Bonum universale de Apibus, I (Douai, 1627), xx, 70; Chronica XXIV Generalium in Anal. Fran., III (Quaracchi, 1897), 219, 247: JORDANUS OF GIANO, Chronica in Analecta Franciscana, I (Quaracchi, 1885), 18; TRITHEMIUS, Scriptores Ecclesiastici, 459; Monumenta Franciscana, ed. BREWER, I (London, 1858), 628: OUDINUS, Commentarius de Scrip. ecclesiasticis, III (Leipzig, 1722), 160-61; WADDING, Annales Minorum (Rome, 1650), ad ann. 1222, 1242, 1253, 1271; WADDING-SBARALEA, Supplementum ad Scriptores (Rome, 1806); DENIFLE, Chart. univers. Paris, I (Paris, 1889), 158, 187; DAUNOU in Hist. litt. France, XIX (Paris, 1838), 171-3; DOMENICHELLI, Summa de anima (Prato, 1882); DU BOULAY, Hist. Univers. Parisiensis, III (Paris, 1666) ad an. 1238; FELDER, Geschichte der wissenschaftlichen Studien im Franziskanerorden (Freiburg im Br., 1904): FERET, La Faculte de Theol. de Paris, I (Paris, 1894), 324-31; HAUREAU in Hist. de la philosophie scolastique (Paris, 1880), pt. II, I, x; H.P.D., Fratris ac magistri J. a Rupella ex eo libro cui "Summa de Anima" titulus, psychologicam doctrinam exprompsit (Milan, 1875); JEILER in Kirchenlex., s.v. Johannes von La Rochelle; DE LA MARCHE, La Chaire Francaise au moyen age (Paris, 1868), 517: LUGUET, Essai d'analyse et de critique sur le texte inedit du Traite de l'ame de Jean de la Rochelle (Paris, 1875). BRENDAN JENNINGS Saint John of Sahagun St. John of Sahagun Hermit, b. 1419, at Sahagun (or San Fagondez) in the Kingdom of Leon, in Spain; d. 11 June, 1479, at Salamanca; feast 12 June. In art he is represented holding a chalice and host surrounded by rays of light. John, the oldest of seven children, was born of pious and respected parents, John Gonzalez de Castrillo and Sancia Martinez. He received his first education from the Benedictines of his native place. According to the custom of the times, his father procured for him the benefice of the neighbouring parish Dornillos, but this caused John many qualms of conscience. He was later introduced to Alfonso de Cartagena, Bishop of Burgos (1435-1456) who took a fancy to the bright, high-spirited boy, had him educated at his own residence, gave him several prebends, ordained him priest in 1445, and made him canon at the cathedral. Out of conscientious respect for the laws of the Church, John resigned all and retained only the chaplaincy of St. Agatha, where he laboured zealously for the salvation of souls. Finding that a more thorough knowledge of theology would be beneficial, he obtained permission to enter the University of Salamanca, made a four years' course, and merited his degree in divinity. During this time he exercised the sacred ministry at the chapel of the College of St. Bartholomew (parish of St. Sebastian), and held the position for nine years. He was then obliged to undergo an operation for stone, and during his illness vowed that if his life were spared, he would become a religious. On his recovery in 1463, he applied for admission to the Order of Hermits of St. Augustine, at the church of St. Peter, at Salamanca, and on 28 Aug., 1464, he made his profession. He made such progress in religious perfection that he was soon appointed master of novices, and in 1471 prior of the community. Great was his devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, and at Mass he frequently saw the Sacred Host resplendent in glory. He was gifted with special power to penetrate the secrets of conscience, so that it was not easy to deceive him, and sinners were almost forced to make good confessions; he obtained wonderful results in doing away with enmities and feuds. In his sermons he, like another St. John the Baptist, fearlessly preached the word of God and scourged the crimes and vices of the day, though thereby the rich and noble were offended. He soon made many enemies, who even hired assassins, but these, awed by the serenity and angelic sweetness of his countenance, lost courage. Some women of Salamanca, embittered by the saint's strong sermon against extravagance in dress, openly insulted him in the streets and pelted him with stones until stopped by a patrol of guards. His scathing words on impurity produced salutary effects in a certain nobleman who had been living in open concubinage, but the woman swore vengeance, and it was popularly believed that she caused the saint's death by poison (this statement is found only in later biographies). Soon after death his veneration spread in Spain. The process of beatification began in 1525, and in 1601 he was declared Blessed. New miracles were wrought at his intercession, and on 16 Oct., 1690, Alexander VIII entered his name in the list of canonized saints. Benedict XIII fixed his feast for 12 June. His relies are found in Spain, Belgium, and Peru. His life written by John of Seville towards the end of the fifteenth century with additions in 1605 and 1619, is used by the Bollandists in "Acta SS.", Jun., III, 112. BUTLER, Lives of the Saints, 12 June; STADLER in Heiligenlexicon; BÄUMER in Kirchenlexicon,-s. v. Johannes a S. Facundo; BIHLMEYER in BUCHBERGER, Kirchliches Handlexicon, s. v. Johannes a S. Facundo; OSSINGER, Biblioth. Augustin. (Ingolstadt, 1768-76), 477-79; DE CASTRO in Rev. Agustin., XII (1886), 525-30. FRANCIS MERSHMAN John of Salisbury John of Salisbury (JOHANNES DE SARESBERIA, surnamed PARVUS). Born about 1115; died 1180; a distinguished philosopher, historian, churchman, and scholar. Born near Salisbury, he went at an early age to Paris, where he studied arts and philosophy (1136-38) under Peter Abelard, Alberic of Reims, and Robert of Melun; then under William of Conches, Richard l'Evêque, and Theoderic of Chartres at the famous school at this latter town (1138-40); finally again at Paris, completing his studies in theology under Gilbert de La Porrée, Robert Pullus, and Simon of Poissy (1141-45). This solid education, under such brilliant masters, he perfected by some private teaching, perhaps with his lifelong friend Peter, Abbot of Moutier La Celle, near Troyes, with whom he was living in 1148. At the Council of Reims in this year, he was introduced to Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury, by St. Bernard. After spending a few years at the papal Court at Rome, whither he went from Reims with Pope Eugene III, he returned to England and acted as private secretary to Theobald for several years, during which period he was repeatedly sent on delicate and important diplomatic missions to the Holy See, in 1159 he had "ten times crossed the Alps on his road from England" (Metalogicus, iii, prol., p. 113). He was thus brought into intimate relations with princes and popes, especially with Henry II and his chancellor, Thomas à Becket, and with Pope Adrian IV, also an Englishman. In defending the rights of the Church, he incurred the kings displeasure in 1159 -- when his forced seclusion enabled him to complete his two principal works the "Policraticus" and the "Metalogicus", both dedicated to Thomas à Becket -- and again in 1163, when he was obliged to quit England. The next six years he spent with his friend Peter of La Celle, now Abbot of St. Remigius at Reims. Here he wrote "Historia Pontificalis". Thomas à Becket, who had succeeded Theobald as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1162, was soon obliged to follow John into exile. The latter steadily endeavoured to promote the cause of peace hetween the English king on the one hand and his archbishop and the Holy See on the other. Apparent success crowned those efforts in 1170, when both exiles returned. In a few months (29 Dec.) John witnessed the tragic murder of the saintly archbishop in the cathedral at Canterbury. In 1174 John became treasurer of Exeter cathedral. In 1176 he was appointed Bishop of Chartres. He attended the Third Lateran Council in 1179 and died the next year. He was interred in the monastery of St. Josaphat, near Chartres. John of Salisbury was one of the most cultured scholars of his day. Notwithstanding the engrossing cares of his diplomatic career, his great learning and indefatigable industry enabled him to carry on an extensive and lifelong correspondence on literary, educational, and ecclesiastical topics with the leading scholars of Europe. His collected letters (over 300 in number), no less than his other works, form an invaluable source of the history of thought and activity in the twefth century. His fine taste and superior training made him the most elegant Latin writer of his time. He is equally distinguished as an historian and as a philosopher: he was the first medieval writer to emphasize the importance of historical studies in philosophy and in all other branches of learning. Naturally of an eclectic turn, he displayed in philosophy a remarkably sound and judicious critical spirit. Familiar with all the phases of contemporary scholastic controversies, he was himself among the first to formulate clearly the solution known as "moderate realism" in answer to the fundamental philosophical problem of the value and significance of universal ideas. Works The "Metalogicus" is a philosophical treatise in four books, in defence of the study of logic and philosophy, against a group of obscurantists whom he nicknamed Cornificians. It is the first medieval treatise to show acquaintance with the whole of Aristotle's "organon". The "Policraticus", in eight books, deals, as its sub-title (De nugis curialium et vestigiis philosophorum) indicates, partly with philosophy and learning and readable miscellaneous compilation. The "Entheticus" (De dogmate philosophorum) is a Latin elegiac poem of 1852 lines, apparently intended as an introduction to the "Policraticus", and covering practically the same ground in briefer form. The authenticity of the "De Septem Septenis", a brief on the seven liberal arts, is doubted by Hauréau (Nouvelle Biographie Générale, xxv, 539, 1858) and Schaarschmidt (pp. 278 sq.) The "Historia Pontificalis" was first published by Arndt (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, xx, 517-45, 1868), and identified as the work of John, by Giesebrecht (Bay. Akad. d. Wissensch., Munich, 1873, 124). The actual MS. carries on the Gembloux continuation of Sigebert from 1148 to 1152. It was written about 1164, and dedicated to Peter of La Celle. John also wrote a "Vita Sti. Anselmi" (1163), a "Vita Sti. Thomae Cantuar." (1171), and the letters already referred to. All these works (except "Hist Pont.") were edited by Giles, 5 vols., London, 1848, reprinted in P.L. .CXCIX; "Policraticus, also ed. C.C.J. Webb (2 vols., Oxford, 1909). The materials for John's biography are contained mainly in his own letters and other works, and on the letters of Peter of La Celle. For John of Salisbury and the Bull "Laudabiliter", see ADRIAN IV. Materials for Hist. Thomas Becket, ed. ROBEBTSON AND SHEPPARD, (7 vols., R. S. London); SCHAARSCHMIDT, Jonnes Saresberiensis nach Leben und Studien, Schriftten und Philosophie (Leipzig, 1862), a good critical appreciation of John's attainments as a scholar, but biography needs modification; DEMIMUID, Jean de Salisbury (Paris, 1873), good on Correspondence; PAUILI in DOVE AND FRIEDBERG, Zeitschrift f. Kirchenrecht, XVI (1881), 271, POOLE, Illustrations of the History of Medieval Thought (London, 1884), IDEM in Dictionary of National Biography, s. v. NORGATE, England under the Angevin Kings (London, 1887), STUBBS, Lectures on the Study of Med. and Mod. Hist., I (London, 1886), vi and vii; WEBB in Proceedings of Aristotelean Society (London, 1894), p. 91; DE WULF, Histoire de la philosophie medievale (Louvain, 1905), pp. 217 sqq.; HAUREAU, Hist. philos. scol. (Paris, 1872); TURNER, History of Philosophy (Boston, 1903), 299 sqq. P. COFFEY John of Segovia John of Segovia A Spanish theologian, b. at Segovia towards the end of the fourteenth century; d. probably in 1458. Nothing is known of him before he took part in the Council of Basle, except that he was archdeacon at Villaviciosa, canon at Toledo, and professor of theology at the University of Salamanca. In 1432 the University of Salamanca and King John II of Castile sent him as their representative to the Council of Basle, where he was one of the ablest defenders of the superiority of the council over the pope. At first he endeavoured to mitigate the conflict between the council and Pope Eugene IV, with whom he spent some time at Florence in 1435, but afterwards he became one of the chief supporters of the revolutionary party at the council. He took part in the twenty-eighth session (1 October, 1437) at which Eugene IV was declared contumacious, and in the thirty-third session (16 May, 1439) at which the pope was declared a heretic. In March, l439, John of Segovia represented the council at the Diet of Mainz. After Eugene IV was deposed by the council on 25 June, 1439, John of Segovia was appointed one of the committee whose duty it was to select a number of theologians to elect the new pope. He was one of the thirty-three who on 5 November, 1439, elected the antipope Felix V. In recognition for his services he was created cardinal by the antipope on 12 October, 1440. He represented Felix V at the Parliament of Bourges in 1440, at the Diet of Mainz in 1441, and that of Frankfort in 1442. At the end of the schism in 1449 he resigned the cardinalate, was appointed titular Bishop of Caesarea by Eugene IV, and retired to a Spanish monastery. His most important literary work is an extensive history of the Council of Basle, "Historia generalis concilii Basiliensis. Libri XVIII", edited by Birk and Beer in "Monumenta conciliorum generalium saeculi deeimi quinti: Scriptor.", II-IV (Vienna, 1873-96). His other works are a treatise in favour of the Immaculate Conception of our Lady, printed at Brussels in 1664; a refutation of the Koran, entitled "De mittendo gladio in Saracenos"; a defense of the "Filioque" against the Greeks entitled "De processu Spiritus Sancti" (Basle, 1476); a Biblical concordance, "Concordantiae biblicae vocum indeclinabilium" (Basle, 1476); and a few works defending the superiority of a general council over the pope. ZIMMERMANN, Juan de Segovia (Breslau 1882), ANTONIO, Bibliotheca Hispana Vetus, II (Madrid. 1788), 225-34; HALLER, Concilium Basiliense, Studien und Dokumente, I (Basle, 1896), 19-52. MICHAEL OTT John of St. Thomas John of St. Thomas (Family name John Poinsot), theologian, born at Lisbon, 9 June, 1589; died at Fraga, Spain, 17 June, 1644. Of noble parentage, he was sent early to the University of Coimbra, displayed talents of the first order, completed his humanities and philosophy, and obtained the degree of Master of Arts. He then entered the University of Louvain. Here, too, he showed remarkable ability, and won the title of Bachelor of Theology at an early age. He joined the Dominicans at Madrid in 1612 or 1613, taking the name of John of St. Thomas, by which he is known to history. As professor of philosophy and theology in a monastery at Alcalá, he soon took rank amongthe most learned men of the time, and was placed successively (1630 and 1640) in charge of the two principal chairs of theology in the university of that city. His renown drew the largest number of scholars that had ever attended its theological faculties. No man enjoyed a greater reputation in Spain, or was more frequently consulted on points of doctrine and ecclesiastical matters. His theological and philosophical writings, which have gone through many editions, are among the best expositions of St. Thomas's doctrine, of which he is acknowledged to be one of the foremost interpreters. Though he took an active part in the scholastic discussions of his times, his courtesy was such that he is said never to have hurt an opponent's feelings. So faithful was he to the traditions of his order and the principles of the Angelic Doctor that in his last illness he could declare that, in all the thirty years he had devoted to teaching and writing, he had not taughtor written anything contrary to St. Thomas. His humility and his devotion to education caused him to refuse many dignities offered him by the Church and his order. In 1643 Philip IV offered him the office of royal confessor, a position which only religious obedience could induce him to accept. His writings comprise: "Cursus philosophicus Thomisticus" (9 vols.); "Cursus Theologicus" (9 vols.)--a commentary on the "Summa Theologica" of St. Thomas; "Tractatus de Approbatione, Auctoritate, et Puritate Doctrinae D. Thomae Aquinatis"; a "Compendium of Christian Doctrine" (in Spanish); and a "Treatise on a Happy Death" (in Spanish), written at the command of Philip IV. Quétif and Echard, Scriptores Ord. Praed., II (Paris, 1721), 538; Touron, Hommes illustres de l'ordre de St. Dominique, V (Paris, 1749), 248; Hurter, Nomenclator, I (2nd ed., Innsbruck, 1892), 375; Année Dominicaine, II June, 358-365. VICTOR F. O'DANIEL St. John of the Cross St. John of the Cross Founder (with St. Teresa) of the Discalced Carmelites, doctor of mystic theology, b. at Hontoveros, Old Castile, 24 June, 1542; d. at Ubeda, Andalusia, 14 Dec., 1591. John de Yepes, youngest child of Gonzalo de Yepes and Catherine Alvarez, poor silk weavers of Toledo, knew from his earliest years the hardships of life. The father, originally of a good family but disinherited on account of his marriage below his rank, died in the prime of his youth; the widow, assisted by her eldest son, was scarcely able to provide the bare necessities. John was sent to the poor school at Medina del Campo, whither the family had gone to live, and proved an attentive and diligent pupil; but when apprenticed to an artisan, he seemed incapable of learning anything. Thereupon the governor of the hospital of Medina took him into his service, and for seven years John divided his time between waiting on the poorest of the poor, and frequenting a school established by the Jesuits. Already at that early age he treated his body with the utmost rigour; twice he was saved from certain death by the intervention of the Blessed Virgin. Anxious about his future life, he was told in prayer that he was to serve God in an order the ancient perfection of which he was to help bring back again. The Carmelites having founded a house at Medina, he there received the habit on 24 February, 1563, and took the name of John of St. Matthias. After profession he obtained leave from his superiors to follow to the letter the original Carmelite rule without the mitigations granted by various popes. He was sent to Salamanca for the higher studies, and was ordained priest in 1567; at his first Mass he received the assurance that he should preserve his baptismal innocence. But, shrinking from the responsibilities of the priesthood, he determined to join the Carthusians. However, before taking any further step he made the acquaintance of St. Teresa, who had come to Medina to found a convent of nuns, and who persuaded him to remain in the Carmelite Order and to assist her in the establishment of a monastery of friars carrying out the primitive rule. He accompanied her to Valladolid in order to gain practi cal experience of the manner of life led by the reformed nuns. A small house having been offered, St. John resolved to try at once the new form of life, although St. Teresa did not think anyone, however great his spirituality, could bear the discomforts of that hovel. He was joined by two companions, an ex-prior and a lay brother, with whom he inaugurated the reform among friars, 28 Nov., 1568. St. Teresa has left a classical dscription of the sort of life led by these first Discalced Carmelites, in chaps.xiii and xiv of her "Book of Foundations". John of the Cross, as he now called himself, became the first master of novices, and laid the foundation of the spiritual edifice which soon was to assume majestic proportions. He filled various posts in different places until St. Teresa called him to Avila as director and confessor to the convent of the Incarnation, of which she had been appointed prioress. He remained there, with a few interruptions, for over five years. Meanwhile, the reform spread rapidly, and, partly through the confusion caused by contradictory orders issued by the general and the general chapter on one hand, and the Apostolic nuncio on the other, and partly through human passion which sometimes ran high, its existence became seriously endangered. St. John was ordered by his provincial to return to the house of his profession (Medina), and, on his refusing to do so, owing to the fact that he held his office not from the order but from the Apostolic delegate, he was taken prisoner in the night of 3 December, 1577, and carried off to Toledo, where he suffered for more than nine months close imprisonment in a narrow, stifling cell, together with such additional punishment as might have been called for in the case of one guilty of the most serious crimes. In the midst of his sufferings he was visited with heavenly consolations, and some of his exquisite poetry dates from that period. He made good his escape in a miraculous manner, August, 1578. During the next years he was chiefly occupied with the foundation and government of monasteries at Baeza, Granada, Cordova, Segovia, and elsewhere, but took no prominent part in the negotiations which led to the establishment of a separate government for the Discalced Carmelites. After the death of St. Teresa (4 Oct.,1582), when the two parties of the Moderates under Jerome Gratian, and the Zelanti under Nicholas Doria struggled for the upper hand, St. John supported the former and shared his fate. For some time he filled the post of vicar provincial of Andalusia, but when Doria changed the government of the order, concentrating all power in the hands of a permanent committee, St. John resisted and, supporting the nuns in their endeavour to secure the papal approbation of their constitutions, drew upon himself the displeasure of the superior, who deprived him of his offices and relegated him to one of the poorest monasteries, where he fell seriously ill. One of his opponents went so far as to go form to monastery gathering materials in order to bring grave charges against him, hoping for his expulsion from the order which he had helped to found. As his illness increased he was removed to the monastery of Ubeda, where he at first was treated very unkindly, his constant prayer, "to suffer and to be despised", being thus literally fulfilled almost to the end of his life. But at last even his adversaries came to acknowledge his sanctity, and his funeral was the occasion of a great outburst of enthusiasm. The body, still incorrupt, as has been ascertained within the last few years, was removed to Segovia, only a small portion remaining at Ubeda; there was some litigation about its possession. A strange phenomenon, for which no satisfactory explanation has been given, has frequently been observed in connexion with the relics of St. John of the Cross: Francis de Yepes, the brother of the saint, and after him many other persons have noticed the appearance in his relics of images of Christ on the Cross, the Blessed Virgin, St. Elias, St. Francis Xavier, or other saints, according to the devotion of the beholder. The beatification took place onb 25 Jan., 1675, the translation of his body on 21 May of the same year, and the canonization on 27 Dec., 1726. He left the following works, which for the first time appeared at Barcelona in 1619. 1. "The Ascent of Mount Carmel", an explanation of some verses beginning: "In a dark night with anxious love inflamed". This work was to have comprised four books, but breaks off in the middle of the third. 2. "The Dark Night of the Soul", another explanation of the same verses, breaking off in the second book. Both these works were written soon after his escape from prison, and, though incomplete, supplement each other, forming a full treatise on mystic theology. 3. An explanation of the "Spiritual Canticle", (a paraphrase of the Canticle of Canticles) beginning "Where hast Thou hidden Thyself?" composed part during his imprisonment, and completed and commented upon some years later at the request of Venerable Anne of Jesus. 4. An explanation of a poem beginning: "O Living Flame of Love", written about 1584 at the bidding of Dona Ana de Penalosa. 5. Some instructions and precautions on matters spiritual. 6. Some twenty letters, chiefly to his penitents. Unfortunately the bulk of his correspondence, including numerous letters to and from St. Teresa, was destroyed, partly by himself, partly during the persecutions to which he fell a victim. 7. "Poems", of which twenty-six have been hitherto published, viz., twenty in the older editions, and recently six more, discovered partly at the National Library at Madrid, and partly at the convent of Carmelite nuns at Pamplona. 8. "A Collection of Spiritual Maxims" (in some editions to the number of one hundred, and in others three hundred and sixty-five) can scarcely count as an independent work, as they are culled from his writings. It has been recorded that during his studies St. John particularly relished psychology; this is amply borne out by his writings. He was not what one would term a scholar, but he was intimately acquainted with the "Summa" of St. Thomas Aquinas, as almost every page of his works proves. Holy Scripture he seems to have known by heart, yet he evidently obtained his knowledge more by meditation than in the lecture room. But there is no vestige of influence on him of the mystical teaching of the Fathers, the Aeropagite, Augustine, Gregory, Bernard, Bonaventure, etc., Hugh of St. Victor, or the German Dominican school. The few quotations from patristic works are easily traced to the Breviary or the "Summa". In the absence of any conscious or unconscious influence of earlier mystical schools, his own system, like that of St. Teresa, whose influence is obvious throughout, might be termed empirical mysticism. They both start from their own experience, St. Teresa avowedly so, while St. John, who hardly ever speaks of himself, "invents nothing" (to quote Cardinal Wiseman), "borrows nothing from others, but gives us clearly the results of his own experience in himself and others. He presents you with a portrait, not with a fancy picture. He represents the ideal of one who has passed, as he had done, through the career of the spiritual life, through its struggles and its victories". His axiom is that the soul must empty itself of self in order to be filled with God, that it must be purified of the last traces of earthly dross before it is fit to become united with God. In the application of this simple maxim he shows the most uncompromising logic. Supposing the soul with which he deals to be habitually in the state of grace and pushing forward to better things, he overtakes it on the very road leading it, in its opinion to God, and lays open before its eyes a number of sores of which it was altogether ignorant, viz. what he terms the spiritual capital sins. Not until these are removed (a most formidable task) is it fit to be admitted to what he calls the "Dark Night", which consists in the passive purgation, where God by heavy trials, particularly interior ones, perfects and completes what the soul had begun of its own accord. It is now passive, but not inert, for by submitting to the Divine operation it co-operates in the measure of its power. Here lies one of the essential differences between St. John's mysticism and a false quietism. The perfect purgation of the soul in the present life leaves it free to act with wonderful energy: in fact it might almost be said to obtain a share in God's omnipotence, as is shown in the marvelous deeds of so many saints. As the soul emerges from the Dark Night it enters into the full noonlight described in the "Spiritual Canticle" and the "Living Flame of Love". St. John leads it to the highest heights, in fact to the point where it becomes a"partaker of the Divine Nature". It is here that the necessity of the previous cleansing is clearly perceived the pain of the mortification of all the senses and the powers and faculties of the soul being amply repaid by the glory which is now being revealed in it. St. John has often been represented as a grim character; nothing could be more untrue. He was indeed austere in the extreme with himself, and, to some extent, also with others, but both from his writings and from the depositions of those who knew him, we see in him a man overflowing with charity and kindness, a poetical mind deeply influenced by all that is beautiful and attractive. The best life of St. John of the Cross was written by JEROME DE SAN JOSÉ (Madrid, 1641), but, not being approved by the superiors, it was not incorporated in the chronicles of the order, and the author lost his position of annalist on account of it. BENEDICT ZIMMERMAN John of Victring John of Victring (JOHANNES VICTORENSIS or DE VICTORIA). Chronicler, b. probably between 1270 and 1280; d. at Victring, Austria, 12 November, 1347. Nothing is known of his early life. In 1307 he became abbot of the Cistercian monastery of Victring, in Karinthia (Austria), and was later both chaplain and confidential secretary to Duke Henry of Karinthia. On the latter's death in 1335, John journeyed to Linz at the request of the duke's daughter, Margaretha Maultasch, to defend before Louis IV her claims to her father's estates. But the two dukes, Albert II and Otto of Austria, took possession of the contested lands in her stead, and thus became the lords of Victring. They likewise soon learned to value the great ability of the abbot, and consulted him in all the more important matters of government. He frequently tarried in Vienna as their confidential secretary until 1341, when he withdrew finally to the quiet of his monastery to write the history of his own time. His chronicle, to which he himself gave the title of "Liber certarum historiarum," has come down to us under various forms. In its original form, as preserved in a manuscript at Munich, it is a history of Austria and Karinthia from 1231 to 1341, and is based for the earlier period on the rhyming chronicle of Ottocar of Styria, while the rest was written from data which he himself had collected in the course of his travels. This work was enlarged the following year (1342) into a chronicle of the empire, which began with the year 1217 (published by Boehmer, "Fontes rerum Germanicarum," I, 271-450; German translation by Friedensburg in the "Geschichtsschreiber der duetschen Vorzeit," Leipzig, 1888). Once more he rewrote it in 1343, and this time he began with the Carlovingian period. This revised work has only reached us through a later compilation, the so-called "Chronicon Anonymi Leobiensis," published by Pez, "Scriptores rerum Austriacarum," I, 751-966. John ranks among the most important chroniclers of the end of the Middle Ages. He was a very learned man and well acquainted with the Latin and Greek poets. His narrative is lucid, and his judgments on the events of his own time show great impartiality. He is influenced by Otto of Freising, and condemns in his chronicle the anti-Roman policy of Emperor Louis the Bavarian (1314-47). MAHRENHOLTZ, Ueber Johann von Victring als Historiker in Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte, XIII (Berlin, 1873), 535 sqq.; FORNIER, Abt Johann von Viktring (Berlin, 1874); IDEM in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, XIV (Munich, 1881), 476 sqq. PATRICIUS SCHLAGER John of Winterthur John of Winterthur (Johannes Vitoduranus.) Historian, born about 1300 atWinterthur (Switzerland); died subsequently to 1348, probably at Zurich. All that is known of his life is that he attended the school of his native town from 1309 to 1315, and that as a Franciscan he lived at Baslein 1328, at Villingen in 1336, and at Lindau from 1343 onwards. His chronicle (Chronicon a Friderico II Imperatore ad annum 1348) was at first published by Eccard, "Corpus hist. medii ævi", I (1723); a better rendition was provided by Füsslin, "Thesaurus historiæ Helveticæ" (1735), but the best edition was givenby Wyss in "Archiv für schweizerische Geschichte", XI (1856). It was translated into German by Freuler (Johannsvon Winterthur Chronik", 1866). It was begun in 1340, and is a full history of events to that year. His record of the following years consists of notes or annals; whether he revised it later, remains to this day a matter of uncertainty. It is at any rate a fruitful source of information on the first half of the fourteenth century, and gives us in particular a clear idea of the conflicts which arose between the cities and the nobles of Upper Swabia. At the same time it affords us a general view of events in the empire, especially of Louis the Bavarian's conduct toward the papacy and of the attitude assumed in these controversies by the Franciscan Order, which hechampioned with great ardour. He was a man of culture, well-versed in spiritual and in secular literature, but he not infrequently showed great credulity, and took delight in reporting at length the observations of others, which fact has made his work of great value to the history of civilization. Lorenz, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen, I (Berlin, 1886), 67-74; Meyervon Knonau in Anzeiger für Schweizer Geschichte, II (Zurich, 1870), 185; Idem in Historischer Zeitschrift, XXIX (Munich, 1800), 241. PATRICIUS SCHLAGER John Parvus John Parvus Called in his day, JEHAN PETIT or LE PETIT. A French theologian and professor in the University of Paris; b. most likely at Brachy, Caux, in Normandy, and certainly in the Diocese of Rouen, about 1360; d. 15 July, 1411. Some historians (Duboulay, Wadding) say he was a Friar Minor, others that he was a Dominican: as a matter of fact, he never was a member of any religious order. He owed his education to the generosity of the Duke of Burgundy, who granted him a pension. In the first extant document that records his name, he is called master of arts (16 August, 1385). Two years later his name occurs in the list sent by the University of Paris (31 July, 1387) to Pope Clement VII, recommending its masters for vacant benefices. The Church at that time was torn by the great Western Schism. France sided with Clement VII, but every one was anxious for reunion. John Parvus gave expression to this desire in his "Complainte de l'Eglise," a poem, which has been recently discovered in the National Library at Paris. This poem of 322 verses was composed in 1394. He had already written four others, the "Disputation des pastourelles" (1388), wherein he defends the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin; the "Livre du champ d'or"; the "Livre du miracle de Basqueville" (1389); and the "Vie de Monsieur saint Léonard," about the same time. The last three works have recently been published. They do not display much literary talent, but their sentiment is dignified and delicate; they offer an unflattering picture of the society of the day, and they form a useful contribution to the study of contemporary manners. He became a licentiate in theology in May, 1400, and received the degree of Doctor before 1403, since he is mentioned in that year on the roll of the university as an active member of the theological faculty of Paris. In April, 1407, he formed part of the imposing embassy sent by Charles VI to urge Benedict XIII and Gregory XII to abdicate and thus reunite Christendom. This embassy had just returned to Paris, after a fruitless journey, when an event took place that gave John Parvus a great notoriety in history. On 23 November, 1407, the Duke of Orléans, brother of King Charles VI, was murdered by assassins in the pay of John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy. The Duke of Orléans was unpopular with the people and was held responsible for the disorders and the taxations under which the kingdom groaned, during the madness of the king, his brother. The University of Paris was bitterly opposed to him for having renewed obedience to Benedict XIII. The Duke of Burgundy, on the contrary, was very popular; he was regarded as a friend of the commoners and an opponent of taxation and abuses, while the university was grateful to him for his lack of sympathy with the Avignon pope. Being excluded from the royal council after the assassination, he withdrew to his estates in Flanders, raised an army, and called around him several of the university professors, including John Parvus, who for three years had been attached to his suite and was receiving a pension from him. Reassured, doubtless, by the talents of his defender, he declared that he would go to Paris and justify himself. In vain the royal council forbade him to enter the capital; he came, and was received with acclamations by the populace. He demanded an audience with the king. It was granted him on 8 March, 1408, in the Hôtel de St-Paul, where the court habitually resided. There, in presence of the Dauphin, of the Duke of Anjou, King of Sicily, of Cardinal de Bar, of the Dukes of Berry, Brittany, Bar, and Lorraine, of the rector of the University of Paris, and of many counts, barons, knights, and citizens, John Parvus delivered on behalf of his client a pedantic address, bristling with propositions, syllogisms, Scriptural texts, and examples from Holy Writ. His argument may be expressed in the following syllogism: Whosoever is guilty of high treason and becomes a tyrant, deserves to be punished with death, all the more so when he is a near relative of the king; and in that case the natural, moral, and Divine laws allow any subject whatever, without any command or public authorization, to kill him or to have him killed openly, or by stealth; and the more closely the author of the slaying is related to the king the more meritorious the act. Now, the Duke of Orléans -- so ran the minor proposition -- a slave to the passion of greed, the source of all evil, was guilty of high treason, and was a tyrant; which was proved by holding him guilty of all the pretended crimes which popular imagination and the partisans of the Duke of Burgundy laid to his charge. The conclusion was therefore that the Duke of Burgundy not only should not be punished or blamed for what had been done to the Duke of Orléans, but rather should be rewarded. This thesis seemed preposterous to the more rational members of the assembly; but the Duke of Burgundy was present with his troops, ready to suppress any attempt at reply, and further he was in the good graces of the university; so he had no difficulty in obtaining letters of pardon from the king. As for John Parvus, who in his address was not ashamed to admit that he was receiving, and expected still to receive, a pension from the Duke of Burgundy, he found it more prudent to withdraw from Paris and retire to the estate of the Duke of Burgundy at Hesdin, Artois, where he died in a house of his protector, regretting, it is said, that he had ever allowed himself to defend such a proposition. The interest it excited was not to die with him. As long as the Duke of Burgundy was all-powerful in Paris, the argument could not be attacked publicly, but when he was expelled, Gerson, in a sermon delivered before the king, strongly denounced seven propositions of John Parvus as heretical and scandalous (1413). Shortly afterwards the king asked the Bishop of Paris, Gerard de Montaigu, and the inquisitor of France to examine them and to take whatever action they judged proper -- without however mentioning the name of John Parvus. The bishop and the inquisitor with sixty doctors went into what was called a "Council of the Faith." After several sittings the speech of John Parvus and nine propositions, said to have been extracted from it, were condemned (23 February, 1414) by decree of the Bishop of Paris and of the inquisitor, and the book containing them was publicly burnt three days later. In the month of March following, the Duke of Burgundy appealed from the decision of the Bishop of Paris to Pope John XXIII. The pontiff entrusted the investigation to three cardinals. On the other hand, Gerson and the ambassadors of the King of France brought the affair before the council. At this juncture, Pope John XXIII left Constance (20 March, 1415) and withdrew from the council, while the King of France and the Duke of Burgundy made peace by the Treaty of Arras (22 February, 1415). Thereupon Charles VI ordered his representatives to take no action at the council against John Parvus, provided the Duke of Burgundy would also let the matter rest. Gerson broke the agreement by trying to obtain from the council a declaration that the writings of John Parvus contained numerous errors in matters of faith. The Duke of Burgundy replied by a letter in which, while disavowing the general principles that formed the major proposition of the argument of John Parvus, he maintained that the propositions condemned by the Bishop of Paris were not contained in the discourse. Thereupon the three cardinals, entrusted with the duke's appeal, cited the Bishop of Paris to appear before them, and as he failed to do so, they reversed his decision, declaring at the same time that they did not intend thereby to approve of the propositions condemned by him, but only wished to do justice to the Duke of Burgundy, who had not been heard at the trial. From that moment the trial of John Parvus became the battleground of the ambassadors of France and of the Duke of Burgundy, and even of the Emperor Sigismund. The council had no intention of lending its authority to any political party, and in its fifteenth session, 6 July, 1415, contented itself with a general condemnation of tyrannicide as upheld in the following proposition: "A tyrant may be licitly and meritoriously, and rightly put to death by any vassal or subject, even by resorting to secret plots, adulation, and feigned friendship, notwithstanding any oath of fealty to him or treaty concluded with him, without any judicial decree or order." But John Parvus was not mentioned and the council avoided saying that any such proposition was contained in his address, and no further decision was pronounced by the council on the particular case of John Parvus. After securing the condemnation of John Parvus in August, 1416, King Charles VI two years later disavowed Gerson and his supporters (6 October, 1418), and on 3 November, 1418, he rehabilitated John Parvus and annulled the sentences pronounced against him. This perhaps was the fairest settlement of the case against him. His venal and odious defence of the assassination is worthy of all censure, but in justice it must be admitted that the propositions attributed to him by his adversaries are not contained in his discourse, at least in the form in which it has reached us. BULAEUS, Historia Universitatis Parisiensis (Paris, 1770); GERSON, Opera, ed. DUPIN, V (Antwerp, 1706); HELLOT, Nobles et vilains, le miracle de Basqueviue, d'apres les poesies inedites de Jean Petit (Paris, 1895); LE VERDIER, Le livre du champ d'or et autres poemes inedits de Me Jean Le Petit (Paris, 1896); BESS, Zur Geschichte des Constanzer Konzils, Studien I, Frankreichs Kirchenpolitik und der Prozess des Jean Petit (Marburg, 1894); VALOIS, La France et le grand schisms d'Occident, III and IV (Paris, 1902): DENIFLE, Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, III and IV (Paris, 1893, 1897); MANSI, Sac. conciliorum collectio, XXVII (Venice, 1784). ANTOINE DEGERT Bl. John Payne Bl. John Payne Born in the Diocese of Peterborough; died at Chelmsford, 2 April, 1582. He went to Douai in 1574, was ordained priest by the Archbishop of Cambrai on 7 April, 1576, and left for England with Blessed Cuthbert Mayne on 24 April. He resided for the most part with Anne, widow of Sir William Petre, and daughter of Sir William Browne, sometime Lord Mayor of London, at Ingatestone, Essex, but also in London. Shortly after his arrival he reconciled George Godsalve, B.A. Oxon., a Marian deacon, of Bath diocese, whom he sent to Douai to be prepared for the priesthood, which he received at Cambrai on 20 December, 1576. John was arrested and imprisoned early in 1577, but, being not long afterwards discharged, came back to Douai in November. He probably returned to Ingatestone before Christmas, 1579. Early in July, 1581, he and Godsalve, who had come to England in June, 1577, were arrested in Warwickshire through the instrumentality of "Judas" Eliot, and, after being examined by Walsingham at Greenwich, were committed to the Tower on 14 July. There Blessed John was racked on 14 August, and again on 31 October. Eliot had accused him of plotting to kill the queen and her three most trusted statesmen. On this charge he was indicted at Chelmsford on 23 March, and, though no attempt was made to corroborate Eliot's story, the jury gave the verdict expected of them. At his execution the crowd interfered to prevent the infliction of the last barbarities until he was dead. Camm, Lives of the English Martyrs (London, 1904-5), II, 424; Allen, A Briefe Historie, ed. Pollen (London, 1908). JOHN B. WAINWRIGHT Bl. John Rochester Bl. John Rochester Priest and martyr, born probably at Terling, Essex, England, about 1498; died at York, 11 May, 1537. He was the third son of John Rochester, of Terling, and Grisold, daughter of Walter Writtle, of Bobbingworth. He joined the Carthusians, was a choir monk of the Charterhouse in London, and strenuously opposed the new doctrine of the royal supremacy. He was arrested and sent a prisoner to the Carthusian convent at Hull. From there he was removed to York, where he was hung in chains. With him there suffered one James Walworth (?Wannert; Walwerke), Carthusian priest and martyr, concerning whom little or nothing is known. He may have been the "Jacobus Walwerke" who signed the Oath of Succession of 1534. John Rochester was beatified in 1888 by Leo XIII. His elder brother, Sir Robert Rochester, K.G. (b. about 1494; d. 28 Nov., 1557), was a zealous Catholic. Before 1551 he had received the appointment of comptroller of the household to Princess Mary Tudor. In that year the Privy Council ordered him to prevent any priest saying Mass in the princess's household, but he refused to interfere in any way with her private devotions, and was accordingly sent to the Tower. The next year he was allowed to retire to the country on account of his health, and was soon permitted to take up the post of comptroller once more. When the princess ascended the throne as Mary I, she remembered Rochester's faithful service. He was made chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; and he entered the inner circle of the Privy Council. He was one of the parliamentary representatives of Essex, 1553-5. He was buried at the Charterhouse at Sheen. Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v. Rochester, John; Chauncy, Hist. aliquot Martyrum Anglorum . . . Cartusianorum (Montreuil and London, 1888); Morris, The Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers (1st series, London, 1872); Pollard, in Dict. Nat. Biog.., s.v. Rochester, Sir Robert. C.F. WEMYSS BROWN Bl. John Sarkander Bl. John Sarkander Martyr of the seal of confession, born at Skotschau in Austrian Silesia, 20 Dec., 1576; died at Olmütz, 17 March, 1620. In 1603 he merited the title of master of philosophy at Prague, and after four years' study of theology was ordained priest at Graz. He exercised his sacred functions in several places in the Diocese of Olmütz, and was made parish priest (1613) of Boskowitz, and (1616) of Holeschau in Moravia. Since the fifteenth century the sects of the Hussites and of the Bohemian (or United) Brethren had spread rapidly and taken possession of the churches and institutions of the Catholics, but when (1604) Ladislaus Poppel of Lobkowitz bought the estates of Holleschau, he gave the church to the Catholics, and made a Jesuit college out of the house occupied by the Bohemian Brethren. With the aid of the Jesuits, John Sarkander converted two hundred and fifty of the strayed sheep, but thereby drew upon himself the hatred of the neighbouring landlord, Bitowsky of Bistritz. In 1618 the Protestants took control of Moravia, and John left Holleschau, made a pilgrimage to the shrine of Our Lady of Czentoschau and passed a few weeks of retreat with the Minims, who had a house there. He spent some months at Krakow and (1619) returned to Holleschau. In February of the following year the Polish auxiliary troops sent to the emperor by King Sigismund, passed through Moravia and committed many depredations on the lands of the Protestants, but spared Holleschau when John met them with the Blessed sacrament in his hands. Bitowsky threw suspicions upon John Sarkander as if he, in conspiracy with Lobkowitz, had brought the enemy into the territory. John was taken prisoner and brought to Olmütz. The commission appointed for the trial was made up entirely of Protestants, but the Catholic city judge Johann Scintilla was forced to attend. He made a report of the whole transaction to the bishop, Franz Cardinal von Dietrichstein (1625). The questions put were: who had called the troops into the country; what underhand dealings John had practiced in Poland; what had been confided to him by Lobkowitz, whose confessor he was, and whose secret plans he therefore knew. Because John would not violate the secrets of the holy tribunal the rack was used on 13, 17 and 18 February. On each of the latter days the torture lasted for two and three hours, lighted candles and feathers soaked in oil, pitch, and sulphur were strewn over his body and ignited. He lingered from the effects for a month and died in prison. The people immediately began to venerate John sarkander and to ask for his beatification. The process was opened under Benedict XIV but was interrupted. It was brought to a close by Pius IX, who pronounced the solemn beatification 6 May, 1860. The relics are in an altar dedicated to his name in the cathedral of Olmütz. Birkowski (Krakow, 1628); Positio super martyrio etc. (Rome, 1825); Liverani, Della vita e passione del Ven. Servo di Dio, Giov. Sarcander (Rome, 1855); Luksch in Kirchenlex., s. v. Sarkander, Hist. polit. Blätter, XXXI, 239. FRANCIS MERSHMAN John Scholasticus John Scholasticus ( ho Scholastikos; also called John of Antioch) Patriarch of Constantinople (John III, 565-77), the author of an important collection of ecclesiastical laws; b. at Sirimis near Antioch; d. 577. Of his life there is little to say. He had been a lawyer before his ordination. He then became a priest in the Antiochene patriarchate; he was sent by his patriarch as legate (apocrisarius) to Constantinople in the reign of Justinian I (527-65). In 565 Eutychius I of Constantinople was deposed, and John succeeded him. When John died in 577, Eutychius was restored. Before his elevation to the patriarchate John had already made a collection of canons. There were such collections in use before his time; at first the decrees of the more important synods had been put together in loose collections, such as the "Codex canonum" used by the Council of Chalcedon (451). Since the fifth century these collections had increased, and at last attempts were made to replace the merely chronological order by a systematic one. Of such systematic arrangements that of John Scholasticus was, if not absolutely the first, at any rate the first of any importance. Between the years 540 and 560 he made what he called Synagogy kanonon. Pope Nicholas I (858-67), writing to Photius, alludes to it as "Concordia canonum." The work contained fifty titles, each with the canons concerning the subject of the title. For instance, the first title is: "Of the honour towards patriarchs ordained by the Canons." This is established by canons vii and vi of Nicaea, ii of Constantinople I, viii of Ephesus. Altogether the compiler quotes the Apostolic canons, those of ten synods, and sixty-eight canons from St. Basil's second and third letters to Amphilochius. It is the first attempt to collect canons from the letters of Fathers. The first edition contains 377 canons, arranged under fifty titles. After he became patriarch, John III enlarged his collection to sixty titles, and added to it eighty-seven chapters from the "Novellae" of Justinian. Towards the end of the sixth century another author added twenty-five more chapters taken from both the Codex and the "Novellae," concerning civil laws that affect Church matters. So the collection grew till it was finally enlarged into the "Nomocanon" of Photius. VOELLUS AND JUSTELLUS, Bibliotheca iuris canonici veteris, II (Paris, 1661), 499-602, contains the text of the Concordia canonum; HEIMBACH, 'Anekdota, II (Leipzig, 1840), 202-34, re-edits the text with variants and additions; PITRA, Iuris eccles. Graecorum historia, II (Rome, 1868), 368 sqq.: HERGENROETHER, Das griechische Kirchenrecht in Archiv fuer katholisches Kirchenrecht, XXIII (1870), 208 sqq.; IDEM, Photius, III (Ratisbon, 1869), 92-9; LE QUIEN, Oriens Chrisianus, I (Paris, 1740), 225. ADRIAN FORTESCUE Richard Malcolm Johnston Richard Malcolm Johnston Educator, author, b. 8 March, 1822, at Powellton, Georgia, U.S.A.; d. at Baltimore, Maryland, 23 September, 1898. His father was a Baptist minister, and his early education was received at a country school and finished at Mercer College. After graduating there he spent a year teaching and then took up the study of law and was admitted to the Bar in 1843. In 1857, he accepted an appointment to the chair of belles-lettres in the State University of Georgia, retaining it until the opening of the Civil War, when he began a school for boys on his farm near Sparta. This he kept going during the war, serving also for a time on the staff of General J.E. Brown, and helping to organize the state militia. At the close of the war he moved to Maryland, where he opened the Penn Lucy School for boys near Baltimore. One of his teaching staff here was the poet Sidney Lanier, who persuaded him to begin to write for publication, although he was then over fifty years old. His first stories were sent to the "Southern Magazine"; others to "The Century" followed, and became immediately popular. He had the knack of story-telling that depicted the homely children of the soil, quaint characters that filled the memories of his youth, and he embalmed their fading images with facility and a faithful regard to accuracy that preserved the bourgeois type of old Middle Georgia. His style was serene and facile, mingling humour with moral philosophy. As a critic he had poetic sympathy with wise discrimination. Johnston became a Catholic in 1875, accepting the truth after long hesitation. His wife Frances Manfield, of old New England stock, had been received into the Church six months previously. He relates that he was thirty years old when he first saw a priest, and that his first investigations into the Faith were during the "Know-Nothing" campaign of 1855, when he read some of Bishop England's and Newman's works to confute a political opponent. With his conversion the attendance at his school, which was long associated with Baptist patronage, declined, and he gave it up and devoted himself entirely to literature -- his popularity as a story writer having steadily increased -- and to lecturing on literary topics. His published works include: "Dukesborough Tales" (1871-81), in which the impressions of his early school days in Georgia were elaborated; "Old Mark Langston" (1884); "Two Gray Tourists" (1885); "Mr. Absolom Billingslea and Other Georgia Folks" (1888); "The Primes" (1891); "Widow Guthrie" (1890); "Ogeechee Cross Firings" (1889); "Old Times in New Georgia" (1897); a "Life of Alexander H. Stephens" with whom he had been associated in law practice (1878). A collection of "Essays" was published in 1881 and he prepared a "Historical Sketch of English Literature" (1872), a text-book for advanced students, used in Johns Hopkins University, and other institutions at which he gave lecture courses. ARMSTRONG, in The Catholic World Magazine (New York, November, 1898); ALLIBONE, Dictionary of Authors, supplement, s.v.; National Cyclopoedia of American Biography, s.v.; The Catholic News (New York, September, 1898), files. THOMAS F. MEEHAN Bl. John Stone Bl. John Stone English martyr, executed at the Dane-John, Canterbury, probably in December, 1539, for denying the royal supremacy. He was an Austin Friar of Canterbury, and a doctor of divinity. He is probably the Austin Friar of whom Bishop Ingworth complained on 14 December, 1538, that "at all times he still held and still desired to die for it, that the king may not be head of the Church of England". When in prison before his martyrdom "after an uninterrupted fast of three days, he heard a voice, but without seeing the presence of anyone, calling him by name and exhorting him to be of good courage and not to hesitate to suffer with constancy for the truth of the opinion which he had professed". Camm, Lives of the English Martyrs, I (London, 1904-5), 269; Gasquet, Henry VIII and the English Monasteries (London, 1906); Stanton, Menology of England and Wales (London and New York, 1887), 228, 647. JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT Bl. John Story Bl. John Story ( Or Storey.) Martyr; born 1504; died at Tyburn, 1 June, 1571. He was educated at Oxford, and was president of Broadgates Hall, now Pembroke College, from 1537 to 1539. He entered Parliament as member for Hindon, Wilts, in 1547, and was imprisoned for opposing the Bill of Uniformity, 24 Jan.-2 March, 1548-9. On his release he retired with his family to Louvain, but after the accession of Queen Mary he returned to England (Aug., 1553), and became chancellor to Bishop Bonner.From 1553 to 1560 he sat for one or other parliamentary division of Wiltshire, and in the latter year he incurred the displeasure of Elizabeth for his outspoken opposition to the Bill of Supremacy. He was committed to the Fleet, 20 May, 1560, but escaped, was re-arrested and imprisoned in the Marshalsea (1563). He once more made good his escape to Antwerp, where he renounced his English allegiance and became a Spanish subject. Under the Duke of Alva he held a position in the customs of Flanders until August, 1570, when he was kidnapped at Bergen-op-Zoon by Cecil's agents. He was brought to London and imprisoned in the Tower, where he was frequently racked, and on 26 May, 1571, he was indicted in Westminster Hall for having conspired against the queen's life and for having while at Antwerp assisted the Northern rebels. The saintly martyr bore his tortures with fortitude, asserted over and over his innocence of the charges, but refused to make any further plea, on the ground that he was a Spanish subject, and that consequently his judges had no jurisdiction. The spectacle of this trial moved Edmund Campion, who was present in the Hall, to reconsider his own position and opened his eyes to his duty as a Catholic. Blessed John Story was condemned 27 May, and spent his last night in the Tower, preparing for a death which his persecutors made as barbarously cruel as it was possible. Camm, Lives of the English Martyrs, II (London, 1904-5), 14; Pollard in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v. JOHN B. WAINESWRIGHT John Talaia John Talaia Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria (481-482) at the time of the Monophysite troubles. He had been a monk in the Canopis and administrator (megas oikonomos) of the diocese under the Patriarch Timothy Salofaciolus, who had sent him with Gennadius of Hermopolis as legate to the Emperor Zeno (474-491). Zeno was on very good terms with John Talaia, in whom every one foresaw the future Patriarch of Alexandria (Evagrius, "H.E.," III, xii; Felix III, Ep. i, 10, ii, 4, in Thiel, "Epist. Rom. Pont.," Braunsberg, 1867). It was said by his enemies that he was vain and ambitious, that he spent large sums of money in bribing courtiers and behaved as if he were already patriarch. He quarrelled with Acacius of Constantinople (471-489) however, who became his implacable enemy. Acacius afterwards said that Talaia had sworn that he would not accept the patriarchate. Just before his death, Timothy Salofaciolus again sent John Talaia to Constantinople with the petition that when he, Timothy, died he might have a Catholic (Chalcedonian) successor. This time, too, Talaia enjoyed the Emperor's favour. Zeno promised all he asked and spoke with great admiration of Timothy's pious legate. But Talaia ignored Acacius, who shut himself up and awaited his chance of revenge. Talaia made friends among the courtiers, ingratiating himself especially with a certain Illus, administrator of the palace. As soon as Timothy died (481) the Catholics of Alexandria chose John Talaia to succeed him. Unfortunately the new patriarch then offended the emperor and gave Acacius his chance. He announced his succession at once to Rome and Antioch, according to custom. But he sent no announcement to the Patriarch of Constantinople, only writing to Illus begging him to tell the emperor. Illus was away at Antioch; so people at Constantinople heard the news before the official announcement arrived. This Zeno took as a personal affront. Acacius stepped in to take advantage of the situation. He persuaded Zeno that Talaia had broken his oath in accepting election and had advised his clergy to restore the name of the great Monophysite champion, Dioscorus, to their diptychs. This accusation was sheer calumny. Talaia was always unimpeachably orthodox. Zeno then refused to acknowledge Talaia and supported his rival Peter Mongus. Peter Mongus (Moggos, hoarse) was a Monophysite who had already been set up as patriarch by his party when Timothy Ailuros died (477). During the life of Salofaciolus he had not made much headway; but now he was again brought forward by the Monophysites as rival patriarch to Talaia. Acacius had formerly been an enemy of Mongus; now he and the emperor supported him. The situation was further complicated by the publication of the famous "Henoticon" (482), by which Zeno and Acacius hoped to conciliate the Monophysites (see HENOTICON). Peter Mongus accepted it at once, whereas Talaia rejected it. Zeno then wrote to the pope (Simplicius, 463-483), saying that Talaia was unworthy of the See of Alexandria, being a perjurer and friend of Dioscorus, that Mongus was the right man to be patriarch. A result of this letter was that the Holy See did not at once acknowledge Talaia. But the pope answered the emperor, refusing to admit Mongus as patriarch in any case. Zeno, however, ordered the governor (dux) of Egypt to expel Talaia and establish Mongus in his place. Mongus then sent notice of his succession to Rome, Antioch, and Constantinople. Acacius acknowledged him and inserted his name in the Byzantine diptychs. Talaia, expelled from Alexandria, fled to Rome in 483. He there explained the whole situation to the pope and persuaded him to write two letters to Acacius denouncing Mongus. So also he was the adviser of the next pope, Felix II (or III, 483-492), in the great controversy about Mongus and the "Henoticon" that led to the Acacian schism. Mongus from this time became the great subject of dispute. Communion with him meant Monophysitism. John Talaia practically disappeared from the field. He stayed at Rome under the pope's protection (always of course opposed to Mongus and the "Henoticon") helping the papal court with his advice and knowledge of Eastern affairs. Liberatus thinks he became Bishop of Nolana in the Campagna, Le Quien thinks this unlikely (Oriens Christ., IL 419). Under Gelasius 1 (492-496) Talaia's name still occurs as that of a counsellor whose advice the pope willingly followed. He was never able to go back to his own see and died at Rome at a date unknown. It may be of interest to note that Paul Drews ("Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Kanons in der rõm. Messe," Tübingen, 1902) attributes the present arrangement of the Canon of the Mass in some measure to John Talaia of Alexandria. His thesis is this: Originally the order of the Canon corresponded to the Antiochene Anaphora. It was re-arranged in the fifth century to make it conform more or less to the Alexandrine Liturgy, most probably by Gelasius I by the advice of his influential guest (op. cit., p. 38). LE QUIEN, Oriens Christianus, II (Paris, 1740), 417-419. All the histories of Monophysitism and the Acacian schism contain some account of Talaia. LIBERATUS, Breviarium causoe Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum in P.L., LXVIII, 963-1052; EVAGRIUS, Historia ecclesiastica, III, xii sqq., in P.G., LXXXVI; HEFELE-LECLERQ, Histoire des Conciles, II (Paris, 1908), 916-930: HERGENROETHER, Handbuch der allgem. Kirchengeschichte, I (4th ed., Freiburg, 1902), 587-589. ADRIAN FORTESCUE St. John the Almsgiver St. John the Almsgiver (JOANNES ELEEMOSYNARIUS; JOANNES MISERICORS). Patriarch of Alexandria (606-16), b. at Amathus in Cyprus about 550; d. there, 616. He was the son of one Epiphanius, governor of Cyprus, and was of noble descent; in early life he was married and had children, but they and his wife soon died, whereupon he entered the religious life. On the death of the Patriarch Theodorus, the Alexandrians besought Emperor Phocas to appoint John his successor, which was accordingly done. In his youth John had had a vision of a beautiful maiden with a garland of olives on her head, who said that she was Compassion, the eldest daughter of the Great King. This had evidently made a deep impression on John's mind, and, now that he had the opportunity of exercising benevolence on a large scale, he soon became widely known all over the East for his munificent liberality towards the poor. One of the first steps he took was to make a list of several thousand needy persons, whom he took under his especial care. He always referred to the poor as his "lords and masters", because of their mighty influence at the Court of the Most High. He assisted people of every class who were in need. A shipwrecked merchant was thus helped three times, on the first two occasions apparently without doing him much good; the third time however, John fitted him out with a ship and a cargo of wheat, and by favourable winds he was taken as far as Britain, where, as there was a shortage of wheat, he obtained his own price. Another person, who was not really in need, applied for alms and was detected by the officers of the palace; but John merely said "Give unto him; he may be Our Lord in disguise." He visited the hospitals three times every week, and he freed a great many slaves. He was a reformer who attacked simony, and fought heresy by means of improvements in religious education. He also reorganized the system of weights and measures for the sake of the poor, and put a stop to corruption among the officials. He increased the number of churches in Alexandria from seven to seventy. John is said to have devoted the entire revenues of his see to the alleviation of those in need. A rich man presented him with a magnificent bed covering; he accepted it for one night, but then sold it, and disposed of the money in alms. The rich man "bought in" the article, and again presented it to John, with the same result. This was repeated several times; but John drily remarked: "We will see who tires first." It was not John. Another instance of his piety was that he caused his own grave to be dug, but only partly so, and appointed a servant to come before him on all state occasions and say "My Lord, your tomb is unfinished; pray give orders for its completion, for you know not the hour when death may seize you." When the Persians sacked Jerusalem in 614, John sent large supplies of food, wine, and money to the fleeing Christians. But eventually the Persians occupied Alexandria, and John himself in his old age was forced to flee to his native country, where he died. His body was brought to Constantinople, thence to Ofen by King Matthias Corvinus of Hungary; thence in 1530 to Toll near Presburg, and finally in 1632 to Presburg cathedral. He was the original patron saint of the Hospitallers, and was commemorated by the Greeks on 12 Nov. His life, written by Leontius of Neapolis, in Cyprus, was translated into Latin by Anastasius the Librarian in the ninth century and was referred to at the Seventh General Council. SCHR=99DL in Kirchenlex., s.v. Johannes, der Almosengeber; BUTLER, Lives of the Saints; Acta SS., II Jan., 495 sqq.; DAVIDSON in Dict. Christ. Biog., s.v. Joannes (15); MIGNE, P.G., XCIII, CXVII; LEQUIEN, Oriens Christ., II, 445; PALAFOX Y MENDOZA, Vida de S. Juan (Madrid, 1762). C.F. WEMYSS BROWN St. John the Baptist St. John the Baptist The principal sources of information concerning the life and ministry of St. John the Baptist are the canonical Gospels. Of these St. Luke is the most complete, giving as he does the wonderful circumstances accompanying the birth of the Precursor and items on his ministry and death. St. Matthew's Gospel stands in close relation with that of St. Luke, as far as John's public ministry is concerned, but contains nothing in reference to his early life. From St. Mark, whose account of the Precursor's life is very meagre, no new detail can be gathered. Finally, the fourth Gospel has this special feature, that it gives the testimony of St. John after the Saviour's baptism. Besides the indications supplied by these writings, passing allusions occur in such passages as Acts, xiii, 24; xix, 1-6; but these are few and bear on the subject only indirectly. To the above should be added that Josephus relates in his Jewish Antiquities (XVIII, v, 2), but it should be remembered that he is woefully erratic in his dates, mistaken in proper names, and seems to arrange facts according to his own political views; however, his judgment of John, also what he tells us regarding the Precursor's popularity, together with a few details of minor importance, are worthy of the historian's attention. The same cannot be said of the apocryphal gospels, because the scant information they give of the Precursor is either copied from the canonical Gospels (and to these they can add no authority), or else is a mass of idle vagaries. Zachary, the father of John the Baptist, was a priest of the course of Abia, the eighth of the twenty-four courses into which the priests were divided (I Par., xxiv, 7-19); Elizabeth, the Precursor's mother, "was of the daughters of Aaron", according to St. Luke (I, 5); the same Evangelist, a few verses farther on (I, 26), calls her the "cousin" (syggenis) of Mary. These two statements appear to be conflicting, for how, it will be asked, could a cousin of the Blessed Virgin be "of the daughters of Aaron"? The problem might be solved by adopting the reading given in an old Persian version, where we find "mother's sister" (metradelphe) instead of "cousin". A somewhat analogous explanation, probably borrowed from some apocryphal writing, and perhaps correct, is given by St. Hippolytus (in Nicephor., II, iii). According to him, Mathan had three daughters: Mary, Soba, and Ann. Mary, the oldest, married a man of Bethlehem and was the mother of Salome; Soba married at Bethlehem also, but a "son of Levi", by whom she had Elizabeth; Ann wedded a Galilean (Joachim) and bore Mary, the Mother of God. Thus Salome, Elizabeth, and the Blessed Virgin were first cousins, and Elizabeth, "of the daughters of Aaron" on her father's side, was, on her mother's side, the cousin of Mary. Zachary's home is designated only in a vague manner by St. Luke: it was "a city of Juda", "in the hill-country" (I, 39). Reland, advocating the unwarranted assumption that Juda might be a misspelling of the name, proposed to read in its stead Jutta (Jos., xv, 55; xxi, 16; D.V.; Jota, Jeta), a priestly town south of Hebron. But priests did not always live in priestly towns (Mathathias's home was at Modin; Simon Machabeus's at Gaza). A tradition, which can be traced back to the time before the Crusades, points to the little town of Ain-Karim, five miles south-west of Jerusalem. The birth of the Precursor was announced in a most striking manner. Zachary and Elizabeth, as we learn from St. Luke, "were both just before God, walking in all the commandments and justifications of the Lord without blame; and they had no son, for that Elizabeth was barren" (i, 6-7). Long they had prayed that their union might be blessed with offspring; but, now that "they were both advanced in years", the reproach of barrenness bore heavily upon them. "And it came to pass, when he executed the priestly function in the order of his course before God, according to the custom of the priestly office, it was his lot to offer incense, going into the temple of the Lord. And all the multitude of the people was praying without, at the hour of incense. And there appeared to him an angel of the Lord, standing on the right side of the altar of incense. And Zachary seeing him, was troubled, and fear fell upon him. But the angel said to him: Fear not, Zachary, for thy prayer is heard; and they wife Elizabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John: and thou shalt have joy and gladness, and many shall rejoice in his nativity. For he shall be great before the Lord; and shall drink no wine nor strong drink: and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. And he shall convert many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias; that he may turn the hearts of the fathers unto the children, and the incredulous to the wisdom of the just, to prepare unto the Lord a perfect people" (i, 8-17). As Zachary was slow in believing this startling prediction, the angel, making himself known to him, announced that, in punishment of his incredulity, he should be stricken with dumbness until the promise was fulfilled. "And it came to pass, after the days of his office were accomplished, he departed to his own house. And after those days, Elizabeth his wife conceived, and hid herself five months" (i, 23-24). Now during the sixth month, the Annunciation had taken place, and, as Mary had heard from the angel the fact of her cousin's conceiving, she went "with haste" to congratulate her. "And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant" -- filled, like the mother, with the Holy Ghost -- "leaped for joy in her womb", as if to acknowledge the presence of his Lord. Then was accomplished the prophetic utterance of the angel that the child should "be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb". Now as the presence of any sin whatever is incompatible with the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the soul, it follows that at this moment John was cleansed from the stain of original sin. When "Elizabeth's full time of being delivered was come,. . .she brought forth a son" (i, 57); and "on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child, and they called him by his father's name Zachary. And his mother answering, said: Not so, but he shall be called John. And they said to her: There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name. And they made sign to his father, how he would have him called. And demanding a writing table, he wrote, saying: John is his name. And they all wondered" (i, 59-63). They were not aware that no better name could be applied (John, Hebr.; Jehohanan, i.e. "Jahweh hath mercy") to him who, as his father prophesied, was to "go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; to give knowledge of salvation to his people, unto remission of their sins: through the bowels of the mercy of our God" (i, 76- 78). Moreover, all these events, to wit, a child born to an aged couple, Zachary's sudden dumbness, his equally sudden recovery of speech, his astounding utterance, might justly strike with wonderment the assembled neighbours; these could hardly help asking: "What an one, think ye, shall this child be?" (i, 66). As to the date of the birth of John the Baptist, nothing can be said with certainty. The Gospel suggests that the Precursor was born about six months before Christ; but the year of Christ's nativity has not so far been ascertained. Nor is there anything certain about the season of Christ's birth, for it is well known that the assignment of the feast of Christmas to the twenty-fifth of December is not grounded on historical evidence, but is possibly suggested by merely astronomical considerations, also, perhaps, inferred from astronomico-theological reasonings. Besides, no calculations can be based upon the time of the year when the course of Abia was serving in the Temple, since each one of the twenty- four courses of priests had two turns a year. Of John's early life St. Luke tell us only that "the child grew, and was strengthened in spirit; and was in the deserts, until the day of his manifestation to Israel" (i, 80). Should we ask just when the Precursor went into the wilderness, an old tradition echoed by Paul Warnefried (Paul the Deacon), in the hymn, "Ut queant laxis", composed in honour of the saint, gives an answer hardly more definite than the statement of the Gospel: "Antra deserti teneris sub annis. . .petiit . . ." Other writers, however, thought they knew better. For instance, St. Peter of Alexandria believed St. John was taken into the desert to escape the wrath of Herod, who, if we may believe report, was impelled by fear of losing his kingdom to seek the life of the Precursor, just as he was, later on, to seek that of the new-born Saviour. It was added also that Herod on this account had Zachary put to death between the temple and the altar, because he had prophesied the coming of the Messias (Baron., "Annal. Apparat.", n. 53). These are worthless legends long since branded by St. Jerome as "apocryphorum somnia". Passing, then, with St. Luke, over a period of some thirty years, we reach what may be considered the beginning of the public ministry of St. John (see CHRONOLOGY, BIBLICAL). Up to this he had led in the desert the life of an anchorite; now he comes forth to deliver his message to the world. "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caeser. . .the word of the Lord was made unto John, the son of Zachary, in the desert. And he came into all the country about the Jordan, preaching" (Luke, iii, 1-3), clothed not in the soft garments of a courtier (Matt., xi, 8; Luke, vii, 24), but in those "of camel's hair, and a leather girdle about his loins"; and "his meat" -- he looked as if he came neither eating nor drinking (Matt., xi, 18; Luke, vii, 33)-"was locusts and wild honey" (Matt. iii, 4; Mark, i, 6); his whole countenance, far from suggesting the idea of a reed shaken by the wind (Matt., xi, 7; Luke, vii, 24), manifested undaunted constancy. A few incredulous scoffers feigned to be scandalized: "He hath a devil" (Matt. xi, 18). Nevertheless, "Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the country about Jordan" (Matt., iii, 5), drawn by his strong and winning personality, went out to him; the austerity of his life added immensely to the weight of his words; for the simple folk, he was truly a prophet (Matt., xi, 9; cf. Luke, i, 76, 77). "Do penance: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt., iii, 2), such was the burden of his teaching. Men of all conditions flocked round him. Pharisees and Sadducees were there; the latter attracted perhaps by curiosity and scepticism, the former expecting possibly a word of praise for their multitudinous customs and practices, and all, probably, more anxious to see which of the rival sects the new prophet would commend than to seek instruction. But John laid bare their hypocrisy. Drawing his similes from the surrounding scenery, and even, after the Oriental fashion, making use of a play on words (abanimbanium), he lashed their pride with this well-deserved rebuke: "Ye brood of vipers, who hath shewed you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of penance. And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham for our father. For I tell you that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham. For now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that doth not yield good fruit, shall be cut down, and cast into the fire" (Matt., iii, 7-10; Luke, iii, 7-9). It was clear something had to be done. The men of good will among the listeners asked: "What shall we do?" (Probably some were wealthy and, according to the custom of people in such circumstances, were clad in two tunics.-Joseph., "Antiq.", XVIII, v, 7). "And he answering, said to them: He that hath two coats, let him give to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do in like manner" (Luke, iii, 11). Some were publicans; on them he enjoined not to exact more than the rate of taxes fixed by law (Luke, iii, 13). To the soldiers (probably Jewish police officers) he recommended not to do violence to any man, nor falsely to denounce anyone, and to be content with their pay (Luke, iii, 14). In other words, he cautioned them against trusting in their national privileges, he did not countenance the tenets of any sect, nor did he advocate the forsaking of one's ordinary state of life, but faithfulness and honesty in the fulfillment of one's duties, and the humble confession of one's sins. To confirm the good dispositions of his listeners, John baptized them in the Jordan, "saying that baptism was good, not so much to free one from certain sins [cf. St. Thom., "Summ. Theol.", III, A. xxxviii, a. 2 and 3] as to purify the body, the soul being already cleansed from its defilements by justice" (Joseph., "Antiq.", XVIII, vii). This feature of his ministry, more than anything else, attracted public attention to such an extent that he was surnamed "the Baptist" (i. e. Baptizer) even during his lifetime (by Christ, Matt., xi, 11; by his own disciples, Luke, vii, 20; by Herod, Matt., xiv, 2; by Herodias, Matt., xiv, 3). Still his right to baptize was questioned by some (John, i, 25); the Pharisees and the lawyers refused to comply with this ceremony, on the plea that baptism, as a preparation for the kingdom of God, was connected only with the Messias (Ezech., xxxvi, 25; Zach., xiii, 1, etc.), Elias, and the prophet spoken of in Deut., xviii, 15. John's reply was that he was Divinely "sent to baptize with water" (John, i, 33); to this, later on, our Saviour bore testimony, when, in answer to the Pharisees trying to ensnare him, he implicitly declared that John's baptism was from heaven (Mark, xi, 30). Whilst baptizing, John, lest the people might think "that perhaps he might be the Christ" (Luke, iii, 15), did not fail to insist that his was only a forerunner's mission: "I indeed baptize you with water; but there shall come one mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to loose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: whose fan is in his hand and he will purge his floor; and will gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire" (Luke, iii, 16, 17). Whatever John may have meant by this baptism "with fire", he, at all events, in this declaration clearly defined his relation to the One to come. Here it will not be amiss to touch on the scene of the Precursor's ministry. The locality should be sought in that part of the Jordan valley (Luke, iii, 3) which is called the desert (Mark, i, 4). Two places are mentioned in the Fourth Gospel in this connection: Bethania (John, i, 28) and Ennon (A. V. AEnon, John, iii, 23). As to Bethania, the reading Bethabara, first given by Origen, should be discarded; but the Alexandrine scholar perhaps was less wrong in suggesting the other reading, Bethara, possibly a Greek form of Betharan; at any rate, the site in question must be looked for "beyond the Jordan" (John, i, 28). The second place, Ennon, "near Salim" (John, iii, 23), the extreme northern point marked in the Madaba mosaic map, is described in Eusebius's "Onomasticon" as being eight miles south of Seythopolis (Beisan), and should be sought probably at Ed-Deir or El-Ftur, a short distance from the Jordan (Lagrange, in "Revue Biblique", IV, 1895, pp. 502-05). Moreover, a long-standing tradition, traced back to A.D. 333, associates the activity of the Precursor, particularly the Baptism of the Lord, with the neighbourhood of Deir Mar-Yuhanna (Qasr el- Yehud). The Precursor had been preaching and baptizing for some time (just how long is not known), when Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan, to be baptized by him. Why, it might be asked, should He "who did no sin" (I Pet., ii, 22) seek John's "baptism of penance for the remission of sins" (Luke, iii, 3)? The Fathers of the Church answer very appropriately that this was the occasion preordained by the Father when Jesus should be manifested to the world as the Son of God; then again, by submitting to it, Jesus sanctioned the baptism of John. "But John stayed him, saying: I ought to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me?" (Matt., iii, 14). These words, implying, as they do, that John knew Jesus, are in seeming conflict with a later declaration of John recorded in the Fourth Gospel: "I knew him not" (John, i, 33). Most interpreters take it that the Precursor had some intimation of Jesus being the Messias: they assign this as the reason why John at first refused to baptize him; but the heavenly manifestation had, a few moments later, changed this intimation into perfect knowledge. "And Jesus answering, said to him: Suffer it to be so now. For so it becometh us to fulfil all justice. Then he suffered him. And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him. . .And, behold, a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matt., iii, 15-17). After this baptism, while Jesus was preaching through the towns of Galilee, going into Judea only occasionally for the feast days, John continued his ministry in the valley of the Jordan. It was at this time that "the Jews sent from Jerusalem priests and Levites to him, to ask him: Who are thou? And he confessed, and did not deny: and he confessed: I am not the Christ. And they asked him: What then? Art thou Elias? And he said: I am not. Art thou the prophet? And he answered: No. They said, therefore, unto him: Who are thou, that we may give an answer to them that sent us? What sayest thou of thyself? He said: I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Isaias" (John, i, 19-23). John denied he was Elias, whom the Jews were looking for (Matt., xvii, 10; Mark, ix, 10). Nor did Jesus admit it, though His words to His disciples at first sight seem to point that way; "Elias indeed shall come, and restore all things. But I say to you, that Elias is already come" (Matt., xvii, 11; Mark, ix, 11-12). St. Matthew notes "the disciples understood, that he had spoken to them of John the Baptist" (Matt., xvii, 13). This was equal to saying, "Elias is not to come in the flesh." But, in speaking of John before the multitude, Jesus made it plain that he called John Elias figuratively: "If you will receive it, he is Elias that is to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear" (Matt., xi, 14, 15). This had been anticipated by the angel when, announcing John's birth to Zachary, he foretold that the child would go before the Lord "in the spirit and power of Elias" (Luke, i, 17). "The next day, John saw Jesus coming to him and he saith: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said: After me there cometh a man, who is preferred before me: because he was before me. . .that he may be made manifest in Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.. ..And I knew him not; but he who sent me to baptize with water, said to me: He upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining upon him, he it is that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and I gave testimony, that this is the Son of God" (John, i, 20-34). Among the many listeners flocking to St. John, some, more deeply touched by his doctrine, stayed with him, thus forming, as around other famous doctors of the law, a group of disciples. These he exhorted to fast (Mark, ii, 18), these he taught special forms of prayer (Luke, v, 33; xi, 1). Their number, according to the pseudo-Clementine literature, reached thirty (Hom. ii, 23). Among them was Andrew of Bethsaida of Galilee (John, i, 44). One day, as Jesus was standing in the distance, John, pointed Him out, repeated his previous declaration: "Behold the Lamb of God". Then Andrew, with another disciple of John, hearing this, followed Jesus (John, i, 36-38). The account of the calling of Andrew and Simon differs materially from that found in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke; yet it should be noticed that St. Luke, in particular, so narrates the meeting of the two brothers with the Saviour, as to let us infer they already knew Him. Now, on the other hand, since the Fourth Evangelist does not say that Andrew and his companions forthwith left their business to devote themselves exclusively to the Gospel or its preparation, there is clearly no absolute discordance between the narration of the first three Gospels and that of St. John. The Precursor, after the lapse of several months, again appears on the scene, and he is still preaching and baptizing on the banks of the Jordan (John, iii, 23). Jesus, in the meantime, had gathered about Himself a following of disciples, and He came "into the land of Judea: and there He abode with them, and baptized" (John, iii, 22), -- "though Jesus himself did not baptize, but his disciples" (John, iv, 2). -- "There arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews [the best Greek texts have "a Jew"] concerning purification" (John, iii, 25), that is to say, as is suggested by the context, concerning the relative value of both baptisms. The disciples of John came to him: "Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond the Jordan, to whom thou gavest testimony, behold he baptizeth, and all men come to him" (John, iii, 26-27). They undoubtedly meant that Jesus should give way to John who had recommended Him, and that, by baptizing, He was encroaching upon the rights of John. "John answered and said: A man cannot receive anything, unless it be given him from heaven. You yourselves do bear me witness, that I said, I am not Christ, but that I am sent before him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, who standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth with joy because of the bridegroom's voice. This my joy, therefore, is fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease. He that cometh from above, is above all. He that is of the earth, of the earth he is, and of the earth he speaketh. He that cometh from heaven, is above all. And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth. . ." (John, iii, 27-36). The above narration recalls the fact before mentioned (John, i, 28), that part of the Baptist's ministry was exercised in Perea: Ennon, another scene of his labours, was within the borders of Galilee; both Perea and Galilee made up the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas. This prince, a son worthy of his father Herod the Great, had married, likely for political reasons, the daughter of Aretas, king of the Nabathaeans. But on a visit to Rome, he fell in love with his niece Herodias, the wife of his half-brother Philip (son of the younger Mariamne), and induced her to come on to Galilee. When and where the Precursor met Herod, we are not told, but from the synoptic Gospels we learn that John dared to rebuke the tetrarch for his evil deeds, especially his public adultery. Herod, swayed by Herodias, did not allow the unwelcome reprover to go unpunished: he "sent and apprehended John and bound him in prison". Josephus tell us quite another story, containing perhaps also an element of truth. "As great crowds clustered around John, Herod became afraid lest the Baptist should abuse his moral authority over them to incite them to rebellion, as they would do anything at his bidding; therefore he thought it wiser, so as to prevent possible happenings, to take away the dangerous preacher. . .and he imprisoned him in the fortress of Machaerus" (Antiq., XVIII, v, 2). Whatever may have been the chief motive of the tetrarch's policy, it is certain that Herodias nourished a bitter hatred against John: "She laid snares for him: and was desirous to put him to death" (Mark, vi, 19). Although Herod first shared her desire, yet "he feared the people: because they esteemed him as a prophet" (Matt., xiv, 5). After some time this resentment on Herod's part seems to have abated, for, according to Mark, vi, 19,20, he heard John willingly and did many things at his suggestion. John, in his fetters, was attended by some of his disciples, who kept him in touch with the events of the day. He thus learned of the wonders wrought by Jesus. At this point it cannot be supposed that John's faith wavered in the least. Some of his disciples, however, would not be convinced by his words that Jesus was the Messias. Accordingly, he sent them to Jesus, bidding them say: "John the Baptist hath sent us to thee, saying: Art thou he that art to come; or look we for another? (And in that same hour, he cured many of their [the people's] diseases, and hurts, and evil spirits; and to many that were blind he gave sight.) And answering, he said to them: Go and relate to John what you have hard and seen: the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are made clean, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, to the poor the gospel is preached: and blessed is he whosoever shall not be scandalized in me" (Luke, vii, 20-23; Matt., xi, 3-6). How this interview affected John's disciples, we do not know; but we do know the encomium it occasioned of John from the lips of Jesus: "And when the messengers of John were departed, he began to speak to the multitudes concerning John. What went ye out into the desert to see? A reed shaken with the wind?" All knew full well why John was in prison, and that in his captivity he was more than ever the undaunted champion of truth and virtue.-"But what went you out to see? A man clothed in soft garments? Behold they that are in costly apparel, and live delicately, are in the houses of kings. But what went you out to see? A prophet? Yea, I say to you, and more than a prophet. This is he of whom it is written: Behold, I send my angel before they face, who shall prepare thy way before thee. For I say to you: Amongst those that are born of women, there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist" (Luke, vii, 24-28). And continuing, Jesus pointed out the inconsistency of the world in its opinions both of himself and his precursor: "John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and you say: He hath a devil. The Son of man is coming eating and drinking: and you say: Behold a man that is a glutton and a drinker of wine, a friend of publicans and sinners. And wisdom is justified by all her children" (Luke, vii, 33-35). St. John languished probably for some time in the fortress of Machaerus; but the ire of Herodias, unlike that of Herod, never abated: she watched her chance. It came at the birthday feast which Herod, after Roman fashion, gave to the "princes, and tribunes, and chief men of Galilee. And when the daughter of the same Herodias [Josephus gives her name: Salome] had come in, and had danced, and pleased Herod and them that were at table with him, the king said to the damsel: Ask of me what thou wilt, and I will give it thee. . .Who when she was gone out, said to her mother, what shall I ask? But she said: The head of John the Baptist. And when she was come in immediately with haste to the king, she asked, saying: I will that forthwith thou give me in a dish, the head of John the Baptist. And the king was struck sad. Yet because of his oath, and because of them that were with him at table, he would not displease her: but sending an executioner, he commanded that his head should be brought in a dish: and gave it to the damsel, and the damsel gave it to her mother" (Mark, vi, 21-28). Thus was done to death the greatest "amongst them that are born of women", the prize awarded to a dancing girl, the toll exacted for an oath rashly taken and criminally kept (St. Augustine). At such an unjustifiable execution even the Jews were shocked, and they attributed to Divine vengeance the defeat Herod sustained afterwards at the hands of Aretas, his rightful father-in-law (Joseph., loc. cit.). John's disciples, hearing of his death, "came, and took his body, and laid it in a tomb" (Mark, vi, 29), "and came and told Jesus" (Matt., xiv, 12). The lasting impression made by the Precursor upon those who had come within his influence cannot be better illustrated than by mentioned the awe which seize upon Herod when he heard of the wonders wrought by Jesus who, in his mind, was not other than John the Baptist come to life (Matt., xiv, 1, 2, etc.). The Precursor's influence did not die with him. It was far-reaching, too, as we learn from Acts, xviii, 25; xix, 3, where we find that proselytes at Ephesus had received from Apollo and others the baptism of John. Moreover, early Christian writers speak of a sect taking its name from John and holding only to his baptism. The date of John the Baptist's death, 29 August, assigned in the liturgical calendars can hardly be relied upon, because it is scarcely based upon trustworthy documents. His burial-place has been fixed by an old tradition at Sebaste (Samaria). But if there be any truth in Josephus's assertion, that John was put to death at Machaerus, it is hard to understand why he was buried so far from the Herodian fortress. Still, it is quite possible that, at a later date unknown to us, his sacred remains were carried to Sebaste. At any rate, about the middle of the fourth century, his tomb was there honoured, as we are informed on the testimony of Rufinus and Theodoretus. These authors add that the shrine was desecrated under Julian the Apostate (c. A.D. 362), the bones being partly burned. A portion of the rescued relics were carried to Jerusalem, then to Alexandria; and there, on 27 May, 395, these relics were laid in the gorgeous basilica just dedicated to the Precursor on the site of the once famous temple of Serapis. The tomb at Sebaste continued, nevertheless, to be visited by pious pilgrims, and St. Jerome bears witness to the miracles there wrought. Perhaps some of the relics had been brought back to Sebaste. Other portions at different times found their way to many sanctuaries of the Christian world, and long is the list of the churches claiming possession of some part of the precious treasure. What became of the head of the Precursor is difficult to determine. Nicephorus (I, ix) and Metahrastes say Herodias had it buried in the fortress of Machaerus; others insist that it was interred in Herod's palace at Jerusalem; there it was found during the reign of Constantine, and thence secretly taken to Emesa, in Phoenicia, where it was concealed, the place remaining unknown for years, until it was manifested by revelation in 453. In the many and discordant relations concerning this relic, unfortunately much uncertainty prevails; their discrepancies in almost every point render the problem so intricate as to baffle solution. This signal relic, in whole or in part, is claimed by several churches, among them Amiens, Nemours, St-Jean d'Angeli (France), S. Silvestro in Capite (Rome). This fact Tillemont traces to a mistaking of one St. John for another, an explanation which, in certain cases, appears to be founded on good grounds and accounts well for this otherwise puzzling multiplication of relics. The honour paid so early and in so many places to the relics of St. John the Baptist, the zeal with which many churches have maintained at all times their ill-founded claims to some of his relics, the numberless churches, abbeys, towns, and religious families placed under his patronage, the frequency of his name among Christian people, all attest the antiquity and widespread diffusion of the devotion to the Precursor. The commemoration of his Nativity is one of the oldest feasts, if not the oldest feast, introduced into both the Greek and Latin liturgies to honour a saint. But why is the feast proper, as it were, of St. John on the day of his nativity, whereas with other saints it is the day of their death? Because it was meant that the birth of him who, unlike the rest, was "filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb", should be signalized as a day of triumph. The celebration of the Decollation of John the Baptist, on 29 August, enjoys almost the same antiquity. We find also in the oldest martyrologies mention of a feast of the Conception of the Precursor on 24 September. But the most solemn celebration in honour of this saint was always that of his Nativity, preceded until recently by a fast. Many places adopted the custom introduced by St. Sabas of having a double Office on this day, as on the day of the Nativity of the Lord. The first Office, intended to signify the time of the Law and the Prophets which lasted up to St. John (Luke, xvi, 16), began at sunset, and was chanted without Alleluia; the second, meant to celebrate the opening of the time of grace, and gladdened by the singing of Alleluia, was held during the night. The resemblance of the feast of St. John with that of Christmas was carried farther, for another feature of the 24th of June was the celebration of three masses: the first, in the dead of night, recalled his mission of Precursor; the second, at daybreak, commemorated the baptism he conferred; and the third, at the hour of Terce, honoured his sanctity. The whole liturgy of the day, repeatedly enriched by the additions of several popes, was in suggestiveness and beauty on a part with the liturgy of Christmas. So sacred was St. John's day deemed that two rival armies, meeting face to face on 23 June, by common accord put off the battle until the morrow of the feast (Battle of Fontenay, 841). "Joy, which is the characteristic of the day, radiated from the sacred precincts. The lovely summer nights, at St. John's tide, gave free scope to popular display of lively faith among various nationalities. Scared had the last rays of the setting sun died away when, all the world over, immense columns of flame arose from every mountain-top, and in an instant, every town, and village, and hamlet was lighted up" (Guéranger). The custom of the "St. John's fires", whatever its origin, has, in certain regions, endured unto this day. Besides the Gospels and the Commentaries thereon, JOSEPHUS and the many Lives of Christ, EUSEBIUS, Hist. Eccl., I, xi; Acta pour servir a l'histoire eccles., I (Brussels, 1732), 36-47; notes p. 210-222; HOTTINGER, Historia Orientalis (Zurich, 1660), 144-149; PACIANDI, De cultu J. Baptistae in Antiq. Christ., III (Rome, 1755); LEOPOLD, Johannes der Taufer (Lubeck, 1838); CHIARAMONTE, Vita di San Giovanni Battista (Turin, 1892); YESTIVEL, San Juan Bautista (Madrid, 1909). CHARLES L. SOUVAY John the Deacon John the Deacon ( Johannes Diaconus). Among the writers of the Middle Ages who bear this name, four historians deserve particular mention on account of the importance of their work. In chronological order they are as follows: (1) John, deacon of Rome, date of birth unknown; d. before 882. Johannes, surnamed Hymonides, was towards the middle of the ninth century a monk of Monte Cassino, and later a deacon of the Roman Church. Possessed of no inconsiderable learning, he was closely associated with the learned Anastasius, Librarian of the Roman Church (d. 879), and at the instance of John VII (872-82) wrote a life of St. Gregory the Great, making use of the works of this pope and of extracts made at an earlier date from the pope's letters in the archives of the Roman Church. The work is divided into four books: in the first he gives an account of the life of Gregory up to the time of his pontificate; in the second, of his activities as pope; in the third, of his teachings; and in the fourth, of his progress in perfection. The life is edited by Mabillon ("Acta SS. ord. S. Benedicti", I, 398-496; "Acta SS.", March, II, 137-211; P.L., LXXV, 50 sqq.). He intended to write also a detailed history of the Church, and at his request the aforesaid Anastasius compiled a history in three parts (tripartita) from Greek sources for the use of John, whose purpose, however, was never executed. On the invitation of Bishop Gaudericus of Velletri (867-79), he undertook to re-edit the "Gesta Clementis", a life of Clement I (d. about end of first century), but did not live to finish the work, which Gaudericus undertook to complete, though it never appeared in full. It is said that in the Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris there is yet in manuscrip a short commentary on the Heptateuch based on patristic sources and written by this John. A letter from a certain Johannes Diaconus to Senarius, "vir illustris", treats of the ceremonies of baptism; it is not however, the work of the John treated here, but of an older deacon of this name (ed. P.L., LIX, 399-408). (2) John, deacon of Naples, d. after 910. This deacon, or head of a diaconia at the church of St. Januarius of Naples, flourished towards the end of the ninth and the beginning of the tenth century, and from his writings appears to have been a very learned and accomplished cleric. We owe to him several historical works, which are among the most important sources of information for the history of his time. He first wrote a contiuation of the diocesan history of his time. He first wrote a continuation of the diocesan history of Naples (Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum), begun by another cleric, but which he brings down from 762 to 872. He makes use of both written and oral tradition, and contributes from personal knowledge. The narrative is graphic and spirited, and impresses the reader as a frank and accurate story (ed. Waitz in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script. Langobardorum", 398 sqq.; ed. Capasso, "Monumenta ad Neapolitani ducatus historiam pertinentia", I, Naples, 1881, pp. 307 sqq.). He also wrote a history of the translation in the fifth century of the remains of St. Severinus, the Apostle of Noricum, from the Castellum Lucullanum near Naples to a new monastery within the city. This work contains the important account of the destruction of Taormina in Sicily by the Saracens under Ibrahim, and of the martyrdom of Bishop Procopius (ed. "Acta SS.", January, I, 1098 sqq.; ed. Waitz in "Mon. Germ. Hist.", loc. cit., 452-9). When in 910 the relics of St. Sossius, a companion of St. Januarius, were transferred from the ruined Messina to the same monastery at Naples, John wrote a history of St. Januarius and his companions, in which as an eyewitness he describes the aforesaid transfer (Acta SS., Sept., VI, 874 sqq.; the text of the "Translatio" alone is found in Waitz, loc. cit., 459-63). A biography of St. Nicholas of Mira (ed. Cardinal Mai in "Spicilegium Romanum", IV, 323 sqq.) is not by this John but by another author of the same name. (3) John, deacon of Venice, d. after 1008. The oldest chronicle of Venice, formerly known as the "Chronicon Sagonini", was compiled by a deacon John, the chaplain and perhaps a relative of Doge Peter II Urseolus (991-1009). John enjoyed the confidence of this great doge, and was often sent as his ambassador to Emperors Otto III and Henry II. In the first part of his chronicle, which deals with the early period of the republic, the narrative is often confused and deficient; later it becomes more accurate and complete, and for the time in which the writer himself lived it is particularly valuable. He carries the narrative to 1008 and treats in detail of the reign of Doge Peter Urseolus [ed. Pertz, "Mon. Germ. Hist.: SS.", VII, 1-36; ed. Monticolo, "Cronache Veneziane antichissime", I (1890), 59-171, in "Fonti per la storia d' Italia", IX]. John has also been credited, but erroneously, with the "Chronicon Gradense", which is in the manuscripts usually given with "Chronicon Venetum". (4) John, a Roman deacon, lived in the second half of the twelfth century. This deacon and canon of the Lateran compiled a work on this papal basilica, and dedicated it, in the preface, to Alexander III (1159-81), thereby indicating the date of its composition. It was obviously a secondary object of the author in composing this work to support the cannons of the Lateran in their dispute for precedence with the canons of St. Peter's (ed. Mabillon, "Iter Italicum", II, 560-76; P.L., CXCIV, 1543-50). (1) HURTER, Nomenclator, I (3rd ed, Innsbruck, 1903), 858; WATTENBACH, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter, I (7th ed., Berlin, 1904), 338; MABILLON, Museum Italicum, I, II, 78 sq.; Florilegium Bibliothecae Casiniensis, IV, 373-90; FRIEDRICH in Sitzungsberichte der Munchener Akademie der Wiss. (1892), 393-442; POTTHAST, Bibl. histor. medii aevi, II, 1349. (2)HURTER, Nomenclator, I (3rd ed.), 889 sqq.; WATTENBACH, Geschichtsquellen, I (7th ed.), 341; Ebert, Allgem. Gesch. der Literatur des Mittelalters im Abendland, III (1887), 206-9; POTTHAST, Bibl. Hist., I, 666. (3) HURTER, Nomenclatur, I (3rd ed.), 963; WATTENBACH, Geschichtsquellen, I, 485; KOHLSCHUTTER, Venedig unter Herzog Peter II Orseolo (Gottingen, 1886); MONTICOLO, La Cronaca del Diacono Giovanni (Pistoia, 1882); POTTHAS, Bibl. hist., I (2nd ed.), 666. (4) HURTER, Nomenclatur, II (3rd ed.), 150; DE ROSSI, Inscriptiones Christianae urbis Romae, II (Rome, 1888), 195-305. J.P. KIRSCH St. John the Evangelist St. John the Evangelist I. New Testament Accounts II. The Alleged Presbyter John III. The Later Accounts of John IV. Feasts of St. John V. St. John in Christian Art I. NEW TESTAMENT ACCOUNTS John was the son of Zebedee and Salome, and the brother of James the Greater. In the Gospels the two brothers are often called after their father "the sons of Zebedee" and received from Christ the honourable title of Boanerges, i.e. "sons of thunder" (Mark, iii, 17). Originally they were fishermen and fished with their father in the Lake of Genesareth. According to the usual and entirely probable explanation they became, however, for a time disciples of John the Baptist, and were called by Christ from the circle of John's followers, together with Peter and Andrew, to become His disciples (John, i, 35-42). The first disciples returned with their new Master from the Jordan to Galilee and apparently both John and the others remained for some time with Jesus (cf. John ii, 12, 22; iv, 2, 8, 27 sqq.). Yet after the second return from Judea, John and his companions went back again to their trade of fishing until he and they were called by Christ to definitive discipleship (Matt., iv 18-22; Mark, i, 16-20). In the lists of the Apostles John has the second place (Acts, i, 13), the third (Mark, iii, 17), and the fourth (Matt., x, 3; Luke, vi, 14), yet always after James with the exception of a few passages (Luke, viii, 51; ix, 28 in the Greek text; Acts, i, 13). From James being thus placed first, the conclusion is drawn that John was the younger of the two brothers. In any case John had a prominent position in the Apostolic body. Peter, James, and he were the only witnesses of the raising of Jairus's daughter (Mark, v, 37), of the Transfiguration (Matt., xvii, 1), and of the Agony in Gethsemani (Matt., xxvi, 37). Only he and Peter were sent into the city to make the preparation for the Last Supper (Luke, xxii, 8). At the Supper itself his place was next to Christ on Whose breast he leaned (John, xiii, 23, 25). According to the general interpretation John was also that "other disciple" who with Peter followed Christ after the arrest into the palace of the high-priest (John, xviii, 15). John alone remained near his beloved Master at the foot of the Cross on Calvary with the Mother of Jesus and the pious women, and took the desolate Mother into his care as the last legacy of Christ (John, xix, 25-27). After the Resurrection John with Peter was the first of the disciples to hasten to the grave and he was the first to believe that Christ had truly risen (John, xx, 2-10). When later Christ appeared at the Lake of Genesareth John was also the first of the seven disciples present who recognized his Master standing on the shore (John, xxi, 7). The Fourth Evangelist has shown us most clearly how close the relationship was in which he always stood to his Lord and Master by the title with which he is accustomed to indicate himself without giving his name: "the disciple whom Jesus loved". After Christ's Ascension and the Descent of the Holy Spirit, John took, together with Peter, a prominent part in the founding and guidance of the Church. We see him in the company of Peter at the healing of the lame man in the Temple (Acts, iii, 1 sqq.). With Peter he is also thrown into prison (Acts, iv, 3). Again, we find him with the prince of the Apostles visiting the newly converted in Samaria (Acts, viii, 14). We have no positive information concerning the duration of this activity in Palestine. Apparently John in common with the other Apostles remained some twelve years in this first field of labour, until the persecution of Herod Agrippa I led to the scattering of the Apostles through the various provinces of the Roman Empire (cf. Acts, xii, 1-17). Notwithstanding the opinion to the contrary of many writers, it does not appear improbable that John then went for the first time to Asia Minor and exercised his Apostolic office in various provinces there. In any case a Christian community was already in existence at Ephesus before Paul's first labours there (cf. "the brethren", Acts, xviii, 27, in addition to Priscilla and Aquila), and it is easy to connect a sojourn of John in these provinces with the fact that the Holy Ghost did not permit the Apostle Paul on his second missionary journey to proclaim the Gospel in Asia, Mysia, and Bithynia (Acts, xvi, 6 sq.). There is just as little against such an acceptation in the later account in Acts of St. Paul's third missionary journey. But in any case such a sojourn by John in Asia in this first period was neither long nor uninterrupted. He returned with the other disciples to Jerusalem for the Apostolic Council (about A.D. 51). St. Paul in opposing his enemies in Galatia names John explicitly along with Peter and James the Less as a "pillar of the Church", and refers to the recognition which his Apostolic preaching of a Gospel free from the law received from these three, the most prominent men of the old Mother-Church at Jerusalem (Gal., ii, 9). When Paul came again to Jerusalem after the second and after the third journey (Acts, xviii, 22; xxi, 17 sq.) he seems no longer to have met John there. Some wish to draw the conclusion from this that John left Palestine between the years 52 and 55. Of the other New-Testament writings, it is only from the three Epistles of John and the Apocalypse that anything further is learned concerning the person of the Apostle. We may be permitted here to take as proven the unity of the author of these three writings handed down under the name of John and his identity with the Evangelist. Both the Epistles and the Apocalypse, however, presuppose that their author John belonged to the multitude of personal eyewitnesses of the life and work of Christ (cf. especially I John, i, 1-5; iv, 14), that he had lived for a long time in Asia Minor, was thoroughly acquainted with the conditions existing in the various Christian communities there, and that he had a position of authority recognized by all Christian communities as leader of this part of the Church. Moreover, the Apocalypse tells us that its author was on the island of Patmos "for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus", when he was honoured with the heavenly Revelation contained in the Apocalypse (Apoc., i, 9). II. THE ALLEGED PRESBYTER JOHN The author of the Second and Third Epistles of John designates himself in the superscription of each by the name (ho presbyteros), "the ancient", "the old". Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, also uses the same name to designate the "Presbyter John" as in addition to Aristion, his particular authority, directly after he has named the presbyters Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, and Matthew (in Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", III, xxxix, 4). Eusebius was the first to draw, on account of these words of Papias, the distinction between a Presbyter John and the Apostle John, and this distinction was also spread in Western Europe by St. Jerome on the authority of Eusebius. The opinion of Eusebius has been frequently revived by modern writers, chiefly to support the denial of the Apostolic origin of the Fourth Gospel. The distinction, however, has no historical basis. First, the testimony of Eusebius in this matter is not worthy of belief. He contradicts himself, as in his "Chronicle" he expressly calls the Apostle John the teacher of Papias ("ad annum Abrah 2114"), as does Jerome also in Ep. lxxv, "Ad Theodoram", iii, and in "De viris illustribus", xviii. Eusebius was also influenced by his erroneous doctrinal opinions as he denied the Apostolic origin of the Apocalypse and ascribed this writing to an author differing from St. John but of the same name. St. Irenaeus also positively designates the Apostle and Evangelist John as the teacher of Papias, and neither he nor any other writer before Eusebius had any idea of a second John in Asia (Adv. haer., V, xxxiii, 4). In what Papias himself says the connection plainly shows that in this passage by the word presbyters only Apostles can be understood. If John is mentioned twice the explanation lies in the peculiar relationship in which Papias stood to this, his most eminent teacher. By inquiring of others he had learned some things indirectly from John, just as he had from the other Apostles referred to. In addition he had received information concerning the teachings and acts of Jesus directly, without the intervention of others, from the still living "Presbyter John", as he also had from Aristion. Thus the teaching of Papias casts absolutely no doubt upon what the New-Testament writings presuppose and expressly mention concerning the residence of the Evangelist John in Asia. III. THE LATER ACCOUNTS OF JOHN The Christian writers of the second and third centuries testify to us as a tradition universally recognized and doubted by no one that the Apostle and Evangelist John lived in Asia Minor in the last decades of the first century and from Ephesus had guided the Churches of that province. In his "Dialogue with Tryphon" (Chapter 81) St. Justin Martyr refers to "John, one of the Apostles of Christ" as a witness who had lived "with us", that is, at Ephesus. St. Irenæus speaks in very many places of the Apostle John and his residence in Asia and expressly declares that he wrote his Gospel at Ephesus (Adv. haer., III, i, 1), and that he had lived there until the reign of Trajan (loc. cit., II, xxii, 5). With Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xiii, 1) and others we are obliged to place the Apostle's banishment to Patmos in the reign of the Emperor Domitian (81-96). Previous to this, according to Tertullian's testimony (De praescript., xxxvi), John had been thrown into a cauldron of boiling oil before the Porta Latina at Rome without suffering injury. After Domitian's death the Apostle returned to Ephesus during the reign of Trajan, and at Ephesus he died about A.D. 100 at a great age. Tradition reports many beautiful traits of the last years of his life: that he refused to remain under the same roof with Cerinthus (Irenaeus "Ad. haer.", III, iii, 4); his touching anxiety about a youth who had become a robber (Clemens Alex., "Quis dives salvetur", xiii); his constantly repeated words of exhortation at the end of his life, "Little children, love one another" (Jerome, "Comm. in ep. ad. Gal.", vi, 10). On the other hand the stories told in the apocryphal Acts of John, which appeared as early as the second century, are unhistorical invention. IV. FEASTS OF ST. JOHN St. John is commemorated on 27 December, which he originally shared with St. James the Greater. At Rome the feast was reserved to St. John alone at an early date, though both names are found in the Carthage Calendar, the Hieronymian Martyrology, and the Gallican liturgical books. The "departure" or "assumption" of the Apostle is noted in the Menology of Constantinople and the Calendar of Naples (26 September), which seems to have been regarded as the date of his death. The feast of St. John before the Latin Gate, supposed to commemorate the dedication of the church near the Porta Latina, is first mentioned in the Sacramentary of Adrian I (772-95). V. ST. JOHN IN CHRISTIAN ART Early Christian art usually represents St. John with an eagle, symbolizing the heights to which he rises in the first chapter of his Gospel. The chalice as symbolic of St. John, which, according to some authorities, was not adopted until the thirteenth century, is sometimes interpreted with reference to the Last Supper, again as connected with the legend according to which St. John was handed a cup of poisoned wine, from which, at his blessing, the poison rose in the shape of a serpent. Perhaps the most natural explanation is to be found in the words of Christ to John and James "My chalice indeed you shall drink" (Matthew 20:23). LEOPOLD FONCK John the Faster John the Faster ( o nesteutés, jejunator) Patriarch of Constantinople (John IV, 582-595), famous chiefly through his assumption of the title "oecumenical patriarch"; d. 2 September, 595. He was brought up (apparently also born) at Constantinople. Under the Patriarch John III (Scholasticus, 565-577) he was deacon at the Hagia Sophia church; then he became sakellarios (an official who acts as patriarchal vicar for monasteries). He had little learning, but was so famous for his ascetical life that he was already called "the Faster". Under Eutychius I (restored to the patriarchate when John III died, 577-582) he became an important person among the clergy of the city. At Eutychius's death he was made patriarch by the Emperor Tiberius II (578-582). Under the next emperor, Maurice (582-602), he was still a favourite at court. There is little to tell of his life besides the great question of the title. He is said to have been tolerant towards the Monophysites; but he persuaded Maurice to have a certain wizard, Paulinus, burnt. He had always a great reputation for asceticism and charity to the poor. The dispute about the title was this: it was not new in John IV's time; till then the Bishop of Constantinople had commonly been called 'archiepískopos daì patriárches, but at various times he (and other patriarchs) had been addressed as oikoumenikòs patriárches. H. Gelzer (Der Streit um den Titel des ökumenischen Patriarchen) thinks that it became usual in the time of the Acacian schism (484-519). The first known use of it applied to Constantinople is in a letter from the monks of Antioch to John II (518-520) in 518. Before that the Patriarch of Alexandria had been so called by one of his bishops at the Robber Synod of Ephesus (in the year 449; Gelzer, op. cit., p. 568). Since 518 the whole combination, 'archiepískopos kaì oikoumenikòs patriárches, is not uncommonly used in addresses to the Byzantine patriarchs. But they had not called themselves so before John IV. There is a real difference between these two uses of a title. In addresses to other people, particularly superiors, one may always allow a margin for compliment-especially in Byzantine times. But when a man uses a title himself he sets up a formal claim to it. In 588 John the Faster held a synod at Constantinople to examine certain charges against Gregory, Patriarch of Antioch (in this fact already one sees a sign of the growing ambition of Constantinople. By what right could Constantinople discuss the affairs of Antioch?). The Acts of this synod appear to have been sent to Rome; and Pope Pelagius II (579-590) saw in them that John was described as "archbishop and oecumenical patriarch". It may be that this was the first time that the use of the title was noticed at Rome; it appears, in any case, to be the first time it was used officially as a title claimed-not merely a vague compliment. Pelagius protested against the novelty and forbade his legate at Constantinople to communicate with John. His letter is not extant. We know of it from Gregory's letters later (Epp., V, xliii, in P. L., LXXVII, 771). St. Gregory I (599-604), who succeeded Pelagius II, was at first on good terms with John IV. He had known him at Constantinople while he had been legate (apocrisiarius) there (578-584), and had sent him notice of his succession as pope in a friendly letter (Epp., I, iv, in P. L., LXXVII, 447). It has been thought that the John to whom he dedicates his "Regula pastoralis" is John of Constantinople (others think it to be John of Ravenna, Bardenhewer, "Patrology", tr Shahan, St. Louis, 1908, p. 652). But in 593 this affair of the new and arrogant title provoked a serious dispute. It should be noticed that Gregory was still old-fashioned enough to cling to the theory of three patriarchates only, although officially he accepted the five (Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", p. 44). He was therefore not well-disposed towards Constantinople as a patriarchate at all. That it should claim to be the universal one seemed to him unheard-of insolence. John had cruelly scourged two priests accused of heresy. They appealed to the pope. In the correspondence that ensued John assumed this title of oecumenical patriarch "in almost every line" of his letter (Epp., V, xviii, in P. L., LXXVII, 738). Gregory protested vehemently against it in a long correspondence addressed first to John, then to the Emperor Maurice, the Empress Constantina, and others. He argues that "if one patriarch is called universal the title is thereby taken from the others" (Epp., V, xviii, ibid., 740). It is a special effrontery for the Byzantine bishop, whose existence as a patriarch at all is new and still uncertain (Rome had refused to accept the third canon of the First Council of Constantinople and the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon), to assume such a title as this. It further argues independence of any superior; whereas, says Gregory, "who doubts that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See?" (Epp., IX, xii, ibid., 957); and again: "I know of no bishop who is not subject to the Apostolic See" (ibid.). The pope expressly disclaims the name "universal" for any bishop, including himself. He says that the Council of Chalcedon had wanted to give it to Leo I, but he had refused it (Epp., V, xviii, ibid., 740, xx, 747, etc.). This idea rests on a misconception (Hefele-Leclercq, "Histoire des Conciles", II, Paris, 1908, pp. 834-5), but his reason for resenting the title in any bishop is obvious throughout his letters. "He understood it as an exclusion of all the others [ privative quoad omnes alios] so that he who calls himself oecumenic, that is, universal, thinks all other patriarchs and bishops to be private persons and himself the only pastor of the inhabited earth" (so Horace Giustiniani at the Council of Florence; Hergenröther, "Photius", I, 184). For this reason Gregory does not spare his language in denouncing it. It is "diabolical arrogance" (Epp., V, xx, in P. L., XXVII, 746, xxi, 750, etc.); he who so calls himself is antichrist. Opposed to it Gregory assumed the title borne ever since by his successors. "He refuted the name 'universal' and first of all began to write himself 'servant of the servants of God' at the beginning of his letters, with sufficient humility, leaving to all his successors this hereditary evidence of his meekness" (Johannes Diaconus, "Vita S. Gregorii", II, i, in P. L., LXV, 87). Nevertheless the patriarchs of Constantinople kept their "oecumenical" title till it became part of their official style. The Orthodox patriarch subscribes himself still "Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and OEcumenical Patriarch". But it is noticeable that even Photius (d. 891) never dared use the word when writing to Rome. The Catholic Church has never admitted it. It became a symbol of Byzantine arrogance and the Byzantine schism. In 1024 the Emperor Basil II (963-1025) tried to persuade Pope John XIX (1024-1033) to acknowledge it. The pope seems to have been ready to do so, but an outburst of indignation throughout the West and a stern letter from Abbot William of Dijon made him think better of it (Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", p. 167). Later again, at the time of the final schism, Pope Leo IX writes to Michael Cærularius of Constantinople (in 1053): "How lamentable and detestable is the sacrilegious usurpation by which you everywhere boast yourself to be the Universal Patriarch" (op. cit., p. 182). No Catholic bishop since then has ever dared assume this title. With regard to the issue, one should note first that Gregory knew no Greek. He saw the words only in a Latin version: Patriarcha universalis, in which they certainly sound more scandalous than in Greek. How he understood them is plain from his letters. They seem to mean that all jurisdiction comes from one bishop, that all other bishops are only his vicars and delegates. Catholic theology does not affirm this of the pope or anyone. Diocesan bishops have ordinary, not delegate, jurisdiction; they receive their authority immediately from Christ, though they may use it only in the communion of the Roman See. It is the whole difference between diocesan ordinaries and vicars Apostolic. All bishops are not Apostolic vicars of the pope. Nor has any pope ever assumed the title "universal bishop", though occasionally they have been so called in complimentary addresses from other persons. The accusation, then, that Gregory's successors have usurped the title that he so resented is false. Whether John IV or other patriarchs of Constantinople really meant to advance so arrogant a claim is another question. O'ikoumenikòs patriárches in Greek is susceptible of a milder interpretation. E O'ikoumènes chóra was long a name for the civilized, cultivated land of the Greeks, as opposed to the wild country of the barbarians. It was then often used for the Roman Empire. It is at least probable that the clause upèr tês o'ikouménes in the Greek Intercession of the Byzantine Liturgy means the "empire" (Fortescue, "Liturgy of St. Chrysostom", London, 1908, p. 106). It may be, then that o'ikoumenikòs patriárches meant no more than "imperial patriarch", as the Greeks of Constantinople told Anastasius Bibliothecarius of the time of Photius (see his statement in Gelzer, op. cit., p. 572). Kattenbusch (Konfessionskunde, I, 116) thinks it should be translated Reichspatriarch. Even so it is still false. The Patriarch of Constantinople had no sort of claim over the whole empire. The most that can be allowed is that if "ecumenical" means only "imperial", and if "imperial" means only "of the imperial court", the title (in this case equal to "court patriarch") is no worse than a foolish example of vanity. But even in Greek this interpretation is by no means obvious. In Greek, too, an "oecumenical synod" is one that has authority for the whole Church; the "oecumenic doctors" (St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. John Chrysostom) are those whose teaching must be followed by all. Pichler's comparison with the form "catholic bishop" ("Geschichte der kirchlichen Trennung", II, Munich, 1865, pp. 647 sq.) is absurd. The humblest member of the Church is (in any language) a Catholic; in no language could he be called oecumenical. Another dispute between John and Gregory was about some relics, especially the head of St. Paul, that the Court of Constantinople wanted the pope to send to them. Gregory would not part with them; eventually he sent part of St. Paul's chains. The works in Migne attributed to John the Faster [a treatise on Confession (P. G., LXXXVIII, 1889-1918), a shorter work on the same subject (ibid., 1919-1932), "Of Penance, Temperance, and Virginity" (ibid., 1937-1978)] are not authentic. No authentic works of his are extant. He has often been confused with a certain Cappadocian monk, John the Faster, who came to Constantinople about the year 1100. The patriarch, at his death, left no property but a cloak, a blanket, and a praying-stool, which the emperor kept as relics. The Orthodox Church has canonized him and keeps his feast on 2 September. One of his clergy, Protinos, wrote his life soon after his death. Fragments of this are preserved in the Acts of the Second Council of Nicæa, for which see Mansi, XIII, 80-85; Lequien, Oriens Christianus, I (Paris, 1740), 226; Gedeon, Patriarchikoì Pìnakes (Constantinople, 1890), 232-36; HergenrÖther, Photius, I (Ratisbon, 1867), 178-90; Grisar, Oekumenischer Patriarch und Diener der Diener Gottes in Zeitschrift für kath. Theologie, IV (Innsbruck, 1880), 468-523; Gelzer, Der Streit um den Titel des ökumenischen Patriarchen in Jahrbücher für prot. Theologie, XIII (1887), 549-584; Kattenbusch, Konfessionskunde, I (Freiburg im Br., 1892), 111-17. Adrian Fortescue. John the Silent St. John the Silent (Hesychastes, Silentiarius). Bishop of Colonia, in Armenia, b. at Nicopolis, Armenia, 8 Jan., 452; d. 558. His parents, Encratius and Euphemia, wealthy and honoured, belonged to families that had done great service in the State and had given to it renowned generals and governors, but they were also good Christians, and gave their son a holy education. After their death in 471, John distributed his inheritance among his relatives, retaining only a small share, with which he built a church and a monastery. Here, with ten congenial companions, he began a life of mortification and self-denial, wonderful traits of which are recorded by his biographer. The Bishop of Sebaste drew him out of his solitude and made him Bishop of Colonia (Taxara) in 481, against which promotion John vainly struggled. In his new dignity he preserved the monastic spirit entire, and the austerities and exercises as far as was compatible with duty. His brother-in-law Pasinius oppressed the Church to such an extent that John had to call upon the Emperor Zeno for assistance. As soon as matters had been properly arranged, John left his see, went to the Laura, near Jerusalem, and placed himself under the obedience of St. Sabas, without revealing his identity. In course of time Sabas, who had subjected John to all kinds of trials and had found him ready to perform even the most common and menial labours, thought him worthy of receiving priesthood, and for this purpose sent him to Elias, the Patriarch of Jerusalem. John now revealed all, and Elias informed Sabas that John had confided to him things which forbade his ordination. Sabas at first felt very sad, but was comforted by a vision in which the true state of affairs was made known to him. John with the permission of his superior entered a hut built against the face of a rock in the desert, and here passed the remainder of his days in seclusion and perpetual silence, whence his surname. A contemporary, Cyril of Scythopolis, wrote his life. His feast is on 13 May. Butler, Lives of the Saints; Acta SS., May, III, 230; Streber in Kirchenlex, s.v. Johannes Hesychastes. FRANCIS MERSHMAN Jean, Sire de Joinville Jean, Sire de Joinville Seneschal of Champagne, historian, b in 1225; d. at Joinville, 1317. His family held an important place in the feudal system of Champagne in the eleventh century. His father, Simon de Joinville, hereditary Seneschal of Champagne, defended Troyes in 1230 against the enemies of Count Thibaut IV. Simon having died in 1233, Jean was reared by his mother, Beatrix, daughter of the Count of Burgundy. He received the knightly education of the times, learned to read and write, and even a little Latin. In 1241, Jean de Joinville appeared for the first time at the French Court on the occasion of the festival given at Saumur for the knighthood of Alfonso of Poitou, brother of the king. He afterwards made a pilgrimage to the shrine of St. James at Compostela. In 1248, Joinville took the cross, following the example of St. Louis, but refused to be sworn by the king, as he was not his "man." He took at his own expense two bannerets and ten knights and allied himself with his cousin Jean d'Apremont, Count of Saarbruecken. His little troop went down the Saône and the Rhone by boat and embarked at Marseilles (August, 1348). In three weeks they arrived at Limassol, in Cyprus, where Louis IX was. He welcomed Joinville and took him into his pay. Joinville took part in the Crusade of Egypt, where he conducted himself valiantly; he was in grave danger at Mansourah (Feb., 1250), fell ill in his tent, and was taken prisoner with the king. Having been liberated in May, 1250, he followed Louis IX to Saint Jean d'Acre despite the advice of powerful barons who counselled him to remain in Palestine until all the prisoners should have been freed. A "Chanson d'Acre," of which he is probably the author, makes allusion to these facts ("Romania," 1893, 544). The king, who was charmed, made him henceforth his familiar friend, and gave him command over fifty knights. In 1253 he granted him in fief a rental of 200 pounds (4053 francs). Having returned to France with the king and queen in 1254, Joinville thenceforth divided his time between the management of his estates and the court of his royal friend. However, in 1267, despite the solicitations of St. Louis, he refused to take the cross and disapproved of the Crusade of Tunis: "Je entendi que tuit cil firent péchié mortel qui li loierent l'alée" (ed. Natalis de Wailly, 262). After the death of St. Louis in 1282, he was one of the witnesses heard in the inquiry of canonization, and he erected an altar to the saint in his chapel of St. Laurent at Joinville. Under Philip the Fair, Joinville played an important part in Champagne and did not conceal his dislike for the new methods of government. In 1314 he entered the league of the nobility of Champagne. In 1315 he wrote a letter of reconciliation to Louis X. He died at Joinville, where he was buried. Joinville is the author of a new explanation of the Creed, composed at Acre in 1250-51, which contains information concerning his captivity (ed. Natalis de Wailly, at the end of the history of St. Louis). But his chief work is "Le livre des saintes paroles et des bonnes actions de St Louis," composed at the request of Jeanne of Navarre, wife of Philip the Fair (d. 1305). The work is divided into two unequal parts; the first, which is very short, comprises anecdotes concerning St. Louis's manner of life and his familiar speech; the second, which is very much longer, is a real autobiography of Joinville during the Egyptian Crusade. Gaston Paris ("Romania," 1894, 508-524) supposes that this portion was written by Joinville as early as 1273, because there is no allusion to subsequent events. Joinville appears to have written from personal recollections. Beginning with 1254, he is satisfied with making extracts from the "Chronique de France." The book concludes with an abridgment of the instructions given by St. Louis to his son, and with details concerning his canonization. The original MS., which was presented to the king and preserved in the librairie of Charles V, no longer exists. The two principal MSS. are: that of Brussels (Paris, Bib. Nat. fr., 13568), written under Charles V; and that of Lucca (Paris, Bib. Nat. fr., 10148), copied from the original at the Château of Joinville about 1550. The first edition (Antoine-Pierre de Rieux, Poitiers, 1547) was made from a poor copy and was reproduced many times until the discovery of the two above-mentioned manuscripts. The text has been studied and amended by Natalis de Wailly (editions of 1868, Société de l'Histoire de France of 1874, of 1881). The history of St. Louis is rightly regarded as one of the masterpieces of French literature in the Middle Ages; it constitutes besides an inappreciable testimony concerning the personality of one of the best sovereigns who ever reigned. The figure of St. Louis is most vividly portrayed in Joinville's book. Moreover, few personal memoirs possess the same note of sincerity. In depicting himself, Joinville discloses to us the soul of a perfect knight of the thirteenth century; the book is thus an important witness concerning French society of the Middle Ages. NATALIS DE WAILLY, Prefaces to editions mentioned and articles in Bibliotheque de l'Ecole des Chartes (1857), 557-608; (1868), 329- 478; (1872), 386-423; (1874), 217-248; PARIS, Le texte de Joinville in Romania, XXIII, 508-524; SIMONNET, Essai sur l'histoire et la genealogie des Sires de Joinville (Langres, 1876); DELABORDE, Recherches critiques sur les premiers seigneurs de Joinville in Bib. Ecole des Chartes (1890), 618-629; Joinville, l'Homme et l'ecrivain in Revue des Deux Mondes (1892), 602-636; Notice historique sur le Chateau de Joinville (Haute-Marne) (Joinville, 1891): VIOLLET, Les enseignements de St Louis a son fils in Bib. de l'Ec. des Charles (1874), 1-56. For tr. of JOHNVILLE see BOHN, Antiquarian Library, VI. LOUIS BREHIER Louis Joliet Louis Joliet (Or JOLLIET). Louis Joliet, a discoverer and the son of a wagon-maker, was born at Quebec, Canada, on 21 September 1645; d. in Canada, May 1700. He gave great promise of scholarship, especially in mathematics, in the Jesuits' school at Quebec, and received minor orders in 1663. But caught with the adventure spirit of the times, he early abandoned his studies and became a rover in the Canadian wilderness and a trader with the Indians. A fleeting glimpse is caught of Joliet searching for a copper mine on the borders of Lake Superior, in 1669; and again in 1671, he is seen standing by the side of Saint-Lusson as he plants the arms of France at Sault Sainte Marie. In 1672, upon the advice of the intendant, Talon, Joliet was dispatched by Governor Frontenac to explore the grande rivière beyond the Lakes, which the Indians alleged flowed into the southern sea. In the order the French governor refers to Joliet as one "experienced in these kinds of discoveries and who had been already very near the river". In December of the same year Joliet reached the Straits of Mackinaw, where, with Père Marquette, he spent the winter and the early spring in questioning the Indians and preparing maps for the journey. In May of the following year, 1673, the historic quest began. With five voyageurs and two canoes, Joliet and Marquette in June reached the Fox River. A few leagues beyond, a short portage was found by which they reached the Wisconsin, down the tortuous course of which they glided until, on 17 June, the little party drifted into the waters of the great Mississippi. For a month the paddled Southward, passing a great river from the west which the Indians assured them flowed into the Vermeille Sea -- the Gulf of California -- and, near it, a little village whose inhabitants, they were told, traded with the Indians on the Pacific coast. Joliet descended the river to 30° 40', christening rivers, plateaus, and elevations with Indian and French names which were destined to endure no longer than La Salle's great dream of the "Empire of New France." Having established beyond doubt the important fact that the great river emptied into the Gulf of Mexico, the expedition returned, arriving at Green Bay in September, after having paddled 2500 miles. Here Marquette remained while Joliet hurried to Quebec, where he arrived the middle of August, 1674, after having lost all his documents and maps by the upsetting of his canoe in the lachine Rapids. Whether or not Joliet was the first Frenchman to have gazed upon the Great River, the reports that he laid before the governor and his establishment of the fact that the Mississippi was a highway to the sea led to the immediate formation of plans on the part of Canadian merchants and officers for the settlement of the Mississippi Valley, though Joliet's offer to plant a colony among the Illinois was refused by the French Government. Shortly after his return Joliet was married to Claire-Francoise Bissot. In 1680 he was granted the Island of Anticosti, where he erected a fort, which was subsequently captured by the English in 1690, upon which occasion his wife was taken prisoner. The restless spirit of the explorer persevered in Joliet to the end, for mention is made, within a few years of his death, of extensive wanderings in Labrador. In 1693 he was appointed royal hydrographer, and, on 30 April, 1697, he was granted the seigniory of Joliet, south of Quebec, which is still in the possession of his descendants. He died in Canada in May, 1700, one of the first native Americans to have achieved historical distinction. Map drawn by Joliet in the Fox River valley on the eve of the Mississippi expedition in SHEA, Discovery and Explorations of the Mississippi Valley (New York, 1852). Maps, drawn from memory, as presented to Governor Frontenac, on his return, are now in the Archives de la Marine, Paris. For question as to priority of discovery between Marquette, Joliet, and La Salle, see Mémoire de Nicolas Perrot, vol, III of the Bibliotheca Americana (Paris and Leipzig, 1864); PARKMAN, La Salle (1869); MARGRY, Mémoires et Documents (Paris, 1876-86); and SHEA, Bursting of Pierre Margry's La Salle Bubble (New York, 1879). For general bibliography, consult WINSOR, Narrative and Critical History of America (Boston, 1884-7). JARVIS KEILEY Diocese of Joliette Joliette (JOLIETTENSIS). Diocese created by Pius X, 27 January, 1904 by division of the Archdiocese of Montreal; comprises three counties, Joliette, Berthier, and Montcalm, with four parishes of L'Assomption County. It forms a rectangle 105 miles long by about 45 wide. (1) Religious Organization The total population is 63,500 souls, of whom 1200 are non-Catholics. This population is divided into thirty-eight canonically erected parishes and four with resident priests. According to its need each parish has one or another of the following associations or confraternities: the Third Order of St. Francis; the League of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, for men and children; the Congregation of the Most Blessed Virgin, for men, youths and young women; the Confraternities of Mount Carmel; Of the Holy Rosary; of the Bona Mors; of the Holy Angels; the Association for Daily Adoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament; the Association of the Way of the Cross; the Society of St. Vincent de Paul; and the Temperance Society. The last-named, established in each parish, gives good results. Frequent communion is observed in the diocese, and the faithful generally acquit themselves well of their religious duties. There are four vicariates-forane. Ecclesiastical conferences are held twice yearly in each vicariate. The bishop is assisted by a chapter composed of eight titular canons, a vicar-general, and archdeacon for parochial affairs, a procurator for the administration of episcopal revenue, an assistant procurator for diocesan works, and a chancellor for matrimonial affairs and the duties of a secretary. There are 115 priests in the diocese, 104 of whom are secular and 11 religious. The religious in all number 134 men and 390 women. The religious institutions of men are those of the Clerics of St. Viateur (novitiate at Joliette), Brothers of the Sacred Heart, Brothers of Christian Instruction, and Brothers of St. Gabriel. The nuns are Sisters of Charity of Providence, Sisters of the Congregation of Notre-Dame, Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, Sisters of St. Anne, Sisters of the Holy Cross and of the Seven, Dolours, Sisters of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, and Sisters Adorers of the Precious Blood. (2) Educational Institutions The diocese contains 1 seminary, 3 commercial colleges, 3 commercial academies, 21 boarding-schools for young women, 5 academies, 25 model schools, and 230 elementary schools. There are in these 288 institutions 600 professors, 11 of whom are priests, 9 seminarians, 75 religious, 225 nuns, and 280 lay persons; 15,108 pupils receive instruction in the various institutions, 6067 being under the direction of religious men and women, and 9041 under that of lay teachers. The communities of men and women in the diocese which are charged with education are those mentioned above, with the exception of the Sisters Adorers of the Precious Blood, who lead a contemplative life. (3) Charitable Institutions In the diocese there are: 1 hospital, 5 homes for the aged, 5 orphanages for girls, 1 orphanage for boys. These institutions are under the direction of the Sisters of Providence. There are, besides, 6 associations of Ladies (4) Progress of the Diocese The first bishop of the Diocese of Joliette is Mgr. Joseph Alfred Archarnbault. Born at L'Assomption, 23 May, 1859, he made his classical studies at the College of L'Assomption and Laval University, Quebec, and his theological studies at the Grand Séminaire of Montreal. He received at Rome the degrees of Doctor of Theology and of Canon Law, and on his return taught philosophy at the College of L'Assomption (1885-88). He was made vice-chancellor of the Archdiocese of Montreal (1888-92); chancellor (1892-97); titular canon of the cathedral of Montreal (1891-1904); ecclesiastical superior of the Sisters of Providence (1891-1901); vicegerent and archdeacon (1897-1904), vice-rector of Laval University, Montreal (1901-04) appointed prothonotary Apostolic, 15 December, 1902, and Bishop of Joliette, 27 June, 1904. He was consecrated 24 August, 1904, in the cathedral of Joliette by Mgr. Bruchesi, Archbishop of Montreal, and preconized in public consistory 14 November in the same year. Since his consecration the diocesan educational and charitable institutions have multiplied and improved. ARCHAMBAULT, Statistique et notes historiques concernant le diocese de Joliette, 1904 1909 (Joliette, 1909); DALLAIRE, Les contemporains (Saint-Hyacinthe, 1908). F.X. PIETTE Jolly, Philipp Johann Gustav Von Philipp Johann Gustav von Jolly German physicist, born at Mannheim, 26 September, 1809; died at Munich, 24 December, 1884. His family came originally from France at the end of the seventeenth century. After attending the gymnasium and lyceum at Mannheim, Jolly went to the University of Heidelberg in 1829, where he studied chiefly mathematics and physics. From 1832 to 1833 he was at Vienna, taking up the technological branches, working as a mechanician, and visiting factories and mining plants. Returning to Heidelberg in 1834, he took the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and began his career as a teacher of mathematics, physics, and technology. He became extraordinary professor of mathematics in 1839, and ordinary professor of physics in 1846. In 1854 he was called to the University of Munich to succeed Ohm as professor of physics. His principal work was in experimental physics, for which he devised numerous new apparatus, and modified and improved the older forms. His studies of osmosis, of the problems of gravitation, of the density of the earth, of the composition of the air, et., suggested the design of the Jolly balance (1864), of a special eudiometer (1879), of an improved mercury air-pump, of the Jolly air thermometer. The following are some of his published works: + "De Euleri merito de functionibus circularibus" (prize essay, Heidelberg, 1834); + "Antleitung zur Differential- und Integralrechnung" (Heidelberg, 1846); + "Die Prinzipien der Mechanik" (Stuttgart, 1852); + "Physik der Molecularkräfte" (Munich, 1857). + Contributions to Poggendorff's "Annalen", "Heidelberger Jahrbücher", and "Berichte der Müchener Akademie der Wissenschaften". WILLIAM FOX Jonah Jonah The fifth of the Minor Prophets. The name is usually taken to mean "dove", but in view of the complaining words of the Prophet (Jonah, iv), it is not unlikely that the name is derived from the root Yanah = to mourn, with the signification dolens or "complaining". This interpretation goes back to St. Jerome (Comm. on Jonah, iv, 1). Apart from the book traditionally ascribed to him, Jonah is mentioned only once in the Old Testament, IV Kings, xiv, 25, where it is stated that the restoration by Jeroboam II (see Jeroboam) of the borders of Israel against the incursions of foreign invaders was a fulfillment of the "word of the Lord the God of Israel, which he spoke by his servant Jonah the son of Amathi, the prophet, who was of Geth, which is in Opher". This last is but a paraphrastic rendering of the name Gath-Hepher, a town in the territory of Zabulon (Josephus, "Antiq.", XIX, xiii), which was probably the birthplace of the Prophet, and where his grave was still pointed out in the time of St. Jerome. Mention is made of Jonah in Matt., xii, 39 sqq., and in xvi, 4, and likewise in the parallel passages of Luke (xi, 29, 30, 32), but these references add nothing to the information contained in the Old Testament data. According to an ancient tradition mentioned by St. Jerome (Comm., in Jonah, Prol., P.L., XXV, 118), and which is found in Pseudo-Epiphanius (De Vitis Prophetarum, xvi, P.L., XLIII, 407), Jonah was the son of the widow of Sarephta whose resuscitation by the Prophet Elias is narrated in III Kings, xvii, but this legend seems to have no other foundation than the phonetic resemblance between the proper name Amathi, father of the Prophet, and the Hebrew word Emeth, "truth", applied to the word of God through Elias by the widow of Sarephta (III Kings, xvii, 24). The chief interest in the Prophet Jonah centres around two remarkable incidents narrated in the book which bears his name. In the opening verse it is stated that "the word of the Lord came to Jonah the son of Amathi, saying: Arise and go to Ninive, the great city, and preach in it: for the wickedness thereof is come up before me." But the Prophet, instead of obeying the Divine command, "rose up to flee into Tharsis from the face of the Lord" that he might escape the task assigned to him. He boards a ship bound for that port, but a violent storm overtakes him, and on his admission that he is the cause of it, he is cast overboard. He is swallowed by a great fish providentially prepared for the purpose, and after a three day's sojourn in the belly of the monster, during which time he composes a hymn of thanksgiving, he is cast upon dry land. After this episode he again receives the command to preach in Ninive, and the account of his second journey is scarcely less marvellous than that of the first. He proceeds to Ninive and enters "after a day's journey" into it, foretelling its destruction in forty days. A general repentance is immediately commanded by the authorities, in view of which God relents and spares the wicked city. Jonah, angry and disappointed, wishes for death. He expostulates with the Lord, and declares that it was in anticipation of this result that on the former occasion he had wished to flee to Tharsis. He withdraws from Ninive and, under a booth which he has erected, he awaits the destiny of the city. In this abode he enjoys for a time the refreshing shade of a gourd which the Lord prepares for him. Shortly, however, the gourd is stricken by a worm and the Prophet is exposed to the burning rays of the sun, whereupon he again murmurs and wishes to die. Then the Lord rebukes him for his selfish grief over the withering of a gourd, while still desiring that God should not be touched by the repentance of a city in which "there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons that know not how to distinguish between their right hand and their left, and many beasts." Apart from the hymn ascribed to Jonah (ii, 2-11) the contents of the book are prose. HISTORICITY Catholics have always looked upon the Book of Jonah as a fact-narrative. In the works of some recent Catholic writers there is a leaning to regard the book as fiction. Only Simon and Jahn, among prominent Catholic scholars, have clearly denied the historicity of Jonah; and the orthodoxy of these two critics may no longer be defended: "Providentissimus Deus" implicitly condemned the ideas of both in the matter of inspiration, and the Congregation of the Index expressly condemned the "Introduction" of the latter. Reasons for the traditional acceptance of the historicity of Jonah: I. Jewish Tradition According to the Septuagint text of the Book of Tobias (xiv, 4), the words of Jonah in regard to the destruction of Ninive are accepted as facts; the same reading is found in the Aramaic text and one Hebrew manuscript. The apocryphal III Mach., vi, 8, lists the saving of Jonah in the belly of the fish along with the other wonders of Old Testament history. Josephus (Ant. Jud., IX, 2) clearly deems the story of Jonah to be historical. II. The Authority of Our Lord This reason is deemed by Catholics to remove all doubt as to the fact of the story of Jonah. The Jews asked a "sign" -- a miracle to prove the Messiahship of Jesus. He made answer that no "sign" would be given them other than the "sign of Jonah the Prophet. For as the Jonah was in the whale's belly three days and three nights: so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. The men of Ninive shall rise in judgment with this generation and shall condemn it: because they did penance at the preaching of Jonah. And behold a greater than Jonah here" (Matt., xii, 40-1; xvi, 4; Luke, xi, 29-32). The Jews asked for a real miracle; Christ would have deceived them had He presented a mere fancy. He argues clearly that just as Jonah was in the whale's belly three days and three nights even so He will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. If, then, the stay of Jonah in the belly of the fish be only a fiction, the stay of Christ's body in the heart of the earth is only a fiction. If the men of Ninive will really not rise in judgment, neither will the Jews really rise. Christ contrasts fact with fact, not fancy with fancy, nor fancy with fact. It would be very strange, indeed, were He to say that He was greater than a fancy-formed man. It would be little less strange were he to berate the Jews for their real lack of penance by rating this lack in contrast with the penance of Ninive which never existed at all. The whole force of these striking contrasts is lost, if we admit that the story of Jonah is not fact-narrative. Finally, Christ makes no distinction between the story of the Queen of Sheba and that of Jonah (see Matt., xii, 42). He sets the very same historical value upon the Book of Jonah as upon the Third Book of Kings. Such is the very strongest argument that Catholics offer for the firm stand they take upon the ground of the fact-narrative of the story of Jonah. III. The Authority of the Fathers Not a single Father has ever been cited in favor of the opinion that Jonah is a fancy-tale and no fact-narrative at all. To the Fathers Jonah was a fact and a type of the Messias, just such a one as Christ presented to the Jews. Saints Jerome, Cyril, and Theophilus explain in detail the type-meaning of the facts of the Book of Jonah. St. Cyril even forestalls the objections of the Rationalists of today: Jonah flees his ministry, bewails God's mercy to the Ninivites, and in other ways shows a spirit that ill becomes a Prophet and an historical type of Christ. Cyril admits that in all this Jonah failed and is not a type of Christ, but does not admit that these failures of Jonah prove the story of his doings to have been a mere fiction. To the Rationalist and to the advanced Protestant Biblical scholar these arguments are of no worth whatsoever. They find error not only in Jewish and Christian tradition but in Christ Himself. They admit that Christ took the story of Jonah as a fact-narrative, and make answer that Christ erred; He was a child of His time and represents to us the ideas and errors of His time. The arguments of those who accept the inerrancy of Christ and deny the historicity of Jonah are not conclusive. + Christ spoke according to the ideas of the people, and had no purpose in telling them that Jonah was really not swallowed by the fish. We ask: Did Christ speak of the Queen of Sheba as a fact? If so, then He spoke of Jonah as a fact -- unless there be some proof to the contrary. + Were the book historical in its narrative, certain details would not be omitted, for instance, the place where the Prophet was vomited forth by the sea-monster, the particular sins of which the Ninivites were guilty, the particular kind of calamity by which the city was to be destroyed, the name of the Assyrian king under whom these events took place and who turned to the true God with such marvellous humility and repentance. We answer, these objections prove that the book is not an historical account done according to later canons of historical criticism; they do not prove that the book is no history at all. The facts narrated are such as suited the purpose of the sacred writer. He told a story of glory unto the God of Israel and of downfall to the gods of Ninive. It is likely that the incidents took place during the period of Assyrian decadence, i.e., the reign of either Asurdanil or Asurnirar (770-745 B.C.). A pest had ravaged the land from 765 till 759 B.C. Internal strife added to the dismay caused by the deadly disease. The king's power was set at naught. Such a king might seem too little known to be mentioned. The Pharaoh of Mosaic times is not deemed to have been a fiction merely because his name is not given. Jewish tradition assumed that the Prophet Jonah was the author of the book bearing his name, and the same has been generally maintained by the Christian writers who defend the historical character of the narrative. But it may be remarked that nowhere does the book itself claim to have been written by the Prophet (who is supposed to have lived in the eighth century B.C.), and most modern scholars, for various reasons, assign the date of the composition to a much later epoch, probably the fifth century B.C. As in the case of other Old Testament personages, many legends, mostly fantastic and devoid of critical value, grew up around the name Jonah. They may be found in the "Jewish Encyclopedia". JAMES F. DRISCOLL Jonas of Bobbio Jonas of Bobbio (Or Jonas of Susa) Monk and hagiographer, b. about the close of the sixth century at Sigusia (Susa) in Piedmont; d. after 659. In 618 he entered the monastery of Bobbio in the province of Pavia where he was soon appointed to a position of confidence, probably that of secretary to the abbots Attala (d. 627) and Bertulf. He accompanied the latter on a journey to Rome in 628, and after his return took up his permanent abode in Gaul. Appealed to by St. Amandus for assistance in his missionary work among the heathen, he laboured in what is now Belgium and Northern France. His presence in this district was the occasion of his composition of the life of St. Vaast, the first Frankish Bishop of Arras (Pas-de-Calais). Owing to a promise made to the local monks during a short visit to the monastery of Bobbio in 639, he wrote between 640 and 643 his principal literary work, the "Life of St. Columbanus." In 659, when he was sent by the queen-regent Bathildis on a mission to Chalon-sur-Saône, he was abbot of a monastery which cannot now be determined. During this journey he sojourned for a few days at the monastery of St. John of Réomé (now Moutier-Saint-Jean) in the Diocese of Langres. To comply with a request made by the monks on this occasion he wrote the life of their founder, St. John. The work to which Jonas chiefly owes his literary fame comprises, besides the "Life of St. Columbanus," the lives of the abbots Attala and Bertulf of Bobbio, Eustace of Luxeuil, and the Abbess Burgundofara (or Fara) of Evoriac (now Faremoutiers). The biographies of Columbanus and his successors, though written in a bombastic style, contain invaluable historical information. Jonas arrived at Bobbio but three years after Columbanus's death, and based his invaluable account of the great Irish saint on the testimony of persons who had known him intimately. Eustace, Attala, and Bertulf, he knew personally. Bede incorporated these lives into his ecclesiastical history, while Flodoard turned that of St. Columbanus into hexameter verse. The "Life of St. Fara" is chiefly an account of the miraculous events alleged to have occurred during this saint's rule at Evoriac. The works of Jonas, exclusive of the "Life of St. Vaast," are printed in P.L. LXXXVII, 1011-88; better edition by Krusch in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script. Rer. Mer.," III, 406-13, 505-17; IV, 61-152 (Hannover, 1896 and 1902). BENNETT in Dict. Christ. Biog., III, 430-1; HARDY, Descriptive Catalogue of Materials relating to the History of Great Britain and Ireland, I, i (London, 1862), 210-2; LAWLOR, The Manuscripts of the Vita S. Columbani in the Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy, XXXII, sect. C, part I (Dublin, 1903); SEEBASS in Realencyk. fuer prof. Theol., s.v. Jonas von Bobbio; WATTENBACH, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen, I (7th ed.), 132. N.A. WEBER Jonas of Orleans Jonas of Orléans Bishop and ecclesiastical writer, born in Aquitaine; died in 843 or 844. From 818, when he succeeded Bishop Theodulf in the See of Orléans, until the time of his death he played an important role in the ecclesiastical affairs of France. He was present in 825 at the so-called Council of Paris, at which the question of the veneration of images was again discussed, and Jonas was one of the messengers sent by the emperor to submit to Pope Eugene II excerpts from the acts of the meeting. He also attended the Council of Paris in 829, which treated of reforms to be introduced in Church and State, and drew up the report of the proceedings of the Synod of Thionville (835) concerning the deposition of Ebbo of Reims. His good will toward monastic institutions was demonstrated by the restoration of the monastery of Saint-Mesmin in his diocese. Jonas left the following writings: (1) "De Institutione laicali" (rules of Christian life for laymen); (2) "De Institutione regiâ" (rules of Christian life for princes); (3) "De Cultu imaginum" (on the veneration of images); (4) a recension of the "Vita" of St. Hubert. The first of these was destined for Matfrid, Count of Orléans, and is almost entirely made up of citations from the Scriptures and the Fathers. To the second work of Jonas, which bears no inscription in the manuscript, d'Achéry has appropriately prefixed the title "De Institutione regia." It was destined for Pepin, King of Aquitaine, son of Louis the Pious. A sort of supplement to the bishop's first work, it follows the same method and bears the same character. The fact that the acts of the Council of Paris (829) and the contents of these two treatises of Jonas are largely identical has raised the question of their priority. The view, at one time more commonly held (d'Achéry, Bähr, Knust, Himly, Duemmler), that the synodal acts borrowed from the "De Institutions regia" of Jonas, has been abandoned by several recent scholars who have reversed the relationship of dependence (Waitz, Simson, Ebert). In spite of the difference of opinion in this regard, it is generally conceded that Jonas is the author of both the acts and the treatises. The work on the veneration of images was written at the request of Louis the Pious in refutation of the Iconoclastic views of Claudius, Bishop of Turin. Jonas wrote it without having read the writings of Claudius, which he knew only through an extract sent to him by Louis the Pious. He maintains that images are justified for purposes of commemoration, instruction, and ornament, but does not seem to admit the lawfulness of their veneration. The work first appeared in print at Cologne in 1554. We owe to Jonas also the recension of the "Vita S. Huberti" and a short history of the transfer of this saint's relics to the monastery of Andoin. The fact that Bishop Walcaud of Liège besought him to present this life of St. Hubert in a more elegant literary form is evidence of the reputation which Jonas enjoyed as a writer. For the works of Jonas see Migne, P.L., CVI, 121-394; the life of St. Hubert is found in Arndt, "Kleine Denkmaeler aus der Merovingerzeit" (Hannover, 1874). AMELUNG, Leben und Schriften des Bischofs Jonas von Orléans in Programm des Vitzhumschen Gymn. in Dresden (Dresden, 1888); SIMSON, Jahrbuecher des fraenkischen Reichs unter Ludwig dem Frommen (Leipzig, 1874-76), passim, esp. I, 381-84; CEILLIER, Histoire des auteurs sacres, XII (Paris, 1862), 389-94: EBERT, Literatur des Mittelalters, II (Leipzig, 1880), 225-30; KESSEL in Kirchenlex., s.v.: POOLE, Illustrations of the History of Medieval Thought (London, 1884), 36 sq., 236; CHEVALIER, Bio-Bibl., new ed., II, 2646. N.A. WEBER Jonathan Jonathan (Hebrew, "Yahweh hath given", cf. Theodore; Sept. 'Ionáthan.) Name of several persons mentioned in the Old Testament. Among these may be mentioned the following: (1) Jonathan, the son of Gersam the son of Moses, mentioned by name in Judges, xviii, 30, and as a young Levite in xvii, 7 sqq. Having left Bethlehem, his native town, he came to Mt. Ephraim, where he was induced by a certain Michas to remain as priest of an idol. This idol was afterwards seized by the Danites and carried to Lais, whither Jonathan accompanied them, and he and his descendants acted as priests of the idol until the days of the Captivity. (2) Jonathan (Vulg. Jonathas), eldest son of Saul by Achinoam (I Kings, xiv, 49, 50). He first appears as taking part with his father in the struggle against the Philistines, and such was his bravery that Saul confided to him the command of a thousand soldiers in Gabaa. Jonathan's defeat of the garrison of the Philistines in Gabaa, and his subsequent victory on the confines of the same town are narrated in I Kings, xiii, xiv. Through an intervention regarded as miraculous (xiv, 15) the latter combat resulted in a general rout of the Philistines, and Saul in the excitement of the pursuit proclaimed a rash oath, saying: "Cursed be the man that shall eat food till evening, till I be revenged of my enemies." The course of the flight led through a forest where wild honey appeared upon the ground, but the people tasted it not for they feared the oath. But Jonathan, not having heard his father's pronouncement, innocently tasted the honey, and, when a halt was called in the evening and the priest consulted Yahweh as to a further pursuit of the enemy, no answer was given. Saul immediately assumed that some sin had been committed against the Lord, and again he rashly swore that, even should the guilt be found on his son Jonathan, he should surely die. The lots having indicated Jonathan as the guilty one, he confessed to having tasted the honey, and was saved only by the intervention of the people (I Kings, xiv, 45). When, after his victory over Goliath, the youthful David appeared at the court of Saul, a most deep and loyal friendship sprang up between him and Jonathan, who more than once was instrumental in saving his friend from Saul's envious wrath (I Kings, xviii sqq.). But Saul, though having several times relented, finally became implacable, and Jonathan, seeing his efforts useless, sent his friend away to Nobe after a renewal of the mutual covenant of friendship between themselves and their posterity (I Kings, xx). Jonathan cheerfully renounced in favour of his friend his right to the throne of his father, counting himself happy to be second to him in the kingdom. This covenant was renewed later when David after the siege of Ceila withdrew into the desert of Ziph (I Kings, xxiii, 15-18), but Jonathan was not destined to share in the ultimate triumph of his friend. In a battle against the Philistines in Mount Gelboe he was slain together with his two brothers Abinadab and Melchisus, and Saul his father. Their bodies were piously buried by the inhabitants of Jabes Galaad (I Kings, xxxi). (3) Jonathan, son of the high priest Abiathar and faithful servant of King David. He was instrumental in saving the king's life by securing for David information concerning the plans of his enemies. (4) Jonathan, (surnamed Apphus), youngest son of Mathathias and brother of Judas Machabeus. The patriotic exploits of this family of Jewish heroes are narrated in the First and Second Books of the Machabees and also in the works of Josephus (Antiquities, XIII). After the defeat and death of Judas (about 161 b.c.) Jonathan was chosen leader of the patriotic band, at the time hard-pressed and obliged to retire beyond the Jordan. But the death of the unworthy high priest Alcimus brought about a change in public sentiment, and the invading general Bacchides withdrew into Syria giving the Jews a respite of two years. Encouraged by the party of the Hellenists or apostate Jews, however, he made a new attempt to subjugate the country. This attempt was foiled by Jonathan, and the result of the short campaign was a treaty whereby the latter remained practically master of Judea. This state of things continued for six years with a continued increase of power and influence on the part of the Machabeans, so that an alliance with their party was solicited by Bales and Demetrius, the two competitors for the Syrian throne. Jonathan decided in favour of Bales who, having vanquished his rival, bestowed upon Jonathan not only the title of High Priest, but also that of Strategus of his country and that of Ruler of a part of the Syrian empire (I Mach., x, 1-66). After many military exploits (I Mach., xi, 60-74) Jonathan sent ambassadors to Rome to renew the treaty made by Judas with the Roman Senate, and he also entered into an alliance with the Spartans (I Mach., xii, 1-23). For a time it seemed as if he were destined to restore his country to complete independence, but Tryphon, the aspirant to the throne of Syria, recognizing in Jonathan his chief obstacle, made him a prisoner by foul treachery and put an end to his career by casting him into a dungeon (I Mach., xii, 24-54). The rule of Jonathan extended from 161 to 143 b.c. I. LesÊtre in Vigouroux, Dict. de la Bible, s. v. Jonathan (1); II. LesÊtre, ibid., s. v. Jonathas (1); III. Beurlier, ibid., s. v. Jonathas (2); IV. Beurlier, ibid., x. v. Jonathas (3). See also Gigot, Outlines of Jewish History, xxviii, § 2, 2; Hastings, Dict. of the Bible, s.v. JAMES F. DRISCOLL Ven. Edward Jones Ven. Edward Jones Priest and martyr, b. in the Diocese of St. Asaph, Wales, date unknown; d. in London, 6 May 1590. Bred an Anglican, he was received into the Church at the English College, Reims, 1587; he was ordained priest in 1588, and went to England in the same year. In 1590 he was arrested by a priest-catcher, who pretended to be a Catholic, in a shop in Fleet Street. He was imprisoned in the Tower and brutally tortured by Topcliffe, finally admitting he was a priest and had been an Anglican. These admissions were used against him at his trial, but he made a skillful and learned defense, pleading that a confession elicited under torture was not legally sufficient to ensure a conviction. The court complimented him on his courageous bearing, but of course he was convicted of high treason as a priest coming into England. On the same day he was hanged, drawn, and quartered, opposite the grocer's shop where he had been captured, in Fleet Street near the Conduit. On the same day there suffered Anthony Middleton, priest and martyr, born probably at Middleton-Tyas, Yorkshire, date unknown, son of Ambrose Middleton of Barnard Castle, Durham, and Cecil, daughter of Anthony Crackenthorpe of Howgill Castle, Westmoreland. He entered the English College at Reims 9 Jan., 1582; was ordained 30 May 1586, and went to England in the same year. His work lay in London and the neighbourhood and he laboured very successfully; he was captured at a house in Clerkenwell (London) by the same artifice which was practiced on Father Jones. On the ladder he said: "I call God to witness I die merely for the Catholic Faith, and for being a priest of the true Religion"; and someone present called out, "Sir, you have spoken very well". The martyr was cut down and disemboweled while yet alive. GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., a. v. Jones, Edward and Middleton Anthony; CHALLONER, Memoirs of Missionary Priests (2 vols., Edinburgh, I878), 1, 168-9: SANDERS, De Orig. ac Progressu Schismatis Anglicani, ed. RIBADENEIRA (Cologne, 1610), appendix, 23 sq.; KNOX. The First and Second Diaries of the English College, Douay (London, 1878). C.F. WEMYSS BROWN Inigo Jones Inigo Jones A famous English architect, b. 15 July, 1573, in London; d. 21 June, 1652, and was buried in the chancel of St. Benet's, Paul's Wharf, London. His father was a clothworker in the neighbourhood of St. Paul's, and a Catholic; the son adhered to his father's faith throughout his fife. Little is known of the first thirty years of his life. Towards the end of the sixteenth century he went to Italy and lived there for many years, principally in Venice. Christian IV, King of Denmark, induced him to leave Italy and accept an appointment at the Danish Court. Buildings are named both in Italy and Denmark as having been designed by Jones, but seemingly without proof. He returned to England in 1601, and for some time was engaged in designing the costly scenery and machinery of the court masques. About 1614 I he again went to Italy, and his notes show that lie studied the writings of Serlio, Vignola, Fontana, Labacco, and Philibert de I'Orme, and was acquainted with the most famous architects then living in Rome He also studied the style of Renaissance architecture known as Palladian. On his return to England he was appointed surveyor to the king. Jones designed the queen's house, Greenwich, the banqueting house, Whitehall, St. Paul's church and the piazza of Covent Garden (burnt to the ground 1795), a portico to old St. Paul's cathedral, parts of Somerset House, the Barber Surgeon's Hall (almost entirely destroyed now), Lindsey House, Shaftesbury House, etc. The Grange, Hants, and other country mansions at Coleshill, Berks, Amesbury, Wilts, Wilton and Raynham Hall, Norfolk. Ile designed the garden front of St. John's College, Oxford, and laid out Lincoln's Inn (the first of the London squares). Jones's later days were filled with adversity, and he died worn out with grief and disappointment. Of his genius as an architect there can be no question, nor can there be any as to his vast influence on the course of architecture in England; but as to the quality of his work and the effect of his influence, opinions differ very widely. His theory of architecture was that "it should be solid, proportional according to the rules, masculine and unaffected". Much of his work, however, is classed as theatrical and his designs were never truly classical. At the request of the king, Jones wrote a book entitled "Stone-Heng Restored" in which he reaches the astonishing conclusion that Stonehenge is the remains of a Roman Temple of the Tuscan order. BLOMFIELD A Short History of Renaissance Architecture in England (London, 1900); MOORE, Character of Renaissance Architecture (New York, 1905); BELCHER-MACARTNEY, Later Renaissance Architecture in England (London); GOTCH, Architecture of the Renaissance in England (London, 1891-94). THOMAS H. POOLE The Jordan The Jordan (In Hebrew Yâdên, from the root Yârâd, to descend). The difference of elevation between the highest point of this river (1847 feet above the sea-level) and the lowest (1286 feet below the sea-level) is 3133 feet. It issues from the side of Mount Hermon by three principal sources: the Nahr el Hasbâni, coming from Hasbeya; the Nahr el Leddân, which rises at Tell el Qâdi (the ancient Laïs-Dan); and the Nahr Banias, the glory of what was Cæsarea Philippi. Formed at a point about five and a half miles below Banias, by the junction of these three streams, the Jordan enters Lake Hûleh about nine and a third miles lower down. This lake, which is probably "the waters of Merom", is rather more than three and a half miles in length. Between the Bahrat el Hûleh and the Lake of Tiberias, nearly ten miles, the Jordan is clear, and in some places reaches a width of over twenty yards and a depth of nearly seventeen feet. It is crossed by a bridge which connects Damascus with Galilee, the Jisr Benât Yaqûb. Near et Tell, which is Bethsaida Julias, the river enters the Sea of Genesareth, which is 682 feet below the level of the Mediterranean and is more than thirteen miles in length. Leaving the lake towards Samakh, the Jordan commences its innumerable wanderings. The direct distance from the Lake of Tiberias to the Dead Sea is sixty-five miles, but the Jordan, owing to its sinuosities, has a course of 200 miles. At a little distance from where it leaves the lake there are remains of two bridges, Jisr es Semakh and Jisr es Sidd, and in this reach of the river it is still fordable at many points. At about six and a quarter miles from the lake, after receiving the Yarmuk, it passes under an old Arab basalt bridge, the Jisr el Mûdjamieh, and the bridge of the railroad from Caïffa to Damascus. Beyond the Wadi `Arab is the ford of Abâh, where some locate the Bethbera of the story of Gedeon (Judges, vii, 24). At five and a half miles from the mouth of the Jalûd, which passes Beisân (Scythopolis), the Jordan passes between Tell es Sârem (Salim) and Tabaqât Tahil (Pella). It receives, three and threequarters miles from Salim, the water of such important springs as the Bêda and `Ain esh Shemsieh, where the first Christian tradition placed Ennon: "John also was baptizing in Ennon near Salim" (John, iii, 23). Umm el Amdân, which is very near, was supposed, in the fourth century, to be the Salem of Melchisedech. Over against these springs the Wâdi Yabîs rushes down precipitately, the name of which recalls Jabes Galaad, delivered by Saul (I Kings, xi). From the lake to this point the whole valley is cultivated; thence to Sartabeh, the mountains of Samaria reach to the river. Opposite Sartabeh is the confluence of the Nahr es Zerqa (Jabbok), and just below are to be seen the ruins of the Roman bridge of Damieh, and the ford of the same name which must have played a part in the wellknown episode of Sibboleth (Judges, xii, 5, 6). The utensils and the columns of the Temple of Solomon were cast near here (III Kings, vii, 46). From Damieh onwards the valley ceases to be cultivated; the waters of the Jordan, disturbed by rapids, become yellow and muddy. A two-hours' journey north-east of Jericho are to be found the wooden bridge and the ford of Ghôranieh, where the great highways of Galaad and Moab meet. The Greek monastery of Qars el Yehûd, two and a half miles farther down the river, marks the traditional scene of the passage of the Hebrews (Jos., iii, 9-13) and of the baptism of Christ (Matt., iii). The scene of the ministrations of St. John the Baptist, however, has been very plausibly placed at the ford of the Ghôranieh, which has always been more frequented. In its lower portion the river is swelled by many affluents, which formerly watered a part of the Kikkar, whither Lot came when he parted from Abraham; these affluents are the Wâdi Kefren, and the Wâdi Nimrin. The Jordan, called by the Arabs esh Sheriat el Kebir (the great drinking-place), flows between steep banks of rather brittle clay. The lower part of its basin is called the Zôr, the bottom of the valley is the Ghôr. It is fringed with trees and shrubs-poplar, tamarisk, rhododendron, agnus castus, apple of Sodom-and its waters contain a great many fish-various species of capocta, the barbus canis, the cyprinodon, and a kind of catfish (silurus). Vipers, scorpions, porcupines, jackals, wild boars, ibexes, panthers (nimr), and a great variety of birds are found in the neighbouring thickets. A tropical temperature predominates. The water of the Jordan contains a saline residuum, chlorine, sodium, sulphuric acid, and magnesia. The floods of the river occur from February to May. Its width is very variable: at Ghôranieh scarcely more than twenty-seven yards; at the ford of el Henû as much as fortyfive to fifty-five yards; at its mouth about eighty yards. The volume of water brought to the Dead Sea by the Jordan is calculated to be, on the average, 883 cubic feet per second. Lynch, Narrative of the United States' Expedition to the River Jordan and the Dead Sea (6th ed., Philadelphia, 1869); Robinson, Biblical Researches (Boston, 1886); Lortet, La Syrie d'aujourd'hui (Paris, 1886); Lartet, Exploration géologique de la mer Morte (Paris, 1878); Blanckenhorn, Studien über das Klima des Jordentals in Zd DPV (1909); Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs, III (London, 1883); Vincent, Canaan d'apres l'exploration récente (Paris, 1907). F.M. Abel Jordanis (Jornandes) Jordanis (Jornandes) Historian, lived about the middle of the sixth century in the Eastern Roman Empire. His family was of high standing, either Goth or Alanic, and his grandfather was notary to Candac, King of the Alani in Mæsia. He himself held for a time the office of notary, though under what circumstances is not well known. He was later "converted", that is, he took orders. Everything else that is reported of his life rests on more or less plausible conjecture. It is not really proven, for example, that he bore "before his conversion" the martial name of Jornandes (i.e. bold as a boar), nor that after this conversion he became a monk in Thrace or in Mæsia. It is also uncertain whether he was Bishop of Croton, and whether the Vigilius, to whom he dedicated his second work, was Pope Vigilies, who from 547 to 554 lived in exile, chiefly at Constantinople. Two of his historical works have come down to us. The one is a history of the Goths, or, perhaps it would be better to say, of Mæsia, it is now commonly entitled: "Do origine actibusque Getarum" and is dedicated to his friend Castulus (Castalius), at whose instance it was begun about 551. It is substantially an extract from the Gothic history of Cassiodorus Senator, which probably bore the same title. But as this latter work was lost at a very early date, this excerpt becomes of almost inestimable value in determining a series of facts in the history of the Goths and of popular migrations. Naturally, Jordanis transplanted into his work the fundamental idea of Cassiodorus, namely the conviction that the only way to secure for the Gothic race a prosperous future was to bring about its peaceful absorption into the Roman Empire as the centre of Catholicism and of civilization. The second of his works is sometimes called "De summa temporum, vel origine actibusque gentis Romanorum", sometimes "De regnorum et temporum successione", at other times "Liber de origine mundi et actibus Romanorum ceterarumque gentium", and again "De gestis Romanorum". Jordanis served as a source of information for the geographers of Ravenna, for Paul the Deacon, for Hermann Contractus, Hugh of Flavigny, and others. The following, among some forty editions, are worth noting: Augsburg 1015, of the recension of Conrad Peutinger; Migne P.L. LXIX; Mommsen in "Monumenta Germ. Auctores antigenssimi" V; Germ. tr. in the "Geschichtsschreiber der deutschen Vorzeit", V; Fr. tr. by Savagner (Paris, 1842 and 1883); Swedish translation by Peringskiöld (Stockholm, 1719). TEUFFEL-SCHWABE, Gesch. der römischen Literatur (1890),§ 485; Allgem. deutsche Biogr., XIV; WATTENBACH, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen, I (1893), 72-9; POTTHAST, Bibliotheca, I (1896), 682-4; ACHLAND in Dict. Chris. Biog., s. v. Jordanus. PATRICIUS SCHLAGER Jordanus of Giano Jordanus of Giano (DE JANO). Italian Minorite, b. at Giano in the Valley of Spoleto, c. 1195; d. after 1262. About the year 1220 he entered the Franciscan Order and a year later was sent to Germany with a few other members of his order under the leadership of Cæsarius of Speyer, the first Minorite provincial of Germany. In 1223 he was ordained priest, and in 1225 he became guardian at Mainz and custos of the Minorite houses in Thuringia. He did much for the spread of his order in Northern Germany. In 1230, and again in 1238, he was sent to Italy on business relating to his order' He was present at a chapter of German Franciscans held at Halberstadt in 1262. On this occasion he dictated the early memoirs of the Franciscans in Germany (De primitivorum Fratrum in Theutoniam missorum et conversatione et vita) to a certain Brother Baldwin of Brandenburg. The memoirs begin with the year 1207 and are one of the chief sources for Franciscan history in Germany. The only extant manuscript breaks off abruptly at the year 1238, and has been carefully edited in "Analecta Franciscana", I (Quaracchi, 1885), 1-19. A German translation with many erroneous annotations was published by Voigt in "Abhandlungen der philologisch-historischen Klasse der sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften", V (Leipzig, 1870). DENIFLE. in Archie für Literatur- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters, I (Berlin, 1885), 630-40; FELDER, Geschichte der wissenschaftlichen Studien im Franziskaner Orden bis ton die Mitte des 18. Jahrh. (Freiburg, 1904), passim; French tr. (Bar-le-Duc and Paris, 1908). MICHAEL OTT Joseph Edmund Jorg Joseph Edmund Jörg Historian and politician, b. 23 Dec., 1819 at Immenstadt (Ahgau); d. at Landshut, 18 Nov., 1901. The son of a subaltern, lie first studied theology, then philology and history at Munich. He was a pupil of Döllinger, and was for years his collaborator in his "Geschichte der Reformation". In 1852 he was engaged in the Bavarian Record Office, and undertook in the same year the editorship of the "Historisch-politische Blätter" I which he retained (from 1857 with Franz Binder) till a short time before his death. For decades his "Zeitläufte", which appeared in this periodical, attracted great attention. On account of his opposition to the Government, he was transferred to Neuburg on the Danube, but was elected in 1863 a substitute member of the Bavarian Lower House, to which he belonged till 1881. He was promoted in 1866 to the position of district archivist at Landshut; from 1868 to 1869 he was a member of the German Zollparlament, and from 1874 to 1879 a member of the German Reichstag. His first work, "Deutschland in der Revolutionsperiode, 1522-26" (1851), a history of the German War of the Peasants, was a work of great literary excellence. The later books, "Geschichte des Protestantismus in seiner neuesten Entwickelung" (1858) and "Die Rene Aera in Preussen" (1860), are a collection of separate essays published in the paper "Historisch-politische Blätter". He was one of the first to realize the true meaning of the development of socialism, and as early as 1867 his "Geschichte der sozialpolitischen Parteien in Deutschland" appeared, having originated in his "Aphorismen" on the socialist movement Published in the "Historisch-politische Blätter'. Jörg was a conservative a "Great German" a convinced Bavarian monarchist and a determined but honest opponent of the Bavarian Liberal party and of the subordination of Bavaria to Prussia. The Bavarian "Volkspartei" (People's Party) grew with his cooperation in a few years from a modest group to a majority in the House (1869). Under King Max II, Jörg was violently opposed to the ministry of von der Pfordten, as he was also to the alliance made with Prussia (22 August) after the unfortunate issue of the war of 1866. His address to the House in Jan., 1870, occasioned the resignation of Prince Hohenlohe with a part of his cabinet. But henceforth events took their course uninfluenced by Jörg. At tile outbreak of the Franco-German War, he advocated the armed neutrality of Bavaria, but was deserted in the House by a number of his party; he was thus unable to prevent his country's participation in the war and the entrance of Bavaria by the Treaty of Versailles, into the new German Empire. However, he afterwards loyally accepted the new order of things. In the Reichstag his proposal to call a meeting of the committee for foreign affairs under the presidency of Bavaria gave rise to a violent conflict with Bismarck on 4 December, 1874. His attack on the Lutz ministry in 1875 failed because of the opposition of the Crown. He left the Reichstag in 1879, and two years later the Bavarian House, thereby ending his public life. The last twenty years of his life were passed on the Burg Trausnitz near Landshut (whence he was known as the "Hermit of the Trausnitz"), and the remainder of his days was devoted to his journalistic work arid his duties in the district archives of Landshut. A man of stainless honour, a Catholic of firm faith, a prominent politician, a sound political writer and thorough scholar, he was a strongly marked personality, and is acknowledged as such even by his opponents. Besides his above-named works his "Memoirs" also deserve mention. Obituary by BINDER in Historisch-polit. Blätter, CXXVIII (1901), 77:3. For a list of the other scanty sources see DöBERL in Biograph. Jahrbuch u. deutscher Nekrolog, VI (1904); cf. Totenliste, ibid., 52. HERMANN CARDAUNS Josaphat Josaphat (Hebrew for "Yahweh hath judged"; Sept. 'Iosaphát). Fourth King of Juda after the schism of the Ten Tribes. He was the son and successor of Asa, whose virtuous reign had established good traditions to which the new king endeavoured to remain faithful. He ascended the throne at the age of thirty-five and reigned twenty-three years (914-889 b.c.; 877-53 according to the Assyrian chronology). His zeal in suppressing the idolatrous worship of the "high places" is commended (II Par., xvii, 6), but it was only partially successful (III Kings, xxii, 44). In the third year of his reign he sent throughout the country a missionary expedition to instruct the people in the Law and exhort them to its faithful observance. He is reproached with contracting an alliance with Achab, King of Israel, the results of which were disastrous for the Kingdom of Juda. In the eighteenth year of his reign Josaphat visited Achab in Samaria, and nearly lost his life accompanying his treacherous ally to the siege of Ramoth Galaad (III Kingts, xxii). He subsequently continued his policy of reform, exercised a personal supervision over its execution, and established for the same purpose in the royal city a tribunal of priests, levites, and elders (II Par., xix, 4-11). About the twentieth year of his reign he repulsed more by prayers than by force of arms a formidable army of the Moabites, Maonites, and the Children of Ammon (II Par., xx, 1-30). Ochozias having succeeded Achab in the Northern Kingdom, Josaphat joined him in a mercantile enterprise having for object the construction of a fleet at Asiongaber, but the project was displeasing to the Lord and proved a failure (II Par., xx, 35-37). LesÊtre in Vigouroux, Dict. de la Bible, s. v.; White in Hastings, Dict. of the Bible, s. v. Jehoshaphat. James F. Driscoll Valley of Josaphat Valley of Josaphat (JEHOSHAPHAT). Mentioned in only one passage of the Bible (Joel, iii-Heb. text, iv). In Verse 2 we read: "I will gather together all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Josaphat: and I will plead with them there for my people, and for my inheritance Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations" (cf. verse 12). According to one interpretation which has gained currency, the prophet has presented as the scene of Jahveh's judgment on the Gentiles that valley where, in the presence of Josaphat, King of Juda, He annihilated the coalition of Moab, Ammon, and Edom. This Valley of the desert of Teqo'a, which was called by the Jews êmêq Berâkâh, that is, "valley of blessing", is to be sought in the vicinity of the Khirbet Berêkût, some distance to the west of the Khirbet Teqû'a (about eleven miles from Jerusalem). It is also credible that the prophet meant to designate an ideal, indeterminate valley -- the valley of judgment, and no more -- for Josaphat signifies "Jahveh judges". This valley is, in fact, spoken of under the name of "valley of destruction" (A. V. valley of decision") in verse 14 of the same chapter. According to the context, the Divine judgment will be exercised upon the nations who afflicted Juda and Jerusalem at the time of the captivity and the return from exile. In the fourth century, with the Pilgrim of Bordeaux, the Cedron takes the name of Valley of Josaphat. Eusebius and St. Jerome strengthen this view (Onomasticon, s.v.), while Cyril of Alexandria appears to indicate a different place; early Jewish tradition denied the reality of this valley. Subsequently to the fourth century, Christians, Jews, and, later, Mussulmans regard Cedron as the place of the last judgment. What has lent colour to this popular belief is the fact that since the time of the kings of Juda, Cedron has been the principal necropolis of Jerusalem. Josias scattered upon the tombs of the children of Israel the ashes of the idol of Astarte which he burned in Cedron (IV Kings, xxiii, 4). It was in Cedron that the" hand" of Absalom was set up, and the monument of St. James, and of Zachary. The ornamental facade of the tomb said to be that of Josaphat has been completely walled up by the Jews, who have their cemeteries on the flanks of the Valley of Cedron. They wish to stand in the first rank on the day when God shall appear in the Valley of Josaphat. RELAND, Palæestina. (Utrecht, 1714): GEYER, Itinera Hierosolymitana (Vienna, 1898); VAN HOONACKER, Les douze petits praphètes (Paris); GUY LE STRANGE, Palestine under the Moslems (London, 1890); NEUBAUER, La géographie du Talmud (Paris, 1868). F.M. ABEL St. Josaphat Kuncevyc St. Josaphat Kuncevyc Martyr, b. in the little town of Volodymyr in Lithuania (Volyn) in 1580 or -- according to some writers -- 1584; d. at Vitebsk, Russia, 12 November, 1623. The saint's birth occurred in a gloomy period for the Ruthenian Church. Even as early as the beginning of the sixteenth century the Florentine Union had become a dead-letter; in the case of the Ruthenian Church, complete demoralization followed in the wake of its severance from Rome, and the whole body of its clergy became notorious alike for their gross ignorance and the viciousness of their lives. After the Union of Berest' in 1596 the Ruthenian Church was divided into two contending parties -- the uniates and those who persevered in schism -- each with its own hierarchy. Among the leaders of the schismatic party, who laboured to enkindle popular hatred against the Uniates, Meletius Smotryckyj was conspicuous, and the most celebrated of his victims was Josaphat. Although of a noble Ruthenian stock, Josaphat's father had devoted himself to commercial pursuits, and held the office of town-councilor. Both parents contributed to implant the seeds of piety in the heart of their child. In the school at Volodymyr Josaphat -- Johannes was the saint's baptismal name -- gave evidence of unusual talent; he applied himself with the greatest zeal to the study of ecclesiastical Slav, and learned almost the entire casoslov (breviary), which from this period he began to read daily. From this source he drew his early religious education, for the unlettered clergy seldom preached or gave catechetical instruction. Owing to the straitened circumstances of his parents, he was apprenticed to the merchant Popovyc at Vilna. In this town, remarkable for the corruption of its morals and the contentions of the various religious sects, he seemed specially guarded by Providence, and became acquainted with certain excellent men (e.g. Benjamin Rutski), under whose direction he advanced in learning and in virtue. At the age of twenty-four (1604) he entered the Basilian monastery of the Trinity at Vilna. The fame of his virtues rapidly spread, and distinguished people began to visit him. After a notable life as a layman, Rutski also joined the order, bringing with him a wide erudition. When Josaphat reached the diaconate, regular services and labour for the salvation of souls had been already begun; the number of novices steadily increased, and under Rutski -- who had meanwhile been ordained priest -- there began the regeneration of religious life among the Ruthenians. In 1609, after private study under the Jesuit Fabricius, Josaphat was ordained priest. He subsequently became superior in several monasteries, and on 12 November, 1617, was reluctantly consecrated Bishop of Vitebsk, with right of succession to the Archbishopric of Polotsk. He became archbishop in 1618. While each succeeding year saw fresh evidence of his fruitful labours, it also witnessed the steady growth of the hatred of the schismatic party. Finally on 12 November, 1623, an axe-stroke and a bullet brought Josaphat his martyr's crown. After numerous miracles had occurred, a commission was appointed by Urban VIII in 1628 to inquire into the cause of Josaphat, and examined on oath 116 witnesses. Although five years had elapsed since Josaphat's death, his body was still incorrupt. In 1637 a second commission investigated the life of the martyr, and in 1643 -- twenty years after his death -- Josaphat was beatified. His canonization took place in 1867. Great were the virtues of the saint. As a boy he shunned the usual games of childhood, prayed much, and lost no opportunity of assisting at the Divine services. Children especially regarded him with the greatest affection, and found in him a worthy model. As an apprentice, he devoted every leisure hour to prayer and study. At first Popovyc viewed this behaviour with displeasure, but Josaphat gradually won such a position in his esteem, that Popovyc offered him his entire fortune and his daughter's hand. But Josaphat's love for the religious life never wavered. At first without a human guide along the paths of virtue, he received all spiritual direction immediately from the Holy Ghost. His favourite pious exercise was to make a poklony (i.e. a reverence, in which the head touches the ground) with the ejaculation: "Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a poor sinner." Never eating meat, he fasted much, wore a hair-shirt and an angular chain, slept on the bare floor, and chastised his body until the blood flowed. The Jesuits frequently urged him to set some bounds to his austerities. From his zealous study of the liturgical books he drew many proofs of Catholic truth, using his knowledge in the composition of several works -- "On the Baptism of St. Volodymyr"; "On the Falsification of the Slavic Books by the Enemies of the Metropolitan"; "On Monks and their Vows". As deacon, priest, and bishop, he was distinguished by his extraordinary zeal in the service of souls. Not alone in the church did he preach and hear confessions, but likewise in the fields, hospitals, prisons, and even on his journeys. Even where his words of instruction might by themselves have failed, his entreaties and tears ensured him success. This zeal, united with his kindness and extraordinary love for the poor, won numbers to the Catholic Faith. Among his converts were included many important personages such as Ignatius, Patriarch of Moscow, and Emmanuel Cantacuzenus, who belonged to the family of the Greek Emperor Palæologus. As archbishop he restored the churches; issued a catechism to the clergy with instructions that it should be learned by heart; composed rules for the priestly life, entrusting to the deacons the task of superintending their observance; assembled synods in various towns in the dioceses, and firmly opposed the Imperial Chancellor Sapieha, when he wished to make many concessions in favour of the schismatics. Throughout all his strivings and all his occupations, he continued his exemplary life as a religious, and never abated his zeal for self-mortification and prayer. He awaited death with a certain yearning, refusing to avail himself of the opportunity of flight afforded him. After his death his influence was still greater: conversions were numerous, and veneration for him continued to extend. His feast is kept on the first Sunday after 12 November, according to the Julian Calendar. GuÉpin, Un Apòtre de l'Union des Eglises en XVII ^e siècle (2 vols., Paris, 1898); Contieri, Vita di S. Giosafat Arcivescovo e Martire Ruteno dell' Ordine di S.Basilio il Grande (Rome, 1867); Susza, Cursus vitæ et certamen martyrii B. Josaphat Kuncewicz (Rome, 1665), ed. Martinov (Paris, 1865); Susza, Saulus et Paulus Ruthenæ Unionis sanguine B. Josaphat transformatus (Rome, 1666); GuÉpin and Kalinka, Zywot S. Józafata Kuncewicza, meczennika, arcybiskupa polockiego (Lemberg, 1885); Kozanevyc, Zytje sv. Svja?cenomucenyka Josafata Kuncevyca (Zovkva, 1902); Urban, Swiety Józafat Kuncewicz, biskup i meczennik (Krakow, 1906) -- the two last-mentioned are popular works. Josaphat J. Markevyc St. Joseph St. Joseph Spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary and foster-father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. LIFE Sources. The chief sources of information on the life of St. Joseph are the first chapters of our first and third Gospels; they are practically also the only reliable sources, for, whilst, on the holy patriarch's life, as on many other points connected with the Saviour's history which are left untouched by the canonical writings, the apocryphal literature is full of details, the non-admittance of these works into the Canon of the Sacred Books casts a strong suspicion upon their contents; and, even granted that some of the facts recorded by them may be founded on trustworthy traditions, it is in most instances next to impossible to discern and sift these particles of true history from the fancies with which they are associated. Among these apocryphal productions dealing more or less extensively with some episodes of St. Joseph's life may be noted the so-called "Gospel of James", the "Pseudo-Matthew", the "Gospel of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary", the "Story of Joseph the Carpenter", and the "Life of the Virgin and Death of Joseph". Genealogy. St. Matthew (1:16) calls St. Joseph the son of Jacob; according to St. Luke (3:23), Heli was his father. This is not the place to recite the many and most various endeavours to solve the vexing questions arising from the divergences between both genealogies; nor is it necessary to point out the explanation which meets best all the requirements of the problem (see Genealogy of Christ); suffice it to remind the reader that, contrary to what was once advocated, most modern writers readily admit that in both documents we possess the genealogy of Joseph, and that it is quite possible to reconcile their data. Residence. At any rate, Bethlehem, the city of David and his descendants, appears to have been the birth-place of Joseph. When, however, the Gospel history opens, namely, a few months before the Annunciation, Joseph was settled at Nazareth. Why and when he forsook his home-place to betake himself to Galilee is not ascertained; some suppose -- and the supposition is by no means improbable -- that the then moderate circumstances of the family and the necessity of earning a living may have brought about the change. St. Joseph, indeed, was a tekton, as we learn from Matthew 13:55, and Mark 6:3. The word means both mechanic in general and carpenter in particular; St. Justin vouches for the latter sense (Dial. cum Tryph., lxxxviii, in P.G., VI, 688), and tradition has accepted this interpretation, which is followed in the English Bible. Marriage. It is probably at Nazareth that Joseph betrothed and married her who was to become the Mother of God. When the marriage took place, whether before or after the Incarnation, is no easy matter to settle, and on this point the masters of exegesis have at all times been at variance. Most modern commentators, following the footsteps of St. Thomas, understand that, at the epoch of the Annunciation, the Blessed Virgin was only affianced to Joseph; as St. Thomas notices, this interpretation suits better all the evangelical data. It will not be without interest to recall here, unreliable though they are, the lengthy stories concerning St. Joseph's marriage contained in the apocryphal writings. When forty years of age, Joseph married a woman called Melcha or Escha by some, Salome by others; they lived forty-nine years together and had six children, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was James (the Less, "the Lord's brother"). A year after his wife's death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age, Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates; a miracle manifested the choice God had made of Joseph, and two years later the Annunciation took place. These dreams, as St. Jerome styles them, from which many a Christian artist has drawn his inspiration (see, for instance, Raphael's "Espousals of the Virgin"), are void of authority; they nevertheless acquired in the course of ages some popularity; in them some ecclesiastical writers sought the answer to the well-known difficulty arising from the mention in the Gospel of "the Lord's brothers"; from them also popular credulity has, contrary to all probability, as well as to the tradition witnessed by old works of art, retained the belief that St. Joseph was an old man at the time of marriage with the Mother of God. The Incarnation. This marriage, true and complete, was, in the intention of the spouses, to be virgin marriage (cf. St. Aug., "De cons. Evang.", II, i in P.L. XXXIV, 1071-72; "Cont. Julian.", V, xii, 45 in P.L.. XLIV, 810; St. Thomas, III:28; III:29:2). But soon was, the faith of Joseph in his spouse to be sorely tried: she was with child. However painful the discovery must have been for him, unaware as he was of the mystery of the Incarnation, his delicate feelings forbade him to defame his affianced, and he resolved "to put her away privately; but while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost. . . And Joseph, rising from his sleep, did as the angel of he Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife" (Matthew 1:19, 20, 24). The Nativity and the Flight to Egypt. A few months later, the time came for Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem, to be enrolled, according to the decree issued by Caesar Augustus: a new source of anxiety for Joseph, for "her days were accomplished, that she should be delivered", and "there was no room for them in the inn (Luke 2:1-7). What must have been the thoughts of the holy man at the birth of the Saviour, the coming of the shepherds and of the wise men, and at the events which occurred at the time of the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple, we can merely guess; St. Luke tells only that he was "wondering at those things which were spoken concerning him" (2:33). New trials were soon to follow. The news that a king of the Jews was born could not but kindle in the wicked heart of the old and bloody tyrant, Herod, the fire of jealousy. Again "an angel of the Lord appeared in sleep to Joseph, saying: Arise, and take the child and his mother, and fly into Egypt: and be there until I shall tell thee" (Matthew 2:13). Return to Nazareth. The summons to go back to Palestine came only after a few years, and the Holy Family settled again at Nazareth. St. Joseph's was henceforth the simple and uneventful life of an humble Jew, supporting himself and his family by his work, and faithful to the religious practices commanded by the Law or observed by pious Israelites. The only noteworthy incident recorded by the Gospel is the loss of, and anxious quest for, Jesus, then twelve years of old, when He had strayed during the yearly pilgrimage to the Holy City (Luke 2:42-51). Death. This is the last we hear of St. Joseph in the sacred writings, and we may well suppose that Jesus's foster-father died before the beginning of Savior's public life. In several circumstances, indeed, the Gospels speak of the latter's mother and brothers (Matthew 12:46; Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; John 7:3), but never do they speak of His father in connection with the rest of the family; they tell us only that Our Lord, during His public life was referred to as the son of Joseph (John 1:45; 6:42; Luke 4:22) the carpenter (Matthew 13:55). Would Jesus, moreover, when about die on the Cross, have entrusted His mother to John's care, had St. Joseph been still alive? According to the apocryphal "Story of Joseph the Carpenter", the holy man reached his hundred and eleventh year when he died, on 20 July (A. D. 18 or 19). St. Epiphanius gives him ninety years of age at the time of his demise; and if we are to believe the Venerable Bede, he was buried in the Valley of Josaphat. In truth we do not know when St. Joseph died; it is most unlikely that he attained the ripe old age spoken of by the "Story of Joseph" and St. Epiphanius. The probability is that he died and was buried at Nazareth. DEVOTION TO SAINT JOSEPH Joseph was "a just man". This praise bestowed by the Holy Ghost, and the privilege of having been chosen by God to be the foster-father of Jesus and the Spouse of the Virgin Mother, are the foundations of the honour paid to St. Joseph by the Church. So well-grounded are these foundations that it is not a little surprising that the cult of St. Joseph was so slow in winning recognition. Foremost among the causes of this is the fact that "during the first centuries of the Church's existence, it was only the martyrs who enjoyed veneration" (Kellner). Far from being ignored or passed over in silence during the early Christian ages, St. Joseph's prerogatives were occasionally descanted upon by the Fathers; even such eulogies as cannot be attributed to the writers among whose works they found admittance bear witness that the ideas and devotion therein expressed were familiar, not only to the theologians and preachers, and must have been readily welcomed by the people. The earliest traces of public recognition of the sanctity of St. Joseph are to be found in the East. His feast, if we may trust the assertions of Papebroch, was kept by the Copts as early as the beginning of the fourth century. Nicephorus Callistus tells likewise -- on what authority we do not know -- that in the great basilica erected at Bethlehem by St. Helena, there was a gorgeous oratory dedicated to the honour of our saint. Certain it is, at all events, that the feast of "Joseph the Carpenter" is entered, on 20 July, in one of the old Coptic Calendars in our possession, as also in a Synazarium of the eighth and nineth century published by Cardinal Mai (Script. Vet. Nova Coll., IV, 15 sqq.). Greek menologies of a later date at least mention St. Joseph on 25 or 26 December, and a twofold commemoration of him along with other saints was made on the two Sundays next before and after Christmas. In the West the name of the foster-father of Our Lord (Nutritor Domini) appears in local martyrologies of the ninth and tenth centuries, and we find in 1129, for the first time, a church dedicated to his honour at Bologna. The devotion, then merely private, as it seems, gained a great impetus owing to the influence and zeal of such saintly persons as St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Gertrude (d. 1310), and St. Bridget of Sweden (d. 1373). According to Benedict XIV (De Serv. Dei beatif., I, iv, n. 11; xx, n. 17), "the general opinion of the learned is that the Fathers of Carmel were the first to import from the East into the West the laudable practice of giving the fullest cultus to St. Joseph". His feast, introduced towards the end shortly afterwards, into the Dominican Calendar, gradually gained a foothold in various dioceses of Western Europe. Among the most zealous promoters of the devotion at epoch, St. Vincent Ferrer (d. 1419), Peter d'Ailly (d. 1420), St. Bernadine of Siena (d. 1444), and Jehan Charlier Gerson (d. 1429) deserve an especial mention. Gerson, who had, in 1400, composed an Office of the Espousals of Joseph particularly at the Council of Constance (1414), in promoting the public recognition of the cult of St. Joseph. Only under the pontificate of Sixtus IV (1471-84), were the efforts of these holy men rewarded by Roman Calendar (19 March). From that time the devotion acquired greater and greater popularity, the dignity of the feast keeping pace with this steady growth. At first only a festum simplex, it was soon elevated to a double rite by Innocent VIII (1484-92), declared by Gregory XV, in 1621, a festival of obligation, at the instance of the Emperors Ferdinand III and Leopold I and of King Charles II of Spain, and raised to the rank of a double of the second class by Clement XI (1700-21). Further, Benedict XIII, in 1726, inserted the name into the Litany of the Saints. One festival in the year, however, was not deemed enough to satisfy the piety of the people. The feast of the Espousals of the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph, so strenuously advocated by Gerson, and permitted first by Paul III to the Franciscans, then to other religious orders and individual dioceses, was, in 1725, granted to all countries that solicited it, a proper Office, compiled by the Dominican Pierto Aurato, being assigned, and the day appointed being 23 January. Nor was this all, for the reformed Order of Carmelites, into which St. Teresa had infused her great devotion to the foster-father of Jesus, chose him, in 1621, for their patron, and in 1689, were allowed to celebrate the feast of his Patronage on the third Sunday after Easter. This feast, soon, adopted throughout the Spanish Kingdom, was later on extended to all states and dioceses which asked for the privilege. No devotion, perhaps, has grown so universal, none seems to have appealed so forcibly to the heart of the Christian people, and particularly of the labouring classes, during the nineteenth century, as that of St. Joseph. This wonderful and unprecedented increase of popularity called for a new lustre to be added to the cult of the saint. Accordingly, one of the first acts of the pontificate of Pius IX, himself singularly devoted to St. Joseph, was to extend to the whole Church the feast of the Patronage (1847), and in December, 1870, according to the wishes of the bishops and of all the faithful, he solemnly declared the Holy Patriarch Joseph, patron of the Catholic Church, and enjoined that his feast (19 March) should henceforth be celebrated as a double of the first class (but without octave, on account of Lent). Following the footsteps of their predecessor, Leo XIII and Pius X have shown an equal desire to add their own jewel to the crown of St. Joseph: the former, by permitting on certain days the reading of the votive Office of the saint; and the latter by approving, on 18 March, 1909, a litany in honour of him whose name he had received in baptism. CHARLES L. SOUVAY Joseph Joseph The eleventh son of Jacob, the firstborn of Rachel, and the immediate ancestor of the tribes of Manasses and Ephraim. His life is narrated in Gen., xxx, 22-24; xxxvii; xxxix-1, wherein contemporary scholars distinguish three chief documents (J, E, P). (See Abraham) The date of his eventful career can be fixed only approximately at the present day, for the Biblical account of Joseph's life does not name the particular Pharaoh of his time, and the Egyptian customs and manners therein alluded to are not decisive as to any special period in Egyptian history. His term of office in Egypt falls probably under one of the later Hyksos kings (see EGYPT). His name, either contracted from Jehoseph (Ps. lxxxi, 6, in the Heb.) or abbreviated from Joseph-El (cf. Karnak inscription of Thothmes III, no. 78), is distinctly connected in Gen., xxx, 23, 24, with the circumstances of his birth and is interpreted: "may God add". He was born in Haran, of Rachel, Jacob's beloved and long-barren wife, and became the favourite son of the aged patriarch. After Jacob's return to Chanaan, various circumstances made Joseph the object of the mortal hatred of his brothers. He had witnessed some very wicked deed of several among them, and they knew that it had been reported to their father. Moreover, in his partiality to Joseph, Jacob gave him an ample garment of many colours, and this manifest proof of the patriarch's greater love for him aroused the jealousy of Joseph's brothers to such an extent that "they could not speak peaceably to him". Finally, with the imprudence of youth, Joseph told his brothers two dreams which clearly portended his future elevation over them all, but which, for the present, simply caused them to hate him all the more (Gen., xxxvii, 1-11). In this frame of mind, they seized upon the first opportunity to get rid of the one of whom they spoke as "the dreamer". As they fed their father's flocks in Dothain (now Tell Dothain, about fifteen miles north of Sichem), they saw from afar Joseph, who had been sent by Jacob to inquire about their welfare, coming to them, and they at once resolved to reduce to naught all his dreams of future greatness. At this point the narrative in Genesis combines two distinct accounts of the manner in which the brothers of Joseph actually carried out their intention of avenging themselves upon him. These accounts present slight variations, which are examined in detail by recent commentators on Genesis, and which, far from destroying, rather confirm the historical character of the fact that, through the enmity of his brothers, Joseph was brought down to Egypt. To protect themselves they dipped Joseph's fine garment into the blood of a kid, and sent it to their father. At the sight of this blood-stained garment, Jacob naturally believed that a wild beast had devoured his beloved son, and he gave himself up to the most intense grief (xxxvii, 12-35). While thus bewailed as dead by his father, Joseph was sold into Egypt, and treated with the utmost consideration and the greatest confidence by his Egyptian master, to whom Gen., xxxvii, 36, gives the name of Putiphar ["He whom Ra (the sun-god) gave"] and whom it describes as Pharaoh's eunuch and as the captain of the royal body-guard (cf. xxxix, 1). Quick and trustworthy, Joseph soon became his master's personal attendant. He was next entrusted with the superintendence of his master's house, a most extensive and responsible charge, such as was unusual in large Egyptian households. With Yahweh's blessing, all things, "both at home and in the field", became so prosperous under Joseph's management that his master trusted him implicitly, and "knew not any other things, save the bread which he ate". While thus discharging with perfect success his manifold duties of major-domo (Egyp. mer-per), Joseph was often brought in contact with the lady of the house, for at that time there was as much free intercourse between men and women in Egypt as there is among us in the present day. Oftentimes she noticed the youthful and handsome Hebrew overseer, and carried away by passion, she repeatedly tempted him to commit adultery with her, till at length, resenting his virtuous conduct, she accused him of those very criminal solicitations wherewith she had herself pursued him. The credulous master believed the report of his wife, and in his wrath cast Joseph into prison. There also Yahweh was with His faithful servant: He gave him favour with the keeper of the prison, who soon placed in Joseph implicit confidence, and even committed to his charge the other prisoners (xxxix, 2-23). Shortly afterwards two of Pharaoh's officers, the chief butler and chief baker, having incurred the royal displeasure for some reason unknown to us, were put in ward in the house of the captain of the guard. They also were placed under Joseph's charge, and as he came in to them one morning, he noticed their unusual sadness. They could not catch the meaning of a dream which each had had during the night, and there was no professional interpreter of dreams near at hand. Then it was that Joseph interpreted their dreams correctly, bidding the chief butler to remember him when restored to his office, as indeed he was three days after, on Pharaoh's birthday (xl). Two years rolled by, after which the monarch himself had two dreams, the one of the fat and lean kine, and the other of the full and withered ears. Great was Pharaoh's perplexity at these dreams, which no one in the realm could interpret. This occurrence naturally reminded the chief butler of Joseph's skill in interpreting dreams, and he mentioned to the king what had happened in his own case and in that of the chief baker. Summoned before Pharaoh, Joseph declared that both dreams signified that seven years of plenty would immediately be followed by seven years of famine, and further suggested that one-fifth of he produce of the years of plenty be laid by as provision for the years of famine. Deeply impressed by the clear and plausible interpretation of his dreams, and recognizing in Joseph a wisdom more than human, the monarch entrusted to him the carrying out of the practical measure which he had suggested. for this purpose he raised him to the rank of keeper of the royal seal, invested him with an authority second only to that of the throne, bestowed on him the Egyptian name of Zaphenath-paneah ("God spoke, and he came into life"), and gave him to wife Aseneth, the daughter of Putiphares, the priest of the great national sanctuary at On (or Heliopolis, seven miles north east of the modern Cairo). Soon the seven years of plenty predicted by Joseph set in, during which he stored up corn in each of the cities from which it was gathered, and his wife, Aseneth, bore him two sons whom he called Manasses and Ephraim, from the favorable circumstances of the time of their birth. Next came the seven years of dearth, during which by his skilful management Joseph saved Egypt from the worst features of want and hunger, and not only Egypt, but also the various countries around, which had to suffer from the same grievous and protracted famine (xli). Among these neighbouring countries was counted the land of Chanaan where Jacob had continued to dwell with Joseph's eleven brothers. Having heard that corn was sold in Egypt, the aged patriarch sent his sons thither to purchase some, keeping back, however, Rachel's second child, Benjamin, "lest perhaps he take harm in the journey". Admitted into Joseph's presence, his brothers failed to recognize in the Egyptian grandee before them the lad whom they had so cruelly treated twenty years before. He roughly accused them of being spies sent to discover the undefended passes of the eastern frontier of Egypt, and when they volunteered information about their family, he, desirous of ascertaining the truth concerning Benjamin, retained one of them as hostage in prison and sent the others home to bring back their youngest brother with them. On their return to their father, or at their first lodging-place on the way, they discovered the money which Joseph had ordered to be placed in their sacks. Great was their anxiety and that of Jacob, who for a time refused to allow his sons to return to Egypt in company with Benjamin. At length he yielded under the pressure of famine, sending, at the same time, a present to conciliate the favour of the Egyptian prime minister. at the sight of Benjamin Joseph understood that his brothers had told him the truth at their first appearance before him, and he invited them to a feast in his own house. At the feast he caused them to be seated exactly according to their age, and he honoured Benjamin with "a greater mess", as a mark of distinction (xlii-xliii). Then they left for home, unsuspecting that at Joseph's order his divining cup had been hidden in Benjamin's sack. They were soon overtaken, charged with theft of that precious cup, which, upon search, was found in the sack where it had been hidden. In their dismay they returned in a body to Joseph's house, and offered to remain as his bondmen in Egypt, an offer which Joseph declined, declaring that he would only retain Benjamin. Whereupon Juda pleads most pathetically that, for the sake of his aged father, Benjamin be dismissed free, and that he be allowed to remain in his brother's place as Joseph's bondman. Then it was that Joseph disclosed himself to his brothers, calmed their fears, and sent them back with a pressing invitation to Jacob to come and settle in Egypt (xliv-xlv, 24). It was in the land of Gessen, a pastoral district about forty miles north-east of Cairo, that Joseph called his father and brothers to settle. There they lived as prosperous shepherds of the king, while in their misery the Egyptians were gradually reduced to sell their lands to the Crown, in order to secure their subsistence from the all-powerful prime minister of Pharaoh. And so Joseph brought it to pass that the former owners of landed property -- with the exception, however, of the priests -- became simple tenants of the king and paid to the royal treasury, as it were, an annual rent of one-fifth of the produce of the soil (xlvi, 28-xlvii, 26). During Jacob's last moments, Joseph promised his father that he would bury him in Chanaan, and caused him to adopt his two sons, Manasses and Ephraim (xlvii, 25-xlviii). After his father's demise, he had his body embalmed and buried with great pomp in the Cave of Machpelah (l, 1-14). He also allayed the fears of his brothers who dreaded that he should now avenge their former ill-treatment of him. He died at the age of 110, and his body was embalmed and put in a coffin in Egypt (l, 15-25). Ultimately, his remains were carried into Chanaan and buried in Sichem (Exod., xiii, 19; Josue, xxiv, 32). Such, in substance, is the Biblical account of Joseph's career. In its wonderful simplicity, it sketches one of the most beautiful characters presented by Old-Testament history. As a boy, Joseph has the most vivid horror for the evil done by some of his brothers; and as a youth, he resists with unflinching courage the repeated and pressing solicitations of his master's wife. Cast into prison, he displays great power of endurance, trusting to God for his justification. When raised to the rank of viceroy of Egypt, he shows himself worthy of that exalted dignity by his skilful and energetic efforts to promote the welfare of his adopted countrymen and the extension of his master's power. A character so beautiful made Joseph a most worthy type of Christ, the model of all perfection, and it is comparatively easy to point out some of the traits of resemblance between Jacob's beloved son and the dearly beloved Son of God. Like Jesus, Joseph was hated and cast out by his brethren, and yet wrought out their salvation through the sufferings they had brought upon him. Like Jesus, Joseph obtained his exaltation only after passing through the deepest and most undeserved humiliations; and, in the kingdom over which he ruled, he invited his brethren to join those whom heretofore they had looked upon as strangers, in order that they also might enjoy the blessings which he had stored up for them. Like the Saviour of the world, Joseph had but words of forgiveness and blessing for all who, recognizing their misery, had recourse to his supreme power. It was to Joseph of old, as to Jesus, that all had to appeal for relief, offer homages of the deepest respect, and yield ready obedience in all things. Finally, to the Patriarch Joseph, as to Jesus, it was given to inaugurate a new order of things for the greater power and glory of the monarch to whom he owed his exaltation. While thus recognizing the typical meaning of Joseph's career, one should not for a moment lose sight of the fact that one is in presence of a distinctly historical character. Efforts have indeed been made in certain quarters to transform the history of Joseph into a story of a tribe of the same name which, at some remote period, would have attained to great power in Egypt, and which, at a much later date, popular imagination would have simply pictured as an individual. But such a view of the Biblical account is decidedly inadmissible. To careful scholars it will always appear more difficult to think of Joseph as a tribe that rose to power in Egypt than as an individual who actually passed through the experiences which are described in Genesis. Again, they will always look upon the incidents narrated in the sacred record as too natural, and too closely related, to be entirely the product of fiction. The same historical character of the Biblical narrative is powerfully confirmed by the substantial agreement which contemporary critics feel bound to admit between the two principal documents (J, E), which, according to them, have been used in its composition: such an agreement points manifestly to an earlier oral tradition, which, when committed to writing in two distinct forms, was not materially affected by the altered circumstances of a later age. It is finally put beyond the possibility of a doubt by the Egyptian colouring which is common to both these documents, and which will be presently described. This Egyptian element is no mere literary dress with which the poplar fancy of a later date and in a distant land could have vested more or less happily the incidents narrated. It belongs to the very core of the history of Joseph, and is plainly a direct reflection of the manners and customs of ancient Egypt. Its constant truthfulness to things Egyptian proves the existence of an ancient tradition, dating as far back as the Egyptian period, and faithfully preserved in the composite account of Genesis. The extent of the Egyptian colouring just referred to in the history of Joseph has been closely investigated by recent scholars. The brown-skinned children of Israel, who brought camels richly laden from the East to the Nile, are drawn to life on the Egyptian monuments, and the three kinds of spices they were carrying into Egypt are precisely those which would be in demand in that country for medicinal, religious, or embalming purposes. The existence of various overseers in the houses of Egyptian grandees is in perfect harmony with ancient Egyptian society, and the mer-per or superintendent of the house, such as Joseph was, is in particular often mentioned on the monuments. To the story of Joseph and his master's wife, there is a remarkable and well-known parallel in the Egyptian "Tale of the Two Brothers". The functions and dreams of the chief butler and chief baker are Egyptian in their minute details. In the seven cows which Pharaoh saw feeding in the meadow, we have a counterpart of the seven cows of Athor, pictured in the vignette of chapter cxlviii of the "Book of the Dead". Joseph's care to shave and change his raiment before appearing in the presence of Pharaoh, is in agreement with Egyptian customs. His advice to gather corn during the seven years of plenty falls in with Egyptian institutions, since all important cities were supplied with granaries. Joseph's investiture, his change of name at his elevation, can be easily illustrated by reference to the Egyptian monuments. The occurrence of famines of long duration, the successful efforts made to supply the corn to the people year after year while they lasted, find their parallels in recently discovered inscriptions. The charge of being spies, made by Joseph against his brothers, was most natural in view of the precautions known to have been taken by the Egyptian authorities for the safety of their Eastern frontier. The subsequent history of Joseph, his divining cup, his giving to his brothers changes of garments, the land of Gessen being set apart for his father and brethren, because the shepherd was an abomination to the Egyptians, Joseph's embalming of his father, the funeral procession for Jacob's burial, etc., exhibit in a striking manner the great accuracy of the Biblical account in its numerous and oftentimes passing references to Egyptian habits and customs. Even the age of 110 years, at which Joseph died, appears to have been regarded in Egypt -- as is shown by several papyri -- as the most perfect age to be desired. FRANCIS E. GIGOT Joseph of Issachar Joseph of Issachar A man of the tribe of Issachar, and the father of Igal who was one of the spies sent by Moses to traverse Chanaan and report on the country (Numbers 13:8). FRANCIS E. GIGOT Joseph II Joseph II (1741-90). German Emperor (reigned 1765-90), of the House of Hapsburg-Lorraine, son and successor of Maria Theresa and Francis I. I. DEVELOPMENT OF CHARACTER Of his mother's sixteen children he was the most difficult to manage, and her attempts to frighten him by threats of the spirit-world only laid the foundations of his religious scepticism. A soldier-tutor employed in vain the severity of a martinet; a Jesuit instructed him in religion, Latin, mathematics, and military science, but the pedantic nature of the training deprived him of all disposition for religion and earnest studies; another tutor, who wrote fifteen large volumes for the prince's instruction in history, destroyed all his respect for the historical characters of the past. Flatterers, and even the tutor himself, stimulated the extravagant imperiousness of the crown-prince, while Martini (professor of natural law) found in him an eager student of physiocracy--a doctrine which affected profoundly Joseph's mind, firing him with an enthusiasm for current views, the "rights of man", and the welfare of the people. French "enlightenment" also influenced him, especially in the persons of Voltaire and his royal adept, Frederick the Great. Joseph viewed with jealous discontent the intellectual superiority of the Protestant North of Germany, then first dominant over the Catholic South: he also reflected with chafing impatience on Frederick's victories and talent for government, and thence conceived a definite aim in life. But when he ascended the throne, his plans failed utterly. II. AS RULER After 1765 Joseph acted as emperor and co-regent with his mother, but administered only the business routine and the military affairs of the empire. Finally, resenting the manner in which his hands were tied by his prudent parent, he took to travel in Italy, France, and the Crown Lands. Twice he met Frederick the Great, and in 1780 Catherine II of Russia. In the same Year his mother, Empress Maria Theresa, died, and Joseph was free. (a) In the Empire Joseph applied himself with the best intentions, among other matters, to the reform of imperial jurisprudence. But difficulties from within and without checked his fiery enthusiasm. Although a Liberal and an imperialist, whenever the interests of the Hapsburgs were in question, he allowed the imperial power to be lessened after the fashion of other German princes. Ecclesiastical politics also played a considerable rõle in the empire. Joseph tried to secure German ecclesiastical preferments for Austrian princes, urged obsolete imperial privileges, e.g. the so-called Panisbriefe, to provide for the support of his lay adherents in imperial monasteries. By cutting off the Austrian territory of such great metropolitan sees as Salzburg and Passau, he severed the last tie which united Austria with the empire. Though not in itself conflicting with German interests, his scheme of exchanging the Austrian Netherlands for the neighbouring Bavaria on the occasion of the impending change of dynasty, led to the Bavarian War of Succession. In 1785 Prussia opposed the revival of this scheme by forming the" League of Princes". Joseph now endeavoured to expand his dominions in the north and east, and to make Austria dominant in Central Europe. He obtained a considerable increase of territory in the First Partition of Poland (1773), and concluded a defensive alliance with Russia, which led to great schemes for a larger gain of territory in the east. In the Austro-Russian war against the Turks (1788), however, though Joseph's army took Belgrade, Catherine obtained all the fruits of the campaign. (b) In Austria In home affairs, Joseph sought to weld the fundamentally differing peoples of the Austrian State-Germans, Slavs, Hungarians, Belgians, Italians-into one compact nation. So he began to level and centralize great and small things in every direction and in the greatest haste. Frederick II said of Joseph: "He takes the second step before the first." Joseph's predecessor had not been heedless of the new tendencies. She had set the machine of state running in a modern groove. In church affairs she had resorted to strict measures to regulate disorders, but Joseph saw in these only "half measures and inconsistencies", and, in the glow of conviction, "desired by hot-house methods to bring his mother's incipient reforms to maturity" (Krones). He united the administration of all the provinces in the central council at Vienna, of which be himself was the head, while he abolished their diets or paralysed them by the provincial executive authorities. Though a professed enemy of every irregularity, he often undertook to decide matters belonging to the central government at Vienna. German became the official language in all the countries subject to his rule; the courts of justice were independent and impartial to noble and peasant. Serfdom and the right of the landed nobles to punish their tenants ceased; the codification of the civil and criminal laws, begun in 1753, was furthered, and the death penalty was abolished. In his Ehepatent Joseph created the Austrian marriage law; he subjected the nobility and clergy to state taxation, and opened up new sources of revenue; he abolished the censorship and permitted freedom of speech, a measure which loosed a flood of pamphlets of the most pernicious kind, especially in ecclesiastical polemics. III. ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY (a) Its Development Joseph was the father of Josephinism, which is nothing else than the highest development of the craving common among secular princes after an episcopal and territorial church. Its beginnings can be traced in Austria to the thirteenth century, and it became clearly marked in the sixteenth, especially so far as the administration of church property was concerned. It was fostered in the second half of the eighteenth century by the spread of Febronian and Jansenist ideas, based on Gallican principles. These notions were by no means new to wide circles of German Catholics or at the court of Vienna. Prince Kaunitz, the chancellor of state, who directed Austrian politics for forty years from 1753, was a personal friend of Voltaire, and thus a zealous champion of Gallicanism. The Jansenist, Van Swieten (court-physician to Maria Theresa), was president of the imperial commission on education. At the university, "enlightenment" had powerful advocates in Martini, Sonnenfels, and Riegger, and it was there that Joseph's idea of a national state church received its legal basis. According to natural law, the chief object of a state ought to be the greatest possible happiness of its subjects. The chief obstacles, neglect of duty and lack of mutual goodwill in individuals, religion alone can remove by its appeals to conscience. Hence the State recognizes religion as the principal factor in education: "The Church is a department of police, which must serve the aims of the State until such time as the enlightenment of the people permit of its relief by the secular police" (Sonnenfels). The canonist Riegger derived the supremacy of the State over the Church from the theory of an original compact (pactum unionis), in virtue of which the Government exercises in the name of all individuals a certain ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the Jura circa sacra. Another canonist (Gmeiner) formulated the following theory: Any canonical legislation that conflicts with the interests of the State is opposed to natural law, and therefore to the will of Christ; consequently the Church has no right to enact such laws, nor can the State accept them. Kaunitz reduced these principles to practice: "The supremacy of the State over the Church extends to all ecclesiastical laws and practices devised and established solely by man, and whatever else the Church owes to the consent and sanction of the secular power. Consequently, the State must always have the power to limit, alter, or annul its former concessions, whenever reasons of state, abuses, or altered circumstances demand it." Joseph raised these propositions to principles of government, and treated ecclesiastical institutions as public departments of the State. Maria Theresa has been incorrectly represented as favouring Josephinism. Most of the measures that presaged Josephinism in the latter part of her reign had not her approval. Joseph's entire policy was the embodiment of his idea of a centralized empire developing from within and in which all public affairs, political and ecelesiastico-political, were treated as an indivisible whole. His reforms, a medley of financial, social reformatory, and ecclesiastico-reformatory ideas, have no solid foundation. (b) The Reforms Bishoprics, religious orders, and benefices were limited by the Austrian boundary Non-Austrian bishops were excluded, which simplified the often very confused overlapping of diocesan authorities. The announcement of papal, in fact of all ecclesiastical, decrees, was made dependent on imperial approval (see PLACET); decisions on impediments to marriage were referred to the bishops; the communication of the bishops with Rome, and of the religious orders with their generals in foreign countries, was forbidden, partly from considerations of political economy. In 1783, while at Rome, Joseph personally threatened that he would establish an independent state-church; he abolished all exemptions from episcopal authority and by an obligatory oath brought the bishops into dependence on the State. The acceptance of papal titles and attendance at the German College in Rome were forbidden, and a German College was established at Pavia in opposition to the Roman institution. The Edict of Toleration of 1781 granted to all denominations the free exercise of their religion and civil rights; at the same time a series of petty regulations concerning Divine service prescribed the number of the candles, the length and style of the sermons, the prayers, and hymns. All superfluous altars and all gorgeous vestments and images were to be removed; various passages in the Breviary were to have paper pasted over them; dogmatic questions were excluded from the pulpit, from which, on the other hand, all government proclamations were to be announced. "Our Brother the Sacristan", as Frederick the Great named Joseph, sincerely believed that in doing this he was creating a purified Divine service, and never heeded the discontent of his people and the sneers of non-Catholics. The fundamental idea underlying a state-church is that the State is the administrator of the temporal property of the Church. Joseph embodied this idea in a law merging the funds of all churches, religious houses, and endowments within his territories, into one great fund for the various requirements of public worship, called the Religionsfonds. This fund was the pivot measure around which all other reforms turned. Not only ecclesiastical property hitherto devoted to parochial uses, not only the property which the suppressed religious houses had devoted to parochial works, but all ecclesiastical property--the still remaining religious houses, chapels, confraternities, and benefices, and all existing religious endowments whatsoever-was held to be part of the new fund. The suppression of the religious houses in 1782 affected at first only the contemplative orders. The Religionsfonds, created out of the property of the monasteries, gave a new direction to Joseph's monastic policy. In the foreground stood" the wealthy prelacies", which from 1783 were the chief object of his suppressions. The journey of Pius VI to Vienna was fruitless, and the laity reacted but feebly against the suppressions. Of the 915 monasteries (762 for men, and 153 for women) existing in 1780 in German Austria (including Bohemia, Moravia, and Galicia), 388 (280 for men, 108 for women) were closed-figures which are often greatly exaggerated. By these suppressions the "religious fund" reached 35,000,000 gulden ($14,000,000). Countless works of art were destroyed or found their way to second-hand dealers or the mint, numberless libraries were pitilessly scattered. The suppression of the ternaries and hermits bought no increase to the fund, and the suppression of the confraternities (1783) was likewise a financial failure. They were looked upon as sources of superstition and religious fanaticism; half their property was allotted to educational purposes, the other half was given over, "with all their ecclesiastical privileges, indulgences, and graces", to a new "Single Charitable Association", which possessed the features of both a confraternity and a charitable institution and was intended to end all social distress. But the people had little taste for this "enlightened confraternity". The suppression of the filial churches and chapels-of-ease permitted the creation of new parishes. In carrying out this measure and in the suppression of the confraternities, Joseph's reforms met with the first popular resistance. The endowments for Masses and altars, for oratories, chapels-of-ease, and confraternities, for processions and pilgrimages, and for devotions no longer permitted in the new arrangement of Divine service, all went to the Religionsfonds, which undertook to satisfy the provisions for Masses, wherever the fact of endowment could be proved. Joseph assigned a definite number as pensions for dispossessed monks and as the stipends of parochial clergy. Benefices without cure of souls, prebends in the larger churches, and all canonries above a fixed number, belonging to collegiate churches and cathedral chapters, were forfeited to the "religious fund", and the incumbents transferred to parochial positions. A maximum was fixed for the endowment of bishoprics, the surplus being turned over to the "religious fund, as were also the incomes of livings during their vacancy. The first duty of the "religious fund" was to provide for the ex-religious. Their number did not exceed ten thousand. They received a yearly salary of 150 to 200 gulden ($60 to $80), and the monks were transferred to parochial and scholastic work. The state-church reached its fullest expression in the parochial organization. The State undertook to train and remunerate the clergy, to present to livings, and to regulate Divine service. No parish church was to be over an hour's walk from any parishioner; and a church was to be provided for every 700 souls. The monasteries which still remained bore the main burden of the parochial organization, and their inmates, as well as the ex-monks, were required to pass a state concursus for the pastoral positions, while only in cases of extreme necessity did the "religious fund" furnish the means for the building of churches and rectories, for the care of cemeteries and the equipment of churches. Naturally, the "religious fund" had to pay the costs of placing the clergy under state control, of the general seminaries and the support of the young clerics, who thus became wholly dependent on the Government, of the institutes for the practical education of the clergy, which were to be established in every diocese, and of the support of sick and aged priests after the incorporation with the "religious fund" of the funds created for superannuated priests (Emeritenfonds) and to supply needed support (Defizientenfonds). The academic reforms of Maria Theresa (Studienreform) and of Rautenstrauch (Studienplan) in 1776, and the introduction of Riegger's "Manual of Canon Law", paved the way for tile creation of the general theological seminaries. Joseph founded twelve: at Vienna, Graz, Prague, Olmütz, Presburg, Pesth, Innsbruck, Freiburg, Lemberg (two for Galicia, Greek and Latin Rites), Louvain, and Pavia. In 1783 all the monastic schools and diocesan houses of studies were suppressed. The "general seminaries" were boarding-houses (Konvikte) connected with the universities; some of them, however, had their own theological courses. Five years of study in the seminary were followed by one in the bishop's training-house (Priesterhaus) or in a monastery. The principles of the seminary directors were Liberal, in keeping with the rationalistic theology of the State. Sharp opposition arose, especially on the part of the ecclesiastical foundations (Stifte) and the monasteries. The novices, educated at their expense in the general seminaries, for the most part lost their monastic vocation. Some of the general seminaries were badly managed, At Innsbruck, Pavia, and Louvain, unsuitable directors were appointed; at Louvain the general seminary was eventually the cause of a civil war and of the revolt of Belgium. However, other seminaries sent forth efficient pastors and learned theologians (Freiburg). The fermentation within the ranks of the clergy of south-west Germany and Austria until after tile middle of the nineteenth century came from the Liberal ideas imbibed at this time. The accounts of the deplorably depraved conditions in the general seminaries, which are met with in earlier Catholic literature (Theiner, S. Brunner, Brück, Stöckl) and occasionally repeated even now, are in part exaggerations of faults and blunders that were real enough; to a considerable extent, however, they are based on forgeries "invented for the purpose of stirring up the smouldering flames of the Belgian Revolution. Seminaries like those of Freiburg and Vienna were counted among tile worst, though it has been since proved that they were among the best. The most appalling abuses were reported of a seminary at Rottenburg in the Tyrol, though there was never a seminary in the place. These accusations, true or false, but chiefly the exhaustion of the "religious fund", hastened their suppression in 1790. They became, however, the models of the actual theological Konvikte (houses for aspirants to the priesthood after their classical instruction in a state gymnasium) and the programme of studies laid out by Rautenstrauch is to this day the groundwork of the curriculum in the Catholic theological faculties of Germany and Austria. The vesting of all ecclesiastical property in a single treasury was impossible in practice. In the case of monastic property it was capitalized at great loss. The capital of every church and foundation had to be described publicly, converted into national bonds, and invested in the "religious fund". In this way Joseph to a certain extent satisfied his distrust of the ecclesiastical administration of property, while the same was placed at the service of the heavily encumbered state treasury. But many of the enterprises formerly conducted by the religious foundations could be no longer carried on owing to the slender returns. Still greater was the damage done to the credit and the resources of entire provinces, for hitherto the ecclesiastical institutions (ce.g. the confraternities, chapels and churches in the country districts had been the only moneylenders. Peasants, mechanics, and artisans were now placed at the mercy of usurious Jews and foreigners, while many were forthwith ruined by the sudden demands made on them. A tax was also levied on church property which had escaped complete secularization. From 1788 it was imposed on the still existing religious orders and on the secular clergy. This oppressively high income-tax was meant to divert into the coffers of the "religious fund" all revenues of the aforesaid institutions not absolutely necessary for the support of life. (c) Historical Importance The Religionsfonds was not the magnanimous act in favour of the religious needs of the people that it is held to have been. Formed by consolidating almost the entire property of the Church, it undertook only such obligations as it was in any case the duty of the State to fulfill, especially after the suppression of institutions which had previously of their own accord relieved the State of a portion of these burdens. Moreover the "religious fund" was from the first diverted to other reforms, e.g. in education; in time of war it was made to contribute heavy subsidies and suspended almost all its contributions for the religious needs of the people. We can thus easily understand how in the nineteenth century the "religious fund" came to need state-aid, which indeed the State was in justice bound to give in view of the fact that the national bonds, in which the "religious fund" had been chiefly invested, had sunk to one-fifth of their face value. The secularization under Joseph, if less offensive than other well-known secularizations, is nevertheless reprehensible. Joseph undertook his reforms with the best intentions, but left only vague and incomplete semblances of reform. After a reign of ten years and fully aware of his failure, he ended his unhappy and lonely existence (20 February, 1790), leaving even the monarchy itself in peril. Hungary was in a ferment; Belgium had just been lost; other provinces were in a state of violent discontent. But though in general the Josephinist system collapsed, its essential principles remain: the efforts for union among all the lands of Austria are one result of the system; another is the attitude of the nineteenth-century State towards the Church. ARNETH, Gesch. Marias There, was (10 vols., Vienna, 1863-79); IDEM, Maria Th. u. Joseph 11. Are Correspondenz, (Vienna, 1867-8); BRUNNER, Die theolog, Dienerschaft am Hofe Josephs II (Vienna, 1868); BaücK, Die rationalist. Bestrebungen im kath. Deutschland (Mainz, 1865); FRANZ, Studien zur kirchl. Reform Josephs II (Freiburg, 1908); GEIER, Die Durchführung der kirchl. Reform Jos. II (Stuttgart, 1905); KRONES, Handbuch der Gesch. Oesterreichs (Berlin, 1878-), gives early bibliography; Kusrj, Jo eph II u. die äussere Kirchenverfassung Innerüsterreichs (Stuttgart, 1908); LORENZ, JOS. II, u. die belgische Revolution (Vienna, 1862); MERKLE, Die kath. Beurteilung des Aufklärungszeitalters (Berlin, 1909); RANKE, Die deutschen Mächte u. der Fürstenbund (Leipzig, 1875); RÖSCH, Das Kirchenrecht im Zeitalter der Aufklärung in Archiv für kath. Kirchenrecht (Mainz, 1903-5); SCHLITTER, Reise Pius VI. nach Wien (Vienna, 1892); WOLF, Oesterreich unter M. Theresia, Jos. II u. Leopold II (Berlin, 1882); WOLFSGRUBER, Kard. Migazzi (Ravensburg, 1897); Codex Juris ecciesiastici Josephini (Presburg, 1789). On the general seminaries: THEINER, Gesch. der geistl,. Bildungsanstalten (Mainz, 1835); STÖCKL, Lehrbuch der Gesch. der Pädagogik (1876); ZSCHOKKE, Die theol. Studien in Oesterreich (Vienna, 1894); KÖNIG, Beiträge zur Gesch, der theol. Fakultäten in Freiburg in Freiburger Diözesanarchiv, X, XI (Freiburg, 1877-8); IDEM, Programm der Universität (Freiburg, 1884) also the above-named works of BRUNNER, BRÜCK, FRANZ, and Merkle. H. FRANZ. Sisters of Saint Joseph Sisters of Saint Joseph CONGREGATION OF THE SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH Founded at Le Puy, in Velay, France, by the Rev. Jean-Paul Médaille of the Society of Jesus (b. at Carcassonne, 29 January, 1618; d. at Auch, 15 May, 1689). He was admitted into the Society in 1640, became noted as a teacher of rhetoric and philosophy before entering upon his career as a preacher, in which he distinguished himself by his great oratorical power, but most especially by his marvelous influence over souls. He encouraged a few of his most fervent penitents to consecrate themselves to the service of God, and addressed himself to the Bishop of Le Puy, the Right Rev. Henri de Maupas, a friend and disciple of the great St. Vincent de Paul. The bishop invited the aspirants to assemble at Le Puy where shortly afterwards he placed them in charge of the orphan asylum for girls. On 15 October, 1650, he addressed them as a religious community, placed them under the protection of St. Joseph, and ordered that they should be called the Congregation of the Sisters of St. Joseph. As their numbers increased, he gave them rules for their guidance, and as the congregation had been established in the diocese for the Christian education of children, he recommended that the teachers fit themselves especially for this important work. He also prescribed as their religious dress a black habit and veil, a black cincture on which a large rosary is worn, a band of white linen across the forehead, and a white linen coif fastened under the chin. Later a white linen gimp was added. In regard to the spirit by which the sisters were to be animated, Bishop de Maupas writes: "As I have found in the Visitation Order a sort of blessed predilection for the exact observance of the holiest laws of humility and charity, I have decided to institute the Congregation of St. Joseph on the same model, and in the same spirit, as the Sisters of the Visitation before they adopted enclosure." The constitutions which Father Médaille wrote for the sisters are borrowed from the rules of St. Ignatius, the saintly founder adding observations from his own experience. According to the rule, each community was to consider as its superior the bishop of the diocese, who was to appoint a spiritual father to accompany him, or, in his absence, to preside at the election of superiors and perform such offices as the necessities of the community might require. Father Médaille prescribed three months, at least, for the probation time of a postulant, and four years for novitiate training, two years preparatory, and two years after the making of the vows, which are final. At her profession, the novice receives a brass crucifix, which the bishop presents with these words: "Receive, my child, the cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to which you are affixed by the three vows as by so many nails; wear it openly on your breast as a most sure defense against the enemy; endeavour especially to carry it faithfully in your heart, by loving it tenderly and by bearing with delight and humility this sweet burden, that faithfully living and dying in the love of the cross with Jesus, you may also triumph with Him in glory." The sisters devote three hours a day to their regular devotions. They recite the Office of the Blessed Virgin on Sundays and feasts of obligation. On other days, the Office of the Holy Ghost is substituted. The successor of Bishop de Maupas, Bishop Armand de Béthune, approved the congregation, 23 September, 1655, and Louis XIV confirmed by letters patent the first establishments of the Sisters of St. Joseph in the cities of Le Puy, St-Didier, and several other places in Velay. They were later introduced into the Dioceses of Clermont, Vienne, Lyons, Grenoble, Embrun, Gap, Sisteron, Vivier, Uges, and almost the whole of France. Foundations were made also in Savoy, Italy, and Corsica. In 1793 the convents and chapels of the sisters were confiscated, their annals were destroyed, and the religious were obliged to join communities in other countries, or to return to their respective homes in the world. The congregation has had its martyrs, three during the persecution in Dauphiné, for refusing to take the civil oath, and two in another persecution in Haute-Loire. During the reign of terror, several Sisters of St. Joseph died for the Faith, and several others escaped the guillotine only by the fall of Robespierre. Among the latter was Mother St. John Fontbonne, who in her notebook records the names of four Sisters of St. Joseph imprisoned with her at St-Didier, five others in the dungeon of Feurs, and twenty in Clermont and other parts of France. The first use Mother St. John made of her liberty was to try to reassemble her dispersed community. She applied in vain to the municipality for the restoration of the convent in which she had invested her dowry, and while awaiting the dawn of a brighter day, returned to her own home. The vicar-general, the Rev. Claude Cholleton, invited Mother St. John to repair, in 1807, to Saint-Etienne to take charge of a little band of religious representing different communities which, like that of St. Joseph, had been disbanded during the Revolution. Other young women joined the little household, all of whom Mother St. John zealously trained according to the life and rules of the first Sisters of St. Joseph. The community prospered. In several places the Government approved of the return of the sisters to their long vacant convents, and in some cases Revolutionary proprietors sold back to the sisters the property which had been confiscated. On reopening the mission at Monistrol, Mother St. John expressed great joy and satisfaction. The work of the congregation continued, the increase in numbers keeping pace with demands now made on every side for convents and Catholic schools. Wherever obedience directed, thither the missionaries hastened, till representatives of the community might be counted in nearly every country in Europe, on the distant shores of Asia, and in the fastnesses of Africa. The recent upheaval in France is like history repeating itself in the spirit of the Revolution. Hundreds convents, schools, and charitable institutions, belonging to the Sisters of St. Joseph, have been suppressed, and the religious have been obliged to seek safety and shelter in other lands. Consequently many new missions, in the remotest parts of the United States, have been recently opened. In 1903 four sisters who fled from France at the beginning of the troubles there, sought and obtained hospitality at St. Joseph's Convent, Flushing. They remained nearly two years, or until they had sufficiently mastered the English language, and fitted themselves for educational work awaiting them in Minnesota, where they have since opened three little mission houses. United States Boston In 1873 the Sisters of St. Joseph of Brooklyn opened their first school at Jamaica Plain, in the Archdiocese of Boston, and three years later established there a novitiate, which was transferred successively to Cambridge (1885), Brighton, and Canton (1902). The mother-house is still at Brighton. The sisters were soon in demand throughout the archdiocese, and now (1910) number 300, in charge of an academy, 12 parochial schools, a school for the deaf, and an industrial home for girls. They have 7000 children under their care. Brooklyn In the spring of 1856 the Right Rev. John Loughlin, first Bishop of Brooklyn, applied to the mother-house at Philadelphia for sisters, and two religious were named for the new mission, joined during the same year by a sister from Buffalo. St. Mary's Academy, Williamsburg, was opened on 8 Sept., 1856, and in the following year a parochial school was inaugurated. In 1860 the mother-house, novitiate, and boarding school were removed to Flushing, Long Island, whence the activity of the sisters was gradually extended over the diocese. In 1903 the mother-house and novitiate were again transferred to Brentwood, New York, where an academy was opened the same year. The community, now (1910) numbering over 600 members, is represented in over 50 parishes of the diocese, in which the sisters preside over 8 academies, 50 parochial schools, 3 orphan asylums, a home for women, and 2 hospitals, having under their care 11,000 children, not including 1300 orphans. They teach Christian doctrine in many Sunday schools besides those attached to the schools under their charge. In nearly all the mission houses are evening classes for adults to whom the sisters give religious instruction. They also visit the sick in the parishes in which they reside. Buffalo The Sisters of St. Joseph were introduced into the Diocese of Buffalo in 1854, when three sisters from Carondelet, St. Louis, made a foundation at Canandaigua, New York. Two years later one of these sisters was brought to Buffalo by Bishop Timon to assume charge of Le Couteulx St. Mary's Institution for the instruction of deaf mutes, which had lately been established. The novitiate was removed from Canandaigua to Buffalo in 1861. The community developed rapidly and soon spread through different parts of the diocese. By 1868 the sisters were sufficiently strong to direct their own affairs, and elected their own superior, thus forming a new diocesan congregation. In 1891 the mother-house and novitiate were removed to the outskirts of the city, where an academy was erected. The congregation, which now (1910) numbers 285 members, also has charge of 28 parochial schools in the diocese, 3 orphan asylums, a working boys home, an infants' asylum, and a home for women and working girls. The sisters have under their care 5000 children, not including 470 orphans and deaf mutes and 600 inmates of their various homes. Burlington In 1873 the Rev. Charles Boylan of Rutland, Vermont, petitioned the mother-house of the Sisters of St. Joseph at Flushing, Long Island, for sisters to take charge of his school. Several sisters Were sent, and a novitiate was opened at Rutland, 15 October, 1876. The congregation now (1910) numbers 75 religious, in charge of an academy attached to the mother-house, 6 parochial schools, one in the Diocese of Pittsburg, and a home for the aged, with 36 inmates. The total number of children under the care of the sisters is 1700. Chicago The Sisters of St. Joseph were established at La Grange, Illinois, 9 October, 1899, by two sisters under Mother Stanislaus Leary, formerly superior of the diocesan community at Rochester, New York. On 14 July, 1900, the corner-stone of the mother-house was laid. The sisters who now (1910) number 65, are in charge of an academy with an attendance of 100 and a school for boys. Cleveland The Sisters of St. Joseph of the Diocese of Cleveland are chiefly engaged in the parochial schools. They number about 80 and have charge of an academy and 13 parish schools, with an attendance of 4500. Concordia In 1883 four Sisters of St. Joseph arrived at Newton, Kansas, from Rochester, New York, and opened their first mission. After remaining there a year they located at Concordia, Kansas, in the fall of 1884, and established the first mother-house in the West, in what was then the Diocese of Leavenworth. The congregation now numbers 240, in charge of 3 academies, 2 hospitals, and 26 schools, in the Archdiocese of Chicago and the Dioceses of Marquette, Rockford, Kansas City, Omaha, Lincoln, and Concordia. The sisters have about 4000 children under their care. Detroit In 1889 Sisters of St. Joseph from the Diocese of Ogdensburg established a new congregation at Kalamazoo, Michigan. The novitiate was transferred, in 1897, to Nazareth, a hamlet founded by the sisters on a four-hundred-acre farm. The congregation, which numbers 187, has charge of a hospital, training school for nurses, normal school, a home for feeble-minded children, an orphan asylum, and several other educational institutions, besides supplying teachers for 7 parish schools of the diocese. The sisters have about 1600 children under their care, including 200 orphans. Erie This congregation was founded in 1860 by Mother Agnes Spencer of Carondelet, Missouri, who, with two other sisters, took charge of St. Ann's Academy at Corsica, Pennsylvania, where postulants were admitted. In 1864 a hospital was opened at Meadville, and the sisters took charge of the parochial schools of that city. Later an orphan asylum, a hospital, and a home for the aged were erected in the city of Erie. Villa Maria Academy was opened in 1892 and in 1897 was made the novitiate and mother house of the Sisters of St. Joseph in the Erie diocese. The congregation now numbers 210 members, in charge of 14 parochial schools, attended by 3900 children, in addition to the other institutions mentioned above. Fall River In 1902 nine Sisters of St. Joseph from the mother-house at Le Puy took charge of the school in the French parish of St-Roch, Fall River, Massachusetts. The accession of other members from the mother-house enabled the community to take charge of three other schools in the city attached to French parishes. In 1906 St. Theresa's Convent was formally opened as the provincial house of the community, which was legally incorporated in the same year, and a novitiate was established. The sisters now number 43, in charge of four parochial schools, with an attendance of about 1200. Fort Wayne The Sisters of St. Joseph, with their mother-house at Tipton, number 60, in charge of an academy and 5 parochial schools, with an attendance of 1000. Ogdensburg In 1880 several sisters from the mother-house at Buffalo made a foundation at Watertown, New York, which was later strengthened by the accession of another sister from the Erie mother-house. From Watertown as a centre missions were opened in other parts of the diocese. The congregation, which now numbers about 75 members, has charge of several parish schools, the Immaculate Heart Academy at Watertown, which is the mother-house, an orphanage, and a school for boys, having about 1100 children under its care. In 1907 the sisters established a mission at Braddock, Pennsylvania, for work in the parochial schools there. Philadelphia In 1847 the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet, in response to an appeal of Bishop Kenrick, sent four members of the community to Philadelphia to take charge of St. John's Orphan Asylum, until that time under the Sisters of Charity. The Know-Nothing spirit, which had but a short time previously led to the Philadelphia riots, to the burning and desecration of churches and religious institutions, was still rampant, and the sisters had much to suffer from bigotry and difficulties of many kinds. Shortly afterwards they were given charge of several parochial schools, and thus entered on what was to be their chief work in the coming years. By the establishment, in October, 1858, under the patronage of Venerable Bishop Neuman, of a mother-house at Mount St. Joseph, Chestnut Hill, the congregation in Philadelphia began to take a more definite development. When, in 1863, the Sisters of St. Joseph of St. Louis formed a generalate, approved later by the Holy See, the congregation of Philadelphia, by the wish of the bishop, preserved its autonomy. During the Civil War, detachments of sisters nursed the sick soldiers in Camp Curtin and the Church Hospital, Harrisburg; later, under Surgeon General Smith, the had more active duty in the floating hospitals which received the wounded from the southern battle-fields. When the number of religious increased to between three and four hundred, and the works entrusted to them became so numerous and varied as to necessitate an organization more detailed and definite, steps were undertaken to obtain the papal approbation, which was received in 1895. The Sisters of St. Joseph of Philadelphia now (1910) number 626 professed members, 64 novices, and 31 postulants, in charge of a collegiate institute for the higher education of women, an academy and boarding-school, 42 parish schools, and 2 high schools in the Archdioceses of Philadelphia and Baltimore, and the Dioceses of Newark and Harrisburg, and 4 asylums and homes. The number of children under their care, including those in asylums, is nearly 26,000. Pittsburg In 1869, at the petition of the pastor of Ebensburg, Pennsylvania, three sisters were sent there to open a day-school and a boarding-school for boys. The accession of new members enabled the sisters to meet the increasing demands made upon them, and they now number 175, in charge of 23 schools in the Archdiocese of Baltimore and the Dioceses of Pittsburg, Cleveland, and Columbus, with an attendance of 6075; they also conduct a hospital and 2 boarding-schools. In 1901 the mother-house was transferred to Baden, Pennsylvania. Rochester In 1864 four Sisters of St. Joseph from Buffalo opened an asylum for orphan boys at Rochester. Three years later the Diocese of Buffalo was divided and that of Rochester created, and the following year, 1868, the Rochester community dissolved its affiliation with the Buffalo mother-house and opened its own novitiate and mother-house at St. Mary's Boys' Orphan Asylum, later transferred to the Nazareth Academy, Rochester. The number of institutions now directed by the Sisters of St. Joseph of Rochester has risen to 50 (1910): 5 private educational institutions, including a conservatory of music and art; 5 charitable institutions, including 3 orphan asylums, a hospital, and a home for the aged; and 40 parochial schools, including one high school. The community numbers 430 members, in charge of 15,000 children. St. Augustine In 1866 eight Sisters of St. Joseph from the mother-house at Le Puy were sent to St. Augustine, at the request of Bishop Verot, to teach the coloured people, recently liberated by the Civil War. In 1880 a novitiate was established, and about the same time, owing to the departure of the Sisters of Mercy from the city, the training of the impoverished whites also devolved on the new community. In 1889 connection with the mother-house in France was severed, and many of the French sisters returned to their native land. The sisters now number about 105 in charge of 6 academies, 14 day-schools, and 1 orphanage. They have under their charge about 1438 white and 240 coloured children, and about 35 orphans. The mother-house of the Florida missions is at St. Augustine. St. Louis In the year 1834 the Right Rev. Joseph Rosati of St. Louis, Missouri, called at the mother-house of the Sisters of St. Joseph at Lyons and asked Mother St. John Fontbonne, the superior, to send a colony of her daughters to America. The financial aid necessary was obtained through the Countess de ]a Roche Jacquelin. Arrangements were soon perfected, and on 17 January, 1836, six sisters sailed from Havre and, after a perilous voyage of forty-nine days, reached New Orleans, where they were met by the Bishop of St. Louis and Father Timon, afterwards Bishop of Buffalo. They arrived at St. Louis on 25 March. The house, a small log cabin, which was to be the central or mother-house of the future congregation of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet, was located at Carondelet, a small town six miles south of St. Louis. At the time the sisters arrived at St. Louis, this humble house was occupied by the Sisters of Charity, who there cared for a few orphans soon after transferred to a new building. While waiting for or their home, they received a call from Cahokia, Illinois, where a zealous Vincentian missionary desired the help of the sisters in his labours among the French and Creole population of that section. Three religious volunteered for this mission. The people among whom the sisters laboured in St. Louis were poor and rude, and apparently destitute of any taste for either religion or education. These obstacles seemed but to increase the zeal of the sisters, and by degrees postulants were received, parochial schools and asylums opened, and new works begun in various parts of the diocese. As early as 1847 foundations were made in other sections of the United States. In 1837 the first American member of the order, Ann Eliza Dillon, entered the novitiate, proving of great advantage to the struggling community, with her fluency in French and English. She died, however, four years later. The community increasing in proportion to its more extended field of labour, a commodious building was erected to answer the double purpose of novitiate and academy, the latter being incorporated in 1853 under the laws of the State of Missouri. Because of the rapid growth of the institute and the increasing demand for sisters from all parts of the United States, the superiors of the community were by 1860 forced to consider means best adapted to give stability and uniformity to the growing congregation. A general chapter was convoked in May, 1860, to which representatives from every house of the congregation in America were called. At this meeting a plan for uniting all the communities under a general government was discussed and accepted by the sisters and afterwards by many of the bishops in whose dioceses the sisters were engaged. This plan, together with the constitutions, revised so as to meet the requirements of the new condition, was presented to the Holy See for approval. In September, 1863, Pope Pius IX issued the letter of commendation of the institute and its works, holding the constitutions for examination and revision by the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars. The first decree of approbation was granted 7 June, 1867, and ten years later, 16 May, 1877, a decree approving the institute and constitutions was issued by the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars. On 31 July, 1877, Pius IX, by special Brief, confirmed the institute and constitutions of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet. Thus, with the sanction of the Church came the unification of communities in various dioceses with the mother-house at Carondelet, now in the city of St. Louis. The congregation is at present (1910) divided into four provinces: St. Louis, Missouri; St. Paul, Minnesota; Troy, New York; Los Angeles, California. The St. Louis province comprises the houses of the congregation in the Archdioceses of St. Louis and Chicago and the Dioceses of St. Joseph, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Peoria, Belleville, Alton, Denver, Marquette, Green Bay, Mobile, and Oklahoma. The province of St. Paul includes the houses in the Archdiocese of St. Paul, Minnesota, and the Dioceses of Winona and Fargo, North Dakota. The province of Troy is formed of the houses established in the Dioceses of Albany and Syracuse, New York. The province of Los Angeles comprises the houses of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, the Dioceses of Tucson, Arizona, and Los Angeles, California. The superior general and four general councillors, elected every six years by the whole congregation, form the general governing body, assisted by a superior provincial and four provincial councillors in each province. The provincial officers are appointed by the general officers every three years, as also are the local superiors of all the provinces. In each provincial house, as in the mother-house, a novitiate is established. The term, of postulantship extends from three to Six months, the term of novitiate two years, after which annual vows are taken for a period of five years, when perpetual vows are taken. All are received on the same footing, all enjoy the same privileges, and all are subject to the same obedience which assigns duties according to ability, talent, and aptitude. Although an interchange of members of the various provinces is allowed and made use of for general or particular needs, the autonomy of each province is safeguarded. The constitutions, while establishing on a solid basis the idea of a general government, allow no small share of local initiative and carefully provide for local needs. In this way too much centralization or peril to establishments working in accordance with local and special exigencies is fully guarded against. The congregation now (1910) numbers 4 provinces, with 1802 sisters, in charge of 125 educational institutions, including colleges, academies, conservatories of music and art, and parochial schools, with an attendance of 40,848; 17 charitable educational institutions, including orphan asylums, Indian, Coloured, and deaf-mute schools, with an attendance of 2121; and 10 hospitals, with an average of 8285 patients. Savannah The Sisters of St. Joseph were established at Savannah in 1867, in charge of the boys' orphanage, and soon afterwards were constituted an independent diocesan congregation. In 1876 the orphanage was transferred to Washington, Georgia, and with it the mother-house of the congregation. The sisters now number about 65, in charge of an academy, 2 boarding-schools for small boys, and several parish schools, with a total attendance of over 500. Springfield In September, 1880, seven Sisters of St. Joseph were sent from Flushing, Long Island, to take charge of a parochial school at Chicopee Falls, Massachusetts. They were followed, two years later, by seven sisters for Webster, and in 1883 by twelve more for the cathedral parish, Springfield. In 1885 the Springfield mission was constituted the mother-house of an independent diocesan congregation. The sisters are in constant demand for parochial schools and now (1910), with a membership of 300, conduct 19, with an attendance of about 9000. In 1889 they took charge of the school at Windsor Locks in the Diocese of Hartford, from which, in 1908, they were recalled to the Springfield diocese. The curriculum of their boarding-school at Chicopee embraces a normal course. They also visit the sick and take charge of Sunday-school classes. Since 1892 the sisters have devoted themselves particularly to the work of establishing Catholic high schools, and high-school courses are connected with practically all the parochial schools under their supervision. Wheeling In 1853 seven sisters from Carondelet, Missouri, opened a private orphanage and hospital in Wheeling, and in 1856 took possession of a building chartered by the Assembly of Virginia for a hospital. From 19 October, 1860, the community was independent of the St. Louis mother-house. During the Civil War the hospital was rented by the Government and the sisters enrolled in government service. After the war and the reorganization of the hospital on its present lines, the sisters extended their activities to various parts of the diocese; they now number over 100, in charge of 3 hospitals, 12 schools and academies, and 2 orphan asylums, with about 1700 children under their care. Wichita In August, 1887, four Sisters of St. Joseph were commissioned to go from Concordia, Kansas, to open a parochial school at Abilene, Kansas, at that time in the Diocese of Leavenworth. The following year the Right Rev. L. M. Pink, Bishop of Leavenworth, decided that those sisters should belong to his diocese exclusively, and in so doing they became the nucleus of a new diocesan community of the Sisters of St. Joseph, having their mother-house established at Abilene, under the title of Mount St. Joseph's Academy. The community increased in numbers and soon branched out, doing parochial school work throughout the diocese. In 1892 the name of the Diocese of Leavenworth was changed to Kansas City, Kansas, and for the time being the Sisters of St. Joseph were diocesan sisters of the Diocese of Kansas City. In 1896, when the redivision of the three Kansas dioceses Concordia, Kansas City, and Wichita, was agitated, Bishop Fink of Kansas City, to keep the Sisters of St. Joseph of his diocese within the limit of his jurisdiction, had their mother-house transferred from Abilene to Parsons. But after the division was made, the following year, Abilene was in the Concordia diocese, and Parsons was in the Wichita diocese, and the mother-house of the Sisters of St. Joseph being in Parsons, the community belonged to the Wichita diocese, having mission-houses in both the Diocese of Concordia and the Diocese of Kansas City. Since that time the name of the Diocese of Kansas City has been changed to its original name: Diocese of Leavenworth. In 1907 a colony of these sisters opened a sanitarium at Del Norte, Colorado, in the Diocese of Denver. At the present time (1910), the sisters, who number 200, have charge of 3 hospitals, all in the Diocese of Wichita, and 18 parochial schools, including one in the Diocese of Leavenworth, one in the Diocese of Kansas City, Missouri, and 3 in connection with the sanitarium at Del Norte, Colorado. Canada Hamilton In 1852 five sisters from the mother-house at Toronto established a foundation at Hamilton, where they at once opened an orphanage and began their work in the parochial schools of the city. During the cholera epidemic of 1854 the sisters cared for those afflicted. On the erection of the Diocese of Hamilton in 1856, the community became a separate diocesan congregation, and a few months later a novitiate was established at Hamilton. By the passage of the Separate Schools Bill in 1856 the sisters were given control of the education of the Catholic children of the city. The congregation gradually extended its activities to other parts of the diocese and now (1910) numbers 155 religious in charge of 2 hospitals, 2 houses of providence, and 12 schools, with an attendance of 2300. London The community of Sisters of St. Joseph at London was founded in 1868 by five sisters from the mother-house at Toronto, who opened an orphan asylum the following year. On 18 December, 1870, the congregation became independent, with a novitiate of its own, and on 15 February, 1871, the Sisters of St. Joseph of London, Ontario, were legally incorporated. Several missions were opened in various parts of the diocese, and in 1888 a hospital was established at London, to which was attached a training school for nurses. The sisters now (1910) number 131, in charge of 10 mission houses, including 9 hospitals, 12 schools, an orphan asylum, and a house of refuge for the aged; they have about 2200 children under their care. Peterborough In 1890 several sisters from the mother-house at Toronto established a house at Peterborough, which became in turn the nucleus of a new congregation. The community now (1910) numbers 200 sisters, in 14 houses, in charge of an academy 3 hospitals, 2 orphanages, a home for the aged, and 10 separate schools, in the Dioceses of Peterborough and Sault Ste-Marie. They have over 1000 children under their care. Toronto The mother-house of the Sisters of St. Joseph at Toronto was established from Le Puy, France, in 1851. The congregation now comprises 266 members, in charge of 3 academies, 1 high school and 22 separate schools, with a total attendance of 5025; 5 charitable institutions, with 900 inmates; and 1 hospital, with an annual average of 2900. THE SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH England In England the Sisters of St. Joseph devote themselves entirely to the work of teaching. The mother-house of the English congregation is at Annecy in Savoy, where the sisters possess the very cradle of the Visitation Order. They have Seven houses in England and one in Scotland, under the provincial house and novitiate for England, which was founded in 1864, at Newport, Mon. The congregation now numbers 60, in charge of 10 elementary day and boarding-schools, with an attendance of about 2000. In Scotland, at Blair's College, 15 sisters have charge of the household arrangements and work of the college. In India the sisters have hospitals, homes, orphanages, etc., just as they have in France, and they also go out to nurse the sick in their own homes. In British India there are about 70 sisters in 7 houses, the provincial house and novitiate being at Waltair, with which are connected a day-school, boarding-school, native orphanage, native day-school, dispensary, and a novitiate for natives. In other parts of India the sisters conduct a primary school, a boarding and day school, an intermediate school for Hindus, with an attendance of 200, a home for Rajpoot widows and another home for widows, a workshop for widows and orphans, and 4 orphanages. At Palconda are two sisters who serve as catechists and sacristans. In all these missions the primary, secondary, and intermediate schools are under the Government. In some the orphanages are aided or wholly supported by the Government. Everywhere remedies are given to the sick natives, and the work of infant baptism of natives is carried on. When natives enter the congregation, the noviceship is made apart from the Europeans, but they are treated in every way as members of the community. The work of the native novitiate is only in its infancy, and it is hoped that the native sisters will in the future be most useful with the native population. The Indian foundation was made in 1849. FRANCESCA M. STEELE Sisters of St. Joseph of Bourg In 1819 a foundation from the mother-house of the Sisters of St. Joseph at Lyons was made at Belley; a novitiate was opened and houses were established in other parts of the diocese. In 1823, at the desire of the Bishop of Belley, the sisters of the diocese were constituted an independent diocesan congregation. The mother-house was transferred to Ain, in 1825, whence houses were founded at Ferney Gap, Grenoble, Bordeaux, and elsewhere. In 1828 and again in 1853, Bishop Devie obtained the approval of the French Government for the new congregation. By 1865 the number of members had reached 1700, and the congregation was established throughout France, the principal academies being at Bourg, Paris, Boulogne-sur-Seine, and Marseilles. In 1854 the sisters were sent from Bourg to establish a house at Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, in the Diocese of Natchez. In 1863 a novitiate was opened at New Orleans, and later one was established at Cedar Point, Hamilton County, Ohio. The sisters are now in charge of 15 educational institutions, including several academies, as well as coloured and Indian schools, a home for working girls, and an industrial school, with about 1800 children and young women under their care. The Sisters of St. Joseph were established at Superior, Wis., in 1907 by seven sisters from Cincinnati. They now number 21, in charge of 3 schools, with an attendance of 225. In 1904 a colony of French sisters was sent out from Bourg, and schools have since been opened among the French Canadians in Minnesota and Wisconsin. In the Diocese of Duluth they have 2 academies with an attendance of 220. Sisters of St. Joseph of Chambéry After the reconstruction of the congregation of the Sisters of St. Joseph at Lyons, by Mother St. John Fontbonne a colony of sisters was sent to Chambéry, in Savoy, in 1812. The tide of anarchy and revolution had wrought awful havoc in France, and the education of youth, especially the children of the working classes, was the special work devolving on the Sisters of St. Joseph. The works of charity, the care of the sick in hospitals, of the aged and orphans, and the visitation of the sick in their homes, were also carried on as prior to the Revolution. The original habit was somewhat modified and became about what it is now in the French houses, consisting of a black dress, veil and underveil, woollen cincture, wooden beads strung on brass and fastened to the cincture, a brass crucifix on the breast, and a linen coronet, front, and gimp. In 1843 Mother St. John Marcoux, superior since 1812, resigned her office, which was assumed by Mother Félicité, under whom the congregation continued its extraordinary development. More than eighty houses rose beneath her hand, and when, in 1861, a state normal school was opened at Rumilly, Savoy, it was placed in charge of the sisters. Meanwhile the Chambéry sisters had been constituted a diocesan congregation, but as years went on a stronger administration became necessary. The rule was therefore revised to meet the requirements of a generalate, and papal approbation was granted in 1874 by rescript of Pius IX. Under the new form of government the congregation is subject to a superior general, whose term of office is six years and is divided into provinces, each possessing a novitiate. The novices, after two years probation, make annual vows for two years, after which they bind themselves by perpetual vows. The rule is based on that of St. Augustine. The province of Denmark, whither the sisters were sent in 1856, has its seat at Copenhagen, and now numbers 400 members, in charge of flourishing parochial and private schools and a large hospital in the capital, with schools, orphan asylums, and hospitals, on a smaller scale, scattered all over the kingdom. From Copenhagen sisters were sent to Iceland, where they have a school, give religious instruction, visit the sick, and, during the proper seasons, repair to the fisheries on the coast to nurse sick sailors. In 1901 this province opened a house at Brussels, where the sisters have a large public school under the Government. The Brazilian province, founded in 1859, has several flourishing academies, besides day-schools for the upper classes, schools for negroes, hospitals, orphanages and foundling asylums, and one home for lepers. The sisters number about 250, under the provincial house at Itu. In 1862 sisters were sent to establish a school at Stockholm, and in 1876 to Gothenburg. The Norwegian province, dating from 1865, with seat at Christiania, has over 180 sisters. The province of Russia, founded in 1872, with novitiate at Tarnapol, Galicia, outside the frontier, has establishments at St. Petersburg, Moscow, and Odessa: two large academies, a day-school, an orphan asylum, a hospital, a home for the aged, etc. In 1876 the Sisters of St. Joseph of Rome, founded from Turin in 1839, were annexed to the Chambéry branch; the province now (1910) comprises 15 houses, mainly educational institutions. In Rome itself the sisters have an academy, with 100 pupils, 2 day-schools, and one poor school. At the request of the Congregation of Propaganda, and with the approval of the Bishop of Springfield, five sisters were sent, in 1885, to Lee, Massachusetts, for work in the parochial schools. As their activities developed chiefly in the Diocese of Hartford, the novitiate, which had been temporarily established at Lee, was, in 1898, transferred to Hartford, Connecticut. The number of religious, then 44, has now (1910) reached 155, in charge of 9 schools attended by 2100 pupils, 2 hospitals, with an annual average of 4200 patients. The sisters also instruct about 1000 children in Christian doctrine, and have the domestic care of the Hartford seminary and La Salette College in the same city. In 1902 many French houses of the order were closed by the Government, in consequence of which a large number of sisters left for the foreign missions chiefly Denmark and Russia. The province of Savoy: previously in charge of 52 establishments, has now but 14. The entire generalate comprises 1670 members. Sisters of St. Joseph of St-Vallier In 1683, at the request of Mgr Jean-Baptiste de la Croix Chevrière, Count of St-Vallier, later Bishop of Quebec, two sisters of St. Joseph from Le Puy took charge of a hospital recently founded by him at St-Vallier (Drôme). As the new community grew in numbers, it also devoted its attention to the education of youth. In 1890 the approval of Pope Leo XIII was obtained for the rules of the congregation. When religious teaching was forbidden in France, the sisters, with the permission of Archbishop Begin of Quebec, took refuge in his archdiocese (1903), establishing the Provincial house at St-Jean, Port-Joli, where a boarding-school for girls was opened. The sisters now number about 50, in charge of a hospital, an academy, and 6 model elementary schools. In 1905 they were placed over a model school in the city of Quebec, where they Opened a novitiate, the first reception taking place the following year. The sisters in France are still in charge of 3 hospitals. THE SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH LITTLE DAUGHTERS OF ST. JOSEPH Established at 45 rue Notre-Dame de Lourdes, Montreal. After the blessing of the bishop of the diocese (Mgr Bourget had been obtained, the institute was founded on 2 April-the feast of the Patronage of St. Joseph 1857, by the Sulpician father, Antoine Mercier. It object is to aid the clergy in spiritual and temporal matters, both by the ministry of prayer and by discharging certain manual services, such as the manufacture of liturgical vestments and ornaments, and the manufacture, repair, and bleaching of the linen destined for the service of the altars of the various churches, etc. Missionaries without resources and poor seminarians are special objects of the charitable attentions of this community. Always under the direction of the Sulpicians, to whose assistance and devotion it is indebted for its prosperity, this little institute had the consolation of seeing its existence and regulations canonically approved by Mgr Bruchési, Archbishop of -Montreal, on 20 September, 1897. The community at present numbers 65 professed sisters, 6 novices, and 5 postulants. LITTLE DAUGHTERS OF ST. JOSEPH POLISH FRANCISCAN SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH In 1901 about forty sisters, all of Polish nationality, branched off from the School Sisters of St. Francis whose mother-house is at Milwaukee, and after obtaining the necessary dispensation from the Holy See through the efforts of Archbishop Messmer, in April, 1902, organized themselves into the Polish Franciscan Sisters of St. Joseph, with their mother-house at Stevens Point in the Diocese of Green Bay. They have since increased to nearly two hundred members, in charge of ten schools. They live under the rule of the Third Order of St. Francis, and their particular object is the education of the young in Catholic schools. JOSEPH J. FOX SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH OF CLUNY Founded in 1798, by Anne-Marie Javouhey at Seurre, in Burgundy. The foundress was born in 1779, at Chamblanc, near Seurre, and though only ten years old, she frequently fetched priests to the dying, at the risk of her own life, in the Revolution of 1789. Nine years later she, with the help of a Trappist Father, founded a small congregation at Seurre, for the instruction of children and for nursing the sick and taking charge of orphans. The congregation was intended to be on the same lines as the third order of the Trappists. In 1804 Pius VII passed through Seurre, after crowning Napoleon Bonaparte as emperor in Paris, and received Mother Javouhey with three of her community and blessed them. In 1809 Mother Javouhey made her profession, after nine years' preparation, and, having received the habit, was appointed superior-general of the congregation. The novitiate was established at Cluny, and henceforth the congregation was known as the Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny. Mother Javouhey died in 1851. The sisters undertake all kinds of charitable Works, but they devote themselves especially to missionary labours and the education of the young. Their rule was approved by Pius IX and confirmed by Leo XIII. The foundress was declared Venerable by the Holy See, 11 Feb., 1908. The sisters now number about 4000, and are widely spread over the world. The mother-house is in Paris, and there are numerous houses of the congregation in various parts of France; there are houses also in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, England, Scotland, Ireland, Chili, Peru, the East and West Indies, India, and Ceylon. In 1816 the congregation spread to the East and West Coasts of Africa, Fiji, New Caledonia, and Victoria (Australia). Altogether 45,000 children are being educated by the sisters, and 70,000 poor and sick are cared for by them in their various institutions, which now (1910) number 385. Thirty-one of the sisters perished in the terrible catastrophe at Martinique, in 1902, when the town of St-Pierre was wrecked by a volcanic eruption. In England the sisters have one house at Stafford, where there is a novitiate for the English-speaking subjects; there is a high-class day-school attached to the convent. There are three houses in Scotland, all in Ayrshire, with which are connected a boarding-school and 4 elementary schools, attended by 500 children. The sisters number 27.In Paris the famous hospital of Pasteur is under the care of forty sisters of this congregation. (See Life of Rev. Mother Javouhey, Dublin, 1903.) FRANCESCA M. STEELE SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH OF PEACE This institution, founded in the year 1884 at Nottingham, England, by the Right Reverend E.G. Bagshawe [then bishop of that diocese, now (1910) Archbishop of Seleucia], with rules and constitutions under the authority of the Holy See, has for its special object the domestic and industrial training of girls (chiefly of the working class) with the view to promote peace and happiness in families, in union with and in imitation of the Holy Family of Nazareth. In addition to this, the sisters are employed in educating the young, instructing converts, visiting the sick poor, and caring for orphans, the blind, and the sick in hospitals. The administrative body is composed of a superior general and five councillors elected for six years. There are no lay sisters. The postulancy lasts for six months and the novitiate for two years, after which vows are taken for three years, and then perpetual vows. The habit is black, with a scapular of the same colour, a black veil and white linen kerchief, domino and forehead band, a leathern cincture, and a five decade rosary beads. A silver ring is given at the final profession. Novices wear a white veil during the novitiate. In March, 1895, the constitutions were submitted to the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda by the founder, and in the September following the Decree "Lauda" was obtained. At present the institute has three houses in England: the mother-house situated at Nottingham, a house at Grimsby in the same diocese, and one at Hanwell in the Archdiocese of Westminster. The sisters teach in the parish elementary schools at Nottingham and Hanwell, and have a middle-class school attached to each convent. In Grimsby, besides a middle-class school, there is a girls' orphanage and a steam laundry, which is a means of maintenance as well as of training in that branch of household work. The younger children attend the parish school. The first foundation in America was established in 1885 at the request of the Right Reverend Bishop Wigger of the Diocese of Newark, N. J., who became deeply interested in the work of the institute, and was convinced of the great good which could be effected by a community devoted to the protection and training of poor girls for a life of usefulness in the world. The place selected for this object was in St. Peter's Parish, Jersey City, in charge of the Jesuit fathers, where the sisters met with a true friend and supporter in the saintly Father McAtee, S.J. (d. 1904), to whose spiritual direction and kind encouragement were, by the Providence of God, due the successful labours of the young community. St. Joseph's Home, Jersey City, an orphanage, is the principal home of the province: with its novitiate at Englewood, N. J. Here there was a large building erected for the benefit of girls, where they could spend their summer holidays. It is beautifully situated on the Palisades overlooking the Hudson River. The blind were first taken in charge in a small building in Jersey City, on the site of which the present Institute of the Blind stands. The growing needs of this institution obliged the purchase of other property in the neighbourhood, and now men, women, and children, are cared for in separate buildings. In the school the children are taught by the improved methods of raised letters and the point system, while the older inmates are employed in various branches of industry. For greater facilities and the accommodation for girls a second house was opened in Jersey City, where industrial classes are held on four evenings in the week, and instruction given in plain sewing, dressmaking, millinery, and cooking. The "Orphans' Messenger and Advocate of the Blind", a quarterly magazine, printed premises on the of St. Joseph's Home, by the orphan boys, under the direction of a proficient master, is the chief source of maintenance for these charities, especially for the blind. It has a wide circulation in the United States and Canada. From this province houses were founded on the Pacific Coast, the first (St. Joseph's Hospital) being established in 1890 at Bellingham, Washington (Diocese of Seattle). Later on other foundations were made in British Columbia (Diocese of New Westminster), namely a hospital at Rossland, another at Greenwood, and a day and boarding school at Nelson. Recently a house for girls was opened at Seattle, Washington. The houses in the West form one province, which has its own novitiate. E.G. BAGSHAWE SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH OF ST. HYACINTHE Founded at St. Hyacinthe, Canada, 12 Sept., 1877, by the bishop of that diocese, Louis-Zéphirin Moreau, for the Christian instruction of children and the visitation and care of the sick. Civil incorporation was granted 30 June, 1881, and canonical institution 19 March, 1882. The activities of the congregation are confined to the Diocese of St. Hyacinthe, in which 180 sisters are engaged, with about 3000 children under their care. Le Canada Ecclésiastique (Montreal, 1910). SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH OF THE APPARITION With mother-house at Marseilles, founded at Gaillac, France, in 1830, by Mine Emilie de Vialard, for all kinds of charitable work. The institute spread rapidly from the beginning, and although some of the houses in France were closed during the French Revolution, they now number over 100 in various parts of the world, with over 1000 sisters. The congregation received the approval of the Holy See, 31 March, 1862. The sisters have one house in England, at Whalley Park, Manchester, where 10 sisters devote themselves to the care of invalided ladies, for whom they opened a home there in 1905; they also nurse in private houses. They now have about 20 branch houses in the British colonies, in the principal towns in British Burma, Malta, Cyprus, at Beirut, and in Australia, in all of which places there are high schools, homes for the aged and orphanages under the charge of the sisters. There other branches in Italy, Greece, South Africa, and the Holy Land. The number of sisters varies in each of the colonial houses from 15 to 20. At the request of the Bishop of Perth, the sisters opened their first house in Western Australia at Freemantle, in 1854, where also later established a novitiate. They how in Western Australia 6 communities with 56 members, in charge of 6 schools, with a total attendance of 1100. The sisters also visit the poor. (See STEELE, Convents of Great Britain, St. Louis, 1902; and Australasian Catholic Directory for 1910, Sydney.) SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH OF THE SACRED HEART A purely Australian foundation, established at Penola, South Australia, in 1866, by Father Julian Tennison Woods and Miss Mary Mackillop, in religion Mother Mary of the Cross (b. 1832; d. at Sydney, 8 Aug., 1909). Father Woods (d. 1886), a man of burning zeal and a pious director of souls, endeavoured to found two religious congregations, one for men, which failed, and one for women, which succeeded beyond his hopes. About 1866 he placed at the head of the latter Miss Mackillop, whom he sent to the Sisters of St. Joseph at Annecy, Savoy, to learn their rule. As much opposition was raised to his project, the founder went to Rome and obtained papal sanction. Since then the numerous communities of this congregation have been placed by the Holy See under the bishops of the dioceses in which they work. Most of the young men who have risen to parliamentary fame owe their early education to these sisters. Their schools receive no government grant, in spite of which they are superior to the free secular schools. The sisters, in communities of two or three, did the pioneer work in the mission field of Australia, seconding the labours of the clergy so ably that there have been few defections from the Faith. They are the mainstay of missions visited by a priest only once a month or once in three months, In cases where a year has elapsed between the visits of a priest, the sisters have toiled on, keeping up the day-school and on Sundays gathering the children for catechism and the rosary, and the people for the reading of a sermon, thus preparing them to receive the sacraments on the arrival of a priest. The mother-house of the congregation is at Sydney, New South Wales. The sisters number 650, in charge of 117 schools, with an attendance of 12,500, and 12 charitable institutions, including orphanages and refuges, an industrial home, a girls' reformatory, etc. The work of the sisters extends over the Archdioceses of Sydney, Adelaide, Melbourne, and Wellington, the Dioceses of Armidale, Wileannia, Port Augusta, Bendigo, Sale, Auckland, Christchurch, Dunedin, and Rockhampton, and the Abbey Nullius of New Norcia. The Sisters of St. Joseph of the Sacred Heart of the Diocese of Bathurst, who have their own constitutions, number 250 in 54 houses. THE SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH FRANCESCA M. STEELE LITTLE DAUGHTERS OF ST. JOSEPH JOSEPH J. FOX E.G. BAGSHAWE St. Joseph Calasanctius St. Joseph Calasanctius Called in religion "a Matre Dei", founder of the Piarists, b. 11 Sept., 1556, at the castle of Calasanza near Petralta de la Sal in Aragon; d. 25 Aug., 1648, at Rome; feast 27 Aug. His parents, Don Pedro Calasanza and Donna Maria Gastonia, gave Joseph, the youngest of five children, a good education at home and then at the school of Petralta. After his classical studies at Estadilla he took up philosophy and jurisprudence at Lerida and merited the degree of Doctor of Laws, and then with honours completed his theological course at Valencia and Alcalá de Henares. His mother and brother having died, Don Pedro wanted Joseph to marry and perpetuate the family. God interfered by sending a sickness in 1582 which soon brought Joseph to the brink of the grave. On his recovery he was ordained priest 17 Dec., 1583, by Hugo Ambrose de Moncada, Bishop of Urgel. Joseph began his labours as priest in the Diocese of Albarracin, where Bishop della Figuera appointed him his theologian and confessor, synodal examiner, and procurator, and when the bishop was transferred to Lerida his theologian followed him to the new diocese. In 1586 della Figuera was sent as Apostolic visitator to the Abbey of Montserrat, and Joseph accompanied him as secretary. The bishop died the following year and Joseph left, though urgently requested to remain. He hurried to Calasanza only to be present at the death of his father. He was then called by his Bishop of Urgel to act as vicar-general for the district of Trempe. In 1592 he embarked for Rome, where he found a protector in Cardinal Marcantonio Colonna who chose him as his theologian and instructor to his nephew. Rome offered a splendid field for works of charity, especially for the instruction of neglected and homeless children, many of whom had lost their parents. Joseph joined a Confraternity of Christian Doctrine and gathered the boys and girls from the streets and brought them to school. The teachers, being poorly paid, refused to accept the additional labour without remuneration. The pastor of S. Dorotea, Anthony Brendani, offered him two rooms and promised assistance in teaching, and when two other priests promised similar help, Joseph, in November, 1597, opened the first public free school in Europe. Pope Clement VIII gave an annual contribution and many others shared in the good work, so that in a short time Joseph had about a thousand children under his charge. In 1602 he rented a house at S. Andrea della Valle and commenced a community life with his assistants and laid the foundation of the Order of Piarists. Much envy and opposition arose against him and his new institute, but all were overcome in time. In 1612 the school was transferred to the Torres palace adjoining S. Pantaleone. Here Joseph spent the remaining years of his life in his chosen calling. He lived and died a faithful son of the church, a true friend of forsaken children. His body rests in S. Paltaleone. His beatification was solemnized on 7 Aug., 1748, and his canonization by Clement XIII, 16 July, 1767. The life of St. Joseph Calasanctius has been written by - Timon-David (Marseilles, 1883); Hubert (Mainz, 1886); Tomaseo (Rome, 1898); Heidenreich (1907). Cf. Hist. polit. Blatter, CXX, 901; Fehr in Kirchenlexicon, s. v. FRANCIS MERSHMAN Pious Workers of St. Joseph Calasanctius Pious Workers of St. Joseph Calasanctius of the Mother of God Founded at Vienna, 24 November, 1889, by Father Anton Maria Schwartz for all works of charity, but especially the apostolate among workingmen. The members of the congregation, who comprise both priests and lay brothers, follow the Rule of the Piarists, modified in some particulars. The mother-house is the College of Mary Help of Christians, at Vienna, with which is connected a church. The Pious Workers teach Christian doctrine in schools, establish elementary and trade schools, build homes for apprentices and all workmen, open oratories, form associations of working-men, and promote the diffusion of good literature. At Vienna, which has been so far the chief scene of their activity, in addition to undertaking the works already mentioned, they have taken charge of the reformatory (1904), have opened a public library, and have founded among other associations a Guard of Honour of the Most Blessed Sacrament. They have three colleges at Vienna, and other foundations at Deutsch-Goritz in Styria and Wolfsgraben. The prayer-book for working-men compiled by Father Schwartz has already gone through five editions. Other fathers of the society have published dramas for presentation by clubs under their charge, a book of recitations, and a number of biographies. The organ of the congregation is "St. Calasanctius-Blätter", a monthly issued at Vienna since 1888. Heimbucher, Orden und Kongregationen, III (Paderborn, 1908), 524 sqq.; Siman, Die Kongr. der frommer Arbeiter (Vienna, 1894). F.M. RUDGE Josephites Josephites (Sons of St. Joseph) A congregation devoted to the Christian education of youth, founded in the Diocese of Ghent (Belgium) by Canon van Crombrugghe, in 1817. Father van Crombrugghe was at that time a simple village priest acting as curate at Heusden, when he made the acquaintance of a young man named van den Bossche, of remarkable talent and great piety. Together they conceived the idea of forming a body of men, under the patronage of St. Joseph, to work among the poor. Father Crombrugghe drew up a few rules, which were the basis of the future constitutions, and the first community of Josephites opened at Grammont, 1 May, 1817, a house known as Jerusalem. This was the year of famine, and the poor suffered great privations, which the Josephites were able to relieve in great measure by giving them employment and teaching them to weave. So many now flocked to their protection that on 2 November they rented a part of the old Carmelite monastery. The next year the founder gave a constitution to his religious, and the first Josephites bound themselves by the three customary vows. In 1819 a school for paying students was started next to the free school, but, by order of the Government, the day-school was closed because the congregation was not yet recognized. In 1823, in spite of the proscription, the Josephites for the first time wore their religious habit, but in 1826 were ordered by the Government to close their church, and the following year all religious and novices admitted since 1823 were obliged to leave the community. During the first thirteen years of its existence, between three and four thousand boys had been indebted to it for their education. In 1830, when the Belgians threw off the yoke of Holland, and the National Congress placed liberty of instruction in the new constitution, the Josephites began to take an active part in the work of education. Bishop van de Velde of Ghent approved their rules, and Father Ignatius van den Bossche became the first superior general. On all sides the Sons of St. Joseph were in demand for the direction of schools and colleges, so that the original object of the institute, which had been the instruction of the poor, was gradually modified. The house of Grammont remained the mother-house, appointed as such by the Holy See. A thorough course of professional studies was organized, in accordance with the official government programme, and later on a school of agriculture was added. This latter obtained such success in numerous exhibitions that it was granted the support and recognition of the State. Under the generalship of Father Ignatius, many new houses were opened, the two most important being those at Melle and Louvain. The college of Melle is established in a former priory of the Canons Regular of St. Augustine, founded in 1431. These canons had a college at Melle in the seventeenth century, but this was closed by order of Joseph II. After passing through several hands, the property at length came into the possession of M. van Wymelbeke, the brother-in-law of Father Crombrugghe, and in 1837 was given over to the Josephites. Here they established for the first time a complete course of commercial education, which course was afterwards adopted in all the higher schools of commerce. Their museum of commercial products and merchandise has a European reputation. By a royal decree of 11 May, 1901, the Higher School of Commerce of Melle was given the right to confer degrees in commercial science. In 1900 the college of Melle founded a school of industries, with a maritime and a colonial section for the benefit of students who do not intend to pursue university studies. The new University of Louvain was opened by the Belgian bishops in 1835, and seven years later, at the request of Cardinal Sterckx, the Josephites established a course of classical and professional studies at Holy Trinity College, founded by the old university in 1657. Under the direction of Father Remy de Sadeleer, the congregation made great progress and, on 23 Sept., 1863, obtained a laudatory Brief from the Holy See. In 1869 the father general sent a few members of the congregation to England, where they opened a large college at Croydon. On 21 Sept. of the same year, Father Félicien Campe was elected superior general for twelve years and, in accordance with the general desire of the members of the congregation, set to work to obtain from Rome the honour of the priesthood for his spiritual sons. Re-elected in 1881, Father Campe, in 1884, bought from Lord Petre a property of 110 acres, at Weybridge, in the County of Surrey; St. George's College, Croydon, too small for the ever-increasing number of boys, was sold, and the students transferred to Weybridge. The congregation was declared sacerdotal in March, 1897, by Leo XIII, who appointed Cardinal Svampa protector of the institute. The sixth superior general, Father Félix de Vlieghe, named in January, 1899, opened at the mother-house a "little novitiate", for the training of boys from the age of fourteen, who feel themselves called to the religious life. On 9 July, 1901, Leo XIII solemnly approved of the institute, and in 1907 Cardinal Merry del Val was named protector of the congregation. J.O. TURNER Joseph of Arimathea Joseph of Arimathea All that is known for certain concerning him is derived from the canonical Gospels. He was born at Arimathea -- hence his surname -- "a city of Judea" (Luke, xxiii, 51), which is very likely identical with Ramatha, the birthplace of the Prophet Samuel, although several scholars prefer to identify it with the town of Ramleh. He was a wealthy Israelite (Matt., xxvii, 57), "a good and a just man" (Luke, xxiii, 50), "who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God" (Mark, xv, 43). He is also called by St. Mark and by St. Luke a bouleutes, literally, "a senator", whereby is meant a member of the Sanhedrin or supreme council of the Jews. He was a disciple of Jesus, probably ever since Christ's first preaching in Judea (John, ii, 23), but he did not declare himself as such "for fear of the Jews" (John, xix, 38). On account of this secret allegiance to Jesus, he did not consent to His condemnation by the Sanhedrin (Luke, xxiii, 51), and was most likely absent from the meeting which sentenced Jesus to death (cf. Mark, xiv, 64). The Crucifixion of the Master quickened Joseph's faith and love, and suggested to him that he should provide for Christ's burial before the Sabbath began. Unmindful therefore of all personal danger, a danger which was indeed considerable under the circumstances, he boldly requested from Pilate the Body of Jesus, and was successful in his request (Mark, xv, 43-45). Once in possession of this sacred treasure, he -- together with Nicodemus, whom his courage had likewise emboldened, and who brought abundant spices -- wrapped up Christ's Body in fine linen and grave bands, laid it in his own tomb, new and yet unused, and hewn out of a rock in a neighbouring garden, and withdrew after rolling a great stone to the opening of the sepulchre (Matt., xxvii, 59, 60; Mark, xv, 46; Luke, xxiii, 53; John, xix, 38-42). Thus was fulfilled Isaiah's prediction that the grave of the Messias would be with a rich man (Is., liii, 9). The Greek Church celebrates the feast of Joseph of Arimathea on 31 July, and the Roman Church on 17 March. The additional details which are found concerning him in the apocryphal "Acta Pilati", are unworthy of credence. Likewise fabulous is the legend which tells of his coming to Gaul A.D. 63, and thence to Great Britain, where he is supposed to have founded the earliest Christian oratory at Glastonbury. Finally, the story of the translation of the body of Joseph of Arimathea from Jerusalem to Moyenmonstre (Diocese of Toul) originated late and is unreliable. FRANCIS E. GIGOT St. Joseph of Cupertino St. Joseph of Cupertino Mystic, born 17 June, 1603; died at Osimo 18 September, 1663; feast, 18 September. Joseph received his surname from Cupertino, a small village in the Diocese of Nardo, lying between Brindisi and Otranto in the Kingdom of Naples. His father Felice Desa, a poor carpenter, died before Joseph was born and left some debts, in consequence of which the creditors drove the mother, Francesca Panara, from her home, and she was obliged to give birth to her child in a stable. In his eighth year Joseph had an ecstatic vision while at school and this was renewed several times; so that the children, seeing him gape and stare on such occasions, lost to all things about him, gave him the sobriquet "Bocca Aperta". At the same time he had a hot and irascible temper which his strict mother strove hard to overcome. He was apprenticed to a shoemaker, but at the age of seventeen he tried to be admitted to the Friars Minor Conventuals and was refused on account of his ignorance. He then applied to the Capuchins at Martino near Tarento, where he was accepted as a lay-brother in 1620, but his continual ecstasies unfitted him for work and he was dismissed. His mother and his uncles abused him as a good-for-nothing, but Joseph did not lose hope. By his continued prayers and tears he succeeded in obtaining permission to work in the stable as lay help or oblate at the Franciscan convent of La Grotella near Cupertino. He now gave evidence of great virtues, humility, obedience, and love of penance to such an extent that he was admitted to the clerical state in 1625, and three years later, on 28 March he was raised to the priesthood. Joseph was but little versed in human knowledge, for his biographers relate that he was able to read but poorly, yet infused by knowledge and supernatural light he not only surpassed all ordinary men in the learning of the schools but could solve the most intricate questions. His life was now one long succession of visions and other heavenly favours. Everything that in any way had reference to God or holy things would bring on an ecstatic state: the sound of a bell or of church music, the mention of the name of God or of the Blessed Virgin or of a saint, any event in the life of Christ, the sacred Passion, a holy picture, the thought of the glory in heaven, all would put Joseph into contemplation. Neither dragging him about, buffeting, piercing with needles, nor even burning his flesh with candles would have any effect on him -- only the voice of his superior would make him obey. These conditions would occur at any time or place, especially at Mass or during Divine Service. Frequently he would be raised from his feet and remain suspended in the air. Besides he would at times hear heavenly music. Since such occurrences in public caused much admiration and also disturbance in a community, Joseph for thirty-five years was not allowed to attend choir, go to the common refectory, walk in procession or say Mass in church, but was ordered to remain in his room, where a private chapel was prepared for him. Evil-minded and envious men even brought him before the Inquisition, and he was sent from one lonely house of the Capuchins or Franciscans to another, but Joseph retained his resigned and joyous spirit, submitting confidently to Divine Providence. He practised mortification and fasting to such a degree, that he kept seven Lents of forty days each year, and during many of them tasted no food except on Thursdays and Sundays. His body is in the church at Osimo. He was beatified by Benedict XIV in 1753, and canonized 16 July 1767 by Clement XIII; Clement XIV extended his office to the entire Church. His life was written by Robert Nuti (Palermo, 1678). Angelo Pastrovicchi wrote another in 1773, and this is used by the Bollandist "Acta SS.", V, Sept., 992. FRANCIS MERSHMAN Joseph of Exeter Joseph of Exeter (JOSEPHUS ISCANUS.) A twelfth-century Lain poet; b. at Exeter, England. About 1180 he went to study at Gueldres, where he began his lifelong intimacy with Guibert, afterwards Abbot of Florennes. Portions of their correspondence have been preserved. In the succeeding years he wrote his most celebrated poem "De bello Trojano" in six books. Much of this must have been written before 1183, as he refers to the young "King Henry" (who predeceased his father Henry II in that year) as still living. But the work must have been completed after 1184 as it is dedicated to his friend Baldwin, Archbishop of Canterbury, who did not succeed to the primacy till that year. When the archbishop set out on the crusade to the Holy Land he induced Joseph to accompany him, but on Baldwin's death in 1190 the poet returned home, commemorating the crusade in verse in his "Antiocheis", a work of which only fragments have been preserved (see Camden's "Remaines", 338-39). The poem on the Trojan war was printed in a very corrupt and mutilated form under the name of "Cornelius Nepos" (Basle, 1558; 1583; Antwerp, 1608; Milan, 1669), and in a somewhat more critical edition by Samuel Dresemius (Frankfort, 1620; 1623). English editions were published in London in 1675 (by J. More) and in 1825. Some other poems now lost have been attributed to him, though on no valid authority. Nothing further is known of his life or death. JUSSERAND, De Josepho Exoniensi vel Iscano Thesis (Paris, 1877); SARRADIN, De Josepho Iscano, belli Trojani, XIIo post Christum saec. poeta (Versailles, 1878); HARDY, Descriptive Catalogue, II (London, 1865), 559-60; KINGSFORD in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v.; see CHEVALIER, Répertoire des sources historiques du moyen age (Paris, 1905) for list of earier sources. EDWIN BURTON St. Joseph of Leonessa St. Joseph of Leonessa In the world named Eufranio Desiderio, born in 1556 at Leonessa in Umbria; died 4 February, 1612. From his infancy he showed a remarkably religious bent of mind; he used to erect little altars and spend much time in prayer before them, and often he would gather his companions and induce them to pray with him. Whilst yet a boy he used to take the discipline on Fridays in company with the confraternity of St. Saviour. He was educated by his uncle, who had planned a suitable marriage for him, but in his sixteenth year he fell sick of a fever, and on his recovery, without consulting his relative, he joined the Capuchin reform of the Franciscan Order. He made his novitiate in the convent of the Carcerelle near Assisi. As a religious he was remarkable for his great abstinence. "Brother Ass", he would say to his body, "there is no need to feed thee as a noble horse would be fed: thou must be content to be a poor ass." In 1599, the year before his Jubilee year, he fasted the whole year by way of preparation for gaining the indulgence. In 1587 he was sent by the Superior General of his order to Constantinople to minister to the Christians held captive there. Arrived there he and his companions lodged in a derelict house of Benedictine monks. The poverty in which the friars lived attracted the attention of the Turks, who went in numbers to see the new missionaries. He was very solicitous in ministering to the captive Christians in the galleys. Every day he went into the city to preach, and he was at length thrown into prison and only released at the intervention of the Venetian agent. Urged on by zeal he at last sought to enter the palace to preach before the Sultan, but he was seized and condemned to death. For three days he hung on the gallows, held up by two hooks driven through his right hand and foot; then he was miraculously released by an angel. Returning to Italy, he took with him a Greek archbishop who had apostatized, and who was reconciled to the Church on their arrival in Rome. Joseph now took up the work of home missions in his native province, sometimes preaching six or seven times a day. In the Jubilee year of 1600 he preached the Lent at Orticoli, a town through which crowds of pilgrims passed on their way to Rome. Many of them being very poor, Joseph supplied them with food; he also washed their clothes and cut their hair. At Todi he cultivated with his own hands a garden, the produce of which was for the poor. His feast is kept on 4 February throughout the Franciscan Order. He was canonized by Benedict XIV. F. CUTHBERT St. Joseph's Society For Colored Missions St. Joseph's Society for Colored Missions This organization began its labours in 1871, when four young priests from Mill Hill were put in charge of St. Francis Xavier's church, with a large congregation of black Catholics, in Baltimore. Other black missions were soon begun at Louisville, Charleston, Washington, Richmond, Norfolk, and other places in the South. The society in the United States increased so rapidly and its missions were so successful that in 1892 it was made independent of Mill Hill and established its headquarters at Baltimore. It soon grew to almost 50 priests, who ran 35 missions throughout the South. The society opened numerous educational institutions, including: St. Joseph's Seminary in Baltimore, to train missionaries for the black missions; Epiphany Apostolic College, Walbrook, Baltimore, a preparatory school for St. Joseph's Seminary; St. Joseph's Catechetical College near Montgomery, Alabama, to train young black men as catechists and teachers; and St. Joseph's Industrial School at Clayton, Delaware, an agricultural and trade school for black youth. MICHAEL OTT St. Joseph's Society For Foreign Missions St. Joseph's Society for Foreign Missions (Mill Hill, London, N.W.) A society of priests and laymen whose object is to labour for the conversion of heathens in foreign countries. It owes its origin to Cardinal Vaughan (d. 1903) who, when still but a priest, founded in 1866 St. Joseph's Missionary College in a villa near Mill Hill, about ten miles north of London. It was the purpose of this college to train missionaries to propagate the Gospel among unevangelized races beyond Europe, especially the negroes of Africa and the United States of America. On 1 March, 1871, the college was transferred to a larger building erected for the purpose at Mill Hill, and in 1884 St. Peter's School was founded at Freshfield near Liverpool, to serve as a preparatory school to the college at Mill Hill. There are two other branch colleges: St. Joseph's Missiehuis, at Rozendaal, Holland, erected in 1890; and St. Josef's Missionshaus, at Brixen, Tyrol, erected in 1891. St. Joseph's Society, Mill Hill, is under the direction of the superior general, Very Rev. Francis Henry, and comprises at present about 200 priests and 10 lay brothers. About 170 of these priests are engaged as missionaries, the others as teachers in the above named colleges. The following missions are under the care of the Society: the Telugu Mission in the Archdiocese of Madras in British India, since 1875; the Prefecture Apostolic of Labuan and North Borneo, since 1881; the Maori Mission in the Diocese of Auckland, New Zealand, since 1886; the Prefecture Apostolic of Kafiristan and Kashmir in the northern part of India, since 1887; the Vicariate Apostolic of the Upper Nile or Uganda in British East Africa, since 1894; a few stations in the Belgian Congo, since 1903; and in the Diocese of Jaro, in the Philippine Islands, since 1906, there are about thirty priests of the society. The rules and constitutions of the society received the final definite approval of the Holy See, 25 April, 1908. SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH'S SOCIETY FOR FOREIGN MISSIONS Of the Third Order Regular of St. Francis, founded in 1883 by Cardinal Vaughan and Mother Mary Francis Ingham, to co-operate in the work of the Mill Hill Fathers. The cardinal's idea was that the sisters should stand in the same relation to the fathers of the society as the Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul to the Lazarist Fathers. They undertake any work, at home or abroad, indicated for them by the superior general or the bishop of the diocese. There are no lay sisters. The novitiate is at Patricraft, Manchester, where the sisters have also homes for boys and girls and a nursery, with about 200 children under 40 sisters. In addition to their establishments at Mill Hill and Manchester, the congregation has a branch house at Blackburn with boarding-schools for boys and girls of the middle class and an orphanage for children of the poorer class, with 10 sisters in charge of 70 to 80 children; at Blackburn the sisters teach in 3 elementary schools. They have branches also at Freshfield (Liverpool), at Waterford and Cork in Ireland, and at Rozendaal in Holland. In Borneo there are 17 sisters at various mission stations. The total number of professed sisters in the congregation is 120. St. Joseph's Foreign Missionary Advocate, a quarterly (Mill Hill, 1883--); St. Josefs Missionsblat, monthly organ of the Tyrolesebranch of the society (Brixen, 1896--); St. Josefs-Missions-Gesellschaft des heiligsten Herzens von Mill Hill (Brixen, 1892); Annalen van het Missiehuis te Rozendaal (monthly). MICHAEL OTT Flavius Josephus Flavius Josephus Jewish historian, born A.D. 37, at Jerusalem; died about 101. He belonged to a distinguished priestly family, whose paternal ancestors he himself traces back five generations; his mother's family claimed descent from the Machabeans. He received a good education, and association with distinguished scholars developed his intellectual gifts, more especially his memory and power of judgment. He also made himself fully acquainted with and tried the leading politico-religious Jewish parties of his age -- the Essenes, Pharisees, and Sadducees. Impressed by the outward importance of the Pharisees and hoping to secure through them a position of influence, he attached himself to their party at the age of nineteen, although he shared neither their religious nor political views. He went to Rome in the year 64 with the object of procuring from Nero the release of some imprisoned Jewish priests, who were friends of his. He succeeded in winning the favour of Poppæa Sabina, the emperor's consort, and through her influence gained his cause. But he was dazzled by the brilliant court life in the metropolis of the world, that he became ever more estranged from the spirit of strict Judaism, considering its struggle against paganism as useless. After his return to Jerusalem, the great Jewish revolt broke out in the year 66. Like most of the aristocratic Jews, Josephus at first discountenanced the rebellion of his countrymen, goaded into activity by their enslaved condition and outraged religious sentiments; when, however, fortune seemed to favour the insurgents, Josephus like the rest of the priestly nobility joined them, and was chosen by the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem to be commander-in-chief in Galilee. As such he established in every city throughout the country a council of judges, the members of which were recruited from those who shared his political views. He guided the diplomatic negotiations as well as the military enterprises with prudence and astuteness. In the beginning the Jews were successful, but later when the Roman General Vespasian advanced with the main army from Antioch to Galilee, burning and murdering, the insurgents either fled or sought shelter in their fortresses. For six weeks Josephus and the boldest spirits among the insurgents defended themselves in the almost impregnable fortress of Jotapata. In the summer of 67, the garrison being now exhausted from lack of water and other necessaries, the Romans stormed the citadel; most of the patriots were put to the sword, but Josephus escaped the massacre by hiding in an inaccessible cistern, and emerged only after receiving an assurance that his life would be spared. Brought before the victorious general, he sought with great shrewness to ingratiate himself with Vespasian, foretelling his elevation, as well as that of his son Titus, to the imperial dignity. Vespasian, however, kept him as a prisoner, and it was only in the year 69, after he had actually become emperor, that he restored to Josephus his liberty. As a freedman of Vespasian, Josephus assumed in accordance with the Roman custom the former's family name of Flavianus. He accompanied the emperor as far as Egypt, when the latter had handled over to his son the prosecution of the Jewish War, but then joined the retinue of Titus, and was an eyewitness of the destruction of the Holy City and her Temple. At his personal risk he had tried to persuade the Jews to surrender. After the fall of the city he went to Rome with Titus, and took part in the latter's triumph. But these scenes did not trouble Josphus's sense of national honour; on the contrary, he accepted the privilege of Roman citizenship in recognition of his services, and was granted a yearly stipend and also lands in Judea. The succeeding emperors, Titus and his cruel brother Domitian, also showed themselves kindly disposed towards Josephus, and conferred on him many marks of distinction. At court he was allowed to devote himself unmolested to his literary work until his death, which occurred in the reign of Trajan (probably in 101). In his life, as in his writings, he pursued a policy midway between Jewish and pagan culture, for which he was accused by his Jewish countrymen of being unprincipled and hypocritical. His works were written in elegant Greek, to influence the educated class of his time, and free them from various prejudices against Judaism. The first work of Josephus was the "Jewish War" (Peri tou Ioudaikou polemou) in seven books. This is mainly based on his memoranda made during the war of independence (66-73), on the memoirs of Vespasian, and on letters of King Agrippa. While his story of warlike events is reliable, the account of his own doings is strongly tinctured with foolish self-adulation. This work furnishes the historical background for numerous historical romances, among those of modern times "Lucius Flavius" by J. Spillmann, S.J., and "The End of Juda" by Anton de Waal. Josephus's second work, the "Jewish Antiquities" (Ioudaike Archaiologia), contains in twenty books the whole history of the Jews from the Creation to the outbreak of the revolt in A.D. 66. Books I-XI are based on the text of the Septuagint, though at times he also repeats traditional explanations current among the Jews in later times. He also quotes numerous passages from Greek authors whose writings are now lost. On the other hand he made allowance for the tastes of his Gentile contemporaries by arbitrary omissions as well as by the free embellishment of certain scenes. Books XII-XX, in which he speaks of the times preceding the coming of Christ and the foundation of Christianity, are our only sources for many historical events. In these the value of the statements is enhanced by the insertion of dates which are otherwise wanting, and by the citation of authentic documents which confirm and supplement the Biblical narrative. The story of Herod the Great is contained in books XV-XVII. Book XVIII contains in chapter iii the celebrated passage in which mention is made of the Redeemer in the following words: About this time lived Jesus, a man full of wisdom, if indeed one may call Him a man. For He was the doer of incredible things, and the teacher of such as gladly received the truth. He thus attracted to Himself many Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. On the accusation of the leading men of our people, Pilate condemned Him to death upon the cross; nevertheless those who had previously loved Him still remained faithful to Him. For on the third day He again appeared to them living, just as, in addition to a thousand other marvellous things, prophets sent by God had foretold. And to the present day the race of those who call themselves Christians after Him has not ceased. Attempts have been made to refute the objections brought against this passage both for internal and external reasons, but the difficulty has not been definitively settled. The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations. The fact that the "Antiquities" testifies to the truth of Divine Revelation among the Jews as among the Christians, and confirms the historical facts related in the Bible by the incontrovertible testimony of pagan authors, renders this work of Josephus of extreme value for the history of the chosen people. The accounts which he gives of the rise and mutual relations of the different Jewish sects, which are so important in the history and sufferings of the Saviour; his information regarding the corruption of the ancient Jewish customs and institutions; his statement concerning the internal conflicts of the Jews, and lastly his account of the last war with the Romans, which put an end to the national independence of the Jews, are of prime importance as historical sources. In his "Autobiography" (phlaouiou Iosepou bios), written A.D. 90, Josephus seeks, not without attempts at self-glorification, to justify his position at the beginning of the Jewish rising. In plan and language the book is probably influenced by the writings of Nicholas of Damascus, which Josephus had also used in the "Antiquities". His work entitled "Against Apion" (Kata Apionos), divided in two books, is a defence of the great antiquity of the Jews and a refutation of the charges which had been brought against them by the grammarian Apion of Alexandria on the occasion of an embassy to the Emperor Caligula. The early Christians were zealous readers of Josephus's "History of the Jews", and the Fathers of the Church, such as Jerome and Ambrose, as well as the early ecclesiastical historians like Eusebius, are fond of quoting him in their works. St. Chrysostom calls him a useful expounder of the historical books of the Old Testament. The works of Josephus were translated into Latin at an early date. After the art of printing had been discovered, they were circulated in all languages. The first German translation was edited by the Strasburg Reformer Kaspar Hedio, in 1531, and a French translation was issued by Burgoing in Lyons in 1558. Among the best-known translations in English is that by Whiston (London, 1737), revised by Shilleto (5 vols., London, 1888-9). In the middle of the nineteenth century the interest in the "Jewish Antiquities" was revived by a translation which the Society of St. Charles Borromeo induced Professor Konrad Martin, afterwards Bishop of Paderborn, to undertake in collaboration with Franz Kaulen (1st ed., Cologne, 1852-3; 2nd and 3rd ed. by Kaulen, 1883 and 1892). The test of Josephus's works has been published by Dindorf in Greek and Latin (2 vols., Paris, 1845-47) and Bekker (6 vols., Leipzig, 1855-6). There are critical editions by Naber, (Leipzig, 1888-96) and Niese (7 vols., Berlin, 1887-95; text only, 6 vols., Berlin, 1888-95). Consult SCHÜRER in Realencycl. für prot. Theol., s. v.; MÜLLER, Christus bei Flavius Josephus; EDERSHEIM in Dict. Christ. Biog., s.v. For fuller bibliography see SCHÜRER, Gesch. des jud. Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, I (3rd ed., Leipzig, 1901), 98-106. KARL HOEBER Josias Josias ( Josiah- Hebrew for "Yahweh supports"; Septuagint 'Iosías). A pious King of Juda (639-608 b.c.), who ascended the throne when he was only eight years of age. He was the son of Amon and the grandson of Manasses. His mother's name is given as Idida, the daughter of Hadaia [IV (II) Kings, xxii, 1]. Of the actual influences under which he grew up nothing is known for certain. His reign of thirty-one years is recorded in the parallel and slightly divergent asccounts of IV (II) Kings, xxii-xxiii, 30, and II Paralipomenon (Chronicles), xxxiv-xxxv. The following is a summary of Josias's public acts as they are set forth in the former of these accounts. In the eighteenth year of his rule, the Jewish king undertook to repair the Temple with the help of the high-priest Helcias. During the course of this work, Helcias found "the Book of the Law", and handed it to the royal scribe, Saphan, who read it to Josias. The threats made therein against the transgression of its contents frightened the monarch, who well knew how often these had been disobeyed in the past, and who sent to consult the prophetess Holda then living in Jerusalem. Holda declared that the threatened punishments would indeed take place, but only after Josias's death. Whereupon the king assembled the people, published the Law in their hearing, and they all united with Josias in a solemn vow of obedience to its commands. This was followed by a drastic reformation of worship not only in Juda and in Jerusalem, but also in Northern Israel, which was not strictly a part of Josias's kingdom, but in which the Jewish prince could easily intervene, owing probably to the feeble hold of Assyria at the time upon this distant portion of its territory. The work of reform was concluded by a magnificent celebration of the Pasch. Of the thirteen years of Josias's reign which followed this important reformation, nothing is said in the narrative of the Fourth Book of Kings. We are simply told of the monarch's exceeding piety towards Yahweh and of his death on the battle-field of Mageddo, where he perished fighting against the Egyptian Pharaoh, Nechao II, who was then on his way to the Euphrates against the Assyrians. Whoever compares carefully and impartially with this first account of Josias's reign the second one given in II Par., xxxiv-xxxv, cannot help being struck with their wonderful substantial agreement. Both Biblical records agree perfectly as to the age of the king at his accession and as to the length of his reign. Like the narrative of Kings, that of Paralipomenon refers to the eighteenth year of Josias's rule the discovery of the "Book of the Law", relates the same circumstances as attending that event, speaks of a work of religious reform as carried out throughout all Israel on account of the contents of that book, and praises the magnificence of the solemn Pasch celebrated in harmony with its prescriptions. Like the narrative of Kings, too, that of Paralipomenon appreciates in the most favourable manner the king's character and describes his death on the battle-field of Mageddo when fighting against Nechao. In view of this it is plain that the differences, noticeable in their respective accounts of the reign of Josias by the authors of IV Kings and II Paralip., are only slight variations naturally accounted for by the somewhat different purposes which the two inspired. With regard to the exact extent and the Mosaic origin of the "Book of the Law", discovered under Josias, see Pentateuch. For works on Biblical history, see bibliography to Isaac. Recent Commentaries on Paralipomenon by: Clair* (Paris, 1880); Oettli (Munich, 1889); Bennet (New York,;1894); Barnes (Cambridge, 1899); Neteler* (Münster, 1899); Benzinger (Freiburg, 1901); Kittel (Göttingen, 1902). Names of Catholic authors are marked with an asterisk. Francis E. Gigot Josue (Joshua) Josue (Joshua) The name of eight persons in the Old Testament, and of one of the Sacred Books. 1. ( 'Oseé), a Bethsamite in whose field the ark stood on its way back from the land of the Philistines to Juda (I Kings, vi, 14, 18). 2. ( 'Iesoûs), governor of Jerusalem whose idolatrous altars were destroyed by King Josias, during the latter's attempts to undo the evil wrought by his father Amon and grandfather Manasses (IV Kings, xxii, 8). 3. ( 'Iesoûs), the son of Josedec and the highpriest who returned with Zorobabel from the Babylonian Captivity to Jerusalem (I Esd., ii, 2; II Esd., vii, 7; xxi, 1). In I and II Esd. the Vulgate calls him Josue; in Agg. and Zach., Jesus. He assisted Zorobabel in rebuilding the Temple, and was most zealous for the restoration of the religion of Israel (I Esd., iii, 2, 8; iv, 3; v, 2). It was he whom Zacharias saw in vision stripped of filthy garments and clothed in clean robes and mitre, while the angel of the Lord proclaimed the highpriest the type of the coming Messias (Zach., iii). 4. ( 'Iesoué, 'Iesoû), a head of the family of Phahath Moab, one of the families named in the list of Israelites that returned from the Babylonian Exile (I Esd., ii, 6; II Esd., vii, 11). 5. ( 'Iesoî 'Iesoû), a head of the priestly family of Idaia, maybe the highpriest Josue mentioned above (I Esd., ii, 36; II Esd., vii, 39). 6. ( 'Iesoûs, 'Iesoû), the name of a priestly family descended from Oduia, as also of various heads of that family after the Exile (I Esd., ii, 40; iii, 9; viii, 33; II Esd., iii, 19; vii, 43; viii, 7; ix, 4, 5; xii, 8, Vulg. Jesua; xii, 24). 7. ( 'Iesía), one of the sons of Herem who were ordered to put away their wives taken from the land of the stranger (I Esd., x, 31). 8. (First called Osee; Sept. 'Iesoûs, first Aúsé), the son of Nun; the genealogy of the family is given in I Par., vii, 20-27; it belonged to the tribe of Ephraim. Josue commanded the army of Israel, after the Exodus, in its battle with Amalec (Ex., xvii, 9-13), was called the minister of Moses (xxiv, 13), accompanied the great lawgiver to and from Mount Sinai (xxxi, 17) and into the tabernacle of the covenant (xxxiii, 11), and acted as one of twelve spies whom Moses sent to view the land of Chanaan (Num., xiii, 9). On this occasion Moses changed his servant's name from Osee to Josue (Num., xiii, 17). The new name most likely means "Jahweh is salvation". Josue and Caleb alone spoke well of the land, even though the people wished to stone them for not murmuring and these two lived on (Num., xiv, 38). Josue was chosen by God to succeed Moses. The words of the choice show the character of the chosen (Num., xxvii, 17-18). Before Eleazar and all the assembly of the people Moses laid hands on Josue. Later this soldier was proposed by Moses to the people to lead them into the land beyond the Jordan (Deut., xxxi, 3), and was ordered by the Lord to do so (xxxi, 23). After the death of Moses, Josue was filled with the spirit of wisdom and was obeyed by the children of Israel (Deut., xxxiv, 9). The rest of story of Josue is told in the Book of Josue. THE BOOK OF JOSHUA The sixth book of the Old Testament; in the plan of the critics, the last book of the Hexateuch (see Pentateuch ). In the Fathers, the book is often called "Jesus Nave". The name dates from the time of Origen, who translated the Hebrew "son of Nun" by uìòs Nauê and insisted upon the Nave as a type of a ship; hence in the name Jesus Nave many of the Fathers see the type of Jesus, the Ship wherin the world is saved. (1) Contents The Book of Josue contains two parts: the conquest of the promised land and the division thereof. (a) The Conquest (i- xii). Josue enters the land of promise, after being assured by spies that the way is safe. It is the tenth day of the first month, fortyone years since the Exodus. The channel of the Jordan is dry during the passage of Israel (i-iii) A monument is erected in the midst of the Jordan, and one at Galgal, to commemorate the miracle. Josue camps at Galgal (iv). The Israelites born during the wandering are circumcised; the pasch is eaten the first time in the land of promise; the manna ceases to fall; Josue is strengthened by the vision of an angel (v). The walls of Jericho fall without a blow; the city is sacked; its inhabitants are put to death; only the family of Rahab is spared (vi). Israel goes up against Hai. The crime of Achan causes defeat. Josue punishes that crime and takes Hai (vii-viii, 29); sets up an altar on Mount Hebal; subjugates the Gabaonites (viii, 30-ix), defeats the kings of Jerusalem, Hebron, Jerimoth, Lachis, and Eglon; captures and destroys Maceda, Lebna, Lachis, Eglon, Hebron, Dabir, and the South even to Gaza; marches North and defeats the combined forces of the kings at the waters of Meron (x-xii). (b) The Division of the Land among the Tribes of Israel (xiii-xxii). Epilogue: last message and death of Josue (xxiii and xxiv). (2) Canonicity (a) In the Jewish canon Josue is among the Early Prophets Josue, Judges, and the four Books of Kings. It was not grouped with the Pentateuch, chiefly because, unlike Exodus and Leviticus, it contained no Torah, or law; also because the five books of the Torah were assigned to Moses (see Pentateuch ). (b) In the Christian canon Josue has ever held the same place as in the Jewish canon. (3)Unity Non-Catholics have almost all followed the critics in the question of the "Hexateuch"; even the conservative Hastings, "Dict. of the Bible", ed. 1909, takes it for granted that Josue (Joshua) is a post-Exile patchwork. The first part (i-xii) is made up of two documents, probably J and E (Jehovistic and Elohistic elements), put together by J E and later revised by the Deuterocanonical editor (D); to this latter is assigned all of the first chapter. Very little of this portion is the work of P (the compiler of the Priestly Code). In the second part (xiii-xxii) the critics are uncertain as to whether the last editing was the work of the Deuteronomic or the Priestly editor; they agree in this that the same hands those of J, E, D, and P are at work in both parts, and that the portions which must be assigned to P have characteristics which are not at all found in his work in the Pentateuch. The final redaction is post-Exilic a work done about 440-400 b.c. Such in brief is the theory of the critics, who differ here as elsewhere in the matter of the details assigned to the various writers and the order of the editing, which all assume was certainly done. (See G. A. Smith and Welch in Hastings, "Dict. of the Bible", large and small editions respectively, s. v. "Joshua"; Moore in Cheyne, "Encyc. Bibl."; Wellhausen, "Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des A. T.", Berlin, 1889; Driver, "Introd. to Lit. of O.T.", New York, 1892, 96.) The Jews knew no such Hexateuch, no such six books set together by a final editor; they always kept a marked distinction between the Pentateuch and Josue, and rather linked Josue with Judges than with Deuteronomy. The wellknown preface to Ecclus. (Sept.) separates the "Law" from the "Prophets". The Samaritans have the Torah entirely separate from the recently discovered Samaritan Josue. Catholics almost universally defend the unity of Josue. It is true that before the decree of the Biblical Commission on the question of the multiple authorship of the Pentateuch, some Catholics assigned Josue, as well as the five Mosaic books, to J, E, D, and P. Catholic Biblical scholars favour the pre-Exilic unity of composition of Josue and its editorial independence of the Pentateuch. This independence is shown by the completeness and originality of the plan of the book. We have seen the unity of this plan Josue's conquest and division of the promised land. The purpose is clear to carry on the history of the chosen people after the death of Moses. The purpose of the Pentateuch was very different to codify the laws of the chosen people as well as to sum up their primitive history. No laws are codified in Josue. The critics argue that the death of Moses leaves a void to be filled up, i. e. the conquest of the land of promise, and therefore postulate this conquest for the historical, if not for the legal, completeness of the Pentateuch. Such an hypothesis would justify one in postulating also that the history of the conquest after the death of Josue be needed for the historical completeness of the Pentateuch. Again, the completeness of Josue's narrative of the conquest of the promised land is clear from the fact that it repeats data which are already given in the Pentateuch and are details of that conquest. The orders of Moses to the children of Ruben and of Gad are clear cut in the Pentateuch (Num., xxxii, 20 sqq.); so, too, is the execution of these orders by the Rubenites and Gadites in the lands of the Amorrhites and of Basan (Num., xxxii, 33-38). If Josue is part of the composite and late composition which the critics make the Mosaic books out to be, how comes it that these very data concerning the children of Ruben and of Gad are repeated by the supposititious Deuteronomic D¹ or D² when he comes to set together the J and E and P of Josue? Why does he break in upon his continued narrative (see Jos., i, 12; xiii, 15-28)? Why this useless repetition of the same names, if not because of the unity of composition of Josue? Why are the cities of refuge given again (cf. xx, 8; Deut., iv, 41 sqq.)? To answer these and similar difficulties, the critics have recourse to an uncritical subterfuge D¹ or D² was not brought up in the school of modern criticism; hence his blunderings. We cannot accept so uncritical and free-handed a writer as the God-chosen and inspired editor of the Pentateuch and Josue. For a full refutation of the critics, see Cornely, "Introd. Specialis in Hist. V. T. Libros", II (Paris, 1887, 177). (4) Authorship (a) The Book of Josue was certainly written before the time of David, for the Chanaanite still dwelt in Gazer (xvi, 10), the Jebusite in Jerusalem (xv, 63), and Sidon held supremacy in Phoenicia (xiv, 28); whereas, before the time of Solomon, the Egyptians had driven the Chanaanite from Gazer (III Kings, ix, 16), David had captured Jerusalem in the eighth year of his reign (II Kings, v, 5), and Tyre (twelfth century b.c.) had supplanted Sidon in the supremacy of Phoenicia. Moreover, in David's time, no writer could have set down his allies the Phoenicians among the peoples to be destroyed (xiii, 6). (b) Internal evidence favours the view that the author lived not long after the death of Josue. The territory assigned to each tribe is very exactly described. Only the land allotted to Ephraim is set down (xvi, 5), since occupation was delayed (xvii, 16); on the other hand, we are told not only the portion of land allotted to Juda and Benjamin, but the cities they had captured (xv, 1 sqq.; xviii, 11 sqq.); as for the other tribes, the progress they had made in winning the cities of their lot is told us with an accuracy which could not be explained were we to admit that the narrative is post-Exilic in its final redaction. Only the inadmissible bungling of the uncritical D¹ or D² will serve to explain away this argument. (c) The question remains: Did Josue write all save the epilogue? Catholics are divided. Most of the Fathers seem to have taken it for granted that the author is Josue; still there have ever been Catholics who assigned the work to some one shortly after the death of the great leader. Theodoret (In Jos., q. xiv), Pseudo-Athanasius (Synopsis Sacr. Scrip.), Tostatus (In Jos., i, q. xiii; vii), Maes ("Josue Imperatoris Historia", Antwerp, 1574), Haneberg ("Gesch. der bibl. Offenbarung", Ratisbon, 1863, 202), Danko ("Hist. Rev. Div. V. T.", Vienna, 1862, 200), Meignan ("De Moïse à David", Paris, 1896, 335), and many other Catholic authors admit that the Book of Josue contains signs of later editing; but all insist that this editing was done before the Exile. (5) Historicity The Biblical Commission (15 Feb., 1909) has decreed the historicity of the primitive narrative of Gen., i-iii; a fortiori it will not tolerate that a Catholic deny the historicity of Josue. The chief objection of rationalists to the historical worth of the book is the almost overwhelming force of the miraculous therein; this objection has no worth to the Catholic exegete. Other objections are forestalled in the treatment of the authenticity of the work. Full answer to the rationalistic objections will be found in the standard works of Catholics on introduction. Saints Paul (Heb., xi, 30, 31; xiii, 5), James (ii, 25), and Stephen (Acts, vii, 45), the tradition of the Synagogue and of the Church accept the Book of Josue as historical. To the Fathers Josue is an historical person and a type of the Messias. As an antidote to accusations that Josue was cruel and murderous, etc., one should read the Assyrian and Egyptian accounts of the almost contemporary treatment of the vanquished. St. Augustine solved the rationalistic difficulty by saying that the abominations of the Chanaanites merited the punishment which God, as Master of the world, meted out to them by the hand of Israel (In Hept., III, 56; P.L., XXXIV, 702, 816). These abominations of phallic worship and infant sacrifice have been proven by the excavations of the Palestine Exploration Fund at Gazer. (6) Text The Septuagint is preserved in two different recensions the Alexandrian (A) and Vatican (B) and varies considerably from the Masorah; the Vulgate often differs from all three (iii, 4; iv, 3, 13; v, 6). The Samaritan Josue recently discovered, resembles the Sept. more closely than the Masorah. Fathers: Origen, Eclectum in Jesum Nave in P. G., XII, 819-825); Augustine, Quæstiones in Heptateuchum in P.L., XXXIV, 547). Modern writers: Maes, op. cit.; Calmet, Comm. Lit. in Omnes Libros N. et V. Test. (Würzburg, 1788); Serarius, Josue, etc. (Mainz, 1610); BonfrÈre, Josue, Judices, Ruth (Paris, 1733); also works mentioned in body of article. Protestant: Speaker's Bible, II (London, 1872); KÖnig, Alttest Studien, i. Authentie des Buches Josua (1836). WALTER DRUM Joseph Joubert Joseph Joubert French philosopher; b. at Martignac (Dordogne), 7 May, 1754, d. at Villeneuve-le-Roi (Yonne), 4 May 1824. At the age of fourteen, having finished his studies in his native town, he was sent to Toulouse to study law, but after a few months joined the Doctrinaires, a teaching order, and was entrusted with the instruction of lower classes. In 1778 he left the order and went to Paris, where he associated with the most famous literary men of the time, Marmontel, Diderot, and d'Alembert, with whose sentiments he was for some time in sympathy. The French Revolution opened his eyes and made him a strong opponent of the doctrines of the eighteenth century. In 1790 he was elected by his countrymen justice of the peace of the canton of Martignac. When his biennial term expired, he refused to accept re-election and returned to Paris, where in the following year (8 June, 1793) he married Mlle Moreau. Disgusted with the tyranny of the Revolutionists, he retired to Villeneuve-le-Roi. Even after the 9th of Thermidor he preferred to live there rather than in Paris. Chateaubriand, Mme de Beaumont, Fontanes, Molé, and Chênedollé were his frequent visitors. In 1809 he was appointed by Fontanes Inspector General of the University of France, and in spite of his poor health fulfilled his duties with the greatest zeal. When he was compelled to give up his inspectorship, he devoted his time to the education of his son and to his literary works. He was one of the first to understand the movement of the Romanticists and to encourage it. Owing to his kind disposition and his delicate taste, as well as his friendly and cheerful character, he had a strong influence over the young men gathered around him. Aiming at what was perfect in literature, he wrote very little and never published anything. He spent his leisure in thinking, and putting down his thoughts for himself. His aim was to note in terse and clear sentences the necessity, utility, and beauty of virtue. After his death, all these papiers de la malle (scraps of paper), as he called them, aroused the interest and admiration of Chateaubriand, who published a short selection of them for private circulation, under the title of "Recueil des Pensées de M. Joubert" (Paris, 1838). This book was re-edited with many additions by Paul Raynal, a nephew of the author, under the new title of "Pensées, Essais, Maximes et Correspondanee de J. Joubert" (Paris, 1842). Many other editions have since been published. Notice historique sur Joubert by his brother, ARMAND JOUBERT (no date and no place of publication), a very valuable and rare document which has just been reprinted by GIRAUD in his new edition of the Pensees (Paris, 1909) . PAILHES, Du nouveau sur Joubert (Paris, 1900); DE RAYNAL. Les correspondants de J. Joubert (Paris, 1885). LOUIS N. DELAMARRE Claude-Francois-Dorothee de Jouffroy Claude-François-Dorothée de Jouffroy Marquis d'Abbans. Mechanician, b. at Abbans, near Besançon, 30 Sept., 1751; d. at Paris, 18 July, 1832.He was educated by the Dominicans of Quingey in philosophy and literature, but showed a leaning towards the exact sciences and the mechanical arts. At the age of twenty he was enlisted in the infantry regiment of Bourbon, but numerous infractions of discipline brought upon him in 1772 the punishment of confinement at the prison opposite Cannes. There he began the study of the problems of steam navigation, suggested by the sight of the convicts rowing the galleys. In 1775 he went to Paris to study the Watt steam-engine. He discussed with Perier the application of steam to the propulsion of vessels, and opposed his views. Finally he constructed an experimental boat, and ran it on the River Doubs during June and July, 1776. The system he used then was the palmipede, or web-foot, which proved unsatisfactory. In 1781, being promised the help of the Government, he began the construction of his pyroscaphe at Lyons. This vessel was about 140 feet long, 5 feet wide, 3 feet in draught, and 150 tons in displacement. A horizontal steam-engine moved a double rack to and fro; this rack geared with ratchet-wheels on the shaft carrying the paddle wheels. The wheels were thus turned continuously in the same direction. At a public trial, 15 July, 1783, the vessel ran up the Saône at Lyons against the current with a speed of six miles per hour, in the presence of representative scientific men and thousands of enthusiastic spectators. This steamboat continued to run on the river during sixteen months. In spite of the very favorable report the French Academy withheld its endorsement, perhaps on account of the jealousy of Perier, giving as an excuse the fact that the experiment had not been made at Paris. Jouffroy, having already spent a fortune, was too poor to continue the struggle, and the guaranteed monopoly was not confirmed. The Revolution setting in, all work was abandoned until the restoration and after Fulton's success. A boat was launched and run on the Seine 20 August, 1816, and at last the patent was granted. Still Jouffroy was opposed and failed to get the necessary financial support. At length in 1831, utterly discouraged and poor, he retired to the Invalides, the home of old soldiers where he died of cholera. He was admitted to the home without difficulty, being chevalier of the Orders of Military Merit, of Saint-George, and of Saint-Louis, and having served eighteen years and during eleven campaigns. Claude de Jouffroy fought constantly on the side of the legitimists and opposed even Napoleon, the "usurper", refusing to submit his invention to him. His religious sentiments are evident from the fact that he entrusted his son to the care of the Abbé Blond. He himself was comforted to the last moment by the presence of a priest. A century later, in 1884, France recognized the originality of the inventor by subscribing to the statue of Jouffroy erected at Besançon. Robert Fulton himself had testified that "if the glory (of imagining the first pyroscaphe) belongs to any one man, it belongs to the author of the experiments made on the River Saône at Lyons in 1783". THURSTON, Growth of the Steam Engine (New York, 1878); PROST, Le marquis de Jouffroy (Paris, 1889); ARAGO, L'annuaire du Bureau des Long. (Paris, 1837); JOUFFROY in Les Contemporains (Paris, 1897); WOODCROFT, Steam Navigation (London, 1848). WILLIAM FOX Jean de Jouffroy Jean de Jouffroy French prelate and statesman; b. at Luxeuil (Franche-Comté) about 1412; d. at the priory of Rulli, in the Diocese of Bourges, 24 November, 1473. After studying at Dôle, Cologne, and Pavia, he entered the Benedictine Order, and taught theology and canon law at Pavia (1435-38). Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, entrusted him with several diplomatic missions to France, Italy, Portugal and Spain. Abbot of Luxeuil (1450 or 1451) and Bishop of Arras (1453), he became a favorite of the Dauphin, later King Louis XI. Through the intervention of the Duke of Burgundy, Jouffroy had tried to obtain the cardinalate, and he soon found an opportunity of attaining this end. The Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges (1438), besides asserting the superiority of councils over the Roman pontiff, had lessened the freedom and independence of the Church in France, and had, to a great extent, withdrawn it from the pope's control. While yet Dauphin, Louis XI had pledged himself to abolish the Pragmatic Sanction in the event of his succession to the throne. Upon his becoming king (1461), negotiations were opened by Pius II, who appointed Jouffroy as his legate. The king showed himself favorably disposed, but, in return, expected that the pope would change his Neapolitan policy, cease to support Ferrante, and recognize John of Calabria as King of Naples. At Rome, however, Jouffroy made no mention of this fact, and simply announced the king's intention of repealing the Pragmatic Sanction. In fact Louis himself wrote to the pope (27 Nov., 1461): "As you require, we set aside and proscribe the Pragmatic Sanction in our whole kingdom, in Dauphine, and all our dominions, in which henceforth your jurisdiction shall be unquestioned." Louis had expressed the desire that Jouffroy be made a cardinal. Notwithstanding the opposition of many in the Sacred College, the pope consented, and on 18 Dec., 1461, Jouffroy was one of the seven newly appointed cardinals. In the beginning of January, 1462, Jouffroy made known to the pope the king's demands concerning Naples. In his memoirs Pius II complains that "after Jouffroy had entered the sure haven of the cardinalate, he brought forward that which he had hitherto concealed, namely, that the Pragmatic Sanction would certainly be repealed only when the king's wishes regarding Naples had been complied with." For some time the pope seemed to be in doubt as to whether it would not be advisable to yield, but finally refused, and Louis XI, disappointed in his hopes and anticipations, became enraged against the pontiff, Jouffroy himself encouraging him in his opposition. The consequence was that, without directly re-establishing the Pragmatic Sanction, the king issued many decrees which practically did away with the concessions made by its revocation. Jouffroy's ro1e in the whole affair is far from praiseworthy, and, in his memoirs, the pope accuses him of deception, false representations, and treachery. Pastor's judgment seems to be fully justified: "King Louis and Cardinal Jouffroy were a well matched pair." Jouffroy became Bishop of Albi (10 Dec., 1462) and Abbot of St-Denis (1464). Several times he was sent by the king as ambassador to Rome and to Spain. He accompanied the expedition against the Duke of Armagnac besieged in Lectoure, but it is not certain that he took any part in the murder of the duke. Falling sick, he stopped at Rulli where he died. Jouffroy was a good orator, and his sermons were published in D'Achéry's "Spicilegium" (Paris, 1666). He was also a shrewd diplomat, but was not free from selfishness and ambition, which led him to use unfair means in the pursuit of his own ends. FIERVILLE, Le cardinal Jean Jouffroy et son temps (Coutances, 1874); GRAPPIN, Eloge historique de Jean Jouffroy (Besancon 1785); PASTOR, tr. ANTROBUS, History of the Popes, III, IV (London, 1894); CHEVALIER, Bio-bibl., II (Paris, 1907), 2667. C.A. DUBRAY Louis Jouin Louis Jouin Linguist, philosopher, author, b. at Berlin, 14 June, 1818, d. at New York, 10 June, 1899. He was descended from a French Huguenot family, which had been forced by the Edict of Nantes to take refuge in Prussia. After spending some time in a French school he went to Poland, where he entered the Catholic Church, and determined to embrace the priesthood. With considerable difficulty he secured his release from military service, renounced allegiance to the land of his birth, and made his way to Rome. He was admitted into the Jesuit Order, entering the novitiate of San Andrea, 20 Aug., 1841. He studied philosophy for three years in the famous Jesuit college, called the Roman College, and labored for a time at Reggio, at which place he was ordained priest on 30 April 1848, but was forced by the Revolution to flee the country. Accordingly in October, 1848, he came to America, remained in New York City till 1852, studied theology at Fordham, 1852-56, taught in Fordham College until 1859, and spent the following year at Sault-au Recollet, Canada. Returning to Fordham in 1860, he taught theology in the scholasticate (1860-3), and later (1866-72) filled various positions in the college. After a visit to England in 1872, he went to Guelph, Canada, and remained at this place till 1875. During 1875-6 he was in Montreal and during 1876-9 at St. Francis Xavier's, New York. In 1879 he returned to Fordham, where he remained until his death. As a teacher he occupied in Italy, Canada, and the United States the chairs of science, mathematics, and theology; but it was to philosophy that he gave the best part of the fifty-eight years he spent in the Society of Jesus, teaching it year after year, especially to young college students, with remarkable conciseness and clearness. Indeed it may be said that his life-work consisted in sowing the seeds of truth in the minds of American youth, and thus guarding them against the insidious errors of the times. For the use of his scholars, he prepared, either in lithograph or in print, various treatises on philosophical and scientific subjects. Unfortunately, only a few of these were given to the public. His published works are: "Elementa Logicae et Metaphysicae" (4th ed., New York, 1884); "Elementa Philosophiae Moralis" (New York, 1886); "Evidences of Religion" (1877); "Logic and Metaphysics", and "What Christ Revealed". Father Jouin was an accomplished linguist, speaking with fluency German, French, Italian, Spanish, English, Polish, and Latin, besides being well versed in Greek, Hebrew, and Gaelic. He was a skilled moralist, and for many years presided over the theological conferences of the Archdiocese of New York. His practical piety, acquaintance with ascetic literature, and deep knowledge of men caused him to be much sought after as a spiritual director and as a preacher of retreats. Woodstock Letters, XXIX, 75. J.H. FISHER Joseph de Jouvancy Joseph de Jouvancy (JOSEPHUS JUVENCIUS). Poet, pedagogue, philologist, and historian, b. at Paris, 14 September, 1643; d. at Rome, 29 May, 1719. At the age of sixteen he entered the Society of Jesus, and after completing his studies he taught grammar at the college at Compiègne, and rhetoric at Caen and La Fleche. He made his profession at the latter place in 1677 and was afterwards appointed professor at the College Louis-le-Grand at Paris. In 1699 he was called by his superiors to Rome to continue the history of the Society of Jesus begun by Orlandini, and was engaged on this work until his death. Jouvancy wrote largely upon those topics which engaged his attention as a member of the order. He composed about ten tragedies, all of which were published at Paris, and several of which were frequently acted. It is not certain, however, that all the dramas ascribed to Jouvancy were written by him, for some of them are also attributed to other members of the order. Jouvancy also wrote many poems in Latin and Greek for special Occasions. He had a masterly knowledge of classical Latin and procured the translation into Latin of many works in other languages, as the funeral oration over Prince Henri de Bourbon, oldest son of Louis XIV, delivered in December, 1683, at Paris by the celebrated pulpit orator Bourdaloue, "Cleander et Eudoxius", a translation of the "Entretiens de Cléandre et d'Eudoxe" of Father Daniel. This latter work is a refutation of the accusations brought against the Society of Jesus by its enemies; in 1703 it was put on the Index. The translation of the theological letters of Father Daniel to the Dominican Father Alexander Natalis contains a comparison of the teachings of St. Thomas and of the theologians of the Society of Jesus concerning Probabilism and its relation to Divine grace. In 1704 appeared Jouvancy's "Appendix de Diis et heroibus poeticis", a widely read work which was a translation of Father Gautruche's "Histoire poétique pour l'intelligence des poètes et auteurs anciens". Jouvancy also translated into Latin biographies, written by other Jesuits, of the saints of the order, St. Stanislaus Kostka and St. John Francis Regis. Jouvancy edited a large number of school editions of Latin authors. The text was always revised suitably to school use, was altered in many places with classical elegance, and supplied with learned foot- notes, partly explanatory of the details given by the author, partly on the style and grammatical construction; these editions were frequently reissued both in France and other countries. To some of the later editions translations were added. Worthy of special praise were the editions of the "Comedies" of Terence, the "Odes" and "Liber de arte poetica" of Horace, the "Epigrams" of Martial, the "Metamorphoses" of Ovid, the philosophical writings of Cicero, as "De officiis", "Cato Major", and "Laelius". Jouvancy's "Institutiones poeticae", published in 1718 and often reprinted, was another work intended for use in teaching. A number of editions also appeared of his "Novus apparatus graeco-latinus, cum interpretatione gallica". This work, based on Isocrates, Demosthenes, and the leading Greek authors, was not only much superior to the lexicons then used, but was also intended to encourage the cultivation of the mother tongue, as well as the study of the two classical languages. Jouvancy also delivered many orations and eulogies, for example on Louis XIV, his family, and his government, in externals so brilliant for France, on the churches of Paris and the French nation. These were published in two volumes and from 1701 frequently reprinted. A work of special importance was Jouvancy's "Christianis litterarum magistris de ratione discendi et docendi" (Paris, 1691). In 1696 he was commissioned by the Fourteenth Congregation of the Society to adapt this work as a guide and method for the classical studies of the members of the Society. After careful examination of the manuscript by a commission of the order, it was published at Florence in 1703 as an official textbook under the title: "Magistris scholarum inferiorum Societatis Jesu de ratione discendi et docendi". This edition was the basis of all later ones. In this pioneer work Jouvancy took the first steps in the method for the study of philology which was developed by the great investigators of antiquity of the nineteenth century at the German universities. Latin is and remains the central point of instruction, even though Greek and the historical branches are not neglected. The art of the teacher may be separated into two main divisions: by the example of his own piety and virtue the teacher is to lead the pupil to the knowledge and service of the Creator; he is to bring the pupil to apply himself to his actual studies by fear of humiliation and an honorable spirit of competition. The principles of the "De ratione discendi et docendi" were used as a standard in all the Jesuit colleges of the German assistance. After he was called to Rome, Jouvancy labored on the second half of the fifth part of the history of the Society of Jesus, which embraced the period 1591-1616. The work was forbidden in France by decrees of Parlement of 22 February and 24 March, 1715, because it expressed opinions contravening the royal rights of sovereigns, that is, opposing the royal absolutism of the Bourbons. In Rome as well the work was placed in part on the Index by decree of 29 July, 1722, because in some passages it contradicted the papal decree "De ritibus Sinensibus" quibus deletis liber permittitur (which being destroyed, the book is permitted). According to documents in the archives of the order this part of Jouvancy's book was written before the publication of the papal decree (Reusch, "Index der verbotenen Bücher", 2 vols., I, Bonn, 1885, 772 sq.). SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la c. de J. (Paris, 1893), bibliographies in IX, X; SCHWICKERATH, Lern- und Lehrmethode von Joseph Juvencius in Bibliothek der katholischen Padagogik, X (Freiburg im Br., 1898). KARL HOEBER Jean Jouvenet Jean Jouvenet Surnamed The Great. French painter, b. at Rouen in 1644, d. at Paris, 5 April, 1717. In his family, of Italian extraction, the painting instinct was hereditary. Noel Jouvenet, his grandfather who had settled in Normandy, is believed to have been the teacher of Poussin, while to Laurent Jouvenet, his father, Jean owed his early instruction in art, before he was sent by him to Paris in 1660. At that time the goldsmiths' guild in the city planted a tree each year on 1 May in the enclosure of Notre Dame, and presented a painting for the altar of Our Lady. The greatest artists of the age painted some of these works, which were known as mais. Jouvenet executed the painting for the year 1673, the subject being the "Cure of the Paralytic". His performance attracted the attention of Lebrun, who enrolled the author in the group of artists then engaged in decorating the palace of Versailles, under the direction of the "premier peintre". Jouvenet was elected to the Academy in 1675, and was appointed professor in 1681. However it was not till some time later, after the death of Lebrun (1692), that he came into prominence. In truth, French painting hitherto almost completely under the influence of the Italian schools, and following under Lebrun the tradition of Rome and Bologna, was just commencing to free itself. A new tradition, traceable to Rubens, who had in 1628 painted in the Palais du Luxembourg (the famous Galerie de Medicis, now in the Louvre), was daily gaining strength. Artists were divided into "Rubenists" and "Poussinists", the partisans of form and the champions of color. This artistic strife continued during the whole of the latter part of the reign of Louis XIV. Jouvenet played a decisive part in the struggle. Never having been in Italy, he could form an impartial judgment of the merits and claims of the Roman school. With La Fosse and Antoine Coypel, he was one of those who contributed most to the work of transformation, which resulted in the rise of the eighteenth century school of artists. Jouvenet's paintings for the Salons of 1699 and 1704 were the manifesto of the new school. The most important of them are preserved in the Louvre. The first is the famous "Descent from the Cross" (1697), which hangs in the Salon Carré--a free translation ot Rubens' masterpiece in the cathedral of Antwerp. Eloquent and impressive, distinguished by a sentiment of massiveness and color, and by its tonality at once low and elaborate, it was destined to exert a profound influence on the school. With the painting by Largillière in St-Etienne du Mont (1696), it occupies a most important place in the history of French painting, in which it is one of the principal dates. In the Salon of 1704 Jouvenet presented the four works, each twenty feet long, intended for the church of St-Martin des Champs (but now in the Louvre): "The Repast at the House of Simon", "The Expulsion of the Sellers from the Temple", and especially the "Raising of Lazarus" and the "Miraculous Draught of Fishes". Attention has often been called to the fact that the artist went to Dieppe expressly to prepare himself to execute this last-named picture. We might point out also that it is strongly reminiscent of the Rubens preserved in Mechlin. Louis XIV was so delighted with these works that he had them reproduced in tapestry by the Gobelins, and it was this tapestry that impressed Tsar Peter the Great so much in 1717, that he wished to take it away with him, believing it to be the greatest of masterpieces. Meanwhile Jouvenet, who was now the recognized head of the new school, was selected to work at the two decorative groups which express most accurately the characteristics of the new tradition: the dome of the Hôtel des Invalides (1700-6) and the chapel of Versailles (1709). For the former he painted twelve colossal figures of the Apostles, and for the latter, over the royal tribune, a "Descent of the Holy Ghost". Jouvenet was director of the Academy from 1705 till l708. In 1713 he was stricken with apoplexy and his right hand became paralyzed. Far from being discouraged by this, he actually acquired, though now seventy years of age, a facility for painting with his left hand, and thus executed his last two works, the ceiling in the Palais de Justice at Rouen (it has now perished, there remains only a sketch of it preserved in the Louvre) and the "Magnificat" in the choir of Notre-Dame. Jouvenet is far from being a great master, but he is a striking personality in the realms of art. His works, theatrical and often declamatory, but honest and powerful, do not excite emotion, though one can still easily understand their great historic importance. They taught painting to the French school which had forgotten it. The whole body of great decorators in the eighteenth century--men like Coypel, de Troy, Restout, Van Loo, and Doyen--follow in his footsteps, and Ingres was not mistaken in grouping them under the title of the "School of Jouvenet". His chief paintings outside the Louvre are in the galleries of Amiens, Rouen, Nancy, Grenoble, Nantes, Rennes, and Toulouse. We have still some admirable portraits by him, as that of Fagon, physician to Louis XIV (in the Louvre) and that of Bourdaloue--now only known by the engraving, which has given rise to so much discussion as to whether the great orator preached with his eyes closed. D'ARGENVILLE, Abrege de la vie des plus fameux peintres, IV (Paris, 1762); Memoires inedits sur les Membres de 1'Academie Royale de Peinture et de Sculpture, II (Paris, 1854); BLANC, Hist. des Peintres. Ecole Francaise, I (Paris, 1865); FELIBIEN, Description de l'eglise royale des Invalides (Paris, 1706); BELLIER DE LA CHAVIGNERIE, Dict. generale des artistes de l' Ecole francaise, I (Paris, l882); MARCEL, La Peinture francaise de 1690 a 1721 (Paris, 1905); LERCY, Hist. de Jouvenet (Paris, 1860). LOUIS GILLET Gaspar Melchor de Jovellanos Gaspar Melchor de Jovellanos (Also written JOVE-LLANOS). Spanish statesman and man of letters, at Gijon, Asturias, 5 Jan., 1744, d. at Puerto de Vega on the borders of Asturias, 27 Nov., 1811. Intended at first for the Church, he received his preliminary training at the University of Oviedo, whence he passed to the University of Avila and later to that of Alcalá. In the latter institution he spent two years, continuing his study of canon law. His uncle, the Duke of Losada, did not look with favor on the idea the young man devoting himself to an ecclesiastical career, and advised him to direct his course towards the practice of law as a layman. This he did, after having already received the tonsure, and ere long he was made a judge in the criminal court of Seville, from which post he rose to higher places on the bench. While at Seville, he interested himself in the development of the mechanical, agricultural, and general economic arts, and made earnest endeavors to improve the lot of the laboring man. At the same time he commenced his literary career writing documents embodying his views as to social improvements as well as some occasional lyric verse, his tragedy "Pelayo", and his comedy "El delincuente honrado". With the exception of the "El sí de las niñas" of Moratin, the last-named work was the best play that had appeared in Spanish for many years. Written in prose, it represents the introduction into Spain of that form of the sentimental drama, or melodrama, which had been developed in French, as the drame larmoyant or drame bourgeois, by Diderot and La Chaussée. The "Pelayo" is a less meritorious work. In 1778 King Carlos III transferred him to the courts in the capital. Verse written at this moment shows the regret which he felt at having to leave Seville for Madrid. Once in the metropolis, he was promptly enrolled in the learned societies, among which were the Academia de la Historia, and the Academia Española, and his association with these led to the production by him of various scientific and literary compositions. Carlos III died in 1788. A month before that event, Jovellanos had written his "Elogio de Carlos III", in which he did justice to that enlightened monarch's attempts to make the nation prosperous through the adoption of progressive methods. Like the king, Jovellanos had been deeply interested in the encouraging and bettering of agricultural pursuits, and in his "Informe sobre la ley agraria" set forth the evils that confronted the willing husbandman and the necessary reforms. He had formed a friendship with the statesman Cabarrús, and, when in 1790 the latter incurred disfavor, he was compelled to leave Madrid also. Going into virtual exile, he visited his own Asturian region with the ostensible mission of a commissioner to examine the coal-mining facilities of the district. Remaining several years at home, he there founded the "Real Instituto Asturiano", which still exists. Then, to his great surprise, he was appointed minister of justice, and proceeded to Madrid to take up his portfolio under Godoy. He held it during a good part of 1797-9, but with the fall of Godoy he lost his office and had to return to Gijon. There he was arrested in 1801 and carried off to Majorca where he was kept a prisoner until 1808, in which year he was released by order of Prince Ferdinand. Coming to the mainland, he was notified that Joseph Bonaparte had named him minister of the interior. He refused, accepting instead a place on the national Junta Central, as the representative of Asturias. After directing for a while the operations of the Junta, he was obliged to flee before the advance of the French, and embarked at Cadiz on board of a vessel for his native province. He encountered many vicissitudes, and died of pneumonia at one of his landing-places, Puerto de Vega. Obras publicadas e ineditas in the Biblioteca de autores espanoles, XLVI, L; MOREL-FATIO, La satire de Jovellanos contre la mauvaise education de la noblesse (Bordeaux, 1899): MERIMEE, Jovellanos in the Revue hispanique (1894); SOMAZA DE MONTSORIU, Inventario de un Jovellanista (Madrid, 1901). J.D.M. FORD Flavius Claudius Jovianus Flavius Claudius Jovianus Roman Emperor, 363-4. After the death of Julian the Apostate (26 June, 363), the army making war on Persia and then in retreat from Assyria proclaimed Jovianus emperor, after the prefect of the guard, Sallustius, a confidant of Julian, had refused the dignity on account of his advanced age. Jovianus was a son of the distinguished Count (Comes) Varronianus and a native of Pannonia. Though at that time less than thirty-three, he held the rank of captain in the imperial bodyguard. His election was hailed with joy by the Christians, since from him they could expect religious toleration. Although Jovianus had a warlike appearance, he lacked the spirit and decision of a soldier and leader of men. Therefore he accepted the conditions of peace offered by Shapur (Sapor), the crafty Persian king, and agreed to restore the boundaries of the empire as they existed before the peace with Diocletian in 297. The four satrapies east of the Tigris, with the fortified cities of Nisibis and Singara, were relinquished contrary to the wishes of the inhabitants, who were hostile to Persia, and the ancient connection between the Roman Empire and Armenia was severed. In return, the Roman army was permitted to retreat to the right bank of the Tigris without molestation. This weak agreement destroyed at one blow the Roman supremacy over the country about the Euphrates and Armenia, and Persia henceforth dominated the hither Orient. Under great difficulties Jovianus marched with the army from Mesopotamia to Antioch and thence to Tarsus, where he caused the mausoleum of his predecessor to be adorned. On 16 February, 364, during the march to Constantinople, the emperor was overtaken by a sudden death in the Bithynian frontier town of Dadastana, having been suffocated by coal gas in his bed-chamber, though possibly assassinated (Socrates, III, xx-xxv; VI, iii-vi). His body was brought to Constantinople and buried in the church of the Apostles beside that of Constantine. Jovianus was a zealous and orthodox Christian. He restored to the Church the privileges granted by Constantine and withdrawn by Julian. Athanasius, then seventy, was permitted to return from exile to Alexandria. ln a general edict of toleration, he established freedom for all forms of worship, even paganism, but forbade magical sacrifices, reintroducing the religious toleration proclaimed by Constantine in his Milan Edict of 313. HERTZBERG, Gesch d. rom. Kaiserreichs, II (Berlin, 1880); SCHILLER, Gesch. d. rom. Kaiserzeit, II (Gotha, 1887); BLETTERIE, Hist. de l'emp. Jovien (Paris, 1748); TILLEMONT, Hist des Empereurs, IV (Paris, 1697), 577-93, 702-3; GIBBON, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, xxv-xxviii; WORDSWORTH in Dict. Christ. Biog., s.v.; DUCHESNE, Hist. ancienne de l'eglise, II (Paris, 1907); BOISSIER, La fin du paganisme (5th ed., Paris, 1907). KARL HOEBER Jovianus Jovinianus An opponent of Christian asceticism in the fourth century, condemned as a heretic (390). Our information about him is derived principally from the work of St. Jerome in two books, "Adversus Jovinianum". He was a monk at one time in his life, but subsequently an advocate of anti-ascetical tendencies. He became the head of a party, and in the act condemning him Auxentius, Genialis, Germinator, Felix, Prontinus, Martianus, Januarius and Ingeniosus are designated as his disciples. His views were promulgated in writings which were condemned at a synod held in Rome under Pope Siricius, and subsequently at a synod convened at Milan by St. Ambrose. The writings of Jovinianus were sent to St. Jerome by his friend Pammachius; Jerome replied to them in a long treatise written in 393. From this work it would appear that Jovinianus maintained + that a virgin as such is no better in the sight of God than a wife; + abstinence is no better than the partaking of food in the right disposition; + a person baptized with the Spirit as well as water cannot sin; + all sins are equal; + there is but one grade of punishment and one of reward in the future state. From a letter of the synod at Milan to Pope Siricius (Ambrose, Ep. xlii) and from St. Augustine (lib. I contra Julian., ii) it is clear that Jovinianus denied also the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The reply of St. Jerome was couched in language that terrified Pammachius, who found fault with it because it was excessive in praise of virginity and in depreciation of marriage. The efforts to suppress it failed and St. Jerome's work obtained a wide circulation. Nothing is known of the later career of Jovinianus. From a remark in St. Jerome's work against Vigilantius, written in 409, that he "amidst pheasants and pork rather belched out than breathed out his life", it is inferred that he was then dead. HEFELE, Konziliengeschichte, II, 50; HALLER, Jovinianus, die Fragmente seiner Schriften, die Quellen zu seiner Geschichte sein Leben und seine Lehre (Leipsig, 1897); Texte und Untersuchungen, new series, II, 2; BROCHET, St. Jerome et ses Ennemis (Paris, 1906); GRUTZMACHER, Hieronymus, Eine biographische Studie zur alten Kirchengeschichte, II (Berlin, 1906). PATRICK J. HEALY Paulus Jovius Paulus Jovius (GIOVIO). Historian, b. at Como, Italy, 9 April, 1483, d. at Florence, 11 Dec., 1552. Having completed his medical studies at Padua and received the degree of doctor, he was attracted by the princely liberality of Pope Leo X, and betook himself to Rome. Here he practiced his profession, but also devoted himself to historical studies, particularly as to his own time. Knowing how to secure access to rich sources of information, he resolved to utilize his extensive materials in a comprehensive work, which would embrace all the countries of Europe, beginning with the expedition of Charles VIII of France into Italy and the conquest of Naples. Having completed the first part, he managed to obtain permission to read it to the Holy Father. The latter was so struck by the elegance of the language and the skill of the narration that he conferred knighthood on Jovius, and appointed him professor of rhetoric at the Roman University. Adrian VI made him a canon of the cathedral of Como, and Clement VII appointed him Bishop of Nocera in 1528 to compensate him for the substantial loss which he had sustained in consequence of the capture of Rome. He sought under Paul III to be transferred to the See of Como; and, as his efforts to this end remained unavailing, he gave up Nocera in 1543 from sheer vexation, and went to Como, whence in 1550 he made his way to Florence. He was, as his writings show, a child of his own time. He led a life of pleasure little in accord with Christian precepts, was in active touch with the leading humanists, and was a zealous collector of works of art especially of portraits, which he brought together in a considerable museum. This did not, however, prevent him from laboring steadily on his main work and completing it with new material. Despite all urgings, he did not begin to print it until 1550, but completed this task very shortly before his death. Under the title, "Historiarum sui temporis libri XLV", the work appeared in two volumes at Florence, and later at Basle (1560), an Italian translation also appearing in Florence (1551-3). He gives us here a very clear recital of events from 1494 to 1544, and, while he does not always succeed in unveiling the hidden and interwoven causes and effects of things, he shows himself a true historian. Naturally, very different estimates have been formed of his work. It has been at times sharply criticized, chiefly because Jovius is too enamored of himself, and does not hesitate to declare openly that he will dress up a character in gold, brocade, or common cloth, according to the fee which such portrayal may yield him as compensation. However, it is certain that he does not always follow so reprehensible a principle, for he not infrequently tells the bluntest truths to his own greatest benefactors. Of his other works we should mention: "Vitae virorum illustrium" (7 vols., Florence, 1549-57); "Elogia virorum bellica virtute illustrium" (Florence, 1554). His biography of the art-loving Medici pope is drawn with a background of such glowing colors, that one almost loses sight of the shadows which darken his reign. His Italian letters, in part highly interesting, were published by Domenichi, "Lettere volgari" (Venice, 1560). His collected works appeared in three folio volumes at Basle in 1678. GIOVIO, Elogio di P. Giovio lo storico (Modena, 1778); TIRABOSCHI, Storia della letteratura Italiana, VII (2nd ed., Rome, 1783), 242 6; PASTOR, Geschichte der Papste, IV (1st ed., Freiburg, 1906), 462-64. PATRICIUS SCHLAGER Henri, Duc de Joyeuse Henri, Duc de Joyeuse Born in 1563 and not, as is mistakenly stated in the "Biographic Michaud", in 1567; died at Rivoli, 28 Sept., 1608. He was the third son of Maréchal Guillaume de Joyeuse, and was a brother of the Admiral Anne de Joyeuse and of the prelate François de Joyeuse. As a young man, when he was known as the Comte de Bouchage, he felt attracted to the religious life and confided this desire to the guardian of the Cordeliers of Toulouse. But yielding to the pressure of his family he married Catherine de la Valette, sister of the Duc d'Epernon; and he fought in Languedoc and Guienne against the Huguenots. His inclination for the religious life endured, however, and he and his wife exchanged a promise that one of them should enter religion on the death of the other. Catherine died, and a few weeks later, 4 September, 1587, Joyeuse received the habit in the convent of the Capuchins in the Rue Saint-Honoré, Paris, from the hands of Father Bernard Dorzimo, taking the name of Père Ange. This step occasioned great stir. The "Venerable" P. Honoré of Paris (Charles Bochart de Champigny) owed to the example of Joyeuse the impulse which caused him to enter the cloister. When in October, 1587, two brothers of Joyeuse were killed at Coutras, he overcame the strong temptation he felt to become a soldier again in order to avenge them. When, after the Day of Barricades (see GUISE, HOUSE OF), 12 May, 1588, the bourgeoisie and people of Paris wished to recover the good graces of Henry III, who had sought refuge at Chartres, they sent as a first embassy a procession of Capuchins, at whose head was Père Ange bearing a cross and flogged by two other monks, while the people implored mercy. On 18 August, 1588, P. Ange, in conformity with the Franciscan rule, drew up his will, which was afterwards ratified on the morrow by Henry III, and which Father Ubald (d'Alençon) has recently recovered and published. This formality finished he was able to make his profession in December, 1588. He was sent to Italy to study Theology. In 1592 he was guardian of the Capuchins of Arles and on his way to Toulouse when his younger brother, Scipio de Joyeuse, drowned himself in the Tarn after the defeat of Villemur. The Cardinal de Joyeuse, the Parlement, and the clergy all thought of placing P. Ange in command of the troops against the Huguenots as Governor of Languedoc. The pope released him from his vows. The Capuchin who had once more become a soldier fought valiantly, and then assembled the States of Languedoc at Carcassonne to take measures for bringing about peace. He agreed with the Maréchal de Montmorency, his godfather, on a truce of three years, which was soon followed by a general peace owing to the abjuration of Henry IV. Henry IV named him marshal of France, grand master of the wardrobe, and Governor of Languedoc. But after he had married his daughter to the Duc de Montpensier, recalling the counsel given him in July, 1595, by his dying mother, and sensitive to the words of Henry IV who had called him an "unfrocked Capuchin", Joyeuse joined (8 February, 1599) the Capuchins in the Rue Saint-Honoré. In 1600 he preached again at Paris, notably in Saint-Germain l'Auxerrois, before the king and the court. The discussions which then took place in the pulpit between Père Brulart de Sillery and Père Ange de Joyeuse on the inviolability of marriage, drew upon the Capuchins the displeasure of Henry IV, who had dissolved his marriage with Queen Margaret. In turn guardian of the convent of Toulouse, provincial of France, founder of the Capuchin convent at Nevers, guardian in Paris of the convent in the Rue Saint-Honoré (1606) he went to Rome, in 1608, to attend the general chapter of his order. Here he was made definitor-general and, through the intervention of Cardinal de Givry, obtained permission to leave Rome, where the pope wished to retain him. Having set out 10 August, 1608, he was attacked by fever at Rivoli. He was buried in the church of the Capuchins in the Rue Saint-Honoré. His biographer Jacques Brousse has preserved some fragments of his sermons. Bernard of Bologna, in the "Bibliotheca script. Cap." (1747), mentions one of his works entitled "Flamma divini amoris", which seems to have been lost. The pleasantries of Voltaire's "Henriade" with regard to the "warrior monk" have too often caused the actual facts to be forgotten and have inflicted on an ardent and pious friar an obloquy not sustained by historical truth. BROUSSE, La vie du Reverend Pere Ange de Joyeuse, etc. (Paris, 1621); DE CALLIERIES, Le courtisan predestine, ou le duc de Joyeuse capuchin (Paris, 1662); Vie du R. P. de Joyeuse (by a Capuchin, Paris, 1863); UBALD D'ALENCON, Le testament du P. Ange de Joyeuse in Etudes Franciscaines, VI (1901), 630-38; DE LANMODEZ, Les Peres gardiens des Capucins du couvent de la rue Saint-Honore a Paris in Bulletin de la Societe de l'Historie de Paris (1893). GEORGES GOYAU Juan Bautista de Toledo Juan Bautista de Toledo An eminent Spanish sculptor and architect; b. at Madrid (date not known); d. there 19 May, 1567. In 1547 he went to Rome and studied under the influence of Michelangelo Buonarroti. Afterwards he went to Naples, having been sent for by the Viceroy, Don Pietro de Toledo, who engaged him as architect to the emperor, Charles V. He designed and superintended many important works in that capital. Among others, the Strada di Toledo (since 1870 called Strada di Roma), the church of Santiago or S. Giacomo degli Spagnuoli; the square bastions to the Castello Nuovo; a large palazzo at Poselipo, or Pauselipo, and a number of fountains. In 1559, at the summons of Philip II, he went to Madrid and was appointed architect-in-chief of the royal works in Spain. His yearly salary as architect to the Crown was at first not more than 220 ducats, Philip's policy, with his Spanish artists at least, being to assign them moderate allowances until he had tested their abilities. At Madrid he designed the Casa de la Misericordia and the façade of the church de las Descalzas Reales; works at Aceca; at the palace of Aranjuez; at Martininos de las Posadas, the palace of Cardinal Espinosa, and a villa at Esteban de Ambran for the secretary D. de Vargas. Toledo soon began his plan for the Escorial, of which he saw the first stone laid on 23 April, 1563, and he superintended the work till his death. He was generally considered an architect of much merit, well-versed in philosophy, mathematics, and the belles-lettres, and endowed with all those qualities which Vitruvius considers necessary to form a good architect. STIRLING-MAXWELL, Annals of the Artists of Spain (London, 1891); MILIZIA, Lives of Celebrated Architects; Dictionary of Architecture, issued by Architectural Publication Society (London). THOMAS H. POOLE Jubilate Sunday Jubilate Sunday The third Sunday after Easter, being so named from the first word of the Introit at Mass--" Jubilate Deo omnis terra" (ps. Ixv). In the liturgy for this and the two following Sundays, the Church continues her song of rejoicing in the Resurrection. Throughout the whole of Paschaltide both Office and Mass are expressive of Easter joy, Alleluia being added to every antiphon, responsory, and versicle, and repeated several times in the Introits and other parts of the Mass. The Introit for this day is an invitation to universal joy; the Epistle exhorts all, especially penitents and the newly baptized, to obey loyally the powers that be and to show themselves worthy disciples of the Risen Christ; and the Gospel gives similar advice, encouraging us to bear patiently the trials of this life in view of the heavenly joys that are to come hereafter. DURAND, Rationale Divini Officii (Venice, 1568); MARTENE, De Antiq. Mon. Ritibus (Lyons, 1790); GUERANGER, L'Annee Liturgigue, tr. SHEPARD (Dublin, 1867); LEROSEY, Hist. et Symbolisme de la Liturgie (Paris, 1889). G. CYPRIAN ALSTON Holy Year of Jubilee Holy Year of Jubilee The ultimate derivation of the word jubilee is disputed, but it is most probable that the Hebrew word jobel, to which it is traced, meant "a ram's horn", and that from this instrument, used in proclaiming the celebration, a certain idea of rejoicing was derived. Further, passing through the Greek iobelaios, or iobelos, the word became confused with the Latin jubilo, which means "to shout", and has given us the forms jubilatio and jubilaeum, now adopted in most European languages. OLD TESTAMENT ORIGINS For the Israelites (see Hebrew Year of Jubilee), the year of Jubilee was in any case preeminently a time of joy, the year of remission or universal pardon. "Thou shalt sanctify the fiftieth year," we read in Leviticus 25:10, "and shalt proclaim remission to all the inhabitants of thy land: for it is the year of jubilee." Every seventh year, like every seventh day, was always accounted holy and set aside for rest, but the year which followed seven complete cycles was to be kept as a sabbatical year of special solemnity. The Talmudists and others afterwards disputed whether the Jubilee Year was the forty-ninth or the fiftieth year, the difficulty being that in the latter case two sabbatical years must have been observed in succession. Further, there are historical data which seem to show that in the age of the Machabees the Jubilee of the fiftieth year could not have been kept, for 164-163 B.C. and 38-37 B.C. were both certainly sabbatical years, which they could not have been if two sabbatical years had been intercalated in the interval. However, the text of Leviticus (25:8-55) leaves no room for ambiguity that the fiftieth year was intended, and the institution evidently bore a close analogy with the feast of Pentecost, which was the closing day after seven weeks of harvest. In any case it is certain that the Jubilee period, as it was generally understood and adopted afterwards in the Christian Church, meant fifty and not forty-nine years; but at the same time the number fifty was not originally arrived at because it represented half a century, but because it was the number that followed seven cycles of seven. It was, then, part of the legislation of the Old Law, whether practically adhered to or not, that each fiftieth year was to be celebrated as a jubilee year, and that at this season every household should recover its absent members, the land return to its former owners, the Hebrew slaves be set free, and debts be remitted. THE CHRISTIAN JUBILEE The same conception, spiritualized, forms the fundamental idea of the Christian Jubilee, though it is difficult to judge how far any sort of continuity can have existed between the two. It is commonly stated that Pope Boniface VIII instituted the first Christian Jubilee in the year 1300, and it is certain that this is the first celebration of which we have any precise record, but it is also certain that the idea of solemnizing a fiftieth anniversary was familiar to medieval writers, no doubt through their knowledge of the Bible, long before that date. The jubilee of a monk's religious profession was often kept, and probably some vague memory survived of those Roman ludi saeculares which are commemorated in the "Carmen Saeculare" of Horace, even though this last was commonly associated with a period of a hundred years rather than any lesser interval. But, what is most noteworthy, the number fifty was specially associated in the early thirteenth century with the idea of remission. The translation of St. Thomas of Canterbury took place in the year 1220, fifty years after his martyrdom. The sermon on that occasion was preached by Stephen Cardinal Lantron, who told his hearers that this accident was meant by Providence to recall "the mystical virtue of the number fifty, which, as every reader of the sacred page is aware, is the number of remission" (P.L., CXC, 421). We might be tempted to regard this discourse as a fabrication of later date, were it not for the fact that a Latin hymn directed against the Albigenses, and certainly belonging to the early thirteenth century, speaks in exactly similar terms. The first stanza runs thus: Anni favor jubilaei Poenarum laxat debitum, Post peccatorum vomitum Et cessandi propositum. Currant passim omnes rei. Pro mercede regnum Dei Levi patet expositum. In the light of this explicit mention of a jubilee with great remissions of the penalties of sin to be obtained by full confession and purpose of amendment, it seems difficult to reject the statement of Cardinal Stefaneschi, the contemporary and counsellor of Boniface VIII, and author of a treatise on the first Jubilee ("De Anno Jubileo" in La Bigne, "Bibliotheca Patrum", VI, 536), that the proclamation of the Jubilee owed its origin to the statements of certain aged pilgrims who persuaded Boniface that great indulgences had been granted to all pilgrims in Rome about a hundred years before. It is also noteworthy that in the Chronicle of Alberic of Three Fountains, under the year 1208 (not, be it noted 1200), we find this brief entry: "It is said that this year was celebrated as the fiftieth year, or the year of jubilee and remission, in the Roman Court" (Pertz, "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script." XXIII, 889). It is beyond all dispute that on 22 February, 1300, Boniface published the Bull "Antiquorum fida relatio", in which, appealing vaguely the precedent of past ages, he declares that he grants afresh and renews certain "great remissions and indulgences for sins" which are to be obtained "by visiting the city of Rome and the venerable basilica of the Prince of the Apostles". Coming to more precise detail, he specifies that he concedes "not only full and copious, but the most full, pardon of all their sins", to those who fulfill certain conditions. These are, first, that being truly penitent they confess their sins, and secondly, that they visit the basilicas of St. Peter and St. Paul in Rome, at least once a day for a specified time--in the case of the inhabitants for thirty days, in the case of strangers for fifteen. No explicit mention is made of Communion, nor does the word jubilee occur in the Bull--indeed the pope speaks rather of a celebration which is to occur every hundred years--but writers both Roman and foreign described this year as annus jubileus, and the name jubilee (though others, such as the "holy year" or "the golden year" have been used as well) has been applied to such celebrations ever since. Dante, who is himself supposed by some to have visited Rome during this year to gain the Jubilee, refers to it under the name Giubbileo in the Inferno (xviii, 29) and indirectly bears witness to the enormous concourse of pilgrims by comparing the sinners passing along one of the bridges of Malebolge in opposite directions, to the throngs crossing the bridge of the Castle Sant' Angelo on their way to and from St. Peter's. Similarly, the chronicler Villani was so impressed on this occasion by the sight of the monuments of Rome and the people who flocked thither that he then and there formed the resolution of his great chronicle, in the course of which he gives a remarkable account of what he witnessed. He describes the indulgence as a full and entire remission of all sins di culpa e di pena, and he dwells upon the great contentment and good order of the people, despite the fact that during the greater part of that year there were two hundred thousand pilgrims on an average present in Rome over and above the ordinary population. With regard to the phrase just noticed, a culpa et a poena, which was often popularly used of the Jubilee and other similar indulgences, it should be observed that it means no more than what is now understood by a "plenary indulgence". It implied, however, that any approved Roman confessor had faculties to absolve from reserved cases, and that the liberty thus virtually accorded of selecting a confessor was regarded as a privilege. The phrase was an unscientific one, and was not commonly used by theologians. It certainly did not mean, as some have pretended, that the indulgence of itself released from guilt as well as penalty. The guilt was remitted only in virtue of sacramental confession and the sorrow of the penitent. The sovereign pontiff never claimed any power of absolving in grievous matters apart from these. "All theologians", remarks Maldonatus with truth, "unanimously without a single exception, reply that an indulgence is not a remission of guilt but of the penalty." (See Paulus in "Zeitschrift f. kath. Theologie", 1899, pp. 49 sqq., 423 sqq., 743 sqq., and "Dublin Review", Jan., 1900, pp. 1 sqq.) The Jubilee of 1350. As we have seen, Boniface VIII had intended that the Jubilee should be celebrated only once in a hundred years, but some time before the middle of the fourteenth century, great instances, in which St. Bridget of Sweden and the poet Petrarch amongst others had some share, were made to Pope Clement VI, then residing at Avignon, to anticipate this term, particularly on the ground that the average span of human life was so short as otherwise to render it impossible for many to hope to see any Jubilee in their own generation. Clement VI assented, and in 1350 accordingly, though the pope did not return to Rome himself. Gaetani Cardinal Ceccano was dispatched thither to represent His Holiness at the Jubilee. On this occasion daily visits to the church of St. John Lateran were enjoined, besides those to the basilicas of St. Peter and St. Paul without the walls, while at the next Jubilee, St. Mary Major was added to the list. The visit to these four churches has remained unchanged ever since as one of the primary conditions for gaining the Roman Jubilee. The Jubilees of 1390 and 1423. The celebration next following was held in 1390, and in virtue of an ordinance of Urban VI, it was proposed to hold a Jubilee every thirty-three years as representing the period of the sojourn of Christ upon earth and also the average span of human life. Another Jubilee was accordingly proclaimed by Martin V in 1423, but Nicholas V, in 1450, reverted to the quinquagesimal period, while Paul II decreed that the Jubilee should be celebrated every twenty-five years, and this has been the normal rule ever since. Subsequent Jubilees. The Jubilees of 1450 and 1475 were attended by vast crowds of pilgrims, and that of 1450 was unfortunately made famous by a terrible accident in which nearly two hundred persons were trampled to death in a panic which occurred on the bridge of Sant' Angelo. But even this disaster had its good effects in the pains taken afterwards to widen the thoroughfares and to provide for the entertainment and comfort of the pilgrims by numerous charitable organizations, of which the Archconfraternity of the Holy Trinity, founded by St. Philip Neri, was the most famous. On the other hand, it is impossible to doubt the evidence of innumerable witnesses as to the great moral renovation produced by these celebrations. The testimony comes in many cases from the most unexceptionable sources, and it extends from the days of Boniface VIII to the striking account given by Cardinal Wiseman ("Last Four Popes", pp. 270, 271) of the only Jubilee held in the nineteenth century, that of 1825. The omission of the Jubilees of 1800, 1850, and 1875 was due to political disturbances, but with these exceptions the celebration has been uniformly maintained every twenty-five years from 1450 until the present time. The Jubilee of 1900, though shorn of much of its splendour by the confinement of the Holy Father within the limits of the Vatican, was, nevertheless carried out by Pope Leo XIII with all the solemnity that was possible. CEREMONIAL OF THE JUBILEE The most distinctive feature in the ceremonial of the Jubilee is the unwalling and the final walling up of the "holy door" in each of the four great basilicas which the pilgrims are required to visit. It was formerly supposed that this rite was instituted by Alexander VI in the Jubilee of 1500, but this is certainly a mistake. Not to speak of a supposed vision of Clement VI as early as 1350, who is said to have been supernaturally admonished to "open the door", we have several references to the "holy door" or the "golden gate" in connection with the Jubilee long before the year 1475. The earliest account seems to be that of the Spanish pilgrim, Pero Tafur, c. 1437. He connects the Jubilee indulgence with the right of sanctuary, which, he maintains, existed in pagan times for all who crossed the threshold of the puerta tarpea upon the site of the Lateran. He goes on to say that, at the request of Constantine, Pope Sylvester published a Bull proclaiming the same immunity from punishment for Christian sinners who took sanctuary there. The privilege, however, was grossly abused and the popes consequently ordered the door to be walled up at all seasons save certain times of special grace. Formerly the door was unwalled only once in a hundred years, this was afterwards reduced to fifty, and now it is said to be "opened at the will of the pope." However legendary all this may be, it is hardly possible that the story could have been quite recently fabricated at the time Tafur recorded it. Moreover, a number of witnesses allude to the unwalling of the holy door in connection with the Jubilee of 145O. One of these, the Florentine merchant Giovanni Rucellai, speaks of the five doors of the Lateran basilica, one of which is always walled up except during the Jubilee year, when it is broken down at Christmas when the Jubilee commences. The devotion which the populace has for the bricks and mortar of which it is composed is such that at the unwalling, the fragments are immediately carried off by the crowd, and the foreigners (gli oltremontani) take them home as so many sacred relics. . . . Out of devotion every one who gains the indulgence passes through that door, which is walled up again as soon as the Jubilee is ended. (Archivio di Storia Patria, IV, 569-57O) All this describes a rite which has lasted unchanged to the present day, and which has nearly always supplied the principal subject depicted upon the long series of Jubilee medals issued by the various popes who have opened and closed the holy door at the beginning and end of each Jubilee year. Each of the four basilicas has its holy door. That of St. Peter's is opened on the Christmas Eve preceding the anno santo by the pontiff in person, and it is closed by him on the Christmas Eve following. The pope knocks upon the door three times with a silver hammer, singing the versicle "Open unto me the gates of justice". The masonry, which has been loosened beforehand, is made to fall in at the third blow, and, after the threshhold has been swept and washed by the Jubilee penitentiaries, the pope enters first. Each of the holy doors at the other basilicas is similarly opened by a cardinal specially deputed for the purpose. The symbolism of this ceremony is probably closely connected with the idea of the exclusion of Adam and Eve from Paradise, and the expulsion and reconciliation of penitents according to the ritual provided in the Pontifical. But it may also have been influenced by the old idea of seeking sanctuary, as Tafur and Rucellai suggest. The sanctuary knocker of Durham Cathedral still remains to remind us of the important part which this institution played in the life of our forefathers. THE JUBILEE INDULGENCE This is a plenary indulgence which, as stated by Boniface VIII in Consistory, it is the intention of the Holy See to grant in the most ample manner possible. Of course, when first conceded, such an indulgence, and also the privilege annexed of choosing a confessor who had power to absolve from reserved cases, was a much rarer spiritual boon than it has since become. So preeminent was the favour then regarded that the custom arose of suspending all other indulgences during the Jubilee year, a practice which, with certain modifications, still obtains at the present day. The precise conditions for gaining each Jubilee are determined by the Roman pontiff, and they are usually announced in a special Bull, distinct from that which it is customary to issue on the preceding feast of the Ascension giving notice of the forthcoming celebration. The main conditions, however, which do not usually vary, are three: confession, Communion and visits to the four basilicas during a certain specified period. The statement made by some, that the Jubilee indulgence, being a culpa et a paena, did not of old presuppose either confession or repentance, is absolutely without foundation, and is contradicted by every official document preserved to us. Besides the ordinary Jubilee indulgence, to be gained only by pilgrims who pay a visit to Rome, or through special concession by certain cloistered religious confined within their monasteries, it has long been customary to extend this indulgence the following year to the faithful throughout the world. For this fresh conditions are appointed, usually including a certain number of visits to local churches and sometimes fasting or other works of charity. Further, the popes have constantly exercised their prerogative of conceding to all the faithful indulgences ad instar jubilaei (after the model of a jubilee) which are commonly known as "extraordinary Jubilees". On these occasions, as at the Jubilee itself, special facilities are usually accorded for absolution from reserved cases, though on the other hand, the great indulgence is only to be gained by the performance of conditions much more onerous than those required for an ordinary plenary indulgence. Such extraordinary Jubilees are commonly granted by a newly elected pontiff at his accession or on occasions of some unwonted celebration, as was done, for example, at the convening of the Vatican Council, or again at times of great calamity. HERBERT THURSTON Year of Jubilee (Hebrew) Year of Jubilee (Hebrew) According to the Pentateuchal legislation contained in Leviticus, a Jubilee year is the year that follows immediately seven successive Sabbatic years (the Sabbatic year being the seventh year of a seven-year cycle). Accordingly, the Jubilee year takes place at the end of seven times seven years, i.e. at the end of every forty-nine years, or the fiftieth. Hence, the institution of the Jubilee-year system is but an extension or the working out of the Sabbatic-year legislation, viz. that as at the end of every six years there succeeds a Sabbatic year, so at the end of each seven Sabbatic years there succeeds a Jubilee year. Arguing from the analogous Pentecostal system, it is evident that the actual year in which the Jubilee occurs is not the last of the seventh Sabbatic cycle (i.e. the forty-ninth year), but the year following, namely, the fiftieth. Hence, at the end of each forty-eight years there occur two consecutive fallow years, viz. the forty-ninth, or the Sabbatic year of the seventh Sabbatic cycle and the fiftieth, or the Jubilee year. From the nature and purpose of the Jubilee legislation, it is also evident that the Jubilee Year is to be reckoned with in itself absolutely, and not in relation to the length of time, or duration, of each particular event or contract. So that if, for example, the year 195O is Jubilee Year, and an Israelite became a slave in the year 1930, this slave is to be set free not in 1980, but in 1950, which is the appointed year of Jubilee. The term jubilee year (Vulg. annus Jubilei, or Jubileus) is of Hebrew origin, the etymological meaning of which is, in all probability, "ram", which metonymically stands for "the horn of a ram". Thus the name "the year of the blowing of the ram's horn" exactly corresponds to "the day of the blowing of the horn", or the "feast of the new year", and it was, like the latter, announced to the people by the blowing of the horn. In Ezechiel (xlvi, 17) the Jubilee Year is called "the year of release"; hence some commentators have derived the Hebrew word for "Jubilee" from the stem which means "to emit", "to liberate". The first derivation, however, is more acceptable. The legislation concerning the year of Jubilee is found in Leviticus, xxv, 8-54, and xxvii, 16-24. It contains three main enactments: + rest of the soil; + reversion of landed property to its original owner, who had been driven by poverty to sell it; and + the freeing or manumission of those Israelites who, through poverty or otherwise, had become the slaves of their brethren. The first enactment (contained in Leviticus, xxv, 11-12) enjoins that as in the case of each Sabbatic year, so in each Jubilee year the soil is to be at rest, and that there is to be no tillage nor harvest, but that what the land produces spontaneously and of its own accord is free to be utilized by all Israelites, including, of course, the landlord himself, but only for their own actual and immediate use and maintenance, and, consequently, not to be stored by anyone for any other time or purpose. The object of this law, as well as of the two following, is most commendable, as by it the poor and all those who, mainly on account of poverty, do not actually own any land, are hereby provided for, not only for a whole year every seven years, but also in every fiftieth year. The second enactment, contained in Leviticus, xxv, 13-34, and xxvii, 16-24, enjoins that any owner of landed property, who, for reason of poverty or otherwise, has been compelled to part with his land, has the right to receive his property back free in the Jubilee year, or to redeem it even before the Jubilee year, if either his own financial circumstances have improved, or if his next of kin will redeem it for him by paying back according to the price which regulated the purchase. Hence, among the ancient Hebrews, the transfer of property was not, properly speaking, the sale of the land but of its produce for a certain number of years, and the price was fixed according to the number of years which intervened between tbe year of the sale and that of the next year of jubilee. Accordingly, the right of possession of real estate was inalienable. Whether a landowner was ever allowed to part permanently with his property for speculation, or for any purpose other than poverty, is not explicitly stated, although according to later rabbinical interpretation, this was considered as legally unlawful. Real estate in walled towns was made an exception to this law. An owner who had sold was permitted to redeem his property provided he did so within a year, but not afterwards. Levitical cities, on the other hand, as well as all the property in them, came under the provisions of the general law, reverting back to their original owners in the year of jubilee. Land in the suburbs of such cities could not be disposed of, or traded with in any manner. In case a man dedicated property to the Lord, he was permitted to redeem it, provided he added to it one-fifth of its value as reckoned by the number of crops it would produce before the year of Jubilee, and provided, also, he redeemed it before that period. If not reclaimed then or before that period it was understood to be dedicated forever. The details of these exchanges of property probably varied at different times. Josephus informs us that the temporary proprietor of a piece of land made a settlement with its owner at the year of Jubilee on the following terms: after making a statement of the value of the crops he had obtained from the land, and of what he had expended upon it, if his receipts exceeded the expenses, the owner got nothing; but if the reverse was true, the latter was expected to make good the loss. The third enactment (contained in Leviticus, xxv, 39-54) enjoins that all those Israelites who through poverty have sold themselves as slaves to their fellow- Israelites or to foreigners resident among them, and who, up to the time of the Jubilee year, have neither completed their six years of servitude, nor redeemed themselves, nor been redeemed by their relatives, are to be set free in the Jubilee year to return with their children to their family and to the patrimony of their fathers. Exception, of course, is made in the case of those slaves who refuse to become free at the expiration of the appointed six years' servitude. In this case they are allowed to become slaves forever and, in order to indicate their consent to this, they are required to submit to the boring of their ears (Ex., xxi, 6). This exeption, of course, is in no way in contradiction with the Jubilee-year's enactment. It is not necessary, therefore, in order to explain this apparent contradiction, to maintain that the two legislations belong to two distinct periods, or, still less, to maintain that the two Iegislations are conflicting, as some modern critics have maintained. It is important, however, to remark that the legislation concerning the various enactments of the Jubilee year contained in Leviticus, is not sufficiently expanded so as to cover all possible hypotheses and cases. This want has been more or less consistently remedied by later Talmudic and rabbinical enactments and legislations. The design of the Jubilee year is that those of the people of God who, through poverty or other adverse circumstances, had forfeited their personal liberty or property to their fellow brethren, should have their debts forgiven by their co-religionists every half century, on the great day of atonement, and be restored to their families and inheritance as freely and fully as God on that very day forgave the debts of his people and restored them to perfect fellowship with himself, so that the whole community, having forgiven each other and being forgiven by God, might return to the original order which had been disturbed in the lapse of time, and being freed from the bondage of one another, might unreservedly be the servants of him who is their redeemer. The aim of the jubilee, therefore, is to preserve unimpaired the essential character of the theocracy, to the end that there be no poor among the people of God (Deut. xv, 4). Hence God, who redeemed Israel from the bondage of Egypt to be his peculiar people, and allotted to them the promised land, will not suffer any one to usurp his title as Lord over those whom he owns as his own. It is the idea of grace for all the suffering children of man, bringing freedom to the captive and rest to the weary as well as to the earth, which made the year of jubilee the symbol of the Messianic year of grace (Isaiah 61:2), when all the conflicts in the universe shall be restored to their original harmony, and when not only we, who have the first-fruits of the Spirit, but the whole creation, which groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now, shall be restored into the glorious liberty of the sons of God (comp. Is. lxi, 1-3; Luke, iv, 21; Rom. viii, 18-23; Heb. iv, 9). The importance of this institution will be apparent if it is considered what moral and social advantages would accrue to the community from the sacred observance of it. + It would prevent the accumulation of land on the part of a few to the detriment of the community at large. + It would render it impossible for any one to be born to absolute poverty, since every one had his hereditary land. + It would preclude those inequalities which are produced by extremes of riches and poverty, and which make one man domineer over another. + It would utterly do away with slavery. + It would afford a fresh opportunity to those who were reduced by adverse circumstances to begin again their career of industry, in the patrimony which they had temporarily forfeited. + It would periodically rectify the disorders which creep into the state in the course of time, preclude the division of the people into nobles and plebeians, and preserve the theocracy inviolate. GABRIEL OUSSANI Book of Jubilees Book of Jubilees ( ta Iobelaia). An apocryphal writing, so called from the fact that the narratives and stories contained in it are arranged throughout in a fanciful chronological system of jubilee-periods of forty-nine years each; each event is recorded as having taken place in such a week of such a month of such a Jubilee year. The author assumes an impossible solar year of 364 days (i.e. twelve months of thirty days each, and four intercalary days) to which the Jewish ecclesiastical year of thirteen months of twenty-eight days each exactly corresponds. The whole chronology, for which the author claims heavenly authority, is based upon the number seven. Thus the week had 7 days; the month 4x7=28; the year 52x7=364; the year week 7 years; and the Jubilee 7x7=49. It is also called "Little Genesis" (he Lepte Genesis), or "Lepto-Genesis," not on account of its size, for it is considerably larger than the Canonical Genesis, but owing to its minor or inferior authority as compared with the latter. It is also called "Apocalypse of Moses," "The Life of Adam," and in Ethiopic it is called "Kufale." In the "Decretum Gelasianum" concerning the canonical and apocryphal books of Scripture, we find among the apocrypha a work entitled "Liber de filiabus Adae Leptogenesis" (Book of the daughters of Adam Little Genesis), which is probably a combination of two titles belonging to two separate works. The book is also mentioned by Jerome, in his Epistle "ad Fabiolam," in connection with the name of a place called Rissa (Num., xxxiii, 21), and by Epiphanius and by Didymus of Alexandria, which shows that it was well known both in the East and in the West. The Book of Jubilees was originally written in Hebrew and, according to Charles ("Book of Jubilees," London, 1902), partly in verse; but it has come down to us in its complete form only in Ethiopic, and also in various fragments, Greek and Latin. The Ethiopic text was first edited by Dillmann in 1859 ("Kufale sive Liber Jubilaeorum, aethiopice ad duorum librorum manuscriptorum fidem, primum edidit Dillmann," Kiel, 1859), who in 1850-51 had already published a German version of it in Ewald's "Jahrbücher der Biblischen Wissenschaft," vol. II, 1850, pp. 230-256; vol. III, 1851, pp.1-96. The incomplete Latin version was first discovered and edited in 1861, by the late Monsignor Ceriani, prefect of the Ambrosiana, in his "Monumenta Sacra et Profana," vol. I, fasc. I, pp. 15-54. The Greek fragments are scattered in the writings of various Byzantine chroniclers such as Syncellus, Cedrenus, Zonoras, and Glycas. The incomplete Latin version, which like the Ethiopic was made from the Greek, was re-edited in 1874 by Rönsch, accompanied with a Latin rendering by Dillmann of the corresponding portion in the Ethiopic version, with a very valuable commentary and several excursus ("Das Buch der Jubiläen oder die kleine Genesis etc.," Leipzig, 1874). In 1900 Dr. Littmann published a newer German version of the Ethiopic text in Kautzsch's "Apocryphen und Pseudoepigraphen," 3rd ed., vol. III, pp. 274 sqq., and, in 1888, Dr. Schodde published the first English version of the book ("Book of Jubilees," Oberlin, Ohio, 1888). In 1895 the Ethiopic text was re-edited in a revised form by Charles, and by him translated into English in 1893-5 in the "Jewish Quarterly Review" (Oct., 1893, July, 1894, January, 1895), and subsequently in a separate volume with many additional notes and discussions ("The Book of Jubilees," London, 1902). A French translation is promised by the Abbé F. Martin, professor of Semitic languages at the Catholic Institute of Paris, in his valuable collection entitled "Documents pour l'Etude de la Bible." The contents of the Book of Jubilees deal with the facts and events related in the canonical Book of Genesis, enriched by a wealth of legends and stories which had arisen in the course of centuries in the popular imagination of the Jewish people, and written from the rigid Pharisaic point of view of the author and of his age; and as the author seeks to reproduce the history of primitive times in the spirit of his own day, he deals with the Biblical text in a very free fashion. According to him, Hebrew was the language originally spoken by all creatures, animals and man, and is the language of Heaven. After the destruction of the tower of Babel, it was forgotten until Abraham was taught it by the angels. Henoch was the first man initiated by the angels in the art of writing, and wrote down, accordingly, all the secrets of astronomy, of chronology, and of the world's epochs. Four classes of angels are mentioned, viz. angels of the presence, angels of sanctifications, guardian angels over individuals, and angels presiding over the phenomena of nature. As regards demonology the writer's position is largely that of the New Testament and of the Old-Testament apocryphal writings. All these legendary details, it claims, were revealed by God to Moses through the angel of the presence (probably Michael) together with the Law, all of which was originally known to but few of the Old Testament patriarchs, such as Henoch, Methusala, Noe, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Levi. It is somewhat difficult to determine the particular Judaistic school its author belonged to; he openly denies the resurrection of the body; he does not believe in the written tradition; he does not reprobate animal sacrifices, etc. . . . and the fact that he wrote in Hebrew excludes the hypothesis of his Hellenistic tendencies. Equally untenable is the hypothesis advanced by Beer, that he was a Samaritan, for he excludes Mount Garizim, the sacred mount of the Samaritans from the list of the four places of God upon earth, viz. the Garden of Eden, the Mount of the East, Mount Sinai, and Mount Sion. If the author belonged to any particular school he must have been in all probability a Pharisee (Hasidaean) of the most rigid type of the time of John Hyrcanus, in whose reign scholars generally agree the book was written (135-105 B.C.). Dr. Headlam suggests that the author was a fervent opponent of the Christian Faith (see Hastings, "Dictionary of the Bible"). But if the author, as it is suggested in this rather improbable hypothesis, lived in early Christian times, he must have written his book before the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, since the latter is assumed throughout to be still in existence as the great center of Jewish worship. Besides the literature mentioned in the body of the article, see the various articles on the subject in the Dictionaries of the Bible, and especially Schürer's History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ, tr., V, 134-141. GABRIEL OUSSANI Juda Juda The name of one of the Patriarchs, the name of the tribe reputed to be descended from him, the name of the territory occupied by the same, and also the name of several persons mentioned in the Old Testament. 1. Juda the Patriarch The son of Jacob by Lia, whose exclamation on the occasion of his birth: "Now will I praise the Lord" is given as the etymological reason for the name "Juda", which is derived from the Hebrew verb "to praise" (Gen., xxix, 35). It was Juda who interceded with his brethren to save the life of Joseph, proposing that he be sold to the Ismaelites (Gen., xxxvii, 26, 27). Though not the eldest son of Jacob, he is represented as assuming an important and predominating rôle in the family affairs. It is he who, on the occasion of the second journey to Egypt, persuades the afflicted Jacob to consent to the departure of Benjamin (Gen., xliii, 3-10), for whom he pleads most touchingly before Joseph after the incident of the cup, offering himself to be retained as a slave in his stead (Gen., xliv, 18 sqq.). This earnest plea determines Joseph to disclose his identity to his brethren (Gen., xlv, 1 sqq.). Juda is the one chosen by Jacob to precede him into Egypt and announce his coming (Gen., xlvi, 28), and his prestige is further emphasized in the famous prophecy enunciated by Jacob (Gen., xlix, 8-12). To Juda were born five sons, viz., Her, Onan, and Sela by the daughter of Sue, and Phares and Zara by Thamar (Gen., xxxviii). It is through Phares, according to the First Gospel, that the Messianic lineage is traced (Matt., i, 3). 2. Juda, a tribe of Israel Named after the son of Jacob. The unquestioned predominance and providential mission of this tribe, foreshadowed in Gen., xlix, 8-10, appear from the time of the Exodus and throughout the subsequent Israelitish history. From the beginning Juda predominated in point of numbers. When the first census was taken after the departure from Egypt it numbered 74,600 fighting men, while Dan, the next largest tribe, counted only 62,700 and the smallest, Manasses, only 32,200. The chief of the tribe during the period of the wanderings was Nahasson, son of Aminadab. Among the spies sent to explore the Land of Chanaan, the tribe of Juda was represented by Caleb, son of Jephone (Num., xiii, 7). According to the second census of the Israelites taken on the plains of Moab, Juda numbered 76,500 fighting men. The names of the principal families of the tribe are given in Num., xxvi, 19-21, and more fully in I Par., ii. Caleb was one of the chiefs selected to settle the division of the land among the tribes, and on the occasion of the passing of the Jordan the tribe of Juda, together with those of Simeon, Levi, Issachar, Ephraim and Manasses, was designated to "bless the people" from the top of Mount Garizim (Deut., xxvii, 12). After the death of Josue the tribe of Juda was chosen to be the vanguard in the war against the Chanaanites. This honour was probably less a recognition of the numerical strength of the tribe than of the promises it had received (Gen., xlix, 8-10) and the hopes for its glorious destiny founded on these promises (Judges, i, 1-2). Juda was again chosen by the Divine oracle to head the attack against Gabaa and the Benjamites (Judges, xx, 18). The natural ramparts surrounding their country saved the inhabitants from many of the invasions that troubled their northern brethren; but the children of Ammon, passing over the Jordan, wasted Juda, and the mountains proved ineffectual in keeping off the Philistines (Judg., x, 9; I Kings, xvii, 1). In the persecution of David by Saul the tribe of Juda showed great loyalty to the former, and soon after the death of Saul David was enthusiastically crowned at Hebron (II Kings, ii, 4, 7, 10) where he reigned seven years (II Kings, v, 5). When the unfortunate schism took place under Roboam only the tribe of Juda and of Benjamin remained faithful to the House of David (III Kings, xii, 20), and henceforth the Southern Kingdom was known as that of Juda. After the Captivity the members of Juda were among the first to return to Jerusalem and begin the reconstruction of the Temple (I Esd., i, 5; iii, 9); in fine, the name "Jews" (Judæi), by which the post-Exilic Israelites and their descendants are generally designated, is, of course, derived from Juda. Thus the history of the Chosen People is to a great extent the story of the varying vicissitudes of the dominant tribe of Juda. Its military ascendancy and glory reached its height in the person of David, the "lion of Juda". But the true lion of the tribe of Juda is Christ the Son of David (Apoc., v, 5). 3. Territory of Juda The tribe of Juda occupied a rather extensive territory in the southern part of Palestine. It was bounded on the north by Dan and Benjamin, on the east by the Dead Sea, on the south by Simeon, and on the west by the Sephela or plain of the Philistines. The principal cities of Juda are enumerated in Josue (xv, 21-62). The sacred writer divides the cities into four groups, viz., those of the south on the boundary of Idumea, those of the western plain, those of the mountain, and finally those of the desert. In all, mention is made of 134 towns, about one-half of which have been identified or located with a fair degree of certitude. The recently built railroad from Jaffa to Jerusalem passes through a corner of the territory of Juda, the general aspect of which is a series of hills covered in the spring-time with grass and flowers, but bare and arid during the rest of the year. A modern carriage-road runs from Jerusalem to Hebron, which lies in a fertile valley between two ranges of green hills. Here and there cultivated fields greet the eye. The slopes of the hills are dotted with terraced gardens and vineyards, among which are to be found grottoes and labyrinths which formerly served as hiding-places. The Kingdom of Juda, dating from the beginning of the reign of Roboam, was thus called in opposition to the Northern Kingdom of Israel. The capital, Jerusalem, was situated on the boundary line between Juda and Benjamin. Legendre in Vig., Dict. de la Bible, s. v. James F. Driscoll Judaizers Judaizers (From Greek Ioudaizo, to adopt Jewish customs -- Esth., viii, 17; Gal., ii, 14). A party of Jewish Christians in the Early Church, who either held that circumcision and the observance of the Mosaic Law were necessary for salvation and in consequence wished to impose them on the Gentile converts, or who at least considered them as still obligatory on the Jewish Christians. Although the Apostles had received the command to announce the Gospel to all the nations, they and their associates addressed themselves at first only to Jews, converts to Judaism, and Samaritans, that is to those who were circumcised and observed the law of Moses. The converts, and the Apostles with them, continued to conform to Jewish customs: they observed the distinction between legally clean and unclean food, refused to eat with Gentiles or to enter their houses, etc. (Acts, x, 14, 28; xi, 3). At Jerusalem they frequented the Temple and took part in Jewish religious life as of old (Acts, ii, 46; iii, 1; xxi, 20-26), so that, judged from external appearances, they seemed to be merely a new Jewish sect distinguished by the union and charity existing among its members. The Mosaic ceremonial law was not to be permanent indeed, but the time had not yet come for abolishing its observance. The intense attachment which the Jews had for it, amounting to fanaticism in the case of the Pharisees, would have forbidden such a step, had the Apostles contemplated it, as it would have been tantamount to shutting the door of the Church to the Jews. But sooner or later the Gospel was also to reach the Gentiles, and then the delicate question must immediately arise: What was their position with respect to the Law? Were they bound to observe it? And if not, what conduct should the Jews hold towards them? Should the Jews waive such points of the Law as were a barrier to free relations between Jew and Gentile? To the mind of most Palestinian Jews, and especially of the zealots, only two solutions would present themselves as possible. Either the Gentile converts must accept the Law, or its provisions must be enforced against them as against the other uncircumcised. But national sentiment, as well as love for the Law, would impel them to prefer the first. And yet neither solution was admissible, if the Church was to embrace all nations and not remain a national institution. The Gentiles would never have accepted circumcision with the heavy yoke of Mosaism, nor would they have consented to occupy an inferior position with regard to the Jews, as they necessarily must, if these regarded them as unclean and declined to eat with them or even to enter their houses. Under such conditions it was easy to foresee that the admission of the Gentiles must provoke a crisis, which would clear the situation. When the brethren at Jerusalem, among whom probably were already converts of the sect of the Pharisees, learned that Peter had admitted Cornelius and his household to baptism without subjecting them to circumcision, they loudly expostulated with him (Acts, xi, 1-3). The cause assigned for their complaints is that he "had gone in to men uncircumcised and had eaten with them", but the underlying reason was that he had dispensed with circumcision. However, as the case was an exceptional one, where the will of God was manifested be miraculous circumstances, Peter found little difficulty in quieting the dissatisfaction (Acts, xi, 4-18). But new conversions soon gave rise to far more serious trouble, which for a time threatened to produce a schism in the Church. COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM (A.D. 50 OR 51) The persecution that broke out at the time of St. Stephen's martyrdom providentially hastened the hour when the Gospel was to be preached also to the Gentiles. Some natives of Cyprus and Cyrene, driven from Jerusalem by the persecution, went to Antioch, and there began to preach not only to the Jews, but also to the Greeks. Their action was probably prompted by the example set by Peter at Caesarea, which their more liberal views as Hellenists would naturally dispose them to follow. With the help of Barnabas, whom the Apostles sent on hearing that a great number of Gentiles were converted to the Lord at Antioch, and of the former persecutor Saul, a flourishing church, largely Gentile, was established there (Acts, xi, 20 sqq.). Soon after (between A.D. 45-49) Saul, now called Paul, and Barnabas founded the South Galatian churches of Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, Derbe, and Perge, thus increasing the Gentile converts (Acts, xiii, 13 -- xiv, 24). Seeing the Gentile element growing so large and threatening the outnumber the Jewish, the zealots of the Law took alarm. Both their national pride and their religious sentiment were shocked. They welcomed the accession of the Gentiles, but the Jewish complexion of the Church must be maintained, the Law and the Gospel must go hand in hand, and the new converts must be Jews as well as Christians. Some went down to Antioch and preached to the Gentile Christians that unless they received circumcision, which as a matter of course would carry with it the observance of the other Mosaic prescriptions, they could not be saved (Acts, xv, 1). As these men appealed to the authority of the Apostles in support of their views, a delegation, including Paul, Barnabas, and Titus, was sent to Jerusalem to lay the matter before the Apostles, that their decision might set at rest the disquieted minds of the Christians at Antioch (Acts, xv, 2). In a private interview which Paul had with Peter, James (the brother of the Lord), and John, the Apostles then present at Jerusalem, they approved his teaching and recognized his special mission to the Gentiles (Gal., ii, 1-9). But to still the clamours of the converts from Pharisaism who demanded that the Gentile converts "must be circumcised and be commanded to observe the Law of Moses", the matter was discussed in a public meeting. Peter arose and after recalling how Cornelius and his household, though uncircumcised, had received the Holy Ghost as well as they themselves, declared that as salvation is by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the yoke of the Law, which even the Jews found exceedingly heavy, should not be imposed on the Gentile converts. James after him voiced the same sentiment, but asked that the Gentiles should observe these four points, namely "that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood". His suggestion was adopted and, with slight change in the wording, incorporated in the decree which "the apostles and ancients, with the whole church" sent to the churches of Syria and Cilicia through two delegates, Judas and Silas, who were to accompany Paul and Barnabas on their return. "Forasmuch as we have heard," so ran the decree, "that some going out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls: to whom we gave no commandment;. . .it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication [by which marriages within certain degrees of kindred are probably meant]; from which things keeping yourselves you shall do well" (Acts, xv, 5-29). These four prohibitions were imposed for the sake of charity and union. As they forbade practices which were held in special abhorrence by all the Jews, their observance was necessary to avoid shocking the Jewish brethren and to make free intercourse between the two classes of Christians possible. This is the drift of the somewhat obscure reason which St. James adduced in favour of his proposition: "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him in the synagogues, where he is read every sabbath." The four things forbidden are severely prohibited in Lev., xvii, xviii, not only to the Israelites, but also to the Gentiles living among them. Hence the Jewish Christians, who heard these injunctions read in the synagogues, would be scandalized if they were not observed by their Gentile brethren. By the decree of the Apostles the cause of Christian liberty was won against the narrow Judaizers, and the way smoothed for the conversion of the nations. The victory was emphasized by St. Paul's refusal to allow Titus to be circumcised even as a pure concession to the extremists (Gal., ii, 2-5). THE INCIDENT AT ANTIOCH The decision of Jerusalem regarded the Gentiles alone, since the only question before the council was whether circumcision and the observance of the Mosaic Law were to be imposed on the Gentiles. Nothing was decided with regard to the observance of the Law by the Jews. Still even they were implicitly and in principle freed from its obligations. For, if the legal observances were not necessary for salvation, the Jew was no more bound by them than the Gentile. Nor was anything explicitly decided as to the relations which were to subsist between the Jews and the Gentiles. Such a decision was not demanded by the circumstances, since at Antioch the two classes lived together in harmony before the arrival of the mischief-makers. The Jews of the Dispersion were less particular than those of Palestine, and very likely some arrangement had been reached by which the Jewish Christians could without scruple eat with their Gentile brethren at the agape. However, the promulgation of the four prohibitions, which were intended to facilitate relations, implied that Jew and Gentile could freely meet. Hence when Peter came to Antioch shortly after the council, he, no less than Paul and Barnabas and the others, "did eat with the Gentiles" (Gal., ii, 12). But the absence of any explicit declaration gave the Judaizers an opportunity to begin a new agitation, which, if successful, would have rendered the decree of Jerusalem nugatory. Foiled in their first attempt, they now insisted that the law of not eating with the Gentiles be strictly observed by all Jews. They very likely expected to reach by indirect methods, what they could not obtain directly. Some zealots came from Jerusalem to Antioch. Nothing warrants the assertion that they were sent by St. James to oppose St. Paul, or to enforce the separation of the Jewish from the Gentile Christians, much less to promulgate a modification of the decree of Jerusalem. If they were sent by St. James -- pro tou elthein tinas apo Iakobou -- probably means simply that they were of James's entourage -- they came on some other commission. On their arrival Peter, who up to this had eaten with the Gentiles, "withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision", and by his example drew with him not only the other Jews, but even Barnabas, Paul's fellow-labourer. Foreseeing the consequences of such conduct, Paul publicly rebuked him, because he "walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel". "If thou being a Jew," he said to him, "livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" This incident has been made much of by Baur and his school as showing the existence of two primitive forms of Christianity, Petrinism and Paulinism, at war with each other. But anyone, who will look at the facts without preconceived theory, must see that between Peter and Paul there was no difference in principles, but merely a difference as to the practical conduct to be followed under the circumstances. "Conversationis fuit vitium non praedicationis", as Tertullian happily expresses it. That Peter's principles were the same as those of Paul, is shown by his conduct at the time of Cornelius's conversion, by the position he took at the council of Jerusalem, and by his manner of living prior to the arrival of the Judaizers. Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law, as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles, but he conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required (I Cor., ix, 20). Thus he shortly after circumcised Timothy (Acts, xvi, 1-3), and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem (Acts, xxi, 26 sqq.). The difference between them was that Peter, recently come from Jerusalem, thought only of not wounding the susceptibility of the zealots there, and was thus betrayed into a course of action apparently at variance with his own teaching and calculated to promote the designs the Judaizers; whereas Paul, not preoccupied with such a consideration and with more experience among the Gentiles, took a broader and truer view of the matter. He saw that Peter's example would promote the movement to avoid close relations with the Gentiles, which was only an indirect way of forcing Jewish customs upon them. He saw, too, that if such a policy were pursued, the hope of converting the Gentiles must be abandoned. Hence his bold and energetic action. St. Paul's account of the incident leaves no doubt that St. Peter saw the justice of the rebuke. (In the above account Gal., ii, 1-10, is with the large majority of commentators taken to refer to the Council of Jerusalem, and the incident at Antioch is consequently placed after the council. Some few interpreters, however, refer Gal., ii, 1-10, to the time of St. Paul's journey mentioned in Acts, xi,28-30 [A.D. 44], and place the dispute at Antioch before the council.) THE JUDAIZERS IN OTHER CHURCHES After the foregoing events the Judaizers could do little mischief in Syria. But they could carry their agitation to the distant churches founded by St. Paul, where the facts were less well known; and this they attempted to do. The two Epistles to the Corinthians give good reason to believe that they were at work at Corinth. The party or rather faction of Cephas (I Cor., i, 12) very probably consisted of Judaizers. They do not seem, however, to have gone beyond belittling St. Paul's authority and person, and sowing distrust towards him (cf. I Cor., ix, 1-5; II Cor., xi, 5-12; xii, 11-12; i, 17-20; x, 10-13). For while he has much to say in his own defence, he does not attack the views of the Judaizers, as he would certainly have done had they been openly preached. His two letters and his subsequent visit to Corinth put an end to the party's machinations. In the meantime (supposing Gal. To have been written soon after I and II Cor., as it very probably was) Judaizing emissaries had penetrated into the Galatian churches, whether North or South Galatian matters little here (see GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE), and by their skillful maneuvers had almost succeeded in persuading the Galatians, or at any rate many of them, into accepting circumcision. As at Corinth they attacked St. Paul's authority and person. He was only a secondary Apostle, subordinate to the Twelve, from whom he had received his instruction in the Faith and from whom he held his mission. To his teaching they opposed the practice and teaching of the pillars of the Church, of those who had conversed with the Lord (Gal., ii, 2 sqq.). He was a time-server, changing his teaching and conduct according to circumstances with the view of ingratiating himself with men (Gal., i, 10; v, 11). They argued that circumcision had been instituted as a sign of an eternal alliance between God and Israel: if the Galatians then wished to have a share in this alliance, with its blessings, if they wished to be in the full sense of the term Christians, they must accept circumcision (Gal., iii, 3 sq.; v, 2). They did not however insist, it would seem, in the observance of the whole Law (v, 3). On hearing the news of the threatened defection of the churches which he had founded at such cost to himself, St. Paul hastily indited the vigorous Epistle to the Galatians, in which he meets the accusations and arguments of his opponents step by step, and uses all his powers of persuasion to induce his neophytes to stand fast and not to be held again under the yoke of bondage. The letter, as far as we know, produced the desired effect. In spite of its resemblance to the Epistle to the Galatians, the Epistle to the Romans is not, as has been asserted, a polemical writing directed against the Judaizing party at Rome. The whole tone of the Epistle shows this (cf. in particular i, 5-8, 11-12; xv, 14; xvi, 19). If he refers to the Jewish Christians of Rome, it is only to exhort the Gentiles to bear with these weak brethren and to avoid whatever might scandalize them (xiv, 1-23). He would not have shown such forbearance towards the Judaizers, nor spoken of them in such gentle tones. His purpose in treating of the uselessness of circumcision and legal observances was to forewarn and forearm the Romans against the Judaizing disturbers, should they reach the capital, as he had reason to fear (Rom., xvi, 17-18). After their attempt in Galatia, St. Paul's opponents seem to have relaxed their activity, for in his later letters he rarely alludes to them. In the Epistle to the Philippians he warns against them in very severe terms: "Beware of dogs, beware of evil-workers, beware of the concision" (Phil., iii, 2). They do not seem, however, to have been active in that church at the time. Beyond this only two allusions are found -- one in I Tim., i, 6-7: "From which things some going astray, are turned aside unto vain babbling: desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither the things they say, nor whereof they affirm"; the other in Tit., iii, 9: "Avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law. For they are unprofitable things and vain." FINAL HISTORY With the disappearance of the Jewish-Christian community of Jerusalem at the time of the rebellion (A.D. 67-70), the question about circumcision and the observance of the Law ceased to be of any importance in the Church, and soon became a dead issue. At the beginning of the second century St. Ignatius of Antioch, it is true, still warns against Judaizers (Magnes., x, 3; viii, 1; Philad., vi, 1), but the danger was probably more a memory than a reality. During the rebellion the mass of the Jewish Christians of Palestine retired beyond the Jordan, where they gradually lost touch with the Gentiles and in the course of time split up into several sects. St. Justin (about 140) distinguishes two kinds of Jewish Christians: those who observe the Law of Moses, but do not require its observance of others -- with these he would hold communion, though in this all his contemporaries did not agree with him -- and those who believe the Mosaic Law to be obligatory on all, whom he considers heretics (Dial. Cum Tryph., 47). If Justin is describing the Jewish Christians of his day, as he appears to do, they had changed little since Apostolic times. The accounts of later Fathers show them divided into three main sects: (a) the Nazarenes, who, while observing the Mosaic Law, seem to have been orthodox. They admitted the Divinity of Christ and the virginal birth; (b) the Ebionites, who denied the Divinity of Christ and virginal birth, and considered St. Paul as an apostate. It should be noted, however, that though the Fathers restrict the name Ebionite to the heretical Jewish Christians, the name was common to all; (c) an offshoot of the last infected with Gnosticism (cf. art. EBIONITES). After the middle of the fifth century the Jewish Christians disappear from history. LIGHTFOOT, Ep. to the Gal. (London, 1905), 292 sq.; THOMAS in Rev. des Questions Histor., XLVI (1889), 400 sq.; XLVII (1890), 353 sq.; PRAT. in Vig., Dict. de la Bible, 1778 sq.; IDEM, Theologie de Saint Paul (Paris, 1908), 69-80; COPPIETERS in Revue Bibl., IV (1907), 34-58; 218-239; STEINMANN in Bibl. Zeitschr., VI (1908), 30-48; IDEM, Abfassungszeit des Galaterbriefs (Muester, 1906), 55 sq.; PESCH in Zeitschr. fuer Kath. Theol., VII (1883), 476 sq.; HOENNICKE, Das Judenchristentum im 1. u. 2. Jahr. (Berlin, 1908). F. BECHTEL Judas Iscariot Judas Iscariot The Apostle who betrayed his Divine Master. The name Judas (Ioudas) is the Greek form of Judah (Hebrew "praised"), a proper name frequently found both in the Old and the New Testament. Even among the Twelve there were two that bore the name, and for this reason it is usually associated with the surname Iscariot [Heb. "a man of Kerioth" or Carioth, which is a city of Judah (cf. Joshua 15:25)]. There can be no doubt that this is the right interpretation of the name, though the true origin is obscured in the Greek spelling, and, as might be expected, other derivations have been suggested (e.g. from Issachar). Very little is told us in the Sacred Text concerning the history of Judas Iscariot beyond the bare facts of his call to the Apostolate, his treachery, and his death. His birthplace, as we have seen, is indicated in his name Iscariot, and it may be remarked that his origin separates him from the other Apostles, who were all Galileans. For Kerioth is a city of Judah. It has been suggested that this fact may have had some influence on his career by causing want of sympathy with his brethren in the Apostolate. We are told nothing concerning the circumstances of his call or his share in the ministry and miracles of the Apostles. And it is significant that he is never mentioned without some reference to his great betrayal. Thus, in the list of the Apostles given in the Synoptic Gospels, we read: "and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him". (Matthew 10:4. Cf. Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16). So again in St. John's Gospel the name first occurs in connection with the foretelling of the betrayal: "Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve; and one of you is a devil? Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him whereas he was one of the twelve" (John 6:71-2). In this passage St. John adds a further particular in mentioning the name of the traitor Apostle's father, which is not recorded by the other Evangelists. And it is he again who tells us that Judas carried the purse. For, after describing the anointing of Christ's feet by Mary at the feast in Bethania, the Evangelist continues: Then one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, he that was about to betray him, said: 'Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?' Now he said this, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and having the purse, carried the things that were put therein (John 12:4-6). This fact that Judas carried the purse is again referred to by the same Evangelist in his account of the Last Supper (13:29), The Synoptic Gospels do not notice this office of Judas, nor do they say that it was he who protested at the alleged waste of the ointment. But it is significant that both in Matthew and Mark the account of the anointing is closely followed by the story of the betrayal: "Then went one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, to the chief priests, and said to them: What will you give me, and I will deliver him unto you?" (Matt., xxvi, 14-5); "And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went to the chief priests, to betray him to them. Who hearing it were glad; and they promised him they would give him money" (Mark, xiv, 10-1). In both these accounts it will be noticed that Judas takes the initiative: he is not tempted and seduced by the priests, but approaches them on his own accord. St. Luke tells the same tale, but adds another touch by ascribing the deed to the instigation of Satan: "And Satan entered into Judas, who was surnamed Iscariot, one of the twelve. And he went, and discoursed with the chief priests and the magistrates, how he might betray him to them. And they were glad, and convenanted to give him money. And he promised. And he sought opportunity to betray him in the absence of the multitude" (Luke, xxii, 3-6). St. John likewise lays stress on the instigation of the evil spirit: "the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him" (xiii, 2). The same Evangelist, as we have seen, tells of an earlier intimation of Christ's foreknowledge of the betrayal (John, vi, 71-2), and in the same chapter says expressly: "For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him" (vi, 65). But he agrees with the Synoptics in recording a more explicit prediction of the treachery at the Last Supper: "When Jesus had said these things, he was troubled in spirit; and he testified, and said: Amen, amen I say to you, one of you shall betray me" (John, xii, 21). And when St. John himself, at Peter's request, asked who this was, "Jesus answered: He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped. And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And after the morsel, Satan entered into him. And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost, do quickly. Now no man at the table knew to what purpose he said this unto him. For some thought, because Judas had the purse, that Jesus said to him: Buy those things which we have need of for the festival day: or that he should give something to the poor" (xii, 26-9). These last details about the words of Jesus, and the natural surmise of the disciples, are given only by St. John. But the prediction and the questioning of the disciples are recorded by all the Synoptics (Matt., xxvi; Mark, xiv; Luke, xxii). St. Matthew adds that Judas himself asked, "Is it I, Rabbi?" and was answered: "Thou hast said it" (xxvi, 25). All four Evangelists agree in regard to the main facts of the actual betrayal which followed so closely on this prediction, and tell how the traitor came with a multitude or a band of soldiers from the chief priests, and brought them to the place where, as he knew, Jesus would be found with His faithful disciples (Matt., xxvi, 47; Mark, xiv, 43; Luke, xxii, 47; John, xviii, 3). But some have details not found in the other narratives. That the traitor gave a kiss as a sign is mentioned by all the Synoptics, but not by St. John, who in his turn is alone in telling us that those who came to take Jesus fell backward to the ground as He answered "I am he." Again, St. Mark tells that Judas said "Hail, Rabbi" before kissing his Master, but does not give any reply. St. Matthew, after recording these words and the traitor's kiss, adds: "And Jesus said to him: Friend, whereto art thou come:" (xxvi, 50). St. Luke (xxii, 48) gives the words: "Judas, dost thou betray the Son of man with a kiss?" St. Matthew is the only Evangelist to mention the sum paid by the chief priests as the price of the betrayal, and in accordance with his custom he notices that an Old Testament prophecy has been fulfilled therein (Matt., xxvi, 15; xxvii, 5-10). In this last passage he tells of the repentance and suicide of the traitor, on which the other Gospels are silent, though we have another account of these events in the speech of St. Peter: "Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that it to say, the field of blood. For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take" (Acts, I, 16-20). Cf. Ps., lxviii, 26; cviii, 8). Some modern critics lay great stress on the apparent discrepancies between this passage in the Acts and the account given by St. Matthew. For St. Peter's words taken by themselves seem to imply that Judas himself bought the field with the price of his iniquity, and that it was called "field of blood" because of his death. But St. Matthew, on the other hand, says: "Then Judas, who betrayed him, seeing that he was condemned, repenting himself, brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and ancients, saying: I have sinned in betraying innocent blood. But they said: What is that to us? Look thou to it. And casting down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed: and went and hanged himself with an halter." After this the Evangelist goes on to tell how the priests, who scrupled to put the money in the corbona because it was the price of blood, spent it in buying the potter's field for the burial of strangers, which for this cause was called the field of blood. And in this St. Matthew sees the fulfillment of the prophecy ascribed to Jeremias (but found in Zach., xi, 12): "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was prized, whom they prized of the children of Israel. And they gave them unto the potter's field, as the Lord appointed to me" (Matt., xxvii, 9, 10). But there does not seem to be any great difficulty in reconciling the two accounts. For the field, bought with the rejected price of his treachery, might well be described as indirectly bought or possessed by Judas, albeit he did not buy it himself. And St. Peter's words about the name Haceldama might be referred to the "reward of iniquity" as well as the violent death of the traitor. Similar difficulties are raised as to the discrepancies in detail discovered in the various accounts of the betrayal itself. But it will be found that, without doing violence to the text, the narratives of the four Evangelists can be brought into harmony, though in any case there will remain some obscure or doubtful points. It is disputed, for instance, whether Judas was present at the institution of the Holy Eucharist and communicated with the other Apostles. But the balance of authority is in favour of the affirmative. There has also been some difference of opinion as to the time of the treachery. Some consider that it was suddenly determined on by Judas after the anointing at Bethania, while others suppose a longer negotiation with the chief priests. But these textual difficulties and questions of detail fade into insignificance beside the great moral problem presented by the fall and treachery of Judas. In a very true sense, all sin is a mystery. And the difficulty is greater with the greatness of the guilt, with the smallness of the motive for doing wrong, and with the measure of the knowledge and graces vouchsafed to the offender. In every way the treachery of Judas would seem to be the most mysterious and unintelligible of sins. For how could one chosen as a disciple, and enjoying the grace of the Apostolate and the privilege of intimate friendship with the Divine Master, be tempted to such gross ingratitude for such a paltry price? And the difficulty is greater when it is remembered that the Master thus basely betrayed was not hard and stern, but a Lord of loving kindness and compassion. Looked at in any light the crime is so incredible, both in itself and in all its circumstances, that it is no wonder that many attempts have been made to give some more intelligible explanation of its origin and motives, and, from the wild dreams of ancient heretics to the bold speculations of modern critics, the problem presented by Judas and his treachery has been the subject of strange and startling theories. As a traitor naturally excites a peculiarly violent hatred, especially among those devoted to the cause or person betrayed, it was only natural that Christians should regard Judas with loathing, and, if it were possible, paint him blacker than he was by allowing him no good qualities at all. This would be an extreme view which, in some respects, lessens the difficulty. For if it be supposed that he never really believed, if he was a false disciple from the first, or, as the Apocryphal Arabic Gospel of the Infancy has it, was possessed by Satan even in his childhood, he would not have felt the holy influence of Christ or enjoyed the light and spiritual gifts of the Apostolate. At the opposite extreme is the strange view held by the early Gnostic sect known as the Cainites described by St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., I, c. ult.), and more fully by Tertullian (Praesc. Haeretic., xlvii), and St. Epiphanius (Haeres., xxxviii). Certain of these heretics, whose opinion has been revived by some modern writers in a more plausible form, maintained that Judas was really enlightened, and acted as he did in order that mankind might be redeemed by the death of Christ. For this reason they regarded him as worthy of gratitude and veneration. In the modern version of this theory it is suggested that Judas, who in common with the other disciples looked for a temporal kingdom of the Messias, did not anticipate the death of Christ, but wished to precipitate a crisis and hasten the hour of triumph, thinking that the arrest would provoke a rising of the people who would set Him free and place Him on the throne. In support of this they point to the fact that, when he found that Christ was condemned and given up to the Romans, he immediately repented of what he had done. But, as Strauss remarks, this repentance does not prove that the result had not been foreseen. For murderers, who have killed their victims with deliberate design, are often moved to remorse when the deed is actually done. A Catholic, in any case, cannot view these theories with favour since they are plainly repugnant to the text of Scripture and the interpretation of tradition. However difficult it may be to understand, we cannot question the guilt of Judas. On the other hand we cannot take the opposite view of those who would deny that he was once a real disciple. For, in the first place, this view seems hard to reconcile with the fact that he was chosen by Christ to be one of the Twelve. This choice, it may be safely said, implies some good qualities and the gift of no mean graces. But, apart from this consideration, it may be urged that in exaggerating the original malice of Judas, or denying that there was even any good in him, we minimize or miss the lesson of this fall. The examples of the saints are lost on us if we think of them as being of another order without our human weaknesses. And in the same way it is a grave mistake to think of Judas as a demon without any elements of goodness and grace. In his fall is left a warning that even the great grace of the Apostolate and the familiar friendship of Jesus may be of no avail to one who is unfaithful. And, though nothing should be allowed to palliate the guilt of the great betrayal, it may become more intelligible if we think of it as the outcome of gradual failing in lesser things. So again the repentance may be taken to imply that the traitor deceived himself by a false hope that after all Christ might pass through the midst of His enemies as He had done before at the brow of the mountain. And though the circumstances of the death of the traitor give too much reason to fear the worst, the Sacred Text does not distinctly reject the possibility of real repentance. And Origen strangely supposed that Judas hanged himself in order to seek Christ in the other world and ask His pardon (In Matt., tract. xxxv). CHRYSOSTOMUS, Hom. De Juda Proditore: MALDONATUS and other commentators on New Testament; EPIPHANIUS, Haeres., xxxviii; Legend on death of Judas in SUICER, Thesaurus. Modern view in STRAUSS, Das Leben Jesu. W.H. KENT Judas Machabeus Judas Machabeus Third son of the priest Mathathias who with his family was the centre and soul of the patriotic and religious revolt of the Jews against the King of Syria (I Mach., ii, 4). Various conjectures have been put forth as to the origin of his surname. The name appears to be derived from the Syriac word maqqaba (a hammer or mallet) and it was bestowed with reference to the crushing prowess displayed by Judas against the enemies of the nation, being equivalent to the name Martel given to Charles Martel. Judas was designated by his dying father as the new leader of the band of guerrilla warriors in year 167 B.C., and he remained in command until the year 161. He was animated with a great confidence in the help of the Lord in the good cause. He began his military operations by surprising and burning down many towns which had held out for the enemies of Israel, and when regular armed forces were sent to put a stop to his ravages, he did not refuse to meet them in the field (II Mach., viii, 1-7). He proved himself to be an excellent tactician as well as an intrepid warrior. Among his military exploits are mentioned the defeat and slaying of Apollonius the recent plunderer of Jerusalem, and the utter rout of the Syrian forces led by the deputy governor Seron in an encounter at Bethoron (I Mach., iii, 10-24). Other Syrian leaders were also vanquished by Judas, viz., Gorgias and Nicanor, Timotheus, Bachides, and Lysias (I Mach., iii, 10-iv, 35). These victories afforded a respite during which Judas turned his attention to the condition of the ruined city of Jerusalem and that of the Temple which had been ignominiously profaned. Having appointed a body of armed men to hold in check the Syrian garrison still occupying the citadel, the Jewish leader set about renovating and purifying the sanctuary, being aided in the work by the priests. When the renovation was completed the new Temple service was inaugurated by a feast of re-dedication which lasted eight days, and it was decreed that henceforth in memory of this event an annual feast also of eight days should be celebrated (I Mach., iv, 36-59; II Mach., x, 1-8; John, x, 22). Some of the neighbouring tribes, alarmed at the progress of the Jews, took up arms against them, but they were easily vanquished by Judas, who then bent all his energies to bring a successful issue the war of independence against Syria. For three years he pursued this arduous task with relentless energy and patience and with varying success. In the meantime he sent messengers to Rome in order to secure the protection of the Government against the oppression of the Syrians. The mission was diplomatically successful, but before the negotiations had time to become known in the East, Judas had been defeated and slain on the battlefield at Laisa (161 B.C.) (I Mach., iv, 60-ix, 18; II Mach., x-xv). BEURLIER in VIGOUROUX, Dict de la Bible, s.v. Judas Machabée; GIGOT, Outlines of Jewish History, xxviii, § 2, 1. JAMES F. DRISCOLL Claude Judde Claude Judde French preacher and spiritual father; born at Rouen, about 20 December, 1661; died at Paris, 11 March, 1735. He entered the Society of Jesus on 18 September, 1677, and was admitted to his final vows on 2 Feb., 1695. He was first employed to preach, and did so successfully both in the provinces and in the capital. It soon became evident that he possessed oratorical gifts equal to Bourdaloue's, who indeed wished him to become his successor and spoke of bequeathing him his papers. Judde's superiors, however, asked him to sacrifice his pulpit success for the more humble but very important duty of training his brethren in religious virtues. The orator accepted this inconspicuous office, and from 1704 to 1721 he was instructor of the third probation at Rouen and rector of the Paris novitiate. The hearers of his retreats and exhortations were charmed with his solid and convincing eloquence, at once vigorous and pathetic, and sought to keep the memory of it in writing. Hence the great number of copies which were preserved by Jesuits or made for the use of other religious communities, and of which many are still found in public and private libraries. Father Judde did not publish any of his works, but after his death, thanks to the transcripts already mentioned, several collections appeared successively. Father Lallemant, S.J., had printed the "Retraite spirituelle pour les personnes religieuses" (Paris, 1746), which was early translated into Latin by Father J. B. Cachet, S.J. (Augsburg and Freiburg im Br., 1752). Abbé Lemascrier edited the "Réflexions chrétiennes sur les grandes vérités de la foi et sur les principaux mystères de la Passion de Notre Seigneur" (Paris, 1748). These meditations, especially suitable for Holy Week, were later translated into Spanish by Father de Isla, S.J. (Madrid, 1785). Father Chéron, a Theatine, gave to the public the "Exhortations sur les principaux devoirs de l'état religieux" (Paris, 1772). Finally, Abbe Lenoir-Duparc, a former Jesuit and novice under Father Judde, undertook from copies revised by the author a complete collection of "OEuvres spirituelles" (Paris and Lyons, 1781-2). At the beginning of these seven volumes, later reduced to five and often re-edited, there is, under the title of "Retraite spirituelle de trente jours", an excellent development of the Exercises of St. Ignatius, especially the parts known as the First and the Third Weeks. The treatises in catechetical form on confession, prayer, and the Mass, and the very instructive "Exhortations" are also worthy of note. Several parts of this collection been, up to date, published separately and also translated into German. PAUL DEBUCHY Epistle of Saint Jude Epistle of St. Jude The present subject will be treated under the following heads: I. The Author and the Authenticity of the Epistle: (1) Jude in the Books of the New Testament; (2) Tradition as to the Genuineness and the Canonicity of the Epistle; (3) Difficulties Arising from the Text; (4) The Relation of Jude to the Second Epistle of St. Peter; (5) Vocabulary and Style; II. Analysis of the Epistle; III. Occasion and Object; IV. To Whom Addressed; V. Date and Place of Composition. I. THE AUTHOR AND THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE (1) Jude in the Books of the New Testament In the address of the Epistle the author styles himself "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James". "Servant of Jesus Christ" means "apostolic minister or labourer". "Brother of James" denotes him as the brother of James kat exochen who was well-known to the Hebrew Christians to whom the Epistle of St. Jude was written. This James is to be identified with the Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem (Acts, xv, 13; xxi, 18), spoken of by St. Paul as "the brother of the Lord" (Gal. i, 19), who was the author of the Catholic Epistle of St. James. and is regarded amongst Catholic interpreters as the Apostle James the son of Alpheus (St. James the Less). This last identification, however, is not evident, nor, from a critical point of view, does it seem beyond all doubt. Most Catholic commentators identify Jude with the "Judas Jacobi" ("Jude, the brother of James" in the D.V.) of Luke, vi, 16, and Acts, i, 13 -- also called Thaddeus (Matt. x, 3: Mark, iii, 18) -- referring the expression to the fact that his brother James was better known than himself in the primitive Church. This view is strongly confirmed by the title "the brother of James", by which Jude designates himself in the address of his Epistle. If this identification is proved, it is clear that Jude, the author of the Epistle, was reckoned among the Twelve Apostles. This opinion is most highly probable. Beyond this we find no further information concerning Jude in the New Testament, except that the "brethren of the Lord", among whom Jude was included, were known to the Galatians and the Corinthians; also that several of them were married, and that they did not fully believe in Christ till after the Resurrection (I Cor., ix, 5; Gal., i, 10; John, vii, 3-5; Acts, i, 14). From a fact of Hegesippus told by Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xix, xx, xxii) we learn that Jude was "said to have been the brother of the Lord according to the flesh", and that two of his grandsons lived till the reign of Trajan (see, however, Brethren of the Lord). (2) Tradition as to the Genuineness and the Canonicity of the Epistle The Epistle of Jude is one of the so-called antilegomena; but, although its canonicity has been questioned in several Churches, its genuineness has never been denied. The brevity of the Epistle, the coincidences between it and II Peter, and the supposed quotation from apocryphal books, created a prejudice against it which was gradually overcome. The history of its acceptance by the Church is briefly as follows: Some coincidences or analogies exist between Jude and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers -- between Barnabas, ii, 10, and Jude, 3, 4; Clemens Romanus, Ep. xx, 12; lxv, 2, and Jude, 25; Ep. ad Polyc., iii 2; iv, 2, and Jude, 3. 20, Mart. Polyc., xx, and Jude, 24 sq. It is possible, though not certain, that the passages here noted were suggested by the text of Jude. The similarity between "Didache" ii, 7 and Jude, 22 sq., does not seem to be accidental, whilst in Athenagoras (about A.D., 177), "Leg.", xxiv, and in Theophilus of Antioch (d. about 183), "Ad Autol." II, xv, there is a clear reference to Jude, 6 and 13 respectively. The earliest positive reference to the Epistle occurs in the Muratorian Fragment, "Epistola sane Judæ et superscriptæ Joannis duae in catholica [scil. Ecclesia] habentur." The Epistle was thus recognized as canonical and Apostolic (for it is Jude the Apostle who is here meant) in the Roman Church about 170. At the end of the second century it was also accepted as canonical and Apostolic by the Church of Alexandria (Clement of Alexandria, "Pæd.", III, viii, followed by Origen), and by the African Church of Carthage (Tertullian). At the beginning of the third century the Epistle was universally accepted except in the primitive East Syrian Church, where none of the Catholic Epistles were recognized, nor the Apocalypse. This remarkably wide acceptance, representing as it does the voice of ancient tradition, testifies to the canonicity and the genuineness of Jude. During the third and fourth centuries doubt and suspicion, based on internal evidence (especially on the supposed quotation from the Book of Henoch and the "Assumption of Moses"), arose in several Churches. However the prejudice created against the deuterocanonical Jude was soon overcome, so that the Epistle was universally accepted in the Western Church at the very beginning of the fifth century (see Canon of the New Testament). In the Eastern Church Eusebius of Cæsarea (260-340) placed Jude among the antilegomena or the "disputed books, which are nevertheless known and accepted by the greater number" (Hist. Eccl., II xxiii; III, xxv); he incorporated all the Catholic Epistles in the fifty copies of the Bible which at the command of Constantine, he wrote for the Church of Constantinople. St. Athanasius (d. 387) and St. Epiphanius (d. 403) placed Jude among the canonical and Apostolic writings. Junilius and Paul of Nisibis in Constantinople (513) held it as mediæ auctoritatis. However, in the sixth century the Greek Church everywhere considered Jude as canonical. The recognition of Jude in the Syriac Church is not clear. In Western Syria we find no trace of Jude in the fifth century. In Eastern Syria the Epistle is wanting in the oldest Syriac version, the Peshito, but it is accepted in the Philoxenian (508) and Heracleon (616) versions. Except among the Syriac Nestorians, there is no trace of any ecclesiastical contradiction from the beginning of the sixth century till the Council of Trent, which defined the canonicity of both the proto- and deutero-canonical books of the New Testament. (3) Difficulties Arising from the Text The wording of verse 17 -- which some critics have taken as an evidence that the Epistle was written in the second century -- does not imply that the recipients of the Epistle had, in a period that was past, received oral instructions from all the Apostles, nor does it imply that Jude himself was not an Apostle. The text ton apostolon implies only that several of the Apostles had predicted to the readers that such "mockers" as are described by the writer would assail the Faith; it is not separation in time, but distance of place, that leads Jude to refer to the scattered Apostles as a body. Nor does he exclude himself from this body, he only declares that he was not one of those prophesying Apostles. The author of II Peter, who often ranks himself among the Apostles, uses a similar expression ton apostolon humon (3:2), and certainly does not mean to imply that he himself was not an Apostle. Many Protestant scholars have maintained that the false teachers denounced in Jude are Gnostics of the second century. But, as Bigg rightly says: "It is not really a tenable view" (op. cit. infra). St. Jude does not give any details about the errors denounced in this short letter any more than does St. Peter, and there is no ground for identifying the false teachers with any of the Gnostic sects known to us. There is nothing in the references made to false doctrines that obliges us to look beyond the Apostolic times. The use made of apocryphal writings, even if proved, is not an argument against the Apostolicity of the Epistle; at most it could only invalidate its canonicity and inspiration. Verse 9, which contains the reference concerning the body of Moses, was supposed by Didymus ("Enarr. in Epist. Judæ" in P. G., XXXIX, 1811 sqq.), Clement of Alexandria (Adumbr. in Ep. Judæ), and Origen (De Princ., III, ii, 1), to have been taken from the "Assumption of Moses", which is unquestionably anterior to the Epistle of Jude. Jude may possibly have learned the story of the contest from Jewish tradition. But, at any rate, it is evident that Jude does not quote the "Assumption" as a written authority, and still less as a canonical book. As regards the prophecy of vv. 14 sq., many Catholic scholars admit it to be a loose and abbreviated citation from the apocryphal Book of Henoch, i, 1, 9, which existed a century before St. Jude wrote. But here again St. Jude does not quote Henoch as a canonical book. There is nothing strange, as Plumptre remarks (op. cit. infra, 88), in Jude making use of books not included in the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament, "as furnishing illustrations that gave point and force to his counsels. The false teachers, against whom he wrote, were characterized largely by their fondness for Jewish fables, and the allusive references to books with which they were familiar, were therefore of the nature of an argumentum ad hominem. He fought them, as it were, with their own weapons." He merely intends to remind his readers of what they know. He does not affirm or teach the literary origin of the apocryphal book, such is not his intention. He simply makes use of the general knowledge it conveys, just as the mention of the dispute between Michael and the Devil is but an allusion to what is assumed as being known to the readers. By no means, therefore, does either of the passages offer any difficulty against the canonicity of the Epistle, or against the Catholic doctrine of inspiration. (4) The Relation of Jude to the Second Epistle of St. Peter The resemblance as to thought and language between Jude and II Peter, ii, is quite sufficient to make it certain that one of the two writers borrowed from the other: the hypothesis that both writers borrowed from a common document must be put aside, as having no support whatsoever. The question remains: Which of the two Epistles was the earlier? The priority of II Peter, as well as the priority of Jude, has found strong advocates, and much has been written about this intricate question. The following arguments, however, lead to the conclusion that the Epistle of Jude was the earlier of the two: + It is not uncommon for St. Peter to throw a light on the more obscure passages of the Epistle of Jude, or to interpret the more difficult passages. At one time he puts them in a shorter form or uses more general terms; at another, while adducing in general the same arguments, he adds a new one or omits one or another used in Jude. This shows that St. Peter had probably read the Epistle of St. Jude. Compare especially II Peter, ii, 12, with Jude, 10. + This may also be confirmed not only by II Peter, i, 17, compared with Jude, 13 -- where St. Peter doubles Jude's comparison and puts more strength into it, whilst Jude has more similitudes -- but also by comparing the style of both, for, whereas the style of Jude is always the same, that of St. Peter differs somewhat from his usual way of writing, and the reasons for this change seem to be the matter he writes about and the influence of the Epistle of St. Jude. + Finally, is more probable that St. Peter has embodied in his work the text of Jude's Epistle than that Jude should have included in his writing only a part of St. Peter's Epistle. If Jude wrote later than Peter and found the same state of things, why did he omit the remaining questions, e.g. the doubts about the parousiæ? Or why should he, in order to combat the same heretics, give only a summary of St. Peter's Epistle, omitting entirely the strongest arguments? (5) Vocabulary and Style The vocabulary of Jude proves that the author was a Jew, saturated with the Old Testament, using Hebraisms, yet acquainted with the koine dialektos -- the "common dialect". Thirteen words found in Jude do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament. Some words of the new Christian dialect appear in Jude as well as in the Pauline Epistles, but literary affinity or direct quotation cannot be proved. The style, although sometimes poetical, always evinces the severe and authoritative tone of a man of Apostolic rank, held in high honour. II. ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE (a) Exordium. Address and good wishes (vv. 1-2), occasion and purpose of the Epistle (3-4). (b) First Part. He inveighs against the pseudo-teachers; describes their life and errors (5-16). They will be severely punished, as is evident from the severe punishment of the unbelieving Israelites in the desert (5), of the wicked angels (6), and of the inhabitants of Sodom (7). He mentions their wicked teaching and life (8), and opposes the modesty of Michael the Archangel (9) to their pride (10). He foretells for the heretics the punishment of Cain, Balaam, and the sons of Core, for they have imitated their errors (11-3). Enoch has already prophesied the judgment of God upon them (14-6). (c) Second Part. He exhorts the faithful (17-23). They must remember the teaching of the Apostles, by whom they had been warned of the coming of such heretics (17-19). They must maintain the Faith, keep themselves in the love of God, and wait for life everlasting (20-21). What their behaviour should he towards Christians that have in any way fallen away (22-23) (d) Epilogue. A most beautiful doxology (24-25). III. OCCASION AND OBJECT Occasion. The Epistle was occasioned by the spread of the dogmatico-moral errors amongst the Hebrew Christians; pseudo-doctors "are secretly entered in", who abuse Christian liberty to give themselves over to intemperance; moreover "denying the only sovereign Ruler, and our Lord Jesus Christ" (4). Object. Jude's intention was to caution his readers, the Hebrew Christians, against such depraved teaching, and to exhort them to keep faithfully the teaching of the Apostles. IV. TO WHOM ADDRESSED The dedicatory address runs as follows: tois en Theo patri hegapemenois kai Iesou Christo teteremenois kletois (to them that are beloved in God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called). Which are the kletoi, or "called", becomes manifest from the context. They are not all the Christians of the whole Christian world, but those of a particular Church (vv. 3, 4, 17, 22). Several commentators think that St. Jude's Epistle was addressed to the same churches of Asia Minor to which St. Peter's Epistle was written. This opinion, according to these commentators, is to be held because in both Epistles the same errors are condemned, and also because Jude (v. 17) appears to have known II Peter, and shows that the prophecy of the Prince of the Apostles has been verified. But we have already proved that the second argument is of no value (see above I, 4); as for the first, there are two objections: + the errors condemned in the Epistle of St. Jude and in II Peter may have spread in countries outside Asia Minor; + we find in Jude several reasons for believing that the Epistle was addressed, not to the Gentile Christians of Asia Minor, but to the Hebrew Christians of Palestine or of a neighbouring country. V. DATE AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION Date. It is difficult to state the exact time at which St. Jude wrote his Epistle. But the doctrines against which he inveighs, and the looseness of morals or the so-called antinomismus, seem to indicate the end of the Apostolic age. Jude seems on the other hand to have written before A.D. 70; otherwise in vv. 5-7 he would have spoken of the destruction of Jerusalem. In those verses St. Jude mentions the different punishments of prevaricators, and therefore in this exhortation to Hebrew Christians he could not have passed over in silence so dire a calamity. Moreover we have shown that the Epistle of St. Jude was written before II Peter, which latter was probably written A.D. 64 (65). Therefore St. Jude must have written shortly before 64 (65). Place of Composition. Here we can only guess, but we prefer the opinion that the Epistle was written in Palestine, and probably in Jerusalem. A. CAMERLYNCK Judea Judea Like the adjective Ioudaios, the noun Ioudaia comes from the Aramæan Iehûdai (I Esd., iv, 12). It designates the part of Palestine adjacent to Jerusalem and inhabited by the Jewish community after their return from captivity. Its original limits may be assigned as follows: Bethsûr, on the south; Bethoron, on the north; Emaüs, on the west; the Jordan on the east. The Jews scattered in other parts of the country did not inhabit Judea properly so called. When, in 160 b.c., the Syrian general Bacchides wished to keep Judea in his possession, he built forts at Jericho, Bethoron, Bethel, Tibneh, and Tephon (not Bêt-Nettif), and fortified Bethsûr and Gézer (I Mach., ix, 50-52). Then, between Nehemias (cf. II Esd., iii) and the Hasmoneans, the boundaries of the Jewish country underwent few modifications. But the Machabees, through their conquests, pushed the frontiers back; Apherema (Taybeh?), Lydda, Ramathem, (Rentis) (I Mach., xi, 34), Jaffa (I Mach., xii, 33), Mâdabâ, Samaria, Scythopolis (Josephus, "Antiq. Jud.", XIII, ix, 1; x, 2) were in succession annexed to the Jewish territory. The Machabean kingdom is sometimes called Judea by Josephus (Antiq. Jud., XIII, xi, 3). Elsewhere, however, the same historian restricts Judea proper to more correct limits. To the north it extended only as far as Anuath-Borkeos ('Ainah-Bergît), less than two miles north of Lubbân; to the south as far as Iardas, on the confines of Arabia, thus taking in what was called Idumea at the time of the Syrian domination. The Jordan was its boundary on the east, the Mediterranean on the west (Bell. Jud., III, iii, 5). The history of this Judea is often confounded with that of Jerusalem. At first a province (medînah) of the Persian Empire, it was administered by a governor who resided at Jerusalem and was assisted by a council of elders. In 332 b.c., Alexander annexed it to the empire which he was then building. His successors long disputed over it. In 320 it was Egyptian; in 198 it was Syrian. The Jewish rising under the Machabees, which began in 167, issued in the independence of Judea, which lasted from 130 to 63 b.c. At the latter date, Pompey made it tributary to the Romans. Under Herod, who became its king in 37 b.c., the Saviour was born at Bethlehem. Archelaus, the son and successor of Herod, having been deposed in the year 6 of our era, the government of Judea was confided to Roman procurators, one of whom, Pontius Pilate, condemned Christ to the cross, and two others, Felix and Porcius Festus, are involved in the history of St. Paul. Administered from a.d. 41 to 44 by Agrippa I, it returned to the procurators until a.d. 66; and in a.d. 70 Judea disappeared as an individual district. The evangelization of Judea began during the earthly life of Christ, Who journeyed through the land more than once and had friends there. It was one of the first provinces to benefit by the preaching of the Apostles. Judeans had heard the discourse of St. Peter, when he went forth from the upper chamber, and "there came together to Jerusalem a multitude out of the neighbouring cities, bringing sick persons, and such as were troubled with unclean spirits; who were all healed" (Acts, v, 16). Philip, one of the most zealous of the first seven deacons, baptizes the eunuch of Ethiopia on the road from Jerusalem to Gaza, in the spring which rises at the foot of Bethsûr. Thence this preacher betakes himself to Azotus ('Esdoud), and from Azotus he goes up to Cæsarea, preaching the Gospel in the towns through which he passes. Lydda and Joppa, where St. Peter was soon to find disciples, lay along St. Philip's itinerary (Acts, viii, 26 sqq.). The Talmud is perhaps furnishing information on the preaching of the Gospel in Judea when it speaks of James of Kafar Sâmâ, who healed the sick in the name of Jesus. Kafar Sâmâ was probably in the neighbourhood of Hebron (perhaps Semouah). St. Paul again and again speaks of the Churches of Judea as being sorely tried by poverty, dissension, and persecution -- Churches to which he was at first unknown, but which afterwards listened to his voice (I Thess., ii, 14; Gal., i, 22; Acts, xi, 29). Christianity was planted in Judea so early that at the Council of Nicæa (325) we meet with bishops of Cæsarea, Ascalon, Nicopolis, Jamnia, Eleutheropolis, Maximianopolis (Hebron?), Jericho Lydda, Azotus, Gaza (Gelzer, "Patrum Nicenorum nomina", Leipzig, 1898). In later lists of bishops we find names to add to these: Joppa, Anthedon, Diocletianopolis, Raphia, etc. (Hierocles, "Synecdemus", Berlin, 1866). From the fourth century to the Arab invasion the monastic life rose to a great height; it is enough to mention the foundations of St. Euthymius, St. Theodosius, and St. Sabas (cf. Génier, "Vie de s. Euthyme le Grand", Paris, 1909). Considered in the extension given to it by Josephus -- i. e. as a great square of territory lying between Aqrabeh, Deir Ballût, and the Nahr el Audjeh, on the north; the Mediterranean, on the west; Bersabee and Tell 'Arad, on the south; the Dead Sea and the Jordan, on the east -- Judea presents a sufficiently varied physiognomy. On the west the ancient Philistia, the plains of Shephelah, of the Darôm, and of Saron produce sesame, wheat, and sorghum in abundance, while the orange, citron, palm, and vine grow there freely. In this level region are several important places: Jaffa (23,000 inhabitants), Gaza (16,000 inhabitants), Lydda, and Ramleh. Between the plain and the main group of mountains there is a stretch of well-cultivated hilly country without any important towns. The mountain region of Judea rises to a height of 3280 feet, and is not very fertile, except near the springs. The summits are quite bare; where any earth is to be found on the rocks the fig, the olive, the vine, and barley grow. Of this region the chief centres are Jerusalem (80,000 to 100,000 inhabitants), Bethlehem (7000 inhabitants), Hebron (9000 inhabitants). The eastern. part of Judea, abutting on the Dead Sea and the Jordan, is dotted with little hills, and peopled by nomadic tribes. The south, where Negeb offers a light soil, is not unsuited for cultivation. Water is scarce in Judea. In the mountains the rainfall is collected in cisterns; in the plains deep wells have been dug. There are a few springs, but their output is not very considerable; the principal ones are those of 'Arroub, Umm ed Daraj (Jerusalem), Liftah, Aïn Karim, Kolonieh, Abu Ghôsh, Bireh, and a whole group in the vicinity of Hebron. In the wâdys of the Jordan basin there is water throughout the year, which is not the case with those on the Mediterranean slope. The wâdys Farah, Kelt, Audjeh, Fusail, Far'â, not to mention the important springs of Eliseus, Doûk, Nuwaïmeh, Feshkha, and Engaddi, contribute their waters to the Ghôr and the Dead Sea throughout the entire year. The Roman roads with which Judea was formerly scored are now impracticable. The only roads fit for wheeled vehicles are those from Jerusalem to Jericho, to Hebron by way of Bethlehem, to St. John in Montana, to Nablus, to Jaffa, and to the Mount of Olives -- all of recent construction. There is also a narrow-gauge railroad from Jerusalem to Jaffa, the latter being the chief port of Judea, Gaza being the second. Judea is above all an agricultural country. There are, however, a few special industries: at Jerusalem, carving in olive wood; at Bethlehem, carving in mother-of-pearl; at Gaza, goat's hair tissue, slippers, and soap; at Hebron, leather and water-bottles, jars and glass trinkets. The Mutessariflik of Jerusalem, which nearly corresponds to the ancient Judea, has an area of 8484 square miles, and comprises 328 cities, towns, villages, and hamlets, with an aggregate population of 350,000, of whom 100,000 are non-Mussulman. There are 27,000 Catholics, having for their parishes Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Bêt-Sahur, Bêt-Djâlah, Ramallah, Taybeh, Bir-Zeît, Ramleh, Jaffa and Gaza. Although not a vilayet, this province is directly dependent on the minister of the interior at Constantinople. It has five sub-prefectures: Jaffa, Gaza, Hebron, Bersabee, and (since 1906) Nazareth, which last is geographically within the vilayet of Beirut. Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs, III (London, 1883); GUTHE in Realencyklopädie für prot. Theol. und Kirche, IX (Leipzig, 1901); MEYERS, History of the City of Gaza (New York, 1901); ROBINSON, Biblical Researches in Palestine, I (Boston, 1856); DE SAULCY, Voyage autour de la Mer Morte et dans les terres bibliques (Paris, 1853); GUÉRIN, Judée (3 vols., Paris, 1868-69); CUINET, Syrie, Liban, Palestine (Paris, 1896); HÖLSCHER, Die administrative Einteilung des heutigen Syriens in Mitt. des Deutsch. Paläst. Vereins (1907), p. 53. F.M. ABEL Ecclesiastical Judge Ecclesiastical Judge ( Judex Ecclesiasticus) An ecclesiastical person who possesses ecclesiastical jurisdiction either in general or in the strict sense (see Jurisdiction) The official body appointed by the qualified ecclesiastical authority for the administration of justice is called a court (judicium ecclesiasticum, tribunal, auditorium) Every such court consists at the least of two sworn officials, the judge who gives the decision, and the clerk of the court (scriba, secretarius, scriniarius, notarius, cancellarius), whose duty is to keep a record of the proceedings and the decision (c. xi, X, De probat., II, xix). As a rule, however, an ecclesiastical court forms a collegiate tribunal, the members of which either join with the presiding officer in giving the decision as judges (judices) or merely advise with him as councillors (auditores, assessores, consultores, consiliarii) (cc. xvi, xxi, xxii, xxiii, X, De off. et pot. jud. deleg., I, xxix) Connected with the courts are advocates, procurators, syndics, defenders, promoters, conservators, apparitors, messengers, etc The procurators and advocates conduct the case as the representatives or defenders of the parties to the suit (X, De postul., I, xxxvii; X, De procurat., I, xxxviii) The syndic is the counsel of a juridical person, a collegiate body or a chapter (X, De syndic., I, xxxix) The chief duty of the conservators is to represent the rights of the personae miserabiles, i.e. members of orders, the poor, widows, orphans (c. xv, in VIto, De off. et pot. jud. deleg., I, xiv) The fiscal promoter (promotor fiscalis) is appointed by the ecclesiastical authorities to watch over ecclesiastical discipline (Instructio Congr. Ep. et Reg., 11 June, 1880, art. xiii), consequently in penal cases he appears as public prosecutor A defensor matrimonii, or defender of the matrimonial tie, assists in suits concerning the invalidity of a marriage (Benedict XIV, "Dei miseratione", 3 November, 1741). In addition to his jurisdiction, which can be ordinary, quasi-ordinary, or delegated, the judge must also have certain physical and moral qualities First, he must be an ecclesiastic (c. ii, X, De jud., II, i) Consequently women and laymen are excluded from the office of ecclesiastical judge. Yet the pope could confer the office upon a layman (Gloss to "Praesumant", c. ii, X, De jud., II, i) It is further necessary to have full use of his senses and understanding, and suitable legal knowledge; the person appointed must also be twenty years old; but eighteen years will suffice for a judge appointed by the pope or if the parties agree to it (c. xli, X, De off. jud. deleg., I, xxix) The judge must also have a good reputation, must not be excommunicated, suspended from office, or under an interdict (c. xxiv, X, De sent. et re jud., II, xxvii) Above all he must be impartial A suspicion of partiality attaches to the judge who is personally interested in a case (c. xxxvi, X, De appellat., II, xxviii), or is related by blood within the fourth degree to one of the parties, or connected with one by marriage (c. xxxvi, cit.), or who lives in the same house, or dines at a common table, or is otherwise friendly, or on the other hand inimical, towards one of the parties (c. xxv, X, De off. jud. deleg., I, xxix), and he may be rejected (recusari, exceptio judicis suspecti) by the accused or by both parties as prejudiced (suspectus) If objection be raised against a judge on the ground of prejudice, which must be done in writing and if possible before the beginning of the action (c. xx, X, De sent. et re jud., II, xxvii), arbitrators are to pass on the objection (c. xxxix, X, De off. jud. deleg., I, xxix); if, however, objection be raised against the delegate of the bishop, the decision rests with the bishop (c. iv, X, De foro compet., II, ii) If the objection be declared well-founded, the judge transfers the case, with the concurrence of the party who brought the accusation, to another or to a higher judge (c. lxi, X, De appell., II, xxviii) If the judge lack the necessary qualifications, and this be known to the parties in the suit, the decision is invalid If, however, his unfitness be unknown to the parties, and he follow statute law, the Church supplements the deficiency, even if the judge have acted in bad faith. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is exercised over all baptized persons In order, however, that an ecclesiastical judge may be permitted to exercise de facto his judicial power he must also be competent, i.e. must be authorized to pass judgment on a given person in a given case Proceedings held before a judge without competence are null and void Those subject to the jurisdiction of a certain judge are said to be within the competence (competentia) of his court, or have their forum in him. The forum is either the free, voluntary choice of the parties (forum prorogatum), or it is defined by law (forum legale) But in criminal and matrimonial cases there is no forum prorogatum (c. ix, X, De in integr. restit., I, xli). Ecclesiastics can choose another judge only with the permission of the bishop, and in this case he must be an ecclesiastic (c. xii, xviii, X, De foro compet., II, ii) The legal forum (forum legale) is either ordinary, if the proper course of the regular courts is followed, or extraordinary, if, for legal reasons, a regular court is passed over Moreover, the forum legale is either general (commune), corresponding to the universally valid law, or special or privileged( speciale sive privilegiatum), resting on privilege, as in the case of ecclesiastics on account of the privilegium fori which they cannot renounce As the jurisdiction of a judge is generally limited to a defined locality, the forum commune is fixed by the domicile or quasi-domicile of the accused The axiom holds: Actor sequitur forum rei, the plaintiff goes to the court of the accused (c. v, viii, X, De foro compet., II, ii). Domicile (q.v.) is that place where one actually resides with the intention of always remaining there Quasi-domicile is determined by actual residence at the place and the intention to remain there at least the greater part of the year There is also a domicile by operation of law, legal or fictitious domicile (domicilium legale sive fictitium) Thus a wife is subject to the jurisdiction of the domicile of the husband, children to that of the parents, religious to that of the place where the monastery is situated, persons having no fixed abode to that of the present place of residence A process can be instituted at Rome against an ecclesiastic who is only accidentally there (c. xx, X, De foro compet., II, ii) Besides the forum domicilii, the usual one, there is also that of the object (forum rei sitae, where the thing is situated), i.e. complaint can be brought before the judge in whose district the controverted object is (c. iii, X, De foro compet., II, ii); the forum where the contract is made (forum contractus), i.e. the parties can bring action before the judge in whose district the disputed contract has been made (c. xcii, X, De foro compet., II, ii); that of the offence (forum delicti), within the jurisdiction where the offence was commited (c. xiv, X, De foro compet., II, ii). There is also a forum arising from the connection of matters (forum connexitatis sive continentiae causarum), if the matters in dispute are so interrelated that one cannot be decided without the other (c. i, X, De causa possess., II, xii); also the forum of a counterplea (forum reconventionis sive reaccusationis), i.e. in a criminal suit the defendant can, on his side, accuse the plaintiff in the court of the judge before whom he himself is to be tried (c. ii, X, De mut. petit., II, iv) If the judge himself wishes to bring an accusation the superior appoints the judge who is to hear it (c. i, c. xvi, Q. vi) The decision of an incompetent judge is valid if by common error (error communis) he is held to be competent In civil disputes the parties can entrust the decision to any desired arbiter (X, De transact., I, xxxvi; X, De arbitr., I, xliii). If the judge render a defective decision appeal can be taken to the next higher judge This relation of the courts to one another and the successive course of appeals (gradus) is called succession of instances, and follows the order of superiority From the beginning the bishop, or his representative, the archdeacon, or the "official" (officialis), or the vicar-general, was the judge in first instance for all suits, contentious or criminal, which arose in the diocese or in the corresponding administrative dirstrict, so far as such suits were not withdrawn from his jurisdiction by the common law. The court of second instancewas originally the provincial synod, later the metropolitan [c. iii (Syn. of Nicaea, an. 325, c. v), iv (Syn. of Antioch, an. 341, c. xx), D. XVIII]. The court of the third instance was that of the pope. The court of the first instance for bishops was the provincial synod, the metropolitan, the exarch, or the patriarch; the court of second instance was that of the pope [c. xxxvi (Syn. of Sardica, an. 343, c. vii), c. II, Q. vi] Only the pope could be the judge of first instance for exarchs and patriarchs Since the Middle Ages the pope is the judge of first instance in all more important episcopal causes (causae maiores, graviores, difficiliores, arduae), the number and extent of which are in no way exactly definable, but to which above all belong the causae criminales graviores contra episcopos---more serious criminal charges against bishops (c. i, X, De translat. episc., I, vii) Conformably to this the diocesan bishop or his representative (the vicar-general, or officialis, or some other diocesan authority) is now the judge of the court of first instance, so far as connom law has not withdrawn from him this jurisdiction (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIV, De ref., c. xx). If the see is vacant the vicar-capitular is judge of the court of first instance The judge of the second instance is the metropolitan (c. lxvi, X, De appell., II, xxviii) For archdioceses, as a rule, the judge of second instance is a neighbouring archbishop or bishop appointed by the Holy See (Concil. plenar. Baltimor., III, an. 1884, n. 316; Leo XIII, "Trans Oceanum", 18 April, 1897, n. 14) The same ordinance also applies to exempt bishoprics (Sacr. Congr. pro negot. eccles. extraord., 11 September, 1906) The court of the third instance is the Apostolic See, but in the causae maiores it is the court of first instance As, however, the pope is the judex ordinarius omnium, the ordinary ecclesiastical judge of all, ecclesiastical suits without exception can be brought or summoned before the papal forum as the court of first instance (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIV, De ref., c. xx; Vatic., Sess. III, De eccl., c. iii). In the Middle Ages the lower courts were often evaded, or the popes summoned the suits at one before their forum (c. lci, X, De appell., II, xxviii) This custom had some advantages on account of the better legal education and greater impartiality of the members of the papal court On the other hand the administration of justice was delayed, and, above all, made more costly by the rule enforced in the papal courts that the parties must appear in person. What made the matter still worse was that such summonses to Rome, as to the court of first instance, diminish unduly the authority of the lower courts To put an end, therefore, to constant complaint on this point the Decretals (q. v.) ordained that in future, before the rendering of the sentence, no one could appeal to a higher court without giving a sufficient reason to the judge a quo (from whom the appeal was made), and that the appeal could not be accepted by the judge ad quem (to whom appeal lies) until after he had satisfied himself of the validity of the appeal (c. lvi, X, De appell., II, xxviii) Lawsuits, therefore, pending before the Apostolic See were to be tried by a judge, belonging to the place whence the appeal came, and especially appointed by the pope (c. xxviii, X, De rescript., I, iii; c. xi, in VIto, De rescript., I, iii) In the late Middle Ages rulers of countries were frequently granted for their domains the papal privilegia de non evocando (exemption from summons); in some cases, also, they forbade the appeal to a foreign court. Following the precendents of the Synods of Constance (Martini V Pap. et Germ. nat. concordata, c. iv, in Hardouin, "Acta. Conc.", VIII, 891) and of Basle (Sess. XXXI, c. i, in Hardouin, "Acta. Conc.", VIII, 1425), the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, De ref., c. xx, and Sess. XXV, De ref., c. x) decreed: The court of the bishop is the court of first instance Each suit must be brought to a close within at least two years. During this period no appeal is permitted, neither can the higher judge summon the case before his forum An appeal before the lapse of two years is permissible only if a final sentence has been pronounced In case of appeal to the Apostolic See, or in case the latter, for good reasons, summons a suit from the beginning before its forum, the suit is to be decided either at Rome or by delegated judges on the spot (judices in partibus). As, however, on account of the remoteness of the place where the dispute arose and the consequent lack of knowledge of local persons, unsuitable judges have been at times appointed at the place where the dispute arose, the bishops are each to select, on occasion of the provincial or diocesan synod, at least four men (judices synodales) having the qualities designated by Boniface VIII (c. xi, in VIto, De rescript., I, iii), and must be present their names to the Apostolic See, which in its selection of judges is to be so limited to the persons thus named that the delegation of any other person is invalid As provincial and diocesan synods are no longer regularly held, bishops are permitted to make this selection with the advice of the chapter (Benedict XIV, "Quamvis paternae", 26 August, 1741) Consequently, judges so appointed are called judices prosynodales At present, however, this also is no longer customary On the contrary, the Apostolic See appoints its representatives in partibus entirely independently, but it is so arranged that the delegation is bestowed on neighbor bishops and archbishops for a definite term of years Such delegation is all the more necessary in case a State does not permit ecclesiastical suits to be tried outside of its boundaries, or will only permit the judgement of such a court to be executed within its territories by the secular power. Bouix, Tractatus de judiciis ecclesiasticis, I (Paris, 1885), 120 sqq.; Reiffenstuel, Jus canonicum universum (Paris, 1864-70), I, xxxii sqq.; II, i sqq.; De Angelis, Praelectiones juris canonici (Rome, 1877-91), II, i sqq.; Ferrarris, Bibliotecha canonica (Rome, 1885-99), s.v. Judex; Lega, Praelectiones de judiciis ecclesiasticis, I (2nd ed., Rome, 1905), n. 38 sqq.; Hergenrother- Hollweck, Lehrbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts (Freiburg im Br., 1905), 495 sqq.; Laurentius, Institutiones juris ecclesiastici (2nd ed., Freiburg im Br., 1908), n. 310 sqq.; Sagmuller, Lehrbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts (2nd ed., Freiburg im Br., 1909), 749 sqq. Johannes Baptist Sagmuller Judges Judges The seventh book of the Old Testament, second of the Early Prophets of the Hebrew canon. I. TITLE The Hebrew name of the book was transliterated by Origen Safateím, and by St. Jerome Sophtim; it was translated by Melito and Origen Kritaí, by the Septuagint ì tôn kritôn bíblos or tôn kritôn, so, too, by the Greek Fathers; the Latins translated liber Judicum or Judicum. The Hebrew verb meant originally "to act as a Divine judge", and was applied to God (Gen., xviii, 25), and to Moses acting as the specially inspired lawgiver and judge of Israel (Ex., xviii, 13, 16). In time the elders of the people became the "judges" (vv. 25, 26). In this book the term judges (shôphatîm) is applied to the leaders of Israel, and would seem to indicate that their right was Divine (Judges, x, 2, 3). The office of judge differed from that of king only in the absence of hereditary succession (xii, 7-15). It is worth noting that the Phoenicians, according to Livy, called their chief magistrate suffetes (XXVIII, xxxvii), and gave to the suffetes of Carthage a power analogous to that of the Roman consul (XXX, vii; XXXIV, lxi). II. CONTENTS (1) Introduction (i-xx, 5). A summary of the conquest of Chanaan (i, 1-36). The angel of Jahweh reproves the tribes that made league with the stranger (ii, 1-5). (2) The history of Israel under the judges (ii, 6-xvi), introduced by a summary of its contents -- Israel's forsaking of Jahweh, turning to Baal and Astaroth, defeat by her enemies, and deliverance by Jahweh (ii, 6-iii, 6). Then follow the wonderful deeds of the judges, of whom Gedeon and Samson are the chief heroes; to them are devoted seven chapters. (3) Two more stories of the times of the judges -- the migration of Dan and their idolatrous worship of the idol of Michas (xvii-xviii), the crime of the Benjamites and their punishment by Israel (xix-xxi). For fuller analysis see Cornely, "Introd. Spec. in Hist. V. T. Lib.", I, Paris, 1887, 109-14. III. CANONICITY The Book of Judges is admitted by all to belong to the canons of the Jews of Palestine, the Jews of the Dispersion (the Alexandrian canon), and the Christians. Only the authority of the infallible Church can determine the canon of Sacred Scripture, and define the inspired meaning of the Books. Hence Catholics may not go the way of Rationalists and of Protestants in the matter of the so-called late and manifold redaction of Judges. IV. AUTHENTICITY The chief arguments for the authenticity of Judges are given below under Historicity and Sources. We now appeal to: + The canonizing of the book by Jews and Christians as an authentic narrative of part of Israel's history; + the life-like style of the work; + the minute and accurate details of the narrative; + the evident purpose of the narrator to give a history of the things whereof he knows. V. PURPOSE Although the purpose of the narrator is evidently to give a history of the events that took place in Israel between the days of Josue and of Samuel, yet that purpose is rather epic and didactic than historical in the modern sense of the word. (1) The narrator does not purpose history in the modern sense; he does not narrate in historical order all the important events of the period. This fact is clear from the appendixes (xvii-xxi), which give very important events outside their proper historical order. (2) The historian of Judges has an epic purpose, as early historians (e.g. Herodotus) often had. The epos, or theme, of the historian of Judges is evolved in the summary (ii, 6-iii, 6), wherewith he introduces the history proper; he has it ever in mind to unfold why Jahweh allowed the foe to abide so long in the promised land, and even to defeat the chosen people, and why He raised up the judges. The idolatry of Israel is the reason. (3) The didactic purpose of the book is to teach Israel that the commandments of Jahweh should be obeyed (iii, 4). When Israel leaves Jahweh, Jahweh leaves Israel, at least for the while; the foes of Israel triumph (cf. Aug., "De Civ. Dei", xvi, 43). VI. SOURCES The problem is complicated. Most contradictory theories have been proposed. According to Moore (see "Internat. Crit. Comm." on "Judges", also art. in "Encycl. Bibl."), the body of the book (ii, 6-xvi, 33) is Deuteronomistic; the general setting of the stories and the purpose of that setting show characteristics of the seventh and sixth centuries, the influence of Deuteronomy and of the great Prophets Jeremias and Ezechiel. The stories of the book, out of their setting and apart from their set purpose in the Book of Judges, are pre-Deuteronomic; they show no Deuteronomic traces except in the introductions and the links that chain the various stories together. Indeed, Moore would have it that this redaction and unification of the sources was the work of a preDeuteronomic editor; this editor is not admitted by Kittel. To sum up, then, the opinion of Moore, one of the most eminent Protestant students of Judges, the book itself (i.e. ii, 6-xvi, 31) is made up of two strands (J and E), united not later than 621 b.c. by a preDeuteronomic redactor (R ^JE), and reedited shortly thereafter, during the Deuteronomic reform of Josias and the influence of Jeremias, by the Deuteronomic editor of the Hexateuch (D). Many critics refuse to assign any strata of Judges to the Hexateuchal fictions -- J, E, JH, P or R, and D, even though they postulate many and late sources for the book in its present state. Among Catholic scholars a few, who wrote before the Biblical Commission issued its decrees about the Pentateuch, have accepted the late redaction. Most Catholic scholars, however, are unanimous against these few who have left the traditional positions of Catholic Bible-study. In the matter of historical criticism of Judges, as of the Pentateuch, Catholic scholars do not deny the use of various sources by the inspired writer, but postulate that these documents shall have been written and put together very much earlier than the Rationalists wish. There is no proof whatsoever of the late and manifold redactions of these documents in our present book. Cornely (loc. cit., 214-22) and Hummelauer (In Lib. Jud. et Ruth, 27) both consider that the writer of Judges was probably Samuel; and both admit that the work shows signs of the use of pre-existing documents. Such is the opinion also of Kaulen ("Einleitung in die heilige Schrift", 3rd ed., Freiburg, 1890, 181). (1) Judges, in its present state, cannot have been written before Israel had a king. Only in the time of a king could the writer have said: "In those days there was no king in Israel, but every one did that which seemed right to himself" (xvii, 6; cf. xviii, 1; xxi, 24). These words appear only in the appendix (xvii-xxi), which we admit to be later than some of the sources used by the sacred writer; this apendix is generally admitted to be part of the work done by the last editor of Judges. This editor, then, wrote while Israel had a king. (2) The book was not written after Solomon had done evil. The writer deems the lack of a king to be the explanation of the idolatry of the Danites and the misdeeds of the tribe of Benjamin. Such an explanation would have been out of the question had the writer known either of the idolatry brought in by Jeroboam and encouraged by Solomon or of the separation of Juda from Israel. (3) This last editor must have written before David had reigned seven years. For Jerusalem was still called Jebus and was occupied by the Jebusites (xix, 11); whereas, in the seventh year of his reign, David took the citadel of Sion, called it the city of David, and destroyed the Jebusites (II Kings, v). (4) Finally, it is likely that Judges antedates even the first seven years of David's reign and the last years of Saul's. The book purposes to keep the children of Israel from idolatry and from the Divine punishments thereof. In the beginning of David's and the end of Saul's reign there was no need of such purpose: Saul had "rooted out the magicians and soothsayers from the land" (I Kings, xxviii, 9). Moreover, in that period the writer would have seen that even a "king in Israel" did not prevent the tribal and internal dissensions of the days of the judges. (5) Since, then, Judges was most likely written in the first years of Saul's reign, there is no more probable writer thereof than Samuel. He had yielded to Israel's clamours, and set up Saul as king. A new war was impending. There was none in Israel more likely to make the people ready for that war by driving home to them the thesis of Judges -- that fidelity to Jahweh meant success against the foe of Israel. (6) The use of previous documents by Samuel sufficiently explains the varied literary style on account of which the Rationalists frame their various hypotheses. The song of Debbora (v) is archaic by contrast with the language of its setting. The story of Gedeon is originally from a different hand than that of the first writer of Samson's history. Catholic commentators of old assigned the Book of Judges to many hands. So Maldonatus (Comm. in Matt., ii, 23), Pineda (In Job, præf., iii), Clair (p. 10), and many others. Hummebauer (In Jud., 27) argues that the longer narratives -- those of Aod (iii, 15-30), Barac (iv and v), Gedeon (avi-viii), Abimelech (ix), Jephte (xi, 1-xii, 7), and Samson (xiii-xvi) -- are distinct accounts, written by separate authors, who were contemporary or almost contemporary with the events they narrated. These varied narratives Samuel incorporated much as he found them; he drew from tradition for the minor details which he gives about the lesser judges. While setting these stories together, Samuel was inspired in regard to the complete thoughts he culled from others, as well as the introductions, links, and remarks he superadded. VII. HISTORICITY (1) Internal Evidence The writer of Judges was contemporary with some of the events which he narrated; used documents written by those who were contemporary, or all but contemporary, with the deeds they told; and shows every sign of sincerity, care, and truth. The very concern of the writer to give the truth explains the manifold literary style of the book. He has preserved to us unchanged the style of the song of Debbora and that of the fable of Joatham. He has transmitted sayings peculiar to place and to person (ii, 5; iv, 5; vi, 24, 32; xv, 19; xviii, 12, 29). The nationalistic objections to the miraculous in the stories of Gedeon and Samson are generally accepted by Protestant writers, who look upon these portions of Judges as legendary; to Catholics these are as historical as any other portion of the work. The enemies to the historicity of the book in vain insist that these stories are set down as legends to please the Israelites. The writer of Judges so berates the Israelites for idolatry and inter-tribal dissension that it is unscientific to accuse him of truckling to their pride in their heroes. (2) External Evidence (a) Catholic tradition is clear. The Fathers look upon the narrative of Judges as fact-narrative; their unanimity is admitted by all who deem that unanimity worth consideration. (b) O.-T. testimony is manifold. The opening summary (i, 1-ii, 5) gives details the historical value of which is attested by Josue: Juda's siege of Dabir (i, 10-15; Jos., xv, 14-19), the Jebusites in Jerusalem (i, 21; Jos., xv, 63), the Chanaanite in Gazer along with Ephraim (i, 29; Jos., xvi, 10), the Chanaanite dwelling with Manasses (i, 27; Jos., xvii, 11). Like details are the death of Josue (ii, 6-9; Jos., xxiv, 28-31), the capture of Lesem by Dan (xvii, xviii; Jos., xix, 47). The Books of Kings tell us as facts much that we read in Judges. Israel's forgetfulness of Jahweh, her defeat by the foe and salvation by the judges (I Kings, xii, 9-11); the death of Abimelech, son of Gedeon (ix, 53; II Kings, xi, 21). The Psalms dwell proudly on the deeds of the judges: the fate of Sisara, Jabin, Oreb, Zeb, Zebee, and Salmana (vii, 22, 25; iv, 15; viii, 21; Ps. lxxxii, 10-12); the entire history of Judges in outline (Ps. cv, 34-46). The Prophets refer to real facts given in Judges: the defeat of Madian by Gedeon (Is., ix, 4; x, 26); the crime at Gabaa (Osee, ix, 9; x, 9). (c) In the N. T., St. Paul mentions the judges in their proper place between Josue and Samuel (Acts, xiii, 20); praises some of the judges along with certain kings (Heb., xi, 32). VIII. TEXT (1) Hebrew. Kittel's edition shows that the Masoretic text is in very good condition. "It is better preserved than any other of the historical books" (Moore, "Judges", 43). The only serious difficulties are in the song of Debbora. (2) Greek. We have two distinct Septuagint forms (cf. Lagarde, "Septuaginta-Studien", 1892, 1-72): one is seen in the Alexandrinus (A), Coislinianus (P), BasilianoVaticanus (V), and many cursives; the other version is represented by the Vatican (B), and a considerable number of cursives. (3) Latin. St. Jerome's version is one of his most careful efforts at translation of the Masorah, and is of the greatest exegetical importance. Fathers: Theodoret, Quæstiones in Librum Judicorum in P.G., LXXX, 485; Procopius of Gaza, Comm. in Judices in P.G., LXXXVII, 1041; St. Augustine, Quæstiones in Heptateuchium in P.L., XXXIV,;701. Modern commentators mentioned in the body of the article. See also BonfrÈre, Comm. in Jos., Jud., et Ruth (Paris, 1631); Serarius, Jud. et Ruth explanati (Mainz, 1609); Clair, Les Juges et Ruth (Paris, 1878). Protestant commentators of worth are Moore, Keil, Budde, Bertheau. WALTER DRUM Divine Judgment Divine Judgment This subject will be treated under two heads: I. Divine Judgment Subjectively and Objectively Considered; II. Pre-Christian Beliefs Concerning Judgment after Death. Particular Judgment and General Judgment will be treated in separate articles. I. DIVINE JUDGMENT SUBJECTIVELY AND OBJECTIVELY CONSIDERED Divine judgment (judicium divinum), as an immanent act of God, denotes the action of God's retributive justice by which the destiny of rational creatures is decided according to their merits and demerits. This includes: + God's knowledge of the moral worth of the acts of free creatures (scientia approbationis et reprobationis), and His decree determining the just consequences of such acts; + the Divine verdict upon a creature amenable to the moral law, and the execution of this sentence by way of reward and punishment. It is clear, of course, that the judgment, as it is in God, cannot be a process of distinct and successive acts; it is a single eternal act identical with the Divine Essence. But the effects of the judgment, since they take place in creatures, follow the sequence of time. The Divine judgment is manifested and fulfilled at the beginning, during the progress, and at the end of time. In the beginning, God pronounced judgment upon the whole race, as a consequence of the fall of its representatives, the first parents (Gen., iii). Death and the infirmities and miseries of this were the consequences of that original sentence. Besides this common judgment there have been special judgments on particular individuals and peoples. Such great catastrophes as the flood (Gen., vi, 5), the destruction of Sodom (Gen., xxviii, 20), the earthquake that swallowed up Core and his followers (Num., xvi, 30), the plagues of Egypt (Ex., vi, 6; xii, 12), and the evil that came upon other oppressors of Israel (Ezech., xxv, 11; xxviii, 22) are represented in the Bible as Divine judgments. The fear of God is such a fundamental idea in the Old Testament that it insists mainly on the punitive aspect of the judgment (cf. Prov., xi, 31; Ezechiel, xiv, 21). An erroneous view of these truths led many of the rabbis to teach that all the evil which befalls man is a special chastisement from on high, a doctrine which was declared false by Christ. There is also a judgment of God in the world that is subjective. By his acts man adheres to or deviates from the law of God, and thereby places himself within the sphere of approval or condemnation. In a sense, then, each individual exercises judgment on himself. Hence it is declared that Christ came not to judge but to save (John, iii, 17; viii, 15; xii, 47). The internal judgment proceeds according to a man's attitude: towards Christ (John, iii, 18). Though all the happenings of life cannot be interpreted as the outcome of Divine judgment, whose external manifestation is therefore intermittent, the subjective judgment is coextensive with the life of the individual and of the race. The judgment at the end of time will complement the previous visitations of Divine retribution and will manifest the final result of the daily secret judgment. By its sentence the eternal destiny of creatures will be decided. As there is a twofold end of time, so there is likewise a twofold eternal judgment: the particular judgment, at the hour of death, which is the end of time for the individual, and the general judgment, at the final epoch of the world's existence, which is the end of time for the human race. II. PRE-CHRISTIAN BELIEFS CONCERNING JUDGMENT AFTER DEATH The idea of a final readjustment beyond the grave, which would rectify the sharp contrast so often observed between the conduct and the fortune of men, was prevalent among all nations in pre-Christian times. Such was the doctrine of metempsychosis or the transmigration of souls, as a justification of the ways of God to man, prevailing among the Hindus of all classes and sects, the Pythagoreans, the Orphic mystics, and the Druids. The doctrine of a forensic judgment in the unseen world, by which the eternal lot of departed souls is determined, was also widely prevalent in pre-Christian times. The Egyptian idea of the judgment is set forth with great precision of detail in the "Book of the Dead", a collection of formulae designed to aid the dead in their passage through the underworld (EGYPT). The Babylonians and the Assyrians make no distinction between the good and the bad so far as the future habitation is concerned. In the Gilgames epic the hero is marked as judge of the dead, but whether his rule was the moral value of their actions is not clear. An unerring judgment and compensation in the future life was a cardinal point in the mythologies of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans. But, while these mythological schemes were credited as strict verities by the ignorant body of the people, the learned saw in them only the allegorical presentation of truth. There were always some who denied the doctrine of a future life, and this unbelief went on increasing till, in the last days of the Republic, skepticism regarding immortality prevailed among Greeks and Romans. With the Jews. the judgment of the living was a far more prominent idea than the judgment of the dead. The Pentateuch contains no express mention of remuneration in the future life, and it was only at a comparatively late period, under the influence of a fuller revelation, that the belief in resurrection and judgment began to play a capital part in the faith of Judaism. The traces of this theological development are plainly visible in the Machabean era. Then arose the two great opposing parties, the Pharisees and the Sadducees, whose divergent interpretations of Scripture led to heated controversies, especially regarding the future life. The Sadducees denied all reward and penalty in the hereafter, while there opponents encumbered the truth with ludicrous details. Thus some of the rabbis asserted that the trumpet which would summon the world to judgment would be one of the horns of the ram which Abraham offered up instead of his son Isaac. Again they said: "When God judges the Israelites, He will stand, and make the judgment brief and mild; when He judges the Gentiles, he will sit and make it long and severe." Apart from such rabbinical fables, the current belief reflected in the writings of the rabbis and the pseudographs at the beginning of the Christian Era was that of a preliminary judgment and of a final judgment to occur at the consummation of the world, the former to be executed against the wicked by the personal prowess of the Messiah and of the saints of Israel, the latter to be pronounced as an eternal sentence by God or the Messiah. The particular judgment of the individual person is lost sight of in the universal judgment by which the Messiah vindicate the wrongs endured by Israel. With Alexandrian Judaism, on the contrary, with that at least of which Philo is the exponent, the dominant idea was that of an immediate retribution after death. The two dissenting sects of Israel, the Essenes and the Samaritans, were in agreement with the majority of Jews as to the existence of a discriminating retribution in the life to come. The Essenes believed in the preexistence of souls, but taught that the after-existence was an unchanging state of bliss or woe according to the deeds done in the body. The eschatological tenets of the Samaritans were at first few and vague. Their doctrine of the resurrection and of the day of vengeance and recompense was a theology patterned after the model of Judaism, and first formulated for the sect by its greatest theologian, Marka (A.D. fourth century) J.A. MCHUGH Particular Judgment Particular Judgment A. Dogma of Particular Judgment The Catholic doctrine of the particular judgment is this: that immediately after death the eternal destiny of each separated soul is decided by the just judgment of God. Although there has been no formal definition on this point, the dogma is clearly implied in the Union Decree of Eugene IV (1439), which declares that souls leaving their bodies in a state of grace, but in need of purification are cleansed in Purgatory, whereas souls that are perfectly pure are at once admitted to the beatific vision of the Godhead (ipsum Deum unum et trinum) and those who depart in actual mortal sin, or merely with original sin, are at once consigned to eternal punishment, the quality of which corresponds to their sin (paenis tamen disparibus). The doctrine is also in the profession of faith of Michael Palaeologus in 1274, in the Bull "Benedictus Deus" of Benedict XII, in 1336, and in the professions of faith of Gregory XIII and Benedict XIV. B. Existence of Particular Judgment Proved from Scripture Ecclesiastes 11:9; 12:1 sq.; and Hebrews 9:27, are sometimes quoted in proof of the particular judgment, but though these passages speak of a judgment after death, neither the context nor the force of the words proves that the sacred writer had in mind a judgment distinct from that at the end of the world. The Scriptural arguments in defence of the particular judgment must be indirect. There is no text of which we can certainly say that it expressly affirms this dogma but there are several which teach an immediate retribution after death and thereby clearly imply a particular judgment. Christ represents Lazarus and Dives as receiving their respective rewards immediately after death. They have always been regarded as types of the just man and the sinner. To the penitent thief it was promised that his soul instantly on leaving the body would be in the state of the blessed: "This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43). St. Paul (II Corinthians 5) longs to be absent from the body that he may be present to the Lord, evidently understanding death to be the entrance into his reward (cf. Philemon 1:21 sq.). Ecclesiasticus 11:28-29 speaks of a retribution at the hour of death, but it may refer to a temporal punishment, such as sudden death in the midst of prosperity, the evil remembrance that survives the wicked or the misfortunes of their children. However, the other texts that have been quoted are sufficient to establish the strict conformity of the doctrine with Scripture teaching. (Cf. Acts 1:25; Apocalypse 20:4-6, 12-14.) C. Patristic Testimony Regarding Particular Judgment St. Augustine witnesses clearly and emphatically to this faith of the early Church. Writing to the presbyter Peter, he criticizes the works of Vincentius Victor on the soul, pointing out that they contain nothing except what is vain or erroneous or mere commonplace, familiar to all Catholics. As an instance of the last, he cites Victor's interpretation of the parable of Lazarus and Dives. He writes: For with respect to that which he (Victor] most correctly and very soundly holds, namely, that souls are judged when they depart from the body, before they come to that judgment which must be passed on them when reunited to the body and are tormented or glorified in that same flesh which they here inhabited -- was that a matter of which you (Peter) were unaware? Who is so obstinate against the Gospel as not to perceive those things in the parable of that poor man carried after death to Abraham's bosom and of the rich man whose torments are set before us? (De anima et ejus origine, 11, n.8.) In the sermons of the Fathers occur graphic descriptions of the particular judgment (cf. S. Ephraem, "Sermo de secundo Adventu"; "Sermo in eos qui in Christo obdormiunt"). D. Heresies Lactantius is one of the few Catholic writers who disputed this doctrine (Divine Institutes VII:21). Among heretics the particular judgment was denied by Tatian and Vigilantius. The Hypnopsychites and the Thnetopsychites believed that at death the soul passed away, according to the former into a state of unconsciousness, according to the latter into temporary destruction. They believed that souls would arise at the resurrection of the body for judgment. This theory of "soul slumber" was defended by the Nestorians and Copts, and later by the Anabaptists, Socinians, and Arminians. Calvin (Inst. III, 25) holds that the final destiny is not decided till the last day. E. Prompt Fulfilment of Sentence The prompt fulfilment of the sentence is part of the dogma of particular judgment, but until the question was settled by the decision of Benedict XII, in 1332, there was much uncertainty regarding the fate of the departed in the period between death and the general resurrection. There was never any doubt that the penalty of loss (poena damni), the temporal or eternal forfeiture of the joys of Heaven, began from the moment of death. Likewise it was admitted from the earliest times that the punishment following death included other sufferings (poena sensus) than the penalty of loss (Justin, "Dial.", v). But whether the torment of fire was to be included among these sufferings, or whether it began only after the final judgment, was a question that gave rise to many divergent opinions. It was a common belief among the early Fathers that the devils will not suffer from the flames of hell until the end of the world. Regarding the reprobate souls there was a similar belief. Some of the Fathers contended that these souls do not suffer the torment of fire until reunited with their bodies in the resurrection, while others hesitated (cf. Tert., "De Test. an.", iv). Many, on the contrary, clearly taught that the punishment of hell fire followed speedily upon the particular judgment (Hilary, In Ps. cxxxviii, 22). This is evident from the words of Gregory the Great: "just as happiness rejoices the elect, so it must be believed that from the day of their death fire burns the reprobate" (Dial., IV, 28). Early Christian writers also refer to a purgatorial fire in which souls not perfectly just are purified after death. Some of the early Fathers, misled by Millennarian errors, believed that the essential beatitude of Heaven is not enjoyed until the end of time. They supposed that during the interval between death and the resurrection the souls of the just dwell happily in a delightful abode, awaiting their final glorification. This was apparently the opinion of Sts. Justin and Irenaeus, Tertullian, St. Clement of Alexandria, and St. Ambrose. According to others, only the martyrs and some other classes of saints are admitted at once to the supreme joys of heaven. It cannot, however, be inferred from these passages that all of the Fathers quoted believed that the vision of God is in most cases delayed till the day of judgment. Many of them in other parts of their works profess the Catholic doctrine either expressly or by implication through the acknowledgment of other dogmas in which it is contained, for instance, in that of the descent of Christ into Limbo, an article of the Creed which loses all significance unless it be admitted that the saints of the Old Testament were thereby liberated from this temporal penalty of loss and admitted to the vision of God. As to the passages which state that the supreme happiness of Heaven is not enjoyed till after the resurrection, they refer in many instances to an increase in the accidental joy of the blessed through the union of the soul with its glorified body, and do not signify that the essential happiness of heaven is not enjoyed till then. Notwithstanding the aberrations of some writers and the hesitation of others, the belief that since the death of Christ souls which are free from sin enter at once into the vision of God was always firmly held by the great body of Christians (cf. St. Cyprian, De exhort. mart.). As the earliest Acts of the Martyrs and Liturgies attest, the martyrs were persuaded of the prompt reward of their devotion. This belief is also evidenced by the ancient practice of honouring and invoking the saints, even those who were not martyrs. But the opposite error found adherents from time to time, and in the Middle Ages was warmly defended. The Second Council of Lyons (1274) declared that souls free from sin are at once received into heaven (mox in caelum recipi), but did not decide in what their state of beatitude consisted. A number of theologians maintained the opinion that until the resurrection the just do not enjoy the intuitive or facial vision of God, but are under the protection and consolation of the Humanity of Jesus Christ. Pope John XXII (1316-1334) at Avignon, as a private theologian, seems to have supported this view, but that he gave it any official sanction is a fable invented by the Fallibilists. His successor, Benedict XII, ended the controversy by the Bull "Benedictus Deus". F. Circumstances of Particular Judgment according to Theologians Theologians suppose that the particular judgment will be instantaneous, that in the moment of death the separated soul is internally illuminated as to its own guilt or innocence and of its own initiation takes its course either to hell, or to purgatory, or to heaven (Summa Theologica Supplement 69:2, 88:2). In confirmation of this opinion the text of St. Paul is cited: "Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ (Romans 2:15-16). The "Book of Judgment", in which all the deeds of men are written (Apocalypse 20:12), and the appearance of angels and demons to bear witness before the judgment seat are regarded as allegorical descriptions (St. Aug. "De Civ. Dei", XX, xiv). The common opinion is that the particular judgment will occur at the place of death (Suarez in III, Q, lix. a. 6, disp. 52). J.A. MCHUGH General Judgment (Last Judgment) General Judgment (Judicium Universale, Last Judgment). I. EXISTENCE OF THE GENERAL JUDGMENT 1. Few truths are more often or more clearly proclaimed in Scripture than that of the general judgment. To it the prophets of the Old Testament refer when they speak of the "Day of the Lord" (Joel 2:31; Ezekiel 13:5; Isaiah 2:12), in which the nations will be summoned to judgment. In the New Testament the second Parusia, or coming of Christ as Judge of the world, is an oft-repeated doctrine. The Saviour Himself not only foretells the event but graphically portrays its circumstances (Matthew 24:27 sqq.; 25:31 sqq.). The Apostles give a most prominent place to this doctrine in their preaching (Acts 10:42; 17:31) and writings (Romans 2:5-16; 14:10; 1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Corinthians 5:10; 2 Timothy 4:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:5; James 5:7). Besides the name Parusia (parousia), or Advent (1 Corinthians 15:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:19), the Second Coming is also called Epiphany, epiphaneia, or Appearance (2 Thessalonians 2:8; 1 Timothy 6:14; 2 Timothy 4:1; Titus 2:13), and Apocalypse (apokalypsis), or Revelation (2 Thessalonians 2:7; 1 Peter 4:13). The time of the Second Coming is spoken of as "that Day" (2 Timothy 4:8), "the day of the Lord" (1 Thessalonians 5:2), "the day of Christ" (Philemon 1:6), "the day of the Son of Man" (Luke 17:30), "the last day" (John 6:39-40). 2. The belief in the general judgment has prevailed at all times and in all places within the Church. It is contained as an article of faith in all the ancient creeds: "He ascended into heaven. From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead" (Apostles' Creed). He shall come again with glory to judge both the living and the dead" (Nicene Creed). "From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead, at whose coming all men must rise with their bodies and are to render an account of their deeds" (Athanasian Creed). Relying on the authority of Papias, several Fathers of the first four centuries advanced the theory of a thousand years' terrestrial reign of Christ with the saints to precede the end of the World (see article on MILLENNIUM). Though this idea is interwoven with the eschatological teachings of those writers, it in no way detracted from their belief in a universal world-judgment. Patristic testimony to this dogma is clear and unanimous. 3. The Roman Catechism thus explains why, besides the particular judgment of each individual, a general one should also be passed on the assembled world: "The first reason is founded on the circumstances that most augment the rewards or aggravate the punishments of the dead. Those who depart this life sometimes leave behind them children who imitate the conduct of their parents, descendants, followers; and others who adhere to and advocate the example, the language, the conduct of those on whom they depend, and whose example they follow; and as the good or bad influence or example, affecting as it does the conduct of many, is to terminate only with this world; justice demands that, in order to form a proper estimate of the good or bad actions of all, a general judgment should take place. . . . Finally, it was important to prove, that in prosperity and adversity, which are sometimes the promiscuous lot of the good and of the bad, everything is ordered by an all-wise, all-just, and all-ruling Providence: it was therefore necessary not only that rewards and punishments should await us in the next life but that they should be awarded by a public and general judgment." II. SIGNS THAT ARE TO PRECEDE THE GENERAL JUDGMENT The Scriptures mention certain events which are to take place before the final judgment. These predictions were not intended to serve as indications of the exact time of the judgment, for that day and hour are known only to the Father, and will come when least expected. They were meant to foreshadow the last judgment and to keep the end of the world present to the minds of Christians, without, however, exciting useless curiosity and vain fears. Theologians usually enumerate the following nine events as signs of the last judgment: 1. General Preaching of the Christian Religion. Concerning this sign the Saviour says: "And this gospel of the kingdom, shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come" (Matthew 24:14). This sign was understood by Chrysostom and Theophilus as referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, but, according to the majority of interpreters, Christ is here speaking of the end of the world. 2. Conversion of the Jews. According to the interpretation of the Fathers, the conversion of the Jews towards the end of the world is foretold by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans (11:25-26): "For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery, . . . that blindness in part has happened in Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles should come in. And so all Israel should be saved as it is written: There shall come out of Sion, he that shall deliver, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob". 3. Return of Enoch and Elijah. The belief that these two men, who have never tasted death, are reserved for the last times to be precursors of the Second Advent was practically unanimous among the Fathers, which belief they base on several texts of Scripture. (Concerning Elijah see Malachi 4:5-6; Ecclesiasticus 48:10; Matthew 17:11; concerning Enoch see Ecclesiasticus 44:16.) 4. A Great Apostasy. As to this event St. Paul admonishes the Thessalonians (2 Thessalonians 2:3) that they must not be terrified, as if the day of the Lord were at hand, for there must first come a revolt (he apostasia).The Fathers and interpreters understand by this revolt a great reduction in the number of the faithful through the abandonment of the Christian religion by many nations. Some commentators cite as confirmatory of this belief the words of Christ: "But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?" (Luke 18:8). 5. The Reign of Antichrist. In the passage above mentioned (2 Thessalonians 2:3 sqq.) St. Paul indicates as another sign of the day of the Lord, the revelation of the man of sin, the son of perdition. "The man of sin" here described is generally identified with the Antichrist, who, says St. John (1 John 2:18), is to come in the last days. Although much obscurity and difference of opinion prevails on this subject, it is generally admitted from the foregoing and other texts that before the Second Coming there will arise a powerful adversary of Christ, who will seduce the nations by his wonders, and persecute the Church. 6. Extraordinary Perturbations of Nature. The Scriptures clearly indicate that the judgment will be preceded by unwonted and terrifying disturbances of the physical universe (Matthew 24:29; Luke 21:25-26). The wars, pestilences, famines, and earthquakes foretold in Matthew 24:6 sq., are also understood by some writers as among the calamities of the last times. 7. The Universal Conflagration. In the Apostolic writings we are told that the end of the world will be brought about through a general conflagration, which, however, will not annihilate the present creation, but will change its form and appearance (2 Peter 3:10-13; cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:2; Apocalypse 3:3, and 16:15). Natural science shows the possibility of such a catastrophe being produced in the ordinary course of events, but theologians generally tend to believe that its origin will be entirely miraculous. 8. The Trumpet of Resurrection. Several texts in the New Testament make mention of a voice or trumpet which will awaken the dead to resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:52; 1 Thessalonians 4:15; John 5:28). According to St. Thomas (Supplement 86:2) there is reference in these passages either to the voice or to the apparition of Christ, which will cause the resurrection of the dead. 9. "The Sign of the Son of Man Appearing in the Heavens." In Matthew 24:30, this is indicated as the sign immediately preceding the appearance of Christ to judge the world. By this sign the Fathers of the Church generally understand the appearance in the sky of the Cross on which the Saviour died or else of a wonderful cross of light. III. CIRCUMSTANCES ACCOMPANYING THE GENERAL JUDGMENT 1. Time. As was stated above, the signs that are to precede the judgment give no accurate indication of the time when it will occur (Mark 13:32). When the Disciples asked the Saviour: "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" He answered: "It is not for you to know the times or moments, which the Father hath put in his own power" (Acts 1:6-7). The uncertainty of the day of judgment is continually urged by Christ and the Apostles as an incentive to vigilance. The day of the Lord will come "as a thief" (Matthew 24:42-43), like lightning suddenly appearing (Matthew 24:27), like a snare (Luke 21:34), as the Deluge (Matthew 24:37). 2. Place of the Judgment. All the texts in which mention is made of the Parusia, or Second Coming, seem to imply clearly enough that the general judgment will take place on the earth. Some commentators infer from 1 Thessalonians 4:16, that the judgment will be held in the air, the newly risen being carried into the clouds to meet Christ; according to others the prophecy of Joel (3:1 sq.) places the last judgment in the Valley of Josaphat. 3. The Coming of the Judge. That this judgment is ascribed to Christ, not only as God, but also as Man, is expressly declared in Scripture; for although the power of judging is common to all the Persons of the Trinity, yet it is specially attributed to the Son, because to Him also in a special manner is ascribed wisdom. But that as Man He will judge the world is confirmed by Christ Himself (John 5:26-27). At the Second Coming Christ will appear in the heavens, seated on a cloud and surrounded by the angelic hosts (Matthew 16:27; 24:30; 25:31). The angels will minister to the Judge by bringing all before Him (Matthew 24:31). The elect will aid Christ in a judicial capacity (1 Corinthians 6:2). The lives of the just will in themselves be a condemnation of the wicked (Matthew 21:41), whose punishment they will publicly approve. But the Apostles will be judges of the world in a sense yet more exact, for the promise that they shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28) seems to imply a real participation in judicial authority. According to a very probable opinion, this prerogative is extended to all who have faithfully fulfilled the counsels of the Gospel (Matthew 19:27-28). Nothing certain is known as to the manner in which this delegated authority will be exercised. St. Thomas conjectures that the greater saints will make known the sentence of Christ to others (Supplement 88:2). 4. Those to be Judged. All men, both good and bad, according to the Athanasian Creed, will appear in the judgment to give an account of their deeds. As to children that have personally done neither good nor evil, the baptized must be distinguished from the unbaptized. The former appear in the judgment, not to be judged, but only to hold the glory of Christ (Supplement 80:5), while the latter, ranked with the wicked, although not judged, will be enabled to realize the justice of their eternal loss (Suarez). The angels and the demons will not be judged directly, since their eternal destiny has already been fixed; yet, because they have exercised a certain influence over the fortunes of men, the sentence pronounced on the latter will have a corresponding effect on them also (Supplement 89:8). 5. Object of the Judgment. The judgment will embrace all works, good or bad, forgiven as well as forgiven sins, every idle word (Matthew 12:36), every secret thought (1 Corinthians 4:5). With the exception of Peter Lombard, theologians teach that even the secret sins of the just will be made manifest, in order that judgment may be made complete and that the justice and mercy of God may be glorified. This will not pain or embarrass the saints, but add to their glory, just as the repentance of St. Peter and St. Mary Magdalen is to these saints a source of joy and honour. 6. Form of the Judgment. The procedure of the judgment is described in Matthew 25:31-46, and in the Apocalypse 20:12. Commentators see in those passages allegorical descriptions intended to convey in a vivid manner the fact that in the last judgment the conduct and deserts of each individual will be made plain not only to his own conscience but to the knowledge of the assembled world. It is probable that no words will be spoken in the judgment, but that in one instant, through a Divine illumination, each creature will thoroughly understand his own moral condition and that of every fellow creature (Romans 2:15). Many believe, however, that the words of the sentence: "Come, ye blessed", etc. and "Depart from me", etc. will be really addressed by Christ to the multitude of the saved and the lost. IV. RESULTS OF THE GENERAL JUDGMENT With the fulfilment of the sentence pronounced in the last judgment the relations and the dealings of the Creator with the creature find their culmination, are explained and justified. The Divine purpose being accomplished, the human race will, as a consequence, attain its final destiny. The reign of Christ over mankind will be the sequel of the General Judgment. J.A. MCHUGH Judica Sunday Judica Sunday Name given to the fifth Sunday of Lent, and derived from the first words of the Introit of that day: "Judica me, Deus" -- "Judge me, O God" (Psalm 42). Passion Sunday is the more common name, and in Germany this day is called "Black Sunday", from the custom of veiling the crosses and statues in the church, which was formerly done at the words in the Gospel "Jesus hid Himself", but is now done on the previous evening. Martène says that in very early times this day was called "Dominica mediana", a title that seems more properly to belong to mid-Lent Sunday. On Judica Sunday several significant changes take place in the Church's Liturgy. The Judica psalm is not again said at the beginning of Mass until Easter Day; the Gloria is omitted, to signify the ignominy of Christ's Passion, when His glory was for the time being laid aside; and the whole spirit of the Office and Mass is one of solemn preparation for the great events of the coming Holy Week. At Rome the station on this day was formerly observed in the Vatican Basilica. DURAND, Rationale Divine Officii (Venice, 1568); MARTÈNE, De Antiq. Mon. Ritibus (Lyons, 1690); GUÉRANGER, L'Année Liturgique, tr. SHEPHERD (Dublin, 1867); LEROSEY, Hist. et Symbolisme de la Liturgie (Paris, 1889). G. CYPRIAN ALSTON Book of Judith Book of Judith HISTORY Nabuchodonosor, King of Nineveh, sends his general Holofernes to subdue the Jews. The latter besieges them in Bethulia, a city on the southern verge of the Plain of Esdrelon. Achior, the Ammonite, who speaks in defense of the Jews, is maltreated by him and sent into the besieged city to await his punishment when Holofernes shall have taken it. Famine undermines the courage of the besieged and they contemplate surrender, but Judith, a widow, upbraids them and says that she will deliver the city. She goes into the camp of the Assyrians and captivates Holofernes by her beauty, and finally takes advantage of the general's intoxication to cut off his head. She returns inviolate to the city with his head as a trophy, and a sally on the part of the Jews results in the rout of the Assyrians. The book closes with a hymn to the Almighty by Judith to celebrate her victory. THE TEXT The book exists in distinct Greek and Latin versions, of which the former contains at least eighty-four verses more than the later. St. Jerome (Praef. in Lib.) says that he translated it from the Chaldaic in one night, "magis sensum e sensu, quam ex verbo verbum transferens" (aiming at giving sense for sense rather than adhering closely to the wording). He adds that his codices differed much, and that he expresses in Latin only what he could clearly understand of the Chaldaic. Two Hebrew versions are known at present, a long one practically identical with the Greek text, and a short one which is entirely different; we shall return to the latter when discussing the origin of the book. The Chaldaic, from which St. Jerome made our present Vulgate version, is not recoverable unless it be identified with the longer Hebrew version mentioned above. If this be the case we can gauge the value of St. Jerome's work by comparing the Vulgate with the Greek text. We at once find that St. Jerome did not exaggerate when he said that he made his translation hurriedly. Thus a comparison between vi, 11, and viii, 9 shows us a certain confusion relative to the names of the elders of Bethulia -- a confusion which does not exist in the Septuagint, where also x, 6, should be compared. Again in iv, 5, the high priest is Eliachim, which name is later changed into Joachim (xv, 9) -- an allowable change but somewhat misleading: the Septuagint is consistent in using the form Joachim. Some of the historical statements in the Septuagint directly conflict with those of the Vulgate; for example, the thirteenth year (Vulg.) of Nabuchodonosor becomes the eighteenth in the Septuagint, which also adds a long address of the king to Holofernes. St. Jerome has also frequently condensed the original-always on the supposition that the Septuagint and the longer Hebrew version do really represent the original. To give but one instance: Septuagint (2:27): "And he came down into the plain of Damascus at the time of the wheat harvest, and burnt up all their fields, their flocks and and their herds he delivered to destruction, their cities he ravaged, and the fruits of their fertile plains he scattered like chaff, and he struck all their young men with the edge of the sword." Vulgate (2:17): "And after these things he went down into the plains in the days of the harvest, and he set all the corn on fire, and he caused all the trees and vineyards to be cut down." With regard to the Septuagint version of the Book of Judith it should be noted that it has come down to us in two recensions: Codex B or Vaticanus on the one hand, and Codex Alexandrinus with Codex Sinaiticus on the other. HISTORICITY Catholics with very few exceptions accept the book of Judith as a narrative of facts, not as an allegory. Even Jahn considers that the genealogy of Judith is inexplicable on the hypothesis that the story is a mere fiction ("Introductio", Vienna, 1814, p. 461). Why carry out the genealogy of a fictitious person through fifteen generations? The Fathers have ever looked upon the book as historical. St. Jerome, who excluded Judith from the Canon, nonetheless accepted the person of the valiant woman as historical (Ep. lxv, 1). Against this traditional view there are, it must be confessed, very serious difficulties, due, as Calmet insists, to the doubtful and disputed condition of the text. The historical and geographical statements in the book, as we now have it, are difficult to understand: thus + Nabuchodonosor was apparently never King of Nineveh, for he came to the throne in 605, whereas Nineveh was destroyed certainly not later than 606, and after that the Assyrians ceased to exist as a people; + the allusion in i, 6, to Erioch, King of the Elicians, is suspicious; we are reminded of the Arioch of Gen., xiv, i. The Septuagint makes him King of the Elumaens, presumably the Elamites, + the character of Nabuchodonosor is hardly that portrayed for us on the monuments: in the India House Inscription, for example, his sentiments are remarkable for the modesty of their tone. On the other hand, we must remember that, as Sayce says, the "Assyrian kings were most brazen-faces liars on their monuments"; + the name Vagao, or the Septuagint Bagoas, for the eunuch of Holofernes is suggestive of the Bagoses, who, according to Josephus (Antiquities, XI, vii, 1), polluted the temple and to whom apparently we have a reference in the recently discovered papyri from Assuan; + the mixture of Babylonian, Greek, and Persian names in the book should be noted; + the genealogy of Judith as given in the Vulgate is a medley: that given in the three principal Greek codices is perhaps better but varies in every one. Still it is an historical genealogy, though ill-conserved; + a geographical puzzle is presented by the Vulgate of ii, 12-16; the Septuagint is much superior, and it should be noted that throughout this version, especially in Codex B, we have the most interesting details furnished us (cf. particularly i, 9; ii, 13, 28-9). The Septuagint also gives us information about Achior which is wanting in the Vulgate; it is apparently hinted in vi, 2, 5, that he wa an Ephraimite and a mercenary hired by Moad; + Bethulia itself is a mystery: according to the Septuagint it was large, had streets and towers (vii, 22, 32), and withstood a long siege at the hands of a vast army. Its position, too, is stated with minuteness; it stood on the edge of the Plain of Esdrelon and guarded the pass to Jerusalem; yet no trace of the existence of such a place is to be found (unless we accept the theory of Conder, "Handbook", 5th ed., p. 239); + the names, Judith (Jewess), Achior (brother of light), and Bethulia (?Bethel, i.e. ?Jerusalem, or perhaps from the Hebrew word meaning "virgin" -- in the shorter Hebrew version Judith is called not "the widow" but "the virgin", i.e. Bethulia), sound rather like symbolic names than those of historical places or persons; + in Judith's speech to Holofernes there is (xi, 12, 15) some apparent confusion between Bethulia and Jerusalem; + while the events are referred to the time of Nabuchodonosor, and therefore to the close of the Hebrew monarchy, we seem to have in v, 22, and viii, 18-19, an allusion to the time subsequent to the Restoration; + there is no king in Palestine (iv, 5), but only a high priest, Joachim or Eliachim; and in iv, 8; xi, 14; xv, 8 (Sept.), the Sanhedrin is apparently mentioned; + the book has a Persian and even a Greek colouring, as is evidenced by the recurrence of such names as Bagoas and Holofernes. These are serious difficulties, and a Catholic student must be prepared to meet them. There are two ways of doing so. (a) According to what we may term "conservative" criticism, these apparent difficulties can every one be harmonized with the view that the book is perfectly historical and deals with facts which actually took place. Thus, the geographical errors may be ascribed to the translators of the original text or to copyists living long after the book was composed, and consequently ignorant of the details referred to. Calmet insists that the Biblical Nabuchodonosor is meant, while in Arphaxad he sees Phraortes whose name, as Vigoroux (Les Livres Saints et La Critique Rationaliste, iv, 4th ed.) shows, could easily have been thus perverted. Vigoroux, however, in accordance with recent Assyrian discoveries, identifies Nabuchodonosor with Assur-bani-pal, the contemporary of Phraortes. This enables him to refer the events to the time of the captivity of Manasses under Assur-bani-pal (II Par., xxxiii, 11; cf. Sayce, "Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments", 4th ed., p. 458). It is further maintained that the campaign conducted by Holofernes is well illustrated in the records of Assur-bani-pal which have come down to us. And these facts will undoubtedly afford an explanation of the apparent allusion to the captivity; it was indeed a Restoration, but that of Manasses, not that under Esdras. The reference, too, to the Sanhedrin is doubtful; the term gerousia is used of the "ancients" in Lev., ix, 3, etc. Lastly, Conder's identification of Bethulia with Mithilia (loc. cit. supra) is highly probable. Moreover, the writer who described the strategical position in iv, 1-6, knew the geography of Palestine thoroughly. And we are given details about the death of Judith's husband which (viii, 2-4) can hardly be attributed to art, but are rather indications that Judith represents a really existing heroine. With regard to the state of the text it should be noted that the extraordinary variants presented in the various versions are themselves a proof that the versions were derived from a copy dating from a period long antecedent to the time of its translators (cf. Calmet, "Introd. in Lib. Judith"). (b) Some few Catholic writers are not satisfied with Calmet's solution of the difficulties of the Book of Judith; they deem the errors of translators and of scribes to be no sufficient explanation in this matter. These few Catholics, together with the non-Catholics that do not care to throw the book over entirely into the realm of fiction, assure us that the Book of Judith has a solid historical foundation. Judith is no mythical personage, she and her heroic deed lived in the memory of the people; but the difficulties enumerated above seem to show that the story as we now have it was committed to writing at a period long subsequent to the facts. The history, so it is maintained, is vague; the style of composition, the speeches, etc., remind us of the Books of Machabees. A remarkable knowledge of the Psalter is evinced (cf. vii, 19 and Ps. cv. 6; vii, 21, and Ps. lxxviii, 10, xciii, 2; ix, 6, 9, and Ps. xix, 8; ix, 16, and Ps. cxlvi, 10; xiii, 21, and Ps. cv, 1). Some of these psalms must almost certainly be referred to the period of the Second Temple. Again, the High Priest Joachim must presumably be identified with the father of Eliashib, and must therefore have lived in the time of Artaxerxes the Great (464-424 B.C. Cf. Josephus, "Antiquities", XI, vi-vii). We referred above to a shorter Hebrew version of the book; Dr. Gaster, its discoverer, assigns this manuscript to the tenth or eleventh century A.D. (Proceedings of Soc. of Bibl. Archaeol., XVI, pp. 156 sqq.). It is exceedingly brief, some forty lines, and gives us only the gist of the story. Yet it seems to offer a solution to many of the difficulties suggested above. Thus Holofernes, Bethulia, and Achior, all disappear; there is a very natural explanation of the purification in xii, 7; and, most noticeable of all, the enemy is no longer an Assyrian, but Seleucus, and his attack is on Jerusalem, not on Bethulia. If it could be maintained that we have in this manuscript the story in its original form, and that our canonical book is an amplification of it, we should then be in a position to explain the existence of the numerous divergent versions. The mention of Seleucus brings us down to Machabean times, the title of Judith, now no longer the "widow" but the "virgin", may explain the mysterious city; the Machabean colouring of the story becomes intelligible, and the theme is the efficacy of prayer (cf. vi, 14-21; vii, 4; II Mach., xv, 12-16). CANONICITY The Book of Judith does not exist in the Hebrew Bible, and is consequently excluded from the Protestant Canon of Holy Scripture. But the Church has always maintained its canonicity. St. Jerome, while rejecting in theory those books which he did not find in his Hebrew manuscript, yet consented to translate Judith because "the Synod of Nicaea is said to have accounted it as Sacred Scripture" (Praef. in Lib.). It is true that no such declaration is to be found in the Canons of Nicaea, and it is uncertain whether St. Jerome is referring to the use made of the book in the discussions of the council, or whether he was misled by some spurious canons attributed to that council, but it is certain that the Fathers of the earliest times have reckoned Judith among the canonical books; thus St. Paul seems to quote the Greek text of Judith, viii, 14, in I Cor., ii, 10 (cf. also I Cor., x, 10, with Judith, viii, 25). In the early Christian Church we find it quoted as part of Scripture in the writing of St. Clement of Rome (First Epistle ot the Corinthians, lv), Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian. Consult the various Biblical dictionaries and introductions; also Civilta Cattolica (1887). The best summary of the various view and arguments on the question is in GIGOT, Special Introd., I; cf. also especially SCHURER, The Jewish People in the Time of Christ, div. II, vol. III; VIGOUROUX, La Bible et les Decouvertes Modernes, IV (5th ed.), 275-305; BRUENGO, Il Nabucodonosor di Giuditta (Rome, 1888). HUGH POPE St. Juliana St. Juliana Suffered martyrdom during the Diocletian persecution. Both the Latin and Greek Churches mention a holy martyr Juliana in their lists of saints. The oldest historical notice of her is found in the "Martryologium Hieronymianum" for 16 February, the place of birth being given as Cumae in Campania (In Campania Cumbas, natale Julianae). It is true that the notice is contained only in the one chief manuscript of the above-named martyrology (the Codex Epternacensis), but that this notice is certainly authentic is clear from a letter of St. Gregory the Great, which testifies to the special veneration of St. Juliana in the neighbourhood of Naples. A pious matron named Januaria built a church on one of her estates, for the consecration of which she desired relics (sanctuaria, that is to say, objects which had been brought into contact with the graves) of Sts. Severinus and Juliana. Gregory wrote to Fortunatus, Bishop of Naples, telling him to accede to the wishes of Januaria ("Gregorii Magni epist.", lib. IX, ep. xxxv, in Migne P.L., LXXXVII, 1015). The Acts of St. Juliana used by Bede in his "Martyrologium" are purely legendary. According to the account given in this legend, St. Juliana lived in Nicomedia and was betrothed to the Senator Eleusius. Her father Africanus was a pagan and hostile to the Christians. In the persecution of Maximianus, Juliana was beheaded after suffering frightful torturers. Soon after a noble lady, named Sephonia, came through Nicomedia and took the saint's body with her to Italy, and had it buried in Campania. Evidently it was this alleged translation that caused the martyred Juliana, honoured in Nicomedia, to be identified with St. Juliana of Cumae, although they are quite distinct persons. The veneration of St. Juliana of Cumae became very widespread, especially in the Netherlands. At the beginning of the thirteenth century her remains were transferred to Naples. The description of this translation by a contemporary writer is still extant. The feast of the saint is celebrated in the Latin Church on 16 February, in the Greek on 21 December. Her Acts describe the conflicts which she is said to have with the devil; she is represented in pictures with a winged devil whom she leads by a chain. MOMBRITIUS, Sanctuarium, II, fol. 41 v.-43 v.; Acta SS., FEB., II, 808 sqq.; MIGNE, P.G., CXIV, 1437-52; Bibliotheca hagiogr. lat., I, 670 sq.; Bibl. hagiogr. graeca (2nd. ed.), 134; NILLES, Kalendarium manuale, I (2nd ed., Innsbruck, 1896), 359; MAZOCCHI, In vetus S. Neapolitanae ecclesiae Kalendarum commentarius, I (Naples, 1744), 556-9; COCKAYNE, St. Juliana (London, 1872); Vita di S. Giuliana (Novara, 1889); BACKHAUS, Ueber die Quelle der mittelenglischen Legende der hl. Juliana und ihr Verhaltnis zu Cynewulfs Juliana (Halle, 1899). J.P. KIRSCH St. Juliana Falconieri St. Juliana Falconieri Born in 1270; died 12 June, 1341. Juliana belonged to the noble Florentine family of Falconieri. Her uncle, St. Alexis Falconieri, was one of the seven founders of the Servite Order (q.v.). Through his influence she also consecrated herself from her earliest youth to the religious life and the practices of Christian perfection. After her father's death she received about A.D. 1385 from St. Philip Benitius, then General of the Servites, the habit of the Third Order, of which she became the foundress. Until her mother's death she remained in her parents' house, where she followed the rule given her by St. Philip Benitius, practicing perfect chastity, strict mortification, severe penance, zealous prayer, and works of Christian charity. After her mother's death she and several companions moved into a house of their own in 1305, which thus became the first convent of the Sisters of the Third Order of Servites, Juliana remaining the superior until the end of her life. Their dress consisted of a black gown, secured by a leathern girdle, and a white veil. As the gown had short sleeves to facilitate work, people called the sisters of the new order "Mantellate". They devoted themselves especially to the care of the sick and other works of mercy, and the superioress, through her heroic deeds of charity, set a noble example to all. For thirty-five years Juliana directed the community of Servite Tertiaries. An extraordinary occurrence, mentioned in the oratio of her feast day, took place at her death. Being unable to receive Holy Communion because of constant vomiting, she requested the priest to spread a corporal upon her breast and lay the Host on it. Shortly afterwards the Host disappeared and Juliana expired, and the image of a cross, such as had been on the Host, was found on her breast. Immediately after her death she was honoured as a saint. The Order of Servite Tertiaries was sanctioned by Martin V in 1420. Benedict XIII granted the Servites permission to celebrate the Feast of St. Juliana. Clement XII canonized her in 1737, and extended the celebration of her feast on 19 June to the entire Church. St. Juliana is usually represented in the habit of her order with a Host upon her breast. Acta SS., III, June, 917-25; BERNARDUS, Vita della beata Giuliana Faconieri (Florence, 1681); LORENZINI, Vita di S. Giuliana Falconieri (Rome, 1738); Legenda di S. Giuliana Falconieri, con note di Agost. Morini (Florence, 1864); BATTINI, Compendio della vita di S. Giuliana Falconieri (Bologna, 1866); SOULIER, Life of St. Juliana Falconieri (London, 1898); LÉPICIER, Ste. Julienne Falconieri fondatrice des Mantelées (Brussels, 1907). J.P. KIRSCH Saints Julian and Basilissa Sts. Julian and Basilissa Husband and wife; died at Antioch or, more probably, at Antinoe, in the reign of Diocletian, early in the fourth century, on 9 January, according to the Roman Martyrology, or 8 January, according to the Greek Menaea. We have no historically certain data relating to these two holy personages, and more than one this Julian of Antinoe has been confounded with Julian of Cilicia. The confusion is easily explained by the fact that thirty-nine saints of this name are mentioned in the Roman Martyrology, eight of whom are commemorated in the one month of January. But little is known of this saint, one we put aside the exaggerations of his Acts. Forced by his family to marry, he agreed with his spouse, Basilissa, that they should both preserve their virginity, and further encouraged her to found a convent for women, of which she became the superior. while he himself gathered a large number of monks and undertook their direction. Basilissa died a very holy death, but martyrdom was reserved for Julian. During the persecution of Diocletian he was arrested, tortured, and put to death at Antioch, in Syria, by the order of the governor, Martian, according to the Latins, at Antinoe, in Egypt, according to the Greeks, which seems more probable. Unfortunately, the Acts of this martyr belong to those pious romances so much appreciated in early times, whose authors, unearned only for the edification of their readers, drowned the few known facts in a mass of imaginary details. Like many similar lives of saints, it offers miracles, prodigies, and improbable utterances, that lack the least historical value. In any ease these two saints must have enjoyed a great reputation in antiquity, and their veneration was well established before the eighth century. In the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" they are mentioned under 6 January; Usuard, Ado, Notker, and others place them under the ninth, and Rabanus Maurus under the thirteenth of the same month, while Vandelbert puts them under 13 February, and the Menology of Canisius under 21 June, the day to which the Greek Menaea assign St. Julian of Caesarea. There used to exist at Constantinople a church under the invocation of these saints, the dedication of which is inscribed in the Greek Calendar under 5 July. Acta SS. Bolland. Jan.. I (1643), 570-75; MARCHINI, I SS. Giuliano e Basilissa sposi, vergini e martiri, protettori dei conjugati (Genoa, 1873); TILLEMONT, Memoires pour servir a l'hist. eccl. V (Paris, 1698), 799 sqq.; SURIUS, Vit. Sanct., I (Venice 1581), 61-62. LEON CLUGNET St. Juliana of Liege St. Juliana of Liège Nun, b. at Retinnes, near Liège, Belgium, 1193; d. at Fosses, 5 April, 1258. At the age of five she lost her parents and was placed in the convent of Mont-Cornillon, near Liège. She made rapid progress, and read with pleasure the writings of St. Augustine and St. Bernard. She also cultivated an ardent love of the Blessed Virgin, the Sacred Passion, and especially the Blessed Sacrament. In 1206 she received the veil, and devoted herself to the sick in the hospital in charge of the convent. She very early exerted every energy to introduce the feast of Corpus Christi. In 1230 she was chosen superioress by the unanimous vote of the community. But soon God sent heavy trials. Her convent was under the supervision of a general superior, Roger, a man of vicious and scandalous habits; he secured this position in 1233 by intrigues and bribery. Disliking the virtues and piety of Juliana, and much more her entreaties and reproaches, he incited the populace against her. She fled to the cell of St. Eve of Liège, and then to a house given her by John, a canon of Lausanne. Vindicated in the courts through the influence of Robert de Thorate, Bishop of Liège, she was restored to her position in the community, and Roger was deposed. But in 1247 Roger was again in power, and succeeded once more in driving out the saint. Juliana found refuge at Namur and then at Fosses, where she passed the last years of her life in seclusion. At her own request she was buried at Villiers. After her death a number of miracles occurred at her intercession (Acta SS., April, I, 435 sq.). In 1869 Pius IX ratified her veneration and permitted the office and Mass in her honour. Her feast is on 6 April. Messenger of the Sacred Heart (1898), 221; Irish Eccl. Record (1893), 1010; MONCHAMP, Les réliques de Ste-Julienne de Cornillon (Liège, 1898); SCHöRMANS in Ann. soc. archéol. Nivelles, VII (Nivelles, 1899), 1-68; CHEVALIER, Bio-Bibl. FRANCIS MERSHMAN Juliana of Norwich Juliana of Norwich English mystic of the fourteenth century, author or recipient of the vision contained in the book known as the "Sixteen Revelations of Divine Love". The original form of her name appears to have been Julian. She was probably a Benedictine nun, living as a recluse in an anchorage of which traces still remain in the east part of the churchyard of St. Julian in Norwich, which belonged to Carrow Priory. According to her book, this revelation was "shewed" to her on 8 or 14 May (the readings differ), 1373, when she was thirty years and a half old. This would refer her birth to the end of 1342. Her statement, that "for twenty years after the time of this shewing, save three months, I had teaching inwardly", proves that the book was not written before 1393. An early fifteenth-century manuscript, recently purchased for the British Museum from the Amherst library, states that she "yet is on life, Anno Domini 1413". It is probable that this is the manuscript cited by Francis Blomefield, the eigtheenth-century historian of Norfolk, and that a misreading of the date led to the statement that she was still living in 1442. Attempts have been made to identify her with Lady Julian Lampet, the anchoress of Carrow, references concerning legacies to whom occur in documents from 1426 to 1478; but this is manifestly impossible. The newly-discovered manuscript differs considerably from the complete version hitherto known, of which it is a kind of condensation, lacking the beginning and the end. Only three, much later, manuscripts of the fuller text are known to exist. The earliest, in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris (from which the book was first edited by Serenus de Cressy in 1670), dates from the sixteenth century; the other two, both in the British Museum and not independent of each other, belong to the seventeenth. The better of the latter is evidently a copy of a much earlier original. Whatever be their precise date, these "Revelations", or "Shewings", are the most perfect fruit of later medieval mysticism in England. Juliana described herself as a "simple creature unlettered" when she received them; but, in the years that intervened between the vision and the composition of the book, she evidently acquired some knowledge of theological phraseology, and her work appears to show the influence of Walter Hilton, as well as neo-Platonic analogies, the latter probably derived from the anonymous author of the "Divine Cloud of Unknowing". There is one passage, concerning the place in Christ's side for all mankind that shall be saved, which argues an acquaintance with the letters of St. Catherine of Siena. The psychological insight with which she describes her condition, distinguishing the manner of her vision and recognizing when she has to deal with a mere delusion, is worthy of St. Teresa. When seemingly at the point of death, in the bodily sickness for which she had prayed in order to renew her spiritual life, she passes into a trance while contemplating the crucifix, and has the vision of Christ's suffering "in which all the shewings that follow be grounded and joined". The book is the record of twenty years' meditation upon that one experience; for, "when the shewing, which is given for a time, is passed and hid, then faith keepeth it by grace of the Holy Ghost unto our lives end". More than fifteen years later, she received "in ghostly understanding" the explanation, the key to all religious experience: "What? wouldest thou wit thy Lord's meaning in this thing? Wit it well: Love was His meaning. Who sheweth it thee? Love. Wherefore sheweth He it thee? For love. Hold thee therein, thou shalt wit more in the same. But thou shalt never wit therein other without end." With this illumination, the whole mystery of Redemption and the purpose of human life become clear to her, and even the possibility of sin and the existence of evil does not trouble her, but is made "a bliss by love". This is the great deed, transcending our reason, that the Blessed Trinity shall do at the last day: "Thou shalt see thyself that all manner of thing shall be well." Like St. Catherine, Juliana has little of the dualism of body and soul that is frequent in the mystics. God is in our "sensuality" as well as in our "substance", and the body and the soul render mutual aid: "Either of them take help of other till we be brought up into stature, as kind worketh." Knowledge of God and knowledge of self are inseparable: we may never come to the knowing of one without the knowing of the other. "God is more nearer to us than our own soul", and "in falling and rising we are ever preciously kept in one love." She lays special stress upon the "homeliness" and "courtesy" of God's dealings with us, "for love maketh might and wisdom full meek to us." With this we must correspond by a happy confidence; "failing of comfort" is the "most mischief" into which the soul can fall. In the Blessed Virgin the Lord would have all mankind see how they are loved. Throughout her revelation Juliana submits herself to the authority of the Church: "I yield me to our mother Holy Church, as a simple child oweth." EDMUND G. GARDNER Julian of Eclanum Julian of Eclanum Born about 386; died in Sicily, 454; the most learned among the leaders of the Pelagian movement and Bishop of Eclanum near Beneventum. He was the son of Memorius, a bishop in Apulia, and his ecclesiastical career began in hls father's church, where he was ordained lector and subsequently deacon. About 417 he was raised to episcopal rank by Innocent I, and placed in charge of a see variously styled Eclana, Eclanum, Eculanum, Æclanum or Æculanum. There is no means of deciding how Julianus, who enjoyed an enviable reputation for learning, zeal, and sanctity, was led to ally himself with the Pelagian party. When Pope Zosimus issued, in 418, his "Epistola Tractatoria", Julianus was one of the eighteen Italian bishops who refused to subscribe to the condemnation of Pelagius which it contained. In consequence of this refusal he was exiled under the decree of the Emperor Honorius, which pronounced banishment against Pelagius and his sympathizers. Driven from Italy in 421, he commenced an active literary campaign in the interests of the new heresy and by his writings soon won for himself the position of intellectual leader of the heretical party. To him is due the credit of having systematized the teachings of Pelagius and Coelestius. His writings, which were frankly Pelagian, were largely directed against the doctrines which St. Augustine had defended, and for several years after the expulsion of the Pelagians the history of the conflict is merely an account of the controversy between Julian and Augustine. Most of Julian's works are lost, and are known only through the copious quotations found in the works of his great adversary. Principal among them are the letter to Rufus, Bishop of Thessalonica, and the epistle to the Roman clergy, which Augustine, at the request of Pope Boniface, refuted in his work "Against Two Letters of the Pelagians"; the reply to Augustine's work "De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia"; and his answer to Augustine's defense of his own work. Driven from Italy, he found refuge for a time with Theodore of Mopsuestia, who, though sympathetic, subsequently subscribed to his condemnation. At the accession of each pontiff Julian sought to have the Pelagian controversy re-opened, but this merely resulted in further condemnations by Celestine, Sixtus III, and Leo I. For a time he enjoyed the patronage and friendship of Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the protection of the Emperor Theodosius II. But Marius Mercator, by his "Commonitorium de Coelestio", opened the eyes of the emperor to the true character of Pelagianism. By reason of this Julian was expelled from Constantinople. His subsequent career, with the exception of his attempts to conciliate the popes, is not known. Julian was the most learned among the Pelagians, and, though superior to Pelagius and Coelestius, his system did not differ materially from theirs. BARDENEHEWER, Patrology, tr. SHAHAN (St. Louis, 1908); DAVIDS in Dict. Christ. Biog., s. v. Julianus of Eclana; WORTER, Der Pelagianismus nach seinem Ursprunge und seiner Lehre (Freiburg im Br., 1866; 2nd ed., 1874); KLASEN, Die innere Entwicklung des Pelagianismus (Freiburg im Br., 1882); HEFELE, Conciliengeschichte, II, 104 sq.; BRUCKNER, Julian von Eclanum, sein Leben und seine Lehre in Texte und Untersuchungen, XV (Leipzig, 1897), iii. PATRICK J. HEALY Julian of Speyer Julian of Speyer Often called Julianus Teutonicus. A famous composer, poet, and historian of the thirteenth century, b. at Speyer, d. at Paris about 1250 (not in 1285, as is so often stated). He studied at the celebrated University of Paris, and was the musical director at the royal chapel during the reigns of Philip Augustus (1179-1223) and Louis VIII (1223-6) of France. When he resigned to become a member of the newly founded Order of St. Francis is not known. But it is certain that Julian accompanied Brother Simon Angelicus to his native land when the latter was made Provincial of Germany by the General Chapter of Assisi in 1227. It is probable that he was present at the translation of St. Francis at Assisi in May, 1230. Subsequently he again lived in Paris at the great convent of the Minorites, where he was choir-master as well as corrector mensae (in which capacity he superintended the reading in the refectory). He is renowned as a scholar, artist, and a saintly religious. Although, in the Middle Ages, Julian of Speyer was held in high repute as the composer and writer of rhymed offices, he was almost forgotten until the last decade. It is certain that he composed the rhymed Office (technically termed historia in the Middle Ages) of St. Francis of Assisi (written between 23 February, 1229, and 4 October 1235), as well as that of St. Anthony of Padua who was canonized on 30 May, 1232 (composed probably shortly after 1241). Both these musical, as well as poetical, masterpieces are still used by the Minorites. The acme of liturgical narrative poems, these works are equally distinguished for the harmony, rhythm, and rhyme of the verses, and for their sublime expressiveness as musical compositions. Of their kind they are unequaled. Only a few sentences in the third nocturn (the antiphons) were written by Pope Gregory IX and the cardinals; the remainder is all Julian's composition. Even outside the Franciscan Order the rhythmic structure has been often copied, whole verses being frequently taken (especially from the "Historia rhythmica" of St. Francis), and these plagiarisms set to Julian's melodies without any alteration. It is not known how much of the poetical narrative of St. Dominic (d. 1221), used on his feast by both Franciscans and Dominicans, belongs to Julian of Speyer. Some portions at least of the Mass formula of Sts. Francis and Anthony are undoubtedly the musical and poetical composition of Julian. Only in the last decade was Julian recognized as the author of the "Legenda S. Francisci"--partly published in the "Acta SS.", October, II, 548 sqq., and published in full in "Analecta Bollandiana", XXI (1902), 160-202--and of the "Vita ab auctore anonymo" of St Anthony of Padua, printed in the "Acta SS.", June; II, 705 sqq. D'ARAULES in Revue Franciscaine, XXIX (Bordeaux, 1899), 214 sqq., IDEM in Voix de St-Antoine (Paris, 1899), 167 sqq.; IDEM, La Vie d e St-Antoine de Padoue par Jean Rigauld, O. F. M (Bordeaux and Brive, 1899); WEIS, Julian von Speier (d. 1285). Forschungen zur Franziscus- und Antoniuskritik, etc. (Munich; 1900); IDEM, Die Chorale Julians von Speier zu den Reimoffizien des Franciskus- und Antoniusfestes (Munich, 1901); D'ALENCON, De Legenda S. Francisci a Fr. Juliano de Spira conscripta (Rome, 1900); Anal. Bolland., XIX (Brussels, 1900), 321 40; XXI (1902), 148 202; FELDER, S. Francisci Ass. et S. Antonii Pat. Offlcia rhythmica. Die liturgischen Reimoffizien, auf die hhl. Franciscus und Antonius, gedichtet und componirt durch Fr. Julian von Speier (d. c. 1250) (Freiburg, 1901); OLIGER in the Archiv. Francisc. Hist., I (Quaracchi, 1908), 45-9. MICHAEL BIHL Julian the Apostate Julian the Apostate (FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS JULIANUS). Roman emperor 361-63, b. at Constantinople in 331, d. 26 June, 363, son of Julius Constantius, the half-brother of Constantine the Great. With his stepbrother Gallus, who was some years older, he escaped the massacre of his kinsfolk at Constantinople after the death of Constantine the Great, and was brought up by the eunuch Mardonius and the philosopher Nicocles--the latter secretly a pagan. The suspicious Emperor Constantius sent Julian later to the castle of Macellum in Cappadocia. Julian received a Christian training, but the recollection of the murder of his relatives sowed in him a bitter resentment against the authors of that massacre, and he extended this hatred to the Christians in general. When Constantius became involved in war in the West with the usurper Magnentius, he named Gallus his colleague, with the title of Caesar. Julian was allowed to study at Constantinople, but his intellectual character aroused attention and caused Constantius to send him in 350 to Nicomedia. Here Julian devoted himself exclusively to neo-Platonic philosophy, mixed with all kinds of magic and mysteries. The neo-Platonist, Maximus of Ephesus, dazzled him by his fantastic teachings and prophesied his destined task, the restoration of paganism. When, at the close of 354, Constantius recalled Gallus Caesar to Italy, and had him beheaded for his manifold cruelties, Julian was taken a state prisoner to Milan, but, gaining the sympathy of the Empress Eusebia, secured permission to visit in 355 the schools of Athens, where Greek philosophy and rhetoric were enjoying their last period of prosperity. Julian now went over completely to the so-called Hellenism, and was initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries. Julian was presented on 6 November, 355, to the army as Caesar, married the emperor's youngest sister Helena, and then sent to Gaul. Here he at once displayed great ability, both as soldier and administrator. He boldly advanced from his headquarters at Vienne to Reims, and thence made a sally into the territory of the Alamanni on the Upper Rhine, occupying and garrisoning Cologne, which a year before had been taken and sacked by the Franks. The following year, although not supported by the troops of Constantius, he completely routed over 30,000 Alamanni near Strasburg. He then returned by way of Mainz, Cologne, and Julich to Reims and Lutetia (Paris). In a later expedition he opened the Rhine again for the passage of ships: in 359 he even made his way into the heart of the territory of the Alamanni (the present Wurtemberg). Julian also displayed an unwearied activity in promoting just taxation and administration of the laws. In the meantime war had again broken out with Persia, King Shâpûr demanding the cession of Mesopotamia and Armenia. Long jealous of Julian, the emperor now ordered the latter to send a part of his most experienced German auxiliaries, although these troops had been enlisted for the Gallic war only. Against the advice of Julian the imperial commissioner Decentius in the winter of 360 started with the picked troops by way of Paris and stopped here to rest: a mutiny now broke out, the troops appeared before Julian's residence, and enthusiastically proclaimed him Augustus. To avoid a civil war, Julian sought to come to an agreement with Constantius whom he was ready to acknowledge as supreme emperor. Constantius. however, demanded the unconditional surrender of the title of Caesar and of his position as governor of Gaul. Neither the army nor the people would consent to this, and Julian advanced in the spring to Illyricum, taking possession of the capital, Sirmium. Shapur having disbanded his great Persian army, Constantius now planned to turn his entire fighting strength against his rebellious cousin Julian. While on the march, however, Constantius died, 3 November, 361. Julian advanced in triumph to Constantinople. Hitherto outwardly a Christian, he now let himself be portrayed as under the protection of Zeus, who in his opinion possessed with Helius the same undivided creative power. He commanded all towns to reopen the temples for pagan worship, restored animal sacrifices, and assumed the duties of a Pontifex Maximus. The Christians were united in fighting their enemy. Julian issued a decree that all titles to lands, rights and immunities bestowed since the reign of Constantine upon the Galileans, as he contemptuously called the Christians, were abrogated, and that the moneys granted to the Church from the revenues of the State must be repaid. He forbade the appointment of Christians as teachers of rhetoric and grammar. Still, he copied the organization of the Christian Church; he created, for example, a form of hierarchy, the head of which was the imperial Pontifex Maximus, and urged pagans to imitate such Christian virtues as charity and mercy. Yet Julian's changes failed to bring him any appreciable success. His attempt to defy the Gospel and rebuild the temple at Jerusalen was brought to nothing by fire and earthquake. In May, 362, Julian left Constantinople for Asia and made active preparations at Antioch for a great war with Persia. While at Antioch in the winter of 362-63, he wrote his books against the Christians. In March, 363, he advanced from Antioch into Mesopotamia, successfully crossed the Tigris, and fought a successful battle with the Persians. Burning his supply fleet, he now marched into the interior of Persia, but soon found himself obliged by lack of provisions to begin a retreat, during which he was beset by the Persian cavalry. On 26 June, 363, he was wounded in the side by an arrow in a small cavalry skirmish, and died during the night. Various reports concerning the circumstances of his death have come down to us. Both Christians and pagans believed the rumor that he cried out when dying: Nenikekas Galilaie (Thou hast conquered, O Galilean). With Julian the dynasty of Constantine came to an end. He was rather a philosophical littérateur of a somewhat visionary character, than a great ruler whose actions were the dictates of strong will and principles. The good beginnings of a just government which he showed in Gaul were not maintained when he was sole ruler. Although his personal life was unostentatious, he was passionate, arbitrary, vain, and prejudiced, blindly submissive to the rhetoricians and magicians. Some of Julian's many controversial writings, orations, and letters have been preserved, showing his discordant, subjective character. TALBOT, (Euvres de Julien (Paris, 1863); HERTLEIN, Juliani imperatoris quae supersunt praeter reliquias apud Cyrillum omnia (Leipzig, 1875); NEUMANN, Juliani imperatoris librorum contra Christianos quae supersunt (1880); IDEM, Kaiser Julians Bucher gegen die Christen (1880); IDEM, Kaiser Julians Abfall vom Christentum (1884); WIEGAND, Die Alamannenschlacht bei Strassburg 357; KOCH, Kaiser Julian in Jahrb. fur klassische Philologie, suppl. vol. XXV (1899); ALLARD, Julien l'Apostat (3 vols., Paris, 1900-2); MAU, Ueber die Religionsphilosophie Kaiser Julians in seinen Reden auf Konig Helios und die Gottermutter (Leipzig and Berlin, 1908); ASMUS, Kaiser Julians philosophische Werke (Leipzig, 1908). KARL HOEBER Saint Julie Billiart St. Julie Billiart ( Also Julia). Foundress, and first superior-general of the Congregation of the Sisters of Notre Dame of Namur, born 12 July, 1751, at Cuvilly, a village of Picardy, in the Diocese of Beauvais and the Department of Oise, France; died 8 April, 1816, at the motherhouse of her institute, Namur, Belgium. She was the sixth of seven children of Jean-François Billiart and his wife, Marie-Louise-Antoinette Debraine. The childhood of Julie was remarkable; at the age of seven, she knew the catechism by heart, and used to gather her little companions around her to hear them recite it and to explain it to them. Her education was confined to the rudiments obtained at the village school which was kept by her uncle, Thibault Guilbert. In spiritual things her progress was so rapid that the parish priest, M. Dangicourt, allowed her to make her First Communion and to be confirmed at the age of nine years. At this time she made a vow of chastity. Misfortunes overtook the Billiart family when Julie was sixteen, and she gave herself generously to the aid of her parents, working in the fields with the reapers. She was held in such high esteem for her virtue and piety as to be commonly called, "the saint of Cuvilly". When twenty-two years old, a nervous shock, occasioned by a pistol-shot fired at her father by some unknown enemy, brought on a paralysis of the lower limbs, which in a few years confined her to her bed a helpless cripple, and thus she remained for twenty-two years. During this time, when she received Holy Communion daily, Julie exercised an uncommon gift of prayer, spending four or five hours a day in contemplation. The rest of her time was occupied in making linens and laces for the alter and in catechizing the village children whom she gathered around her bed, giving special attention to those who were preparing for their First Communion. At Amiens, where Julie Billiart had been compelled to take refuge with Countess Baudoin during the troublesome times of the French Revolution, she met Françoise Blin de Bourdon, Viscountess of Gizaincourt, who was destined to be her co-laborer in the great work as yet unknown to either of them. The Viscountess Blin de Bourdon was thirty-eight years old at the time of her meeting with Julie, and had spent her youth in piety and good works; she had been imprisoned with all of her family during the Reign of Terror, and had escaped death only by the fall of Robespierre. She was not at first attracted by the almost speechless paralytic, but by degrees grew to love and admire the invalid for her wonderful gifts of soul. A little company of young and high-born ladies, friends of the viscountess, was formed around the couch of "the saint". Julie taught them how to lead the interior life, while they devoted themselves generously to the cause of God and His poor. Though they attempted all the exercises of an active community life, some of the elements of stability must have been wanting, for these first disciples dropped off until none was left but Françoise Blin de Bourdon. She was never to be separated from Julie, and with her in 1803, in obedience to Father Varin, superior of the Fathers of the Faith, and under the auspices of the Bishop of Amiens, the foundation was laid of the Institute of the Sisters of Notre Dame, a society which had for its primary object the salvation of poor children. Several young persons offered themselves to assist the two superiors. The first pupils were eight orphans. On the feast of the Sacred Heart, 1 June, 1804, Mother Julie, after a novena made in obedience to her confessor, was cured of paralysis. The first vows of religion were made on 15 October, 1804 by Julie Billiart, Françoise Blin de Bourdon, Victoire Leleu, and Justine Garson, and their family names were changed to names of saints. They proposed for their lifework the Christian education of girls, and the training of religious teachers who should go wherever their services were asked for. Father Varin gave the community a provisional rule by way of probation, which was so far-sighted that its essentials have never been changed. In view of the extension of the institute, he would have it governed by a superior-general, charged with visiting the houses, nominating the local superiors, corresponding with the members dispersed in the different convents, and assigning the revenues of the society. The characteristic devotions of the Sisters of Notre Dame were established by the foundress from the beginning. She was original in doing away with the time-honored distinction between choir sisters and lay sisters, but this perfect equality of rank did not in any way prevent her from putting each sister to the work for which her capacity and education fitted her. She attached great importance to the formation of the sisters destined for the schools, and in this she was ably assisted by Mother St. Joseph (Françoise Blin de Bourdon), who had herself received an excellent education. When the congregation of the Sisters of Notre Dame was approved by an imperial decree dated 19 June, 1806, it numbered thirty members, In that and the following years, foundations were made in various towns of France and Belgium, the most important being those at Ghent and Namur, of which the latter house Mother St. Joseph was the first superior. This spread of the institute beyond the Diocese of Amiens cost the foundress the greatest sorrow of her life. In the absence of Father Varin from that city, the confessor of the community, the Abbé de Sambucy de St. Estève, a man of superior intelligence and attainments but enterprising and injudicious, endeavored to change the rule and fundamental constitutions of the new congregation so as to bring it into harmony with the ancient monastic orders. He so far influenced the bishop. Mgr. Demandolx, that Mother Julie had soon no alternative but to leave the Diocese of Amiens, relying upon the goodwill of Mgr. Pisani de la Gaude, bishop of Namur, who had invited her to make his episcopal city the center of her congregation, should a change become necessary. In leaving Amiens, Mother Julie laid the case before all her subjects and told them they were perfectly free to remain or to follow her. All but two chose to go with her, and thus, in the mid-winter of 1809, the convent of Namur became the motherhouse of the institute and is so still. Mgr. Demandolx, soon undeceived, made all the amends in his power, entreating Mother Julie to return to Amiens and rebuild her institute. She did indeed return, but after a vain struggle to find subjects or revenues, went back to Namur. The seven years of life that remained to her were spent in forming her daughters to solid piety and the interior spirit, of which she was herself the model. Mgr. De Broglie, bishop of Ghent, said of her that she saved more souls by her inner life of union with God than by her outward apostolate. She received special supernatural favors and unlooked-for aid in peril and need. In the space of twelve years (1804 - 1816) Mother Julie founded fifteen convents, made one hundred and twenty journeys, many of them long and toilsome, and carried on a close correspondence with her spiritual daughters. Hundreds of these letters are preserved in the motherhouse. In 1815 Belgium was the battlefield of the Napoleonic wars, and the mother-general suffered great anxiety, as several of her convents were in the path of the armies, but they escaped injury. In January, 1816, she was taken ill, and after three months of pain borne in silence and patience, she died with the Magnificat on her lips. The fame of her sanctity spread abroad and was confirmed by several miracles. The process of her beatification, begun in 1881, was completed in 1906 by the decree of Pope Pius X dated 13 May, declaring her Blessed. [ Note: She was canonized in 1969 by Pope Paul VI.] St. Julie's predominating trait in the spiritual order was her ardent charity, springing from a lively faith and manifesting itself in her thirst for suffering and her zeal for souls. Her whole soul was echoed in the simple and naove formula which was continually on her lips and pen: "Oh, qu'il est bon, le bon Dieu" (How good God is). She possessed all the qualities of a perfect superior, and inspired her subjects with filial confidence and tender affection. SISTER OF NOTRE DAME Juliopolis Juliopolis Titular see in the province of Bithynia Secunda, suffragan of Nicaea. The city was founded under the Emperor Augustus by a robber chieftain named Cleon, who was a native of the region; previously it had been called Gordoucome (Strabo, XII, viii, 9; Pliny, "Hist. Natur.," V, xl, 3). The location of the city is unknown, none of its titulars being known, neither does it figure in any "Notitiae episcopatuum," unless it may be considered identical with Gordoserboi, as Le Quien thinks (Oriens Christ., I, 659). This Juliopolis must not be confounded with another town of the same name situated in Galatia Prima, and which under the name of Gordion was formerly the capital of Phrygia. It was there, in the temple of Zeus, that Alexander cut the famous Gordian knot. Under its own name, or that of Basilaion, Juliopolis of Galatia is noticed in all the "Notitiae episcopatuum," and Le Quien (op.cit., I, 475-78) gives the names of a number of its bishops. Its ruins are about six miles S.S.E. of Nali-Khan, and about three miles north of the Sangarius, in the plain of Aimanghir and the vilayet of Angora. SMITH, Dict. Greek and Rom. Geog., s.v. Gordium; RAMSAY, Historical Geography of Asia Minor (London, 1890), 244; PARTHEY, Hieroclis Synecdemus (Berlin, 1866), I, 141; III, 72; VII, 128; VIII, 152; IX, 59; X, 201; XIII, 61; PERROT, La Galatie de la Bithynie (Paris, 1872), 152-156, 219; PTOLEMY, ed. MUELLER, II, 805, 820. S. VAILHÉ Pope Saint Julius I Pope St. Julius I (337-352). The immediate successor of Pope Silvester, Arcus, ruled the Roman Church for only a very short period -- from 18 January to 7 October, 336 -- and after his death the papal chair remained vacant for four months. What occasioned this comparatively long vacancy is unknown. On 6 Feb., 337, Julius, son of Rustics and a native of Rome, was elected pope. His pontificate is chiefly celebrated for his judicious and firm intervention in the Arian controversies, about which we have abundant sources of information. After the death of Constantine the Great (22 May, 337), his son Constantine II, Governor of Gaul, permitted the exiled Athanasius to return to his See of Alexandria (see ATHANASIUS). The Arians in Egypt, however, set up a rival bishop in the person of Pistus, and sent an embassy to Julius asking him to admit Pistus into communion with Rome, and delivering to the pope the decisions of the Council of Tyre (335) to prove that Athanasius had been validly deposed. On his side Athanasius likewise sent envoys to Rome to deliver to Julius a synodal letter of the Egyptian bishops, containing a complete justification of their patriarch. On the arrival of the Athanasian envoys in Rome, Macarius, the head of the Arian representatives, left the city; the two remaining Arian envoys, with the Athanasian deputies, were summoned by Pope Julius. The Arian envoys now begged the pope to assemble a great synod before which both parties should present their case for decision. Julius convened the synod at Rome, having dispatched two envoys to bear a letter of invitation to the Eastern bishops. Under the leadership of Eusebius, who had been raised from Nicomedia to the See of Constantinople, the Arian bishops had meanwhile held a council at Antioch, and elected George of Cappadocia Bishop of Alexandria in the place of Pistus. George was intruded forcibly into his see, and Athanasius, being again exiled, made his way to Rome. Many other Eastern bishops removed by the Arian party, among them Marcellus of Ancyra, also came to Rome. In a letter couched in haughty terms, however, the Arian bishops of the party of Eusebius refused to attend the synod summoned by Julius. The synod was held in the autumn of 340 or 341, under the presidency of the pope, in the titular church of the presbyter Vitus. After a detailed examination of the documents, Athanasius and Marcellus of Ancyra, who had made a satisfactory profession of faith, were exonerated and re-established in their episcopal rights. Pope Julius communicated this decision in a very notable and able letter to the bishops of the Eusebian party. In this letter he justifies his proceedings in the case, defends in detail his action in reinstating Athanasius, and animadverts strongly on the non-appearance of the Eastern bishops at the council, the convening of which they themselves had suggested. Even if Athanasius and his companions were somewhat to blame, the letter runs, the Alexandrian Church should first have written to the pope. "Can you be ignorant," writes the pope, "that this is the custom, that we should be written to first, so that from here what is just may be defined" (Julii ep. ad Antiochenos, c. xxii). After his victory over his brother Constantine II, Emperor Constans was ruler over the greater part of the Empire. He was entirely orthodox in his views, and, at the request of the pope and other Western bishops, interceded with his brother Constantius, Emperor of the East, in favour of the bishops who had been deposed and persecuted by the Arian party. Both rulers agreed that there should be convened a general council of the Western and Eastern bishops at Sardica, the principal city of the Province of Dacia Mediterranea (the modern Sofia). It took place in the autumn of 342 or 343, Julius sending as his representatives the priests Archidamus and Philoxenus and the deacon Leo. Although the Eastern bishops of the Arian party did not join in the council, but held their assembly separate and then departed, the synod nevertheless accomplished its task. Through the important canons iii, iv, and v (vii in the Latin text) of this council, the procedure against accused bishops was more exactly regulated, and the manner of the papal intervention in the condemnation of bishops was definitely established. At the close of its transactions the synod communicated its decisions to the pope in a dutiful letter. Notwithstanding the reaffirmation of his innocence by the Synod of Sardica, St. Athanasius was not restored to his see by Emperor Constantius until after the death of George, the rival Bishop of Alexandria, in 346. Pope Julius took this occasion to write a letter, which is still extant, to the priests, deacons, and the faithful of Alexandria, to congratulate them on the return of their great pastor. The two bishops Ursacius of Singidunum and Valens of Mursia, who, on account of their Arianism, had been deposed by the Council of Sardica, now made a formal recantation of their error to Julius, who, having summoned them to an audience and received a signed confession of faith, restored to them their episcopal sees. Concerning the inner life of the Roman Church during the pontificate of Julius we have no exact information; all agree, however, that there was a rapid increase in the number of the faithful in Rome, where Julius had two new basilicas erected: the titular church of Julius (now S. Maria in Trastevere) and the Basilica Julia (now the Church of the Twelve Apostles). Beside these he built three churches over cemeteries outside the walls of Rome: one on the road to Porto, a second on the Via Aurelia, and a third on the Via Flaminia at the tomb of the martyr St. Valentine. The ruins of the last-mentioned have been discovered. The veneration of the faithful for the tombs of the martyrs continued to spread rapidly. Under the pontificate of Julius, if not earlier, catalogues of feast-days of saints came into use -- the Roman feast-calendar of Philocalus dates from the year 336. Through St. Athanasius, who remained in Rome several years subsequent to 339, the Egyptian monastic life became well-known in the capital, and the example of the hermits of the Egyptian deserts found many imitators in the Roman Church. Julius died on 12 April, 352, and was buried in the catacombs of Calepodius on the Aurelian Way, and, very soon after his death, was honoured as a saint. His body was later transported to S. Maria in Trastevere, the church which he had built. His feast is celebrated on 12 April. Liber Pontif., ed. DUCHESNE, I, 205: P.L., VIII, 858 sqq.; JAFFE, Regesta Rom. Pont., I (2nd ed.), 30 sqq.: RIVINGTON, The primitive church and the see of St. Peter, 173 sqq., 407 sqq.; DUCHESNE, Hist. ancienne de l'Eglise, II (Paris, 1907), 197 sqq.; GRISAR, Gesch. Roms und der Paepste, I, 150 sqq., 253 sqq.: LANGEN, Gesch. der roemischen Kirche, I, 424-59; HEFELE, Konziliengesch., I (2nd ed.), 499 sqq., 553 sqq.; FUNCK, Die Echtheit der Kanones von Sardika in Kirchengesch. Abhandl. u. Untersuch., III (Paderborn, 1907), 159-217. J.P. KIRSCH Pope Julius II Pope Julius II (GIULIANO DELLA ROVERE). Born on 5 December, 1443, at Albissola near Savona; crowned on 28 November, 1503; died at Rome, in the night of 20-21 February, 1513. He was born of a probably noble but impoverished family, his father being Raffaelo della Rovere and his mother Theodora Manerola, a lady of Greek extraction. He followed his uncle Francesco della Rovere into the Franciscan Order, and was educated under his tutelage at Perugia. With the elevation of his uncle to the papacy as Sixtus IV on 9 August, 1471, begins the public career of Giuliano. On 15 December, 1471, he was created Cardinal Priest of San Pietro in Vincoli, and thereafter literally overwhelmed with benefices, although during the lifetime of Sixtus IV he never took a prominent part in ecclesiastical diplomacy. He held the episcopal sees of Carpentras (1471-2), Lausanne (1472-6), Catania (1473-4), Coutances (1476-7), Mende (1478-83), Viviers (1477-9), Sabina (1479-83), Bologna (1483-1502), Ostia (1483-1503), Lodève (1488-9), Savona (1499-1502), Vercelli (1502-3), and the Archiepiscopal See of Avignon (1474-1503). In addition he was commendatory Abbot of Nonantola, Grottaferrata, and Gorze, and drew the revenues of various other ecclesiastical benefices. These large incomes, however, he did not spend in vain pomp and dissipation, as was the custom of many ecclesiastics of those times. Giuliano was a patron of the fine arts, and spent most of his superfluous money in the erection of magnificent palaces and fortresses. Still his early private life was far from stainless, as is sufficiently testified by the fact that before he became pope he was the father of three daughters, the best known of whom, Felice, he gave in marriage to Giovanni Giordano Orsini in 1506. In June, 1474, Giuliano was sent at the head of an army to restore the papal authority in Umbria. He succeeded in reducing Todi and Spoleto, but for the subjugation of Citth di Castello he needed the assistance of Duke Federigo of Urbino. In February, 1476, he was sent as legate to France to regulate the affairs of his Archdiocese of Avignon, and probably to oppose the council which Louis XI intended to convene at Lyons. In 1480 he was sent as legate to the Netherlands and France to accomplish three things, viz. to settle the quarrel concerning the Burgundian inheritance between Louis XI and Maximilian of Austria, to obtain the help of France against the Turks, and to effect the liberation of Cardinal Balue whom Louis XI had held in strict custody since 1469 on account of treasonable acts. After successfully completing his mission he returned to Rome in the beginning of 1482, accompanied by the liberated Cardinal Balue. At that time a war was just breaking out between the pope and Venice on one side and Ferrara on the other. Giuliano made various attempts to restore peace, and was probably instrumental in the dissolution of the Veneto-Papal alliance on 12 December, 1482. He also protected the Colonna family against the cruel persecutions of Cardinal Girolamo Riario in 1484. After the death of Sixtus IV on 12 August, 1484, Giuliano played a disreputable role in the election of Innocent VIII. Seeing that his own chances for the papacy were extremely meagre, he turned all his efforts to securing the election of a pope who was likely to be a puppet in his hands. Such a person he saw in the weak and irresolute Cardinal Cibo, who owed his cardinalate to Giuliano. To effect the election of his candidate he did not scruple to resort to bribery. Cibo ascended the papal throne as Innocent VIII on 29 August, 1484, and was greatly influenced during the eight years of his pontificate by the strong and energetic Giuliano. The war that broke out between the pope and King Ferrante of Naples must be attributed chiefly to Giuliano, and it was also due to him that it did not come to an earlier conclusion. After the death of Innocent VIII on 25 July, 1492, Giuliano again aspired to the papacy, but his great influence during Innocent's pontificate and his pronounced sympathy for France had made him hateful to the cardinals. He was shrewd enough to understand the situation. He was, however, loath to see the tiara go to Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia, not because the latter was an unworthy candidate, but on account of his personal aversion towards the Borgia. Despite Giuliano's efforts to the contrary, Rodrigo Borgia was the successful candidate, and ascended the papal throne as Alexander VI on 11 August, 1492. Fearing for his safety in Rome, Giuliano withdrew to his strongly fortified castle at Ostia towards the end of 1492. An apparent reconciliation between Alexander VI and Giuliano was effected in July, 1493, but Giuliano did not trust in the sincerity of the pope and fled by way of Genoa to the court of Charles VIII of France, whom he induced to make an expedition into Italy with the purpose of dethroning Alexander VI. Giuliano accompanied the king on his expedition, but by liberal concessions Alexander gained Charles to his side. In the treaty effected between them, it was stipulated that Giuliano should remain in possession of all his dignities and benefices, and should be guaranteed secure and undisturbed residence in Rome. Giuliano, however, still feared the secret machinations of Alexander and returned to France. Another apparent reconciliation took place in June, 1497, when Giuliano assisted the pope in the matrimonial affairs of Cesare Borgia. But Giuliano's distrust of Alexander remained. He evaded Rome, spending most of his time in France and Northern Italy. After the death of Alexander on 18 August, 1503, he returned to Rome on 3 September to take part in the election of the new pope. He was again a strong candidate for the papacy, but his great ambition was not yet to be realized. The sick and aged Francesco Piccolomini ascended the papal throne as Pius III, but died on 18 October, 1503, after a reign of only twenty-six days. Giuliano's chance of being elected was now better than at any previous election. To ensure his success he made great promises to the cardinals, and did not hesitate to employ bribery. The conclave began on 31 October, and after a few hours the cardinals united their votes on Giuliano, who as pope took the name of Julius II. It was the shortest conclave in the history of the papacy. In the capitulation preceding the election, the following terms were secured by the cardinals: (1) the continuation of the war against the Turks; (2) the restoration of ecclesiastical discipline and the convocation of a general council for that purpose within two years; (3) that no war was to be undertaken with another nation without the consent of two-thirds of the cardinals, who were to be consulted on all important matters, especially concerning the creation of new members for the Sacred College; (4) that the pope with two-thirds of the cardinals were to determine upon the place of the next general council. Such an unlawful restriction of papal rights no pope could tolerate, much less the impatient, irascible, ambitious, and warlike Julius II, whose fearless and awe-inspiring presence gained for him the epithet of pontefice terribile. The chief task of his pontificate he saw in the firm establishment and the extension of the temporal power. For the accomplishment of this task no pope was ever better suited than Julius, whom nature and circumstances had hewn out for a soldier. Venice was the first to feel the strong hand of Julius II. Under pretence of humiliating Cesare Borgia, whom Alexander VI had made Duke of the Romagna, the Venetians had reduced various places in the Romagna under their own authority. The Romagna was ecclesiastical territory, and every one of its cities added to the Venetian republic was lost to the papacy. Julius, therefore, ordered Cesare Borgia to surrender the fortified places of the Romagna into his own hands. Cesare Borgia refused and was arrested by the pope's order. Venice, however, stubbornly refused to give back the cities which it had previously taken. A temporary settlement was reached in March, 1505, when Venice restored most of its conquests in the Romagna. Meanwhile trouble was brewing at Perugia and Bologna, two cities that belonged to the Papal States. At Perugia the Baglioni and at Bologna the Bentivogli were acting as independent despots. The warlike Julius II personally directed the campaign against both, setting out at the head of his army on 26 August, 1506. Perugia surrendered without any bloodshed on 13 September, and the pope proceeded towards Bologna. On 7 October he issued a Bull deposing and excommunicating Giovanni Bentivoglio and placing the city under interdict. Bentivoglio fled, and Julius II entered Bologna triumphantly on 10 November. He did not leave the city until 22 February, 1507, arriving again at Rome on 27 March. The Venetians meanwhile continued to hold Rimini and Faenza, two important places in the Romagna: they moreover encroached upon the papal rights by filling the vacant episcopal sees in their territory independently of the pope, and they subjected the clergy to the secular tribunal and in many other ways disrespected the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Julius II. Unable to cope alone with the powerful Republic of Venice, he reluctantly joined the League of Cambrai on 23 March, 1509. This League had been formed by Emperor Maximilian I and Louis XII of France chiefly with the purpose of forcing Venice to restore its recent continental conquests to their original owners. On 27 April, 1509, Julius II placed Venice under interdict and dispatched his troops into the Romagna. Venice was too weak to contend against the combined forces of the League, and suffered a complete defeat at the battle of Agnadello on 14 May, 1509. The Venetians were now ready to enter negotiations with Julius II, who withdrew from the League and freed the Venetians from the ban on 24 February, 1510, after they agreed upon the following terms. (1) to restore the disputed towns in the Romagna; (2) to renounce their claims to fill vacant benefices; (3) to acknowledge the ecclesiastical tribunal for ecclesiastics and exempt them from taxes; (4) to revoke all treaties made with papal cities; (5) to permit papal subjects free navigation on the Adriatic. Julius II was now again supreme temporal master over the entire Pontifical States, but his national pride extended beyond the Patrimony of St. Peter. His ambition was to free the whole of Italy from its subjection to foreign powers, and especially to deliver it from the galling yoke of France. His efforts to gain the assistance of Emperor Maximilian, Henry VIII of England, and Ferdinand of Spain, proved futile for the moment, but the Swiss and the Venetians were ready to take the field against the French. Julius II inaugurated the hostilities by deposing and excommunicating his vassal, Duke Alfonso of Ferrara, who supported France. Louis XII retaliated by convoking a synod of French bishops at Tours in September, 1510, where it was decreed that the pope had no right to make war upon a foreign prince, and, in case he should undertake such a war, the foreign prince had the right to invade the Ecclesiastical States and to withdraw his subjects from their obedience to the pope. The synod also threatened the pope with a general council. Taking no notice of this synod, Julius again assumed personal command of his army and set out for Northern Italy. At Bologna he fell severely sick, and would probably have been captured by the French had it not been for the timely appearance of the Venetians. He had scarcely recovered, when, braving the inclemency of the weather, he marched against Mirandola which he took on 20 January, 1511. On 23 May, 1511, the French made a descent upon Bologna which Julius II had left nine days previously, drove out the papal troops and reinstated the Bentivogli. Some of the cardinals were displeased with the pope's anti-French policy, and five of them went so far as to convoke a schismatic council at Pisa on 1 September. They were supported in their schism by the King of France and for some time also by Emperor Maximilian. The pope now looked for aid to Spain, Venice, and England, but before completing negotiations with these powers he fell dangerously sick. From 25 to 27 August, 1511, his life was despaired of. It was during this sickness of Julius II that Emperor Maximilian conceived the fantastic plan of uniting the tiara with the imperial crown on his own head (see Schulte, "Kaiser Maximilian als Kandidat für den papstlichen Stuhl", Leipzig, 1906; and Naegle, "Hat Kaiser Maximilian I in Jahre 1507 Papst werden wollen" in "Historisches Jahrbuch", XXVIII, Munich, 1907, pp. 44-60, 278-305). But Julius II recovered on 28 August, and on 4 October the so-called Holy League was formed for the purpose of delivering Italy from French rule. In the beginning the League included only the pope, the Venetians, and Spain, but England joined it on 17 November, and was soon followed by the emperor and by Switzerland. Under the leadership of the brilliant Gaston de Foix the French were at first successful, but after his death they had to yield to the superior forces of the League, and, being defeated in the bloody battle of Ravenna on 11 April, 1512, they were driven beyond the Alps. Bologna again submitted to Julius II and the cities of Parma, Reggio, and Piacenza were added to the Ecclesiastical States. Julius II was chiefly a soldier, and the fame attached to his name is greatly due to his re-establishment of the Pontifical States and the deliverance of Italy from its subjection to France. Still he did not forget his duties as the spiritual head of the Church. He was free from nepotism; heard Mass almost daily and often celebrated it himself; issued a strict Bull against simony at papal elections and another against duels; erected dioceses in the recently discovered American colonies of Haiti (Espanola), San Domingo, and Porto Rico; condemned the heresy of Piero de Lucca concerning the Incarnation on 7 September, 1511; made various ordinances for monastic reforms; instituted the still existing Capella Julia, a school for ecclesiastical chant which was to serve as a feeder for the Capella Palatina; and finally convoked the Fifth Lateran Council to eradicate abuses from the Church and especially from the Roman Curia, and to frustrate the designs of the schismatic cardinals who had convened their unsuccessful council first at Pisa, then at Milan (see LATERAN COUNCILS). Julius II has also gained an enviable reputation as a patron of arts. Bramante, Raphael, and Michelangelo gave to the world some of their greatest masterpieces while in his service. He laid the cornerstone of the gigantic Basilica of St. Peter on 18 April, 1506, and conceived the idea of uniting the Vatican with the Belvedere, engaging Bramante to accomplish the project. The famous frescoes of Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel and of Raphael in the Stanze, the Court of St. Damasus with its loggias, the Via Giulia and Via della Lungara, the colossal statue of Moses which graces the mausoleum of Julius II in the church of San Pietro in Vincoli, and many other magnificent works in and out of Rome are lasting witnesses of his great love of art. PASTOR, Gesch. der Papste seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters (3rd ed., Freiburg, 1904), 563-871, tr. ANTROBUS, The History of the Popes from the close of the Middle Ages, VI (St. Louis, 1898), 208-607; CREIGHTON, History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation, IV (London, 1887), 54-176; BROSCH, Papst Julius Il und die Grounding des Kirchenstaates (Gotha, 1878); DUSMENIL, Histoire de Jules II, sa vie et son pontificat (Paris, 1873) KLACZKO, Rome et la Renaissance, Essais et Esquisees, Jules II (2nd ed., Paris, 1902); GEBHART, Jules II (Paris, 1904); HEFELE, Conciliengesch., VIII (Freiburg, 1887), 395-588); LOUGHLIN, Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere in American Catholic Quarterly Review, XXV (Philadelphia, 1900), 138-47, treats only of his cardinalate up to 1492; WICKHOFF, Die B ibliothek Jul ius' II in Jahrbuch der preussischen Kunstsammlungen, XIV (Berlin, 1893), 49-65; PARIS DE GRASSIS, Diarium, ed. FRATI, Le due spedizioni militari di Giulio II tratte dal Diario di Paris de Grassis Bolognese con documenti (Bologna, 1886), and DÖLLINGER, Beiträge zur politischen, kirchlichen und Kultur-Geschichte der secks letzten Jahrhunderte, III (Ratisbon and Vienna, 1882), 363 sq. MICHAEL OTT Julius III Pope Julius III (GIAMMARIA CIOCCHI DEL MONTE). Born at Rome, 10 September, 1487; died there, 23 March, 1555. He was the son of a famous Roman jurist, studied jurisprudence at Perugia and Siena, and theology under the Dominican, Ambrosius Catharinus. In 1512 he succeeded his uncle Antonio del Monte as Archbishop of Siponto (Manfredonia), and in 1520 as Bishop of Pavia, retaining, however, the administration of Siponto. Later he became vice-legate of Perugia, and under Clement VII was twice appointed prefect of Rome. After the Sack of Rome (1527) he was one of the hostages given by Clement VII to the Imperialists, and would have been killed by the imperial Landsknechte in the Campo di Fiori, had he not been secretly liberated by Cardinal Pompio Colonna. In 1534 he became legate of Bologna, the Romagna, Parma, and Piacenza. Pope Paul III created him Cardinal-Priest of SS. Vitalis, Gervasius, and Protasius on 22 December, 1536, and raised him to the dignity of cardinal-bishop with the Diocese of Palestrina on 5 October, 1543. As early as 1542 he had been entrusted with work preparatory to the convocation of the Council of Trent, and in a consistory held on 6 February, 1545, he was appointed first president of the council. In this capacity he opened the council at Trent on 13 December with a short oration (cf. Ehses, "Concilium Tridentinum", IV, Freiburg im Br., 1904, p. 516). At the council he represented the papal interests against Emperor Charles V, with whom he came in conflict on various occasions, especially when on 26 March, 1547, he transferred the Council to Bologna. After the death of Paul III on 10 November, 1549, the forty-eight cardinals present in Rome entered the conclave on 29 November. They were divided into three factions: the Imperials, the French, and the adherents of Farnese. The friends of Farnese united with the Imperial party and proposed Reginald Pole and Juan de Toledo as their candidates. The French party rejected both and, though in the minority, they were strong enough to prevent the election of either candidate. The adherents of Farnese and the French party finally reached a compromise and agreed upon Cardinal del Monte, who was duly elected on 7 February, 1550, after a conclave of ten weeks, although the emperor had expressly excluded him from the list of candidates. The new pope took the name of Julius III. In fulfilment of promises made in the conclave, Julius restored Parma to Ottavio Farnese a few days after his accession. But, when Farnese applied to France for aid against the emperor, Julius allied himself with the emperor, declared Farnese deprived of his fief, and sent troops under the command of his nephew Giambattista del Monte to co-operate with Duke Gonzaga of Milan in the capture of Parma. In a Bull, dated 13 November, 1550, Julius transferred the council from Bologna back to Trent, and ordered that its sessions be resumed on 1 May, 1551, but he was compelled to suspend it again on 15 April, 1552, because the French bishops would take no part in it, and, to escape his enemies, the emperor had to flee from Innsbruck. The success of the French arms in Northern Italy also compelled Julius on 29 April, 1552, to make a truce with France, in which it was stipulated that Farnese was to remain in the peaceful possession of Parma for two years. Discouraged at his failure as an ally of Charles V, the pope henceforth abstained from interfering in the political affairs of Italy. He withdrew to his luxurious palace, the Villa Giulia, which he had erected at the Porta del Popolo. Here he spent most of his time in ease and comfort, occasionally making a weak effort at reform in the Church by instituting a few committees of cardinals for reformatory purposes. He was a liberal supporter of the rising Jesuit Order, and at the instance of St. Ignatius issued the Bull of foundation for the Collegium Germanicum on 31 August, 1552, and granted it an annual subsidy. During his pontificate the Catholic religion was temporarily restored in England by Queen Mary, who succeeded Edward VI on the English throne in 1553. Julius sent Cardinal Reginald Pole as legate to England with extensive faculties to be used at his discretion in the interests of the Catholic restoration. In February, 1555, an embassy was sent by the English Parliament to Julius III to inform him of its unreserved submission to the papal supremacy, but the embassy was still on its journey when the pope died. Shortly before his death Julius III sent Cardinal Morone to represent the Catholic interest at the Religious Peace of Augsburg. At the beginning of his pontificate Julius III had the earnest desire to bring about a reform in the Church and with this intent he reopened the Council of Trent. That the council was again suspended was due to the force of circumstances. His inactivity during the last three years of his pontificate may have been caused by the frequent and severe attacks of the gout to which he was subject. The great blemish in his pontificate was nepotism. Shortly after his accession he bestowed the purple on his unworthy favourite Innocenzo del Monte, a youth of seventeen whom he had picked up on the streets of Parma some years previously, and who had been adopted by the pope's brother, Balduino. This act gave rise to some very disagreeable rumours concerning the pope's relation to Innocenzo. Julius was also extremely lavish in bestowing ecclesiastical dignities and benefices upon his relatives. MASSARELLI, De Pontificatu Julii II diarium, edited by DÖLLINGER in Ungedruckte Berichte und Tagebücher zur Gesch. des Konzils von Trient, I, i (Nördlingen, 1876), 259-326; PASTOR, Gesch. der Päpste seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters, V (Freiburg, 1909), passim; DE LAVA, La Guerra di Papa Giulio III contra Ottavio Farnese in Rivista storica Italiana (Turin, 1884), 632 sq.; IDEM, L'elezione de Papa Giulio III, ibid., 32 sq.; CIACONIUS, Vitoe et res gestoe Pontificum Romanorum et S. R. E. Cardinalium, III (Rome, 1677), 741-98; CARDELLA, Memorie storiche de' cardinali della s. romana chiesa, IV (Rome, 1792), 397-401; RANKE, Die römischen Päpste (Leipzig, 1889), 177 sq., tr. FOSTER, History of the Popes, I (London, 1906), 206-11. See also bibliography under TRENT, COUNCIL OF. MICHAEL OTT Julius Africanus Julius Africanus (c. 160-c. 240; the full name is Sextus Iulius Africanus, Gk. Sextos Ioulios Aphrikanos). Julius Africanus is the father of Christian chronography. Little is known of his life and little remains of his works. He is important chiefly because of his influence on Eusebius, on all the later writers of Church history among the Fathers, and on the whole Greek school of chroniclers. His name says that he was an African; Suidas calls him "a Libyan philosopher". Gelzer ("S. Julius Africanus", pp. 4, 5) thinks he was of Roman descent. He knew Greek (in which language he wrote), Latin, and Hebrew. He was at one time a soldier and had been a pagan; he wrote all his works as a Christian. Tillemont deduced that he was a priest from the fact that he addresses the priest Origen (in his letter to him) as "dear brother" ("Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire ecclésiastique", III, Paris, 1693, 254). Gelzer (op. cit., 9) points out that a friendly Christian layman could quite well use such a form. The statement that Julius Africanus was a bishop does not appear till the fourth century. It is probably an error. He went to Alexandria to study, attracted by the fame of its catechetical school, possibly about the year 215 (Eusebius, "H. E.", VI, 31). All the dates of his life are uncertain. One tradition places him under the Emperor Gordianus (238-244; Gelzer, p. 7), another mentions him under Alexander Severus (222-235; id., p. 6). He appears to have known Abgar VIII, the Christian King of Edessa (176-213); in his Chronography he calls him a "holy man" (Gelzer, p. 3). Eusebius, in his chronicle (ad a. Abr., 2239, ed. Schoene, II, Berlin, 1875, 178), says that under Alexander Severus the city of Emmaus in Palestine was restored and called Nikopolis under the direction of "Julius Africanus the writer of the Chronicle". It appears that he lived there for a time (Bardenhewer, "Patrologie", Freiburg, 1894, p. 173). He shows in his Chronicle that he knows the topography of Palestine (Gelzer, p. 10). He seems to have been in Greece; he went to Rome about the year 221 (id., 11). Bardenhewer (op. cit., p. 173) puts his death at about 237. Preuschen (in Harnack, "Gesch. der altchristlichen Litteratur", p. 507) says that he died "after 221" and adds "under Gordianus 238-244?". Harnack ("Realenc. für prot. Theol. u. Kirche", Leipzig, 1901, IX, 627) says, "after 240". The works of S. Julius Africanus are: (1) The "Chronicle" (Gk. Chronographiai) in five books, covering the time from the Creation (B.C. 5499 in his calculation) to the third year of Eliogabalus (A.D. 221). Gelzer thinks he wrote this work between 212 and 221 (op. cit., 12). It is an attempt to combine the account in the Bible and the secular (Roman and Greek) history known to the author, with special regard to chronology. From the third book the order is strictly chronological. Julius uses as sources first the Bible, then Greek, Roman, and Jewish historians, especially Justus of Tiberias, who depends on Josephus. He is also influenced by the "Stromata" of Clement of Alexandria (Gelzer, 19-24). As the first Christian attempt at a universal history, and as the source of all later Christian chronography, this work is of great importance. Eusebius made it the foundation of his chronicle. It is the source of all later Byzantine writing of history, so that for centuries the Christian world accepted the dates and epochs calculated by Julius. Only fragments of this work are now extant. (2) The "Embroideries" (Gk. kestoi; compare the title of Clem. Alex.: stromata), also called "Puzzles" (Gk. paradoxa), is a kind of encyclopedia of sciences -- mathematics, botany, medicine, etc. -- full of all manner of curious anecdotes and illustrations. It has been thought that the author of this work was a pagan, Sextus Africanus, different from the Christian Julius Africanus. This is directly contradicted by Eusebius in his "Chronicle" (H.E., VI, 31): "Africanus (the author of the 'Chronographia'), writer of the composed Embroideries" (Gk. ho ton epigegrammenon keston syggrapheus). Gelzer (2-3) has shown that the author of the kestoi was a Christian (he quotes Ps. xxxiii, 9) and that there is no reason to doubt Eusebius's statement. This work, too, constantly quoted and much esteemed by the Greek Fathers, survives only in a few fragments about agriculture and war (Gelzer, 13-16). It had originally twenty-four books. It is from the kestoi, in which the author discourses of magic, divination and medicine, that the opinion arose that he was a physician. (3) Two letters of Julius are known, one to Origen, in which he disputes the authenticity of the story of Susanna, pointing out that the play upon words in the Greek text (prinos, an oak-tree, and prio, to saw asunder; schinos, a mastic-tree and schizo, to cleave: Dan., xiii, 54-55, 58-59) would not exist in Hebrew or Aramaic. From his address in this letter (Kyrié mou kai huié) he seems to have been an old man when he wrote it. Origen answered it. Both letters are included in Origen's works (e.g., ed. of De la Rue, I, Paris, 1733, 10). This letter is the only one of Julius's works that is completely extant. His criticism has won for him high respect among modern writers. J. G. Rosenmüller (Historia Interpretationis, III, 161) considers that these few lines contain more true exegesis than is to be found in all Origen's works. Gelzer (p. 17) points out that the "Chronography" and especially the kestoi show that Julius does not deserve his reputation as a critic. The other letter is addressed to a certain Aristides. In it he proposes what is still the favourite explanation of the two pedigrees of our Lord (Matt., i, 2-19; Luke, iii, 23-38), namely that St. Joseph's two fathers, Jacob (Matt., i, 16) and Heli (Luke, iii, 23), were half-brothers of the same mother, that Heli died without children, and Jacob took his wife to raise up seed to his brother according to the Levitical law (Deut., xxv, 5-6). Of this letter a fragment is preserved by Eusebius (H. E., I, vii), another fragment is contained in an epitome of Eusebius's "Quæstiones de differ. Evang.", published by A. Mai ("Nova Patrum bibliotheca", IV, Rome, 1852). Julius also translated Tertullian's "Apologeticum" into Greek (Harnack in "Texte und Untersuchungen", VIII, 4). Later Syrian writers mention works that have disappeared. Dionysius Bar-Salibi speaks of a commentary on the Gospels (Assemani, "Bibliotheca Orientalis ", II, Rome, 1721, 158), Ebed-Jesu of commentaries on the New Testament (Hebediesu, "Catalogus librorum chaldæorum", Rome, 1633, p. 15). Spurious works are the Acts of St. Symphorosa (Ruinart, "Acta primorum martyrum", Ratisbon, 1859, 70), a Latin version of Abdias's "History of the Apostles" ("Historiæ apostolicæ, auctore Abdia", Cologne, 1576, which asserts throughout, even in the title, that it was translated from the Hebrew by Julius Africanus) and an astonishing semi-pagan "Interpretation of the things that happened in Persia through the Incarnation of our Lord and God and Saviour, Jesus Christ" (ed. by Ignaz von der Hardt in J. C. von Aretin's "Beiträge zur Gesch. u. Litter.", II, Munich, 104, 52-69). St. Jerome in his "de Viris illustribus" (no. 63) includes: "Julius Africanus, of whom five books de temporibus [=the Chronography] are extant, accepted a mission for the restoration of the city of Emmaus, afterwards called Nicopolis, under the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, who succeeded Macrinus. There is a letter to Origen about the question of Susanna in which he says that this fable is not in the Hebrew, nor does apo tou prinou prisai kai apo tou schisou schisai agree with Hebrew etymology; against whom Origen wrote a learned letter. There exists also another letter of his to Aristides in which he discusses at length the disagreement which seems to be in the genealogy of the Saviour in Matthew and Luke." Except for the wrong date (M. Aurelius) this account, taken from Eusebius, represents very fairly what we know of Africanus. Fragments of the works in ROUTH, Reliquiæ sacræ, II (2nd ed., Oxford, 1846-48), 219-509; P.G., X, 35-108; GELZER, Sextus Julius Africanus und die Byzantinische Chronographie (Leipzig, 1898); HARNACK, Geschichte der alt-christlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius, I (Leipzig, 1893), 507-513; SPITTA, Der Brief des Julius Africanus an Aristides (Halle, 1877). ADRIAN FORTESCUE Benedictine Abbey of Jumieges Benedictine Abbey of Jumièges Jumièges, situated on the north bank of the Seine, between Duclair and Caudebec, in Normandy (Seine-Inférieure). The abbey was founded in 634 by St. Philibert, who had been the companion of Sts. Ouen and Wandrille at the Merovingian court. Philibert became first abbot but was later on, through the jealousy of certain enemies, obliged to leave Jumièges, and afterwards founded another monastery at Noirmoûtier, where he died about 685. Under the second abbot, St. Achard, Jumièges flourished exceedingly and numbered within its walls nearly a thousand monks. Enjoying the patronage of the dukes of Normandy, the abbey became a great centre of religion and learning, its schools producing, amongst many other scholars, the national historian, William of Jumièges. It reached the zenith of its fame about the eleventh century, and was regarded as a model of perfection for all the monasteries of the province. It was renowned especially for its charity to the poor, being popularly called "Jumièges l'Aumônier". In the ninth century it was pillaged and burnt to the ground by the Normans, but was rebuilt on a grander scale by William, Duke of Normandy, surnamed Longue-Epée. The church was enlarged in 1256, and again restored in 1573. The abbots of Jumièges took part in all the great affairs of the Church and nation; one of them, Robert, became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1040; many others became bishops in France, and some were also raised to the cardinalitial dignity. The fortunes of the abbey suffered somewhat through the English invasion of the fifteenth century, but it recovered and maintained its prosperity and high position until the whole province was devastated by the Huguenots and the Wars of Religion. In 1649, during the abbacy of Francis III, Jumièges was taken over by the Maurist Congregation, under which rule some of its former grandeur was resuscitated. The French Revolution, however, closed its career as a monastery, and only its majestic ruins now remain to show what it was in the days of its splendour. These comprise the church, with its beautiful twin towers and western façade, and portions of the cloisters and library. The contents of the latter were removed to Rouen when the abbey was suppressed. MABILLON, Annales O. S. B. (Paris, 1703-39); STE-MARTHE, Gallia Christiana, XI (Paris, 1759); DESHAYES, Hist. de l'abbaye royale de Jumièges (Rouen, 1829); MIGNE, Dict. des Abbayes (Paris, 1856); CHEVALIER, Topo-bibliographie (Montbéliard, 1894-1902), s. v.; POUPARDIN, Les abbayes de S. Philibert (Paris, 1905); BEAUNIER, Receuil Historique (Paris, 1906); DAVID, Les Grandes Abbayes d'Occident (Lille, 1907). There is a plan of the abbey, as it was before destruction, in Monasticon Gallicanum, ed. DELISLE (Paris, 1871). G. CYPRIAN ALSTON. Bernard Jungmann Bernard Jungmann A dogmatic theologian and ecclesiastical historian, born at Münster in Westphalia, 1 March, 1833; died at Louvain, 12 Jan., 1895. He belonged to an intensely Catholic family of Westphalia; like him, two of his brothers entered the service of the Church, one joining the Society of Jesus and the other becoming a missionary in the United States. After finishing his studies with brilliant success at the public schools of his native town, he entered the German College at Rome through the mediation of the bishop's secretary, afterwards Cardinal Melchers, and made his philosophical and theological studies in the Gregorian College. In 1854 he received the degree of Doctor of Philosophy; he was ordained priest in Rome on 8 June, 1857, and two years later received the degree of Doctor of Theology. He then returned to Germany, and worked for a short time as chaplain in the church of St. Adelgunde at Emmerich. Bishop Malou of Bruges, who chanced to be present in Rome in 1854 when Jungmann made his public defence of the philosophical theses, called him in September, 1861, to the chair of philosophy in the Petit Séminaire at Roulers. Four years later (1865) he became professor of theology in the ecclesiastical seminary at Bruges. Even at Roulers, while performing his duties as teacher, he began that literary activity, which was thenceforth ever associated with his professorial duties. His appointment to the chair of ecclesiastical history at Louvain, in succession to Wouters, opened in 1871 a wider field for his great ability. A keen intellect with powers of clear exposition, joined to the spirited delivery which distinguished his lectures, ensured him great success. He enlarged the field of ecclesiastico-historical studies by delivering special lectures on patrology, and establishing in 1890 a seminary for ecclesiastical history, in which students were to receive a scientific and methodical training in original historical research. Jungmann remained to the end of his life a professor at Louvain, declining the honour of a call to be professor of dogmatic theology in the newly founded Catholic University at Washington. He was seized with a fit of apoplexy at the burial of a colleague, and died at Louvain in 1895. His activity as a writer was equal to his energy as a lecturer. As professor of philosophy he wrote "Demonstratio christiana. I. Demonstrationis christianæ præambula philosophica" (Roulers, 1864; 2nd ed., 1867). In the domain of theology he wrote his "Institutiones theologiæ dogmaticæ specialis" in five tracts, widely used and much appreciated for their clear style: "De Gratia" (Bruges, 1866; 5th ed., Ratisbon, 1882); "De Deo uno et trino" (Bruges, 1867; 4th ed., Ratisbon, 1882); "De Deo Creatore" (Bruges, 1868; 4th ed., Ratisbon, 1883); "De Verbo incarnato" (Bruges, 1869; 4th ed., Ratisbon, 1884); "De quattuor novissimis" (Ratisbon, 1871; 3rd ed., 1885). He wrote also the "Institutiones theologiæ dogmaticæ generalis" (Bruges, 1871; 4th ed., Ratisbon, 1886). In church history he first re-edited Wouter's "Historiæ ecclesiasticæ compendium" (3 vols., Louvain, 1879), and later published special studies, particularly on theological controversies and on the papacy: "Dissertationes selectæ in historiam ecclesiasticam" (5 vols., Ratisbon, 1880). Tn patrology he issued Fessler's excellent "Institutiones Patrologiæ" in a new and much enlarged edition (2 vols., Innsbruck, 1890, 1892, 1896). He contributed numerous articles to German and French journals, particularly worthy of mention being: "Die neue französische Fortschrittsphilosophie" in the "Katholik" (Mainz, 1865); "Die hl. Märtyrer von Gorkum", ibid. (1867); "Clemens V. und die Aufhebung des Templerordens" in the "Zeitschrift für kath. Theologie" (Innsbruck, 1881); "Le caractère moral de Luther" in "La Controverse" (1883). Annuaire de l'Université catholique de Louvain (1896), appendixes iii-xx by ABBELOOS; xxi-xli by DUPONT, Université catholique de Louvain. Bibliographie 1834-1900 (Louvain, 1900), 63-5. J. P. KIRSCH. Josef Jungmann Josef Jungmann Born 12 Nov., 1830, at Münster, Westphalia; died at Innsbruck, 25 Nov., 1885. In 1850 he entered the German College at Rome, and was ordained priest in 1855. He afterwards joined the Society of Jesus and as early as 1858, even before the expiration of his novitiate, was chosen to fill the chair of elocution in the re-established theological faculty at Innsbruck. Besides many articles in periodicals Jungmann published: "Fünf Sätze zur Erklärung und wissenschaftlichen Begründung der Andacht zum hl. Herzen Jesu und zum reinsten Herzen Mariæ" (Innsbruck, 1869); "Eine Litanei zum hl. Herzen Jesu aus der hl. Schrift" (2nd ed., ibid., 1871); "Gefahren belletristischer Lektüre" (ibid., 1872); "Zur Verehrung U. L. Frau" (2nd ed., ibid., 1879); "Das Gemüt und das Gefühlsvermögen der neueren Psychologie" (2nd ed., ibid., 1885); "Die Andacht zum hl. Herzen Jesu und die Bedenken gegen dieselbe" (2nd ed., ibid., 1885); "Theorie der geistlichen Beredskamkeit" (2 vols., 3rd ed., Innsbruck, 1886); "Aesthetik" (2 vols., 3rd ed., 1886). A third edition of his" Beredsamkeit" was published by his colleague, Michael Gatterer, who also edited a fourth and much abbreviated edition. Jungmann had a wonderful influence over his students. Speaking of him, one of them writes: "I do not know what it was that always charmed the other students so much, but, for myself, I felt irresistibly drawn to him on account of his high sentiments and character, founded on deeply rooted principles, influenced by such alone, and therefore immovable. These sentiments distinguished him at every turn -- in his studies, in his social intercourse, in his daily avocations, and in his religious exercises." HOFMANN, Das Nikolaihaus zu Innsbruck einst und jetzt (Innsbruck, 1908), 126. KARL KLAAR. Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction The right to guide and rule the Church of God. The subject is here treated under the following heads: I. General Concept and Classification of Jurisdiction; II. Development of Jurisdiction in its strict sense; III. Present Scope of Jurisdiction in its strict sense. I. GENERAL CONCEPT AND CLASSIFICATION OF JURISDICTION The Church founded by Christ for the salvation of men needs, like every society, a regulating power (the authority of the Church). This power Christ has bestowed upon it. Directly before His Ascension He gave to the Apostles collectively the commission, and with it the authority, to proclaim his doctrine to all nations, to baptize them, and to teach them to observe all things that He had commanded (Matt., xxviii, 18 sqq.). It may be noted here that the Decree "Lamentabili sane", of 3 July, 1907, rejects (n. 52 sqq.) the doctrine that Christ did not desire to found a permanent, unchangeable Church endowed with authority. It is customary to speak of a threefold office of the Church: the office of teaching (prophetic office), the priestly office, and the pastoral office (governing office), also, therefore, of the threefold authority of the Church, that is, the teaching authority, ministerial authority, and ruling authority. Since, however, the teaching of the Church is authoritative, the teaching authority is traditionally included in the ruling authority; regularly, therefore, only the ministerial authority and the ruling authority are distinguished. By ministerial authority, which is conferred by an act of consecration, is meant the inward, and, because of its indelible character, permanent capacity to perform acts by which Divine grace is transmitted. By ruling authority, which is conferred by the Church (missio canonica, canonical mission), is understood the authority to guide and rule the Church of God. Jurisdiction, in so far as it covers the relations of man to God, is called jurisdiction of the internal forum or jurisdiction of the forum of Heaven (jurisdictio poli). (See Ecclesiastical Forum.) This again is either sacramental or penitential, so far as it is used in the Sacrament of Penance, or extra-sacramental, e.g. in granting dispensations from private vows. Jurisdiction, in so far as it regulates external ecclesiastical relations, is called jurisdiction of the external forum, or briefly jurisdictio fori. This jurisdiction, the actual power of ruling is legislative, judicial, or coactive. Jurisdiction can be possessed in varying degrees. It can also be held either for both fora, or for the internal forum only, e.g. by the parish priest. Jurisdiction can be further sub-divided into: ordinary, quasi-ordinary, and delegated jurisdiction. Ordinary jurisdiction is that which is permanently bound, by Divine or human law, with a permanent ecclesiastical office. Its possessor is called an ordinary judge. By Divine law the pope has such ordinary jurisdiction for the entire Church and a bishop for his diocese. By human law this jurisdiction is possessed by the cardinals, officials of the Curia and the congregations of cardinals, the patriarchs, primates, metropolitans, archbishops, the praelati nullius, and prelates with quasi-epsicopal jurisdiction, the chapters of orders, or, respectively, the heads of orders, cathedral chapters in reference to their own affairs, the archdiaconate in the Middle Ages, and parish priests in the internal forum. If, however, jurisdiction is permanently connected with an office, but the office itself is said to be quasi-ordinary, or jurisdictio vicaria. This form of jurisdiction is possessed, for example, by a vicar-general. Temporary exercise of ordinary and quasi-ordinary jurisdiction can be granted, in varying degrees, to another as representative, without conferring on him an office properly so called. In this transient form jurisdiction is called delegated or extraordinary, and concerning it canon law, following the Roman law, has developed exhaustive provisions. This development began when the popes, especially since Alexander III (1159-81), found themselves obliged, by the enormous mass of legal business which came to them from all sides as the "judices ordinarii omnium" to hand over, with proper instruction, a large number of cases to third parties for decision, especially in matters of contentious jurisdiction. Delegated jurisdiction rests either on a special authorization of the holders of ordinary jurisdiction (delegatio ab homine), or on a general law (delegatio a lege, a jure, a canone). Thus, the Council of Trent transferred a number of papal rights to the bishops "tanquam Apostolicae Sedis delegati", i.e. also as delegates of the Apostolic See (Sess. VI, De ref., c. ii, iii, etc.), and "etiam tanquam Apostolicae Sedis delegati", i.e. also as delegates of the Apostolic See (Sess. VI, De ref., c. iv, etc.). In the first class of cases bishops do not possess oridary jurisdiction. The meaning of the second expression is disputed, but it is generally taken as purely cumulative. If the delegation applies to one or several designated cases only, it is special delegation. If, however, it applies to an entire class of subjects, it is then general delegation or delegation for the universality of causes. Delegated jurisdiction for the total of a number of matters is known as delegatio mandata. Only those can be appointed delegates who are competent to execute the delegation. For an act of consecration the delegate must have himself the necessary sacred orders. For acts of jurisdiction he must be an ecclesiastic, though the pope could also delegate a layman. Papal delegation is usually conferred only on ecclesiastical dignitaries or canons (c. xi, in VI°, De rescript., I, iii; Council of Trent, Sess. XXV, De ref., c. x). The delegate must be twenty years old, but eighteen years suffices for one appointed by the pope (c. xli, X, De off. jud. deleg., I, xxix). He must also be free from excommunication (c. xxiv, X, De sent. et re jud., II, xxvii). Those placed under the jurisdiction of the delegator must submit to the delegation (c. xxviii, X, De off. jud. deleg., I, xxix). Delegation for one matter can also be conferred upon several. The distinction here to be made is whether they have to act jointly and severally (collegiately), jointly but individually (solidarily), or solidarily at least in some given case (c. xvi, xxi, X, De off. jud. deleg., I, xxix; c. viii, in VI°, h. t. I, xiv). The delegate is to follow exactly his instructions. He is, however, empowered to do all that is necessary to execute them (c. i, c, cii, ciii, xi, xxi, xxvi, xxviii, X, Xe off. jud. deleg., I, xxix). If he exeed his power, his act is null (c. xxxvii, X, Xe off. jud. deleg., I, xxix). When necessary the delegate can himself delegate, i.e. subdelegate, a qualified person; he can do this especially if he is a papal delegate (c. iii, xxviii, X, De off. jud. deleg., I, xxix), or if he has received permission, or if he has been delegated for a number of cases (Gloss to "Delegatus", c. lxii, X, De appell., II, xxviii). Since delegation constitutes a new court appeal can be taken from the delegate to the delegator, and in the case of subdelegation to the original delegator (c. xxvii, X, De off. jud. deleg., I, xxix). Delegated jurisdiction expires on the death of the delegate, in case the commission were not issued in view of the permanence of his office, on the loss of office or the death of the delegator, in case the delegate has not acted (re adhuc integra, the matter being still intact), on recall of his authority by the delegator (even re adhuc nondum integra, the matter being no longer intact), on expiration of the allotted time, on settlement of the matter, on declaration of the delegate that he has no power (c. xiv, xix, iv, xxxviii, X, De off. jud. deleg., I, xxix). II. DEVELOPMENT OF JURISDICTION IN ITS STRICT SENSE The Church has the right, as a perfect and independent society provided with all the means for attaining its end, to decide according to its laws disputes arising concerning its internal affairs, epecially as to the ecclesiastical rights of its members, also to carry out its decision, if necessary, by suitable means of compulsion, contentious or civil jurisdiction. It has, therefore, the right to admonish or warn its members, ecclesiastical or lay, who have not conformed to its laws, and also, if needful to punish them by physical means, that is, coercive jurisdiction. The church has, first, the power to judge sin. This it does in the internal forum. But a sin can be at the same time externally a misdemeanour or a crime (delictum, crimen), when threatened with external ecclesiastical or civil punishment. The Church also judges ecclesiastical crimes in the external forum by infliction of penalties, except when the wrong doing has remained secret. In this case it contents itself, as a rule, with penance voluntarily assumed. Finally, another distinction is to be drawn between necessary jurisdiction and voluntary jurisdiction; the latter contemplates voluntary subjection on the part of those who seek in legal matters the co-operation of ecclesiastical agencies, e.g. notarially executed intstruments, testaments, etc. The judicial power described above, jurisdiction strictly so called, was given by Christ to His Church, was exercised by the Apostles, and transmitted to their successors (Matt., xviii, 15 sqq.; I Cor., iv, 21; v, 1 sqq.; II Cor., xiii, 10; I Tim., i, 20; v, 19 sq.). From the beginning of the Christian religion the ecclesiastical judge, i.e. the bishop, decided matters of dispute that were purely religious in character (causae mere ecclesiasticae). This jurisdiction of the Church was recognized by the civil (imperial) power when it became Christian. But long before this the early Christians, following the exhortation of Saint Paul (I Cor., vi, 14), were wont to submit to ecclesiastical jurisdiction matters which by their nature belonged to the civil courts. As long as Christianity was not recognized by the State it was left to the conscience of the individual whether he would conform to the decision of the bishop or not. When, however, Christianity had received civil recognition, Constantine the Great raised the former private usage to a public law. According to an imperial constitution of the year 321 the parties in dispute could, by mutual agreement, bring the matter before the bishop even when it was already pending before a civil judge, and the latter was obliged to put into effect the decision of the bishop. A further constitution of 331 provided that in any stage of the suit any one of the parties could appeal to the bishop even against the will of the others (Hanel, "De constitutionibus, quas F. Sirmondus, Paris, an. 1631 edidit," 1840). But Arcadius, in 398, and Honorius, in 408, limited the judicial competence of the bishop to those cases in which both parties applied to him (lex VII, Cod. Just., De audientia episc., I, iv). This arbitral jurisdiction of the bishop was not recognized in the new Teutonic kingdoms. In the Frankish kingdoms purely ecclesiastical matters of dispute belonged to the jurisdiction of the bishop, but mixed cases, in which civil interests appeared, e.g. marriage questions, law suits concerning Church property, etc., belonged to the civil courts. In the course of the Middle Ages the Church succeeded in extending its jurisdiction over all matters that offered an ecclesiastical interest (causae spiritualibus annexae), all litigation concerning marriages (c. vii, X, Qui filii sint legit., IV, xvii; c. vii, X, De donat., IV, xx); matters concerning burial (X, De sepult., III, xxviii); testaments (X, De testam., III, xxvi); compacts ratified with an oath (c. iii, in VI°, De foro compet., II, ii); matters pertaining to benefices (c. ii, X, De suppl. neglig. praelat., I, x); questions of patronage (X, De jur. patron., III, xxxviii); litigation concerning church property and tithes (X, De decim., III, xxx). In addition all civil litigation in which the element of sin was in question (ratio peccati) could be summonded before an ecclesiastical court (c. xiii, X, De judic., II, i). Also, the ecclesiastical court had jurisdiction over the affairs of ecclesiastics, monks, and nuns, the poor, widows, and orphans (personae miserabiles), also of those persons to whom the civil judge refused legal redress (c. xi, X, De foro compet., II, ii). Owing to the unsatisfactory administration of justice in the medieval world this far-reaching civil jurisdiction of the Church was beneficial. However, it eventually overlapped the natural boundaries of Church and State. The result was that the ecclesiastic became too much involved in secular litigation and grew estranged from his proper calling. For these reasons, but further also for selfish ones, a reaction against this condition of affairs arose in England as early as the twelfth century. The reaction spread to France and Germany and gained in influence and justification the more the administration of justice by the State improved. At the end of the long vicissitudinous struggle the Church lost its jurisdiction in res spiritualibus annexal, notwithstanding the claims of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, De ref., c. vi; sess. XXIV, De sacr. matr., can. xii; sess. XXV, De ref., c. xx), also the privilege of the clergy, and finally jurisdiction in matrimonial causes as far as their civil character was concerned. In regard to ecclesiastical jurisdiction in criminal matters the Church exercised jurisdiction at first only in purely ecclesiastical offences, and inflicted only ecclesiastical punishments, e.g. excommunication, and in the case of clerics deposition. The observance of these penalties had to be left to the conscience of the individual. But with the formal recognition of the Church by the State and the increase of ecclesiastical penalties proportioned to the increase of eccleasiastical offences, came an appeal from the Church to the secular arm for aid in enforcing the said penalties, which aid was always willingly granted. Some offence, indeed, especially deviations from the Catholic Faith, were by the State made punishable in civil law and secular penalties were attached to them, also to certain disciplinary misdemeanours of ecclesiastics (Cod. Just., lib. I, tit. v, De haeret. et manich.; tit. vii, De Apost.; tit. ix, De jud. et coelic.). Conversely, the Church in the Middle Ages increased its penal jurisdiction in the civil domain by infliction of varied penalties, some of them purely secular in character. Above all, by means of the privilegium fori it withdrew the so-called "criminous clerks" from the jurisdiction of the civil courts. Then it obtained for the court held by the bishop during his diocesan visitation (the send) not only the punishment of those civil misdemeanours which involved the element of sin and consequently affected both Church and State, but it also punished, and as such, purely civil offences. The penal jurisdiction of the medieval Church included, therefore, first the merely ecclesiastical offences, e.g. heresy, schism, apostasy, etc.; then the merely civil offences; finally the mixed offences, e.g. sins of the flesh, sacrilege, blasphemy, magic, perjury, usury, etc. In punishing offences of a purely ecclesiastical character the Church disposed unreservedly of the aid of the State for the execution of the penalty. When in the aforesaid send, or court held by the bishop during his visitation, it inflicted punishment on the civil offences of the laity, the penalty, as a rule, was enforced by the count (graf) who accompainied the bishop and represented the civil power. The principle prevailed later that an offence already punished by a secular judge was no longer punishable by the ecclesiastical judge (c. ii, in VI°, De except., II, xii). When the send began to disappear, both ecclesiastical and secular judges were in general held equally competent for mixed offences. Prevention (previous adjudication of the case by one judge or the other) was decisive (c. viii, X, De foro compet., II, ii). If the matter were brought before the ecclesiastical judge he inflicted at the same time the civil penalty, not, however, corporal punishment or death. If the accusation was brought before the secular judge, the civil penalty was inflicted by him and the action of the Church was limited to the imposition of a penance. The Church, however, eventually lost by far the greater part of its criminal jurisdiction for the same reasons which, since the end of the Middle Ages, led to the loss of most of its contentious jurisdiction, and in the same manner. Moreover, from the fifteenth century on, the recursus ab abusu which first arose in france (appel comme d'abus), that is the appeal from an abuse of power by an ecclesiastical authority, did much to weaken and discredit ecclesiastical jurisdiction. III. PRESENT SCOPE OF JURISDICTION IN A STRICT SENSE Today the only objects of contentious ecclesiastical jurisdiction (in which jurisdiction, however, the State often takes part or interferes) are: questions of faith, the administration of the sacraments, particularly the contracting and maintenance of marriage, the holding of church services, the creation and modification of benefices, the appointment to and the vacation of ecclesiastical offices, the rights of beneficed ecclesiastics as such, the ecclesiastical rights and duties of patrons, the ecclesiastical rights and duties of religious, the administration of church property. As to the criminal jurisdiction of the Church it now inflicts on the laity only ecclesiastical penalties, and solely for ecclesiastical offences. If ever civil consequences ensue, only the civil authority can take congnizance of them. As regards ecclesiastics, the power of the Church to punish their disciplinary offences and maladministration of their offices, is everywhere acknowledged by the State. Where Church and State are not separated, the State aids in investigating these offences, as well as in executing the canonically rendered decisions of the Church. As to the civil offences of ecclesiastics, ecclesiastical jurisdiction carries with it no secular consequences, though the Church is free to punish such offences by ecclesiastical penalties. According to the Bull "Apostolicae Sedis moderationi" (12 October, 1869), those persons fall under the excommunication reserved to the pope speciali modo, who directly or indirectly hinder the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the external forum or in the internal forum, as well as those who appeal from ecclesiastical to civil jurisdiction; finally every legislator or person in authority who directly or indirectly compels a judge to cite ecclesiastical persons before a civil tribunal (I, vi, vii, viii). It may be added that in various concordats with the civil power the Church has more or less abandoned the privilegium fori of ecclesiastics: Concordat with Bavaria, 1817, art. XII, lit. c. (concerning civil litigation); with Costa Rica, 1853, art XIV, XV; with Guatemala, 1853, art. XV, XVI; with Austria, 1855, art XIII, XIV; with Wurtemburg and Baden, 1857 and 1859, art. V. KELLNER, Das Buss- und Strafverfahren gegen Kleriker in den sechs ersten christlichen Jahrhunderten (Trier, 1863); BOUIX, Tractatus de judiciis ecclesiasticis (Paris, 1855); HINSCHIUS, Das Kirchenrecht der Katholiken und Protestanten, III-VI (Berlin, 1869-1897), i; MUNCHEN, Das kanonische Gerichtsverfahren und Strafrecht (2nd ed., Cologne, 1874); FOURNIER, Les officialites au moyen-age: Etude sur l'organisation, la competence et la procedure des tribunaux ecclesiastiques ordinaires en France de 1180 a 1328 (Paris, 1880); DROSTE, Kirchliches Disziplinar- und Kriminalverfahren gegen Geistliche (Paderborn, 1882); PIERANTONELLI, Praxis fori ecclesiastici (Rome, 1883); LEGA, Praelectiones de judiciis ecclesiasticis (2nd ed., Rome, 1905); SEBASTIANELLI, De judiciis (Rome, 1906); HERGENROTHER-HOLLWECK, Lehrbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts (Freiburg im Br., 1905), 51 sqq., 490 sqq., 536 sqq.; LAURENTIUS, Institutiones juris ecclesiastici (2nd ed., Freiburg im Br., 1908), 32 sqq., 267 sqq.; SAGMULLER, Lehrbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts (2nd ed., Freiburg im Br., 1909), 25 sqq., 218 sqq., 248 sqq., 742 sqq. JOHANNES BAPTIST SÄGMÜLLER De Jussieu De Jussieu Name of five French botanists. (1) ANTOINE DE JUSSIEU, physician and botanist, b. at Lyons, France, 6 July, 1686; d. at Paris, 22 April, 1758. He studied medicine at Montpellier, but as early as 1708 he was appointed, upon the recommendation of Fagon, to succeed the celebrated Tournefort as professor and demonstrator at the Jardin du Roi. By 1711 he was a member of the Academy of Sciences. After making botanical journeys over a large part of France, he explored in 1716 the flora of the Pyrenean peninsula. In addition to his activity as botanist he had a large medical practice, giving much attention to the poor. From 1718 he also made use in his practice of quassia bark (Cortex Simarubæ), the first of which had been sent in 1713 to the Jesuit Father Soleil at Paris from Cayenne. Antoine de Jussieu wrote an account of the bark in the "Mémoires" of the Academy for 1729, and Linnæus named after him the plant Simaruba Jussiæi. The "Mémoires" of the Academy for 1728, and Linnæus named after him the plant Simaruba Jussiæi. The "Mémoires" of the academy also contain papers by Jussieu on human anatomy, zoology, palæontology, and mineralogy. Haller ["Bibliotheca botanica", II (1772)] enumerates twenty botanical papers, of which the "Descriptio et icon Coffeæ (coffee)" of 1713 has historical value. In 1719 he published a new and revised edition, with an appendix, of Tournefort's "Institutiones rei herbariæ". He edited, further, the chief botanical work of the Dominican Jacques Barrelier (1606-73), a large and not unimportant treatise. Barrelier had left numerous drawings of plants and the text for a large work; the text was destroyed in a fire after Barreleir's death, but the drawings were saved. The work edited by de Jussieu contains 334 botanical plates, in folio, with 1392 figures, and is entitled "Plantæ per Galliam, Hispaniam et aliam observatæ" (Paris, 1714). He also left a work, "Traité des vertus des plantes" (Nancy, 1771). (2) BERNARD DE JUSSIEU, brother of the above, b. at Lyons, 17 August, 1699; d. at Paris, 6 November, 1777; the date of death is sometimes given as 1776. He was educated at the large Jesuit college at Lyons until he had finished the study of rhetoric. In 1716 he accompanied his brother Antoine on the latter's journies to Spain, and developed into an enthusiastic botanist. He studied medicine at Montpellier, obtaining his degree in 1720, but practised medicine only for a short time. He was called to Paris by his brother Antoine, at the request of the botanist Vaillant, and after Vaillant's death in 1722 was appointed the latter's successor as professor and assistant demonstrator at the Jardin du Roi. He devoted all his energies to the royal garden, which his brother Antoine left almost entirely to him. He also made botanical excursions in the country surrounding Paris, and was able in 1725 to issue a revised and enlarged edition of Tournefort's work, "Histoire des plantes des environs de Paris"; this publication gained his admission into the Academy of Sciences. Many persons studied botany under his guidance, as the chemist Lavoisier. Owing to de Jussieu's unusual modesty and unselfishness he published very little, notwithstanding the wide range of his learning. He wrote an important paper on zoophytes, sea-organisms whose classification as plants or animals was then a matter of dispute. To study them he went three times to the coast of Normandy, proved in the "Mémoires" of 1742 that they belonged to the animal kingdom (before Peyssonel), and sought to classify them at this early date into genera. He also separated the whale from the fish and placed it among the mammals. The few botanical papers which he published (1739-42) treat of three water-plants. In 1758 Louis XV made de Jussieu superintendent of the royal garden at Trianon near Paris, in which all plants cultivated in France were to be reared. His greatest achievement is the system according to which he arranged and catalogued the plants in the garden at Trianon; it is called "the older Jussieu natural system of plants of 1759", or the Trianon system. Jussieu himself never published anything about his system, nor did he offer any explanation of his arrangement, or give it a theoretical foundation. The genera are not arranged systematically in groups according to a single characteristic, but after consideration of all the characteristics, which, however, are not regarded as of equal value. De Jussieu proposed three main groups, to which he gave no name; these contained altogether fourteen classes, with sixty-five orders or families. Beginning with the cryptogams, the system proceeds from the monocotyledon to the dicotyledon, and closes with the coniferæ. Before this Linnæus had pointed out that only the natural system should be the aim of botanical classification, and published, outside of his artificial system, fragments of a natural system as early as 1738. Compared to the present development of the natural system, both Linnæus and de Jussieu offer scarcely more than a weak attempt at a natural classification of plants, but their attempt is the first upon which the further development rests. De Jussieu was a thoughtful observer of nature, who behind things saw the laws and the Mind which gave the laws. Notwithstanding the great range of his knowledge he was exceedingly modest and unselfish. He was always animated by an intense love of truth, and his influence in the Academy and over French scholars was very great. He was besides deeply religious, preserving his religious principles and acting upon them to the end of his life. An old biography says of him: "No one has proved better than he how religious feeling can be combined with many sciences and true knowledge." He was a member of numerous academies and learned societies, e.g. the academies of Berlin, St. Petersburg, Upsala, London, and Bologna. In 1737 Linnæus named after him the genus Jussieua, which belongs to the family of the Onograceæ, and at the present day includes some thirty-six tropical species, chiefly South American. (3) JOSEPH DE JUSSIEU, explorer and traveller, brother of the two mentioned above, b. at Lyons, 3 September, 1704; d. at Paris, 11 April, 1779. Highly educated in many directions and able to act as physician, botanist, engineer, and mathematician, he became a member of the scientific expedition sent by the Academy to Peru in 1735 to measure an arc of the meridian. After the task of the expedition was completed he remained in South America, supporting himself chiefly by the practice of medicine. His extended and arduous explorations in Peru took place mainly in the years 1747-50. The botanical results of these journeys were large, but the greater part of his manuscripts and collections was lost, and he finally returned to Paris in 1771, broken in health and with a clouded mind. He sent the seed of the heliotropium peruvianum to his brother Bernard, so that the introduction of this ornamental plant into Europe is due to him. He also undertook an investigation as to the area over which the cinchona tree flourishes and as to the first use of its bark by the Jesuits in South America. (4) ANTOINE-LAURENT DE JUSSIEU (botanical abbreviation, Juss.), nephew of the above mentioned three brothers, b. at Lyons, 12 April, 1748; d. at Paris, 17 September, 1836. In 1765 he went to his uncle Bernard at Paris, where he first studied medicine. However, after he was appointed in 1770 professor and demonstrator at the Jardin du Roi in place of Lemonnier, he applied himself entirely to botany. In 1804 he was made professor of botany in the medical faculty at Paris, where he lectured until 1826. His memoir on the classification of the family of Ranunculaceæ (1773) led to his election to the Academy of Sciences. He adopted his uncle Bernard's ideas concerning the natural system, expanded them, gave them a theoretical basis, and applied them practically to the different families. All our knowledge concerning the natural system of his uncle we owe to him; consequently it is not possible to make a clear distinction between the work of the two men. As early as 1774, during the lifetime of the uncle, appeared the treatise "Exposition d'un nouvel Ordre des Plantes, adopté dans les démonstrations du Jardin royal", in the "Mém. de l'Acad. des Science" (1774), 175-97. His chief work, the result of many years study on the same subject, was entitled "Genera plantarum secundum ordines naturales disposita, juxta methodum in horto Regio Parisiensi exaratum anno 1774" (Paris, 1789). His work has remained the basis of all advance in the natural system of plant classification. It greatly influenced investigators in France, especially Cuvier and de Candolle. At a later date it also affected the German and English investigators, who had been at first suspicious of it as a product of the French Revolution (from 1789) and were extreme adherents of the Linnæan system. Even more vigorously than his uncle Bernard he upholds the theory of subordination or unequal value of the characteristics of plants, according to which certain characteristic signs have a more general and comprehensive importance than others. The characteristics are "weighed, not simply mechanically counted" (pesés et non comptés). Once ascertained, these essential characteristics are to be used like the chief fossils in geology, in order to assign plants to a definite group. It is true that in the application this principle frequently leads to false results. Antoine-Laurent gave to the three main groups of the original classification of his uncle the names of Acotyledon, Monocotyledon, and Dicotyledon, and divided them into fifteen classes, containing in all one hundred families. A most important fact is that he sought out and clearly defined the characteristics of families, largely indeed in later treatises. In the period, beginning in 1789, of the French Revolution, it may be said in brief that with other scholars he reorganized the Natural History Museum at Paris in 1790, and in 1808 was appointed by Napoleon counsellor of the university. During the years 1789-1802 he published no botanical works. It was not until the "Annales" and "Mémoires" of the Natural History Museum were founded that there began for him a new era of intense activity in investigation. He wrote for these publications, 1802-20, a very large number of memoirs and notes on individual species or genera, and especially monographs on numerous families. He was led largely to these labours by the work "De fructibus et seminibus plantarum" (1788-91) of the German botanist Joseph Gärtner (1732-91). Antoine-Laurent also published "Principes de la methode naturelle des végétaux" (Paris, 1824). He partly prepared a greatly desired second edition of the "Genera plantarum", but the work was never issued. Only what had been left ready for print, an entirely rewritten "Introductio" for the second edition, was published after his death by his son Adrien [An. des Sc. nat. (1837)]. (5) ADRIEN-HENRI DE JUSSIEU (botanical abbreviation, Adr. Juss.), son of Antoine-Laurent, b. at Paris, 23 December, 1797, d. there, 29 June, 1853. He received in 1824 the degree of Doctor of Medicine at Paris, presenting a treatise on the plant family Euphorbiaceæ. When his father retired in 1826 he was made professor of agricultural botany at the Jardin des Plantes; in 1845 he was made professor of organography of plants at the university. His textbook, "Cours élémentaire de botanique" (Paris), passed through numerous editions and translations. Besides a "Géographie botanique" (Paris, 1845), he also published monographs on several families of plants, especially the Malpighiaceæ (1843). He was president of the French Academy of Sciences. SACHS, Geschichte der Botanik (Munich, 1875); RÁDL, Geschichte der biologischen Theorien, II (Leipzig, 1909). JOSEPH ROMPEL Jus Spolii Jus Spolii (RIGHT OF SPOIL; also called JUS EXUVIARUM and RAPITE CAPITE) Jus Spolii, a claim, exercised in the Middle Ages, of succession to the property of deceased clerics, at least such as they had derived from their ecclesiastical benefices. It was an outcome of ancient canons which forbade clerics to dispose by will of goods accruing from their ecclesiastical office. These canons were gradually relaxed because of the difficulty of distinguishing between ecclesiastical and patrimonial property. Abuses then arose. Churches were despoiled at the death of their incumbents. Bishops and archdeacons seized for the cathedral the spoil of abbeys and other benefices, on the pretence that all other churches were but offshoots of the cathedral. After the fall of the Western Empire any one present at the death of a cleric felt at liberty to carry off whatever property of the deceased, ecclesiastical or otherwise, he could seize (rapite capite, seize and take). As the civil power became more conscious of itself it began to restrain this indiscriminate plunder. The sovereign claimed for himself the "Jus Spolii" in the case of deceased bishops, while the smaller feudal lords laid similar claim to the property of all clerics who died in their domains. Councils (Tribur, 895; Trosly, 909; Clermont, 1095; II Lateran, 1139) of the Church legislated against these abuses, finally obtaining a renunciation of this so-called right. In the thirteenth century the Roman Church put forth in a modified way the same claim, and it eventually became a principle of canon law that the goods of beneficed ecclesiastics, dying intestate, belonged of right to the papal treasury. This right however was not allowed in France, Germany, Belgium, or Portugal. In the Kingdom of Naples a compromise was made at the close of the sixteenth century, whereby the right was renounced for an annual payment to the papal treasury. SÄGMÜLLER in Kirchenlex., s. v. Spolienrecht; FERRARIS, Bibliotheca prompta jur. can., s. v. Spolium; OJETTI, Synop. Rer. Mor. et Jur. Pont., s. v. Spolium. ANDREW B. MEEHAN. Juste Juste The name conventionally applied to a family of Italian sculptors, whose real name was Betti, originally from San Martino a Mensola, near Florence. Giusto, whose name was afterwards given to the whole family, and Andrea are the first two known to us. Neither seems to have gone out of Italy. But Andrea had three sons -- Anthony (1479-1519), Andrew (born about 1483), and John, the most illustrious of the house (1485-1549) -- all of whom early emigrated to France and figured prominently during the Renaissance. With Francesco Laurana they stand as the most brilliant representatives and the most active emissaries of Italian art beyond the Alps. As early as 1504 the three brothers were in Brittany, at Dol, executing the monument of Bishop Thomas James. Later, they separated. Anthony worked for the Cardinal d'Amboise in the famous castle of Gaillon; while John, attracted to Tours, spent a few years in the atelier of Michel Colombe, famous as the sculptor of the "Entombment" in the Abbey of Solesmes. Colombe was the last representative of the Dijon School, founded by Claus Sluter under the first dukes of Burgundy. At his school John Juste became imbued with the realism of Flanders, slightly softened and tempered with French delicacy. Through this combination of qualities, he created for himself a style whose charm consisted in its flexibility and complexity. At the death of Michel Colombe (1512) the Justes worked again in concert and inherited his fame. Francis I commissioned them to execute the famous mausoleum of Louis XII at St-Denis, and this occupied almost fifteen years (1516-31). But Anthony's share in this work was slight, as he died in 1519. The honour of this magnificent masterpiece belongs entirely to his brother John. The original conception seems to have been Perréal's, and yet it was not wholly his. The iconography of tombs was extremely rich in France in the fifteenth century. Its main theme consists of a gisant or recumbent effigy of the deceased, laid upon a funeral couch surmounting the sarcophagus, upon the sides of which a procession of mourners is represented. The most celebrated example of this style is the monument of Philip the Bold by Claus Sluter, at Dijon (1405), of which there have been several variants, down to the monument of Philippe Pot (1480) in the Louvre. The tomb of Louis XII inaugurated a new tradition, or rather a colossal development of the subject. The hero is represented kneeling on a catafalque beneath which the gisant appears as a naked, emaciated corpse, "such as death has made it for us". This striking contrast is in itself a most eloquent funeral oration. The monument is an incomparable masterpiece; it has served as the type of many others, and would, alone, be sufficient to bring glory to an artist; but it is not the only work we have of John Juste. He also executed the tombs of Philippe de Montmorency and of Artus Gouffier in the church of Oiron (Deux-Sèvres), that of Jean Rieux, at Ancenis, of Thomas Bohier, at St-Saturnin, Tours, and of the Abbé Louis de Crévent at the Trinité, Vendôme. He had one son, John the second, the last sculptor of the family, who died in 1577, and of whom some works are to be seen in the churches of Oiron and Champeaux. DEVILLE, Comptes de Gaillon (1850); Nouvelles archives de l'Art français (1872 and 1876); MONTAIGLON. La famille des Juste (1876); LABORDE, Comptes des bâtiments du roi (1880); PALUSTRE, La Renaissance en France, II, 84, 98; III, 86, 91; COURAJOD, Leçons professées à l'Ecole du Louvre, II (1901), 667 sqq.; VITRY, Michel Colombe (1901), 454 sqq.; MÂLE, L'art religieux de la fin du Moyen-Age en France (1909), 472. LOUIS GILLET. Justice Justice Justice is here taken in its ordinary and proper sense to signify the most important of the cardinal virtues. It is a moral quality or habit which perfects the will and inclines it to render to each and to all what belongs to them. Of the other cardinal virtues, prudence perfects the intellect and inclines the prudent man to act in all things according to right reason. Fortitude controls the irascible passions; and temperance moderates the appetites according as reason dictates. While fortitude and temperance are self-regarding virtues, justice has reference to others. Together with charity it regulates man's intercourse with his fellow men. But charity leads us to help our neighbour in his need out of our own stores, while justice teaches us to give to another what belongs to him. Because man is a person, a free and intelligent being, created in the image of God, he has a dignity and a worth vastly superior to the material and animal world by which he is surrounded. Man can know, love, and worship his Creator; he was made for that end, which he can only attain perfectly in the future, immortal, and never-ending life to which he is destined. God gave him his faculties and his liberty in order that he might freely work for the accomplishment of his destiny. He is in duty bound to strive to fulfil the designs of his Creator, he must exercise his faculties and conduct his life according to the intentions of his Lord and Master. Because he is under these obligations he is consequently invested with rights, God-given and primordial, antecedent to the State and independent of it. Such are man's natural rights, granted to him by nature herself, sacred, as is their origin, and inviolable. Beside these he may have other rights given him by Church or State, or acquired by his own industry and exertion. All these rights, whatever be their source, are the object of the virtue of justice. Justice requires that all persons should be left in the free enjoyment of all their rights. A right in the strict sense in which the term is used in this connection is not a mere vague and indefinite claim against others, which others are bound to respect, on any grounds whatever. We sometimes say that the unemployed have a right to work, that the needy have a right to assistance, and it may be conceded that those phrases are quite correct, provided that such a right is understood as a claim in charity not as a claim in justice. For, at least if we confine our attention to natural law and ordinary circumstances, the assistance to which a man in need has a claim does not belong to him in justice before it is handed over to him, when it becomes his. His claim to it rests on the fact that he is a brother in distress, and his brotherhood constitutes his title to our pity, sympathy, and help. It may, of course, happen that positive law does something more than this for the poor and needy; it may be that the law of the land has given a legal right to the unemployed to have employment provided for them, or to the poor a legal right to relief; then, of course, the claim will be one of justice. A claim in justice, or a right in the strict sense, is a moral and lawful faculty of doing, possessing, or exacting something. If it be a moral and lawful faculty of doing something for the benefit of others, it belongs to the class of rights of jurisdiction. Thus a father has the natural right to bring up and educate his son, not for his own, but for the son's benefit. A lawful sovereign has the right to rule his subjects for the common good. The largest class of rights which justice requires that we should render to others are rights of ownership. Ownership is the moral faculty of using something subordinate to us for our own advantage. The owner of a house may dispose of it as he will. He may live in it, or let it, or leave it unoccupied, or pull it down, or sell it; he may make changes in it, and in general he may deal with it as he likes, because it is his. Because it is his, he has a right to all the uses and advantages which it possesses. It is his property, and as such its whole being should subserve his need and convenience. Because it belongs to him he must be preferred to all others as to the enjoyment of the uses to which it can be put. He has the right to exclude others from the enjoyment of its uses, it belongs with all the advantages which it can confer to him alone. Were anyone else to make use of the house against the reasonable wish of the owner, he would offend against justice, he would not be render- ing to the owner what belongs to him. The right of ownership may be absolute or qualified. Absolute ownership extends to the substance of the property and to all its uses. Qualified ownership may, in the language of divines, be direct or indirect. The former is ownership of the substance of a thing without its uses, such as the landlord has over a house which he has let. Indirect ownership is the faculty of using, but not of disposing of, a thing. When anything definite and determinate is owned by anyone so that he can say--"This is my property"--he is said by divines to have a right in re. On the other hand if the thing has not yet come into existence though it will come, or it is not separate and determinate, so that he cannot say that it is actually his, but he nevertheless has a strict claim in justice that it should become his, he is said to have a right ad rem. Thus a farmer has a right ad rem to the harvest of the coming year from his land; when he has harvested his crop he will have a right in re. Ownership in the sense explained is the principal object of the virtue of justice as it regulates the relations of man with man. It sharply distinguishes justice from charity, gratitude, patriotism, and other virtues whose object is a claim against others indeed, but a claim of a less strict and more indefinite character. Justice between man and man is called individual, particular, or commutative justice, because it is chiefly concerned with contracts and exchange. Individual justice is distinguished from social, for not only individuals have claims in justice against other individuals but a subject has claims against the society to which he belongs, as society has claims against him. Justice requires that all should have what belongs to them, and so the just man will render to the society, or State, of which he is a member, what is due to it. The justice which prescribes this is called legal justice. On the other hand, the individual subject has claims against the State. It is the function of the State to protect its subjects in their rights and to govern the whole body for the common good. Authority for this purpose is given to the State by nature and by God, the Author of man's social nature. The power of the State is limited by the end for which it was instituted, and it has no authority to violate the natural rights of its subjects. If it does this it commits injustice as individuals would do if they acted in like manner. It may indeed levy taxes, and impose other burdens on its subjects, as far as is required by the common necessity and advantage, but no further. For the common good it has authority to compel individual citizens to risk life for the defence of their country when it is in peril, and to part with a portion of their property when this is required for a public road, but as far as possible it must make suitable compensation. When it imposes taxes, military service, or other burdens; when it distributes rewards, offices, and honours; when it metes out condign punishment for offenses, it is bound to do so according to the various merits and resources of the persons concerned; otherwise the State will sin against that special kind of justice which is called distributive. There is a controversy among authorities as to whether commutative, legal, and distributive justice are so many species of one common genus, or whether commutative justice is in reality the only species of justice in the strict sense. There is much to be said for the latter view. For justice is something which is due to another; it consists, as Aristotle said, in a certain equality by which the just and definite claim of another, neither more nor less, is satisfied. If I have borrowed a horse and cart from my neighbours, justice requires that I should return that particular horse and cart. The debt in its precise amount must be paid. Consequently, justice in the full and proper sense of the term requires a perfect distinction between debtor and creditor. No one can be bound in justice towards himself; justice essentially regards others. However, between the State and the individuals who compose it there is not this perfect distinction, and so there is something wanting to the proper and complete notion of the virtue in both legal and distributive justice. The rights which belong to every human being inasmuch as he is a person are absolute and inalienable. The right to life and limb, the essential freedom which is necessary that a man may attain the end for which he is destined by God, the right to marry or remain single, such rights as these may not be infringed by any human authority whatever. A man himself even has no right to dispose of his own life and limbs; God alone is the Lord of life and death. But a man has the duty and the right to use and develop his faculties of soul and body, and if he chooses he may dispose of his right to use these faculties and whatever advantage they can procure him in favour of another. No person then can become the property of another human being, slavery in that sense is repugnant to the dignity of human nature. But a man may by various titles have the right to the labour of another. All things inferior to man were created for his use and benefit; they fulfil the end of their being by ministering to his wants and necessities. Whatever, therefore, pertains to the animal, vegetable, or inorganic world may be brought under the ownership and made the property of man. The right thus to acquire property which is useful and necessary for an orderly human life, is one of man's natural rights, and it can not be taken away by the State. She State may indeed make reasonable laws regulating and defining the property rights of its subjects for the common good, but it cannot abrogate them altogether. Such rights are antecedent to the State, and in their substance independent of it; the State was instituted to protect and defend them, not to take them away. Rights are the appanage of intelligent beings as such, beings who can reflect on themselves, know their own wants, and who can will to supply them by permanently appropriating to themselves objects which are subordinate and which will satisfy those wants. Every human being, therefore, is the subject of rights, even before he has been brought into the world. The unborn child has a right to its life; it may even have property rights as well. Justice then is violated if such rights are interfered with unwarrantably. Minors and married women have their rights like others, but positive law frequently modifies their property rights for the common good. In past ages the property rights of women especially were largely modified by positive law on their being married, the husband acquiring more or less extensive rights over the property of his wife. In modern times, and especially in English-speaking countries, the tendency has been to do away with such positive enactments, and to restore to married women all the property rights which unmarried women possess. Not only individuals, but societies of men as such are the subjects of rights. For men cannot singly and by their own unaided exertions do everything that is necessary for the security and dignity of human existence. For this end man needs the co-operation of his fellows. He has then a natural right to associate himself with others for the attainment of some lawful end, and when such societies have been formed, they are moral persons which have their rights similar to those of natural persons. Such societies then may own property, and although the State may make laws which modify those rights for the common good, it is beyond its power altogether to abrogate them. Men have this power to form themselves into societies especially for the purpose of offering to God the public and social worship which is due to Him. The Catholic Church, founded by God Himself, is a perfect society and independent of the State. She has her rights, God-given, and necessary for the attainment of her end, and justice is violated if these are unwarrantably interfered with. As we have seen, human nature, its wants and aims, are the source of the fundamental and natural rights of man. By his industry man may occupy and annex to his person material things which are of use to him and which belong to nobody else. He thus acquires property by the title of occupation. Property once acquired remains in the possession of its owner; all that it is or is capable of is ordained to his use and benefit. If it increases by natural growth or by giving birth to offspring, the increase belongs to the original owner. By the same law of accession increase in value, even unearned increment as it is called, belongs to the owner of that which thus increases--"Res fructificat domino". Positive law may, as we have seen, modify property rights for the common good. It may also further determine those that are indeterminate by the law of nature; it may even create rights which would not exist without it. Thus a father may by law acquire certain rights over the property of his children, and a husband may in the same way have certain rights over the property of his wife. When such rights exist it is, of course, a matter of justice to respect them. Finally, rights may be transferred from one to another or modified by a great variety of contracts, which are treated of under a special heading. See CONTRACT. The foregoing is in very brief outline the doctrine on justice which has been gradually elaborated by Catholic philosophers and divines. The foundations of the doctrine are found in Aristotle, but the noble, beautiful, and altogether rational edifice has been raised by the labours of such men as Aquinas, Molina, Lessius, Lugo, and a host of others. The doctrine as it appears at large in their stately folios is one of the chief and most important results of Catholic thought. It fully accounts for the peremptory, sacred, and absolutely binding character with which justice is invested in the minds of men. It was never of greater importance than it is nowadays to insist on these characteristics of justice. They disappear almost if not altogether in the modern theories of the virtue. Most of these theories derive rights and justice from positive law, and when socialists and anarchists threaten to abrogate those laws and make new ones which will regulate men's rights more equitably, no rational defense of the old order is possible. It becomes a mere question of might and brute force. Even if some with Herbert Spencer endeavour to find a deeper foundation for justice in the conditions of human existence, it is easy to answer that their interpretation of those conditions is essentially individualist and selfish, and that human existence thus conditioned is not worth having; that the new social order peremptorily demands their abolition. The Catholic doctrine of justice will be found one of the main safeguards of order, peace, and progress. With even balance it equally favours all and presses unduly on none. It gives the State ample authority for the attainment of its legitimate end, while it effectually bars the road to tyranny and violence. T. SLATER Justification Justification (Latin justificatio; Greek dikaiosis.) A biblio-ecclesiastical term; which denotes the transforming of the sinner from the state of unrighteousness to the state of holiness and sonship of God. Considered as an act (actus justificationis), justification is the work of God alone, presupposing, however, on the part of the adult the process of justification and the cooperation of his free will with God's preventing and helping grace (gratia praeveniens et cooperans). Considered as a state or habit (habitus justificationis), it denotes the continued possession of a quality inherent in the soul, which theologians aptly term sanctifying grace. Since the sixteenth century great differences have existed between Protestants and Catholics regarding the true nature of justification. As the dogmatic side of the controversy has been fully explained in the article on GRACE, we shall here consider it more from an historical point of view. I. THE PROTESTANT DOCTRINE ON JUSTIFICATION The ideas on which the Reformers built their system of justification, except perhaps fiduciary faith, were by no means really original. They had been conceived long before either by heretics of the earlier centuries or by isolated Catholic theologians and had been quietly scattered as the seed of future heresies. It was especially the representatives of Antinomianism during the Apostolic times who welcomed the idea that faith alone suffices for justification, and that consequently the observance of the moral law is not necessary either as a prerequisite for obtaining justification or as a means for preserving it. For this reason St. Augustine (De fide et operibus, xiv) was of the opinion that the Apostles James, Peter, John, and Jude had directed their Epistles against the Antinomians of that time, who claimed to have taken their doctrines -- so dangerous to morality -- from the writings of St. Paul. Until quite recently, it was almost universally accepted that the epistle of St. James was written against the unwarranted conclusions drawn from the writings of St. Paul. Of late, however, Catholic exegetes have become more and more convinced that the Epistle in question, so remarkable for its insisting on the necessity of good works, neither aimed at correcting the false interpretations of St. Paul's doctrine, nor had any relation to the teaching of the Apostle of the Gentiles. On the contrary, they believe that St. James had no other object than to emphasize the fact -- already emphasized by St. Paul -- that only such faith as is active in charity and good works (fides formata) possesses any power to justify man (cf. Gal., v,6; I Cor., xiii,2), whilst faith devoid of charity and good works (fides informis) is a dead faith and in the eyes of God insufficient for justification (cf. James, ii, 17 sqq.). According to this apparently correct opinion, the Epistles of both Apostles treat of different subjects, neither with direct relation to the other. For St. James insists on the necessity of works of Christian charity, while St. Paul intends to show that neither the observance of the Jewish Law nor the merely natural good works of the pagans are of any value for obtaining the grace of justification (cf. Bartmann, "St. Paulus u. St. Jacobus und die Rechtertigung", Freiburg, 1897). Whether Victorinus, a neo-Platonist, already defended the doctrine of justification by faith alone, is immaterial to our discussion. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages there were a few Catholic theologians among the Nominalists (Occam, Durandus, Gabriel Biel), who went so far in exaggerating the value of good works in the matter of justification that the efficiency and dignity of Divine grace was unduly relegated to the background. Of late, Fathers Denifle and Weiss have shown that Martin Luther was acquainted almost exclusively with the theology of these Nominalists, which he naturally and justly found repugnant, and that the "Summa" of St. Thomas and the works of other great theologians were practically unknown to him. Even Ritschl ("Christliche Lehre von der Rechfertigung und Versohnung", I, 3rd ed., Bonn, 1889, pp. 105, 117) admits that neither the Church in her official teaching nor the majority of her theologians ever sanctioned, much less adopted, the extreme views of the Nominalists. Nevertheless it was not a healthy reaction against Nominalism, but Luther's own state of conscience that caused his change of views. Frightened, tormented, worn out by constant reflexions on his own sinfulness, he had finally found, even before 1517, relief and consolation only in the thought that man cannot overcome concupiscence, and that sin itself is a necessity. This thought naturally led him to a consideration of the fall of man and its consequences. Original sin has so completely destroyed our likeness to God and our moral faculties in the natural order, that our will has lost its freedom regarding works morally good or bad, and we are consequently condemned to commit sin in every action. Even what we consider good works are nothing but sin. Since, according to Luther, concupiscence, of which death alone shall free us, constitutes the essence of original sin, all our actions are corrupted by it. Concupiscence as an intrinsically evil disposition, has instilled its deadly poison into the soul, its faculties, and its action (cf. Mohler, "Symbolik", sec. 6). But here we are forced to ask: If all our moral actions be the outcome of an internal necessity and constraint, how can Luther still speak of sin in the true meaning of the word? Does not original sin become identical with the "Evil Substance" of the Manichaeans, as later on Luther's follower, Flacius Illyricus, quite logically admitted? Against this dark and desolate background there stands out the more clearly the mercy of God, who for the sake of the Redeemer's merits lovingly offers to despairing man a righteousness (justitia) already complete in itself, namely the exterior righteousness of God or of Christ. With the "arm of faith" the sinner eagerly reaches out for this righteousness and puts it on as a cloak of grace, covering and concealing therewith his misery and his sins. Thus on the part of God, justification is, as the Formulary of Concord (1577) avows, a mere external pronouncement of justification, a forensic absolution from sin and its eternal punishments. This absolution is based on Christ's holiness which God imputes to man's faith. Cf. Solid. Declar. III de fide justif., sec. xi: "The term justification in this instance means the declaring just, the freeing from sin and the eternal punishment of sin in consideration of the justice of Christ imputed to faith by God." What then is the part assigned to faith in justification? According to Luther (and Calvin also), the faith that justifies is not, as the Catholic Church teaches, a firm belief in God's revealed truths and promises (fides theoretica, dogmatica), but is the infallible conviction (fides fiducialis, fiducia) that God for the sake of Christ will no longer impute to us our sins, but will consider and treat us, as if we were really just and holy, although in our inner selves we remain the same sinners as before. Cf. Solid. Declar. III, sec. 15: "Through the obedience of Christ by faith the just are so declared and reputed, although by reason of their corrupt nature they still are and remain, sinners as long as they bear this mortal body." This so-called "fiduciary faith" is not a religious-moral preparation of the soul for sanctifying grace, nor a free act of cooperation on the part of the sinner; it is merely a means or spiritual instrument (instrumentum, organon leptikon) granted by God to assist the sinner in laying hold of the righteousness of God, thereby to cover his sins in a purely external manner as with a mantle. For this reason the Lutheran formularies of belief lay great stress on the doctrine that our entire righteousness does not intrinsically belong to us, but is something altogether exterior. Cf. Solid. Declar., sec. 48: "It is settled beyond question that our justice is to be sought wholly outside of ourselves and that it consists entirely in our Lord Jesus Christ." The contrast between Protestant and Catholic doctrine here becomes very striking. For according to the teaching of the Catholic Church the righteousness and sanctity which justification confers, although given to us by God as efficient cause (causa efficiens) and merited by Christ as meritorious cause (causa meritoria), become an interior sanctifying quality or formal cause (causa formalis) in the soul itself, which it makes truly just and holy in the sight of God. In the Protestant system, however, remission of sin is no real forgiveness, no blotting out of guilt. Sin is merely cloaked and concealed by the imputed merits of Christ; God no longer imputes it, whilst in reality it continues under cover its miserable existence till the hour of death. Thus there exist in man side by side two hostile brothers as it were -- the one just and the other unjust; the one a saint, the other a sinner; the one a child of God, the other a slave of Satan -- and this without any prospect of a conciliation between the two. For, God by His merely judicial absolution from sin does not take away sin itself, but spreads over it as an outward mantle His own righteousness. The Lutheran (and Calvinistic) doctrine on justification reaches its climax in the assertion that "fiduciary faith", as described above, is the only requisite for justification (sola fides justificat). As long as the sinner with the "arm of faith" firmly clings to Christ, he is and will ever remain regenerated, pleasing to God, the child of God and heir to heaven. Faith, which alone can justify, is also the only requisite and means of obtaining salvation. Neither repentance nor penance, neither love of God nor good works, nor any other virtue is required, though in the just they may either attend or follow as a result of justification. (Cf. Solid. Declar, sec. 23: "Indeed, neither contrition nor love nor any other virtue, but faith alone is the means by which we can reach forth and obtain the grace of God, the merit of Christ and the remission of sin.") It is well known that Luther in his German translation of the Bible falsified Rom. iii, 28, by interpolating the word "alone" (by faith alone), and to his critics gave the famous answer: "Dr. Martin Luther wants it that way, and says, 'Papist and ass are the same thing: sic volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas'." Since neither charity nor good works contribute anything towards justification -- inasmuch as faith alone justifies -- their absence subsequently cannot deprive the just man of anything whatever. There is only one thing that might possibly divest him of justification, namely, the loss of fiduciary faith or of faith in general. From this point of view we get a psychological explanation of numerous objectionable passages in Luther's writings, against which even Protestant with deep moral sense, such as Hugo Grotius and George Bull, earnestly protested. Thus we find in one of Luther's letters, written to Melancthon in 1521, the following sentence: "Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ more strongly, who triumphed over sin, death, and the world; as long as we live here, we must sin." Could anyone do more to degrade St. Paul's concept of justification than Luther did in the following blasphemy: "If adultery could be committed in faith, it would not be a sin"? (Cf. Möhler, "Symbolik", sec. 16). The doctrine of justification by faith alone was considered by Luther and his followers as an incontrovertible dogma, as the foundation rock of the Reformation, as an "article by which the Church must stand or fall" (articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesia), and which of itself would have been a sufficient cause for beginning the Reformation, as the Smalkaldic Articles emphatically declare. Thus we need not wonder when later on we see Lutheran theologians declaring that the Sola-Fides doctrine, as the principium materiale of Protestantism, deserves to be placed side by side with the doctrine of Sola-Scriptura ("Bible alone", with the exclusion of Tradition) as its principium formale -- two maxims in which the contrast between Protestant and Catholic teaching reaches its highest point. Since, however, neither maxim can be found in the Bible, every Catholic is forced to conclude that Protestantism from its very beginning and foundation is based on self-deception. We assert this of Protestantism in general; for the doctrine of justification as defended by the reformed Churches differs only in non-essentials from Lutheranism. The most important of these differences is to be found in Calvin's system, which taught that only such as are predestined infallibly to eternal salvation obtain justification, whilst in those not predestined God produces a mere appearance of faith and righteousness, and this in order to punish them the more severely in hell (Cf. Mohler, "Symbolik", sec.12). From what has been said it is obvious that justification as understood by Protestants, presents the following qualities: its absolute certainty (certitudo), its equality in all (aequalitas), and finally the impossibility of ever losing it (inamissibilitas). For if it be essential to fiduciary faith that it infallibly assures the sinner of his own justification, it cannot mean anything but a firm conviction of the actual possession of grace. If, moreover, the sinner be justified, not by an interior righteousness capable of increase or decrease, but through God's sanctity eternally the same, it is evident that all the just from the common mortal to the Apostles and the Blessed Virgin Mary possess one and the same degree of righteousness and sanctity. Finally if, as Luther maintains, only the loss of faith (according to Calvin, not even that) can deprive us of justification, it follows that justification once obtained can never be lost. Incidentally, we may here call attention to another significant fact, namely that it was Luther who laid the foundation for the separation of religion and morality. For, by stating that fiduciary faith alone suffices for obtaining both justification and eternal happiness, he minimized our moral faculties to such an extent that charity and good works no longer affect our relations with God. By this doctrine Luther opened a fundamental breach between religion and morality, between faith and law, and assigned to each its own distinct sphere of action in which each can attain its end independent of the other. Prof. Paulsen of Berlin was therefore justified in eulogizing Kant, who followed Luther in this matter, as the Philosopher of Protestantism". (Cf. Mohler, "Symbolik", sec. 25.) The harshness, want of harmony, intrinsic improbability, and contradiction of Holy Writ contained in the system soon brought about a reaction in the very midst of Protestantism. Osiander (d. 1552), at once an enthusiastic admirer of Luther and an independent thinker, emphatically stated (in opposition to Luther and Calvin) that the justifying power of faith consists in a real, instrinsic union of Christ with the soul, an opinion for which, as being Catholic, he was censured freely. Butzer (d. 1551) likewise admits, in addition to an "imputed exterior righteousness", the idea of an "inherent righteousness" as a partial factor in justification, thus meeting Catholicism half way. Luther's most dangerous adversary, however, was his friend Melancthon, who, in his praiseworthy endeavour to smooth over by conciliatory modifications the interior difficulties of this discordant system, laid the foundation for the famous Synergisten-Streit (Synergist Dispute), which was so soon to become embittered. In general it was precisely the denial of man's free will in the moral order, and of the impossibility of his full cooperation with Divine grace that repelled so many followers of Luther. No sooner had Pfeffinger in his book, "De libero arbitrio" (Leipzig, 1555) taken up defence of man's free will than many theologians of Jena (e.g. Strigel) boldly attacked the Lutheran Klotz-Stock-und-Steintheorie (log-stick-and-stone theory), and tried to force from their adversaries the concession that man can cooperate with God's grace. The theological quarrel soon proved very annoying to both parties and the desire for peace became universal. "The Half-Melanchtonians" had succeeded in smuggling Synergism into the "Book of Torgau" (1576); but before the "Formulary of Concord" was printed in the monastery of Bergen (near Magdeburg, 1557), the article in question was eliminated as heterodox and the harsh doctrine of Luther substituted in the symbols of the Lutheran Church. The new breach in the system by the Synergisten-Streit was enlarged by a counter movement that originated among the Pietists and Methodists, who were willing to admit the fallible assurance of salvation -- given by fiduciary faith -- only in case that that assurance was confirmed by internal experience. But what probably contributed most of all to the crumbling of the system was the rapid growth of Socinianism and Rationalism which during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries gained so many adherents among the Lutherans. Fiduciary faith was no longer considered a spiritual means to assist man in reaching out for the righteousness of God, but was identified with a disposition which is upright and pleasing to God. Latterly, A. Ritschl defined justification as the change in the consciousness of our relation to God and amplified this idea by the statement that the certainty of our salvation is further determined by the consciousness of our union with the Christian community. Schleiermacher and Hengstenberg deviated still father from the old doctrine. For they declared contrition and penance as also necessary for justification, thus "coming dangerously near the Catholic system", as Derner expresses it ("Geschichte der protest. Theologie", Munich, 1867, p.583). Finally the Lutheran Church of Scandinavia has in the course of time experienced a "quiet reformation", inasmuch as it now, without being fully conscious of the fact, defends the Catholic doctrine on justification (cf. Krogh-Tonning, "Die Gnadenlehre und die stille Reformation", Christiania, 1894). The strict orthodoxy of the Old Lutherans, e.g. in the Kingdom of Saxony and the State of Missouri, alone continues to cling tenaciously to a system, which otherwise would have slowly fallen into oblivion. I. THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE ON JUSTIFICATION We have an authentic explanation of the Catholic doctrine in the famous "Decretum de justificatione" of the Sixth Session (13 Jan., 1547) of the Council of Trent, which in sixteen chapters (cf. Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchir.", nn.793-810) and thirty-three canons (l.c., 811-43) gives in the clearest manner all necessary information about the process, causes, effects, and qualities of justification. (1) The Process of Justification (Processus justificationis) Since justification as an application of the Redemption to the individual presupposes the fall of the entire human race, the Council of Trent quite logically begins with the fundamental statement that original sin has weakened and deflected, but not entirely destroyed or extinguished the freedom of the human will (Trent, sess. VI, cap. i: "Liberum arbitrium minime extinctum, viribus licet attenuatum et inclinatum"). Nevertheless, as the children of Adam were really corrupted by original sin, they could not of themselves arise from their fall nor shake off the bonds of sin, death, and Satan. Neither the natural faculties left in man, nor the observance of the Jewish Law could achieve this. Since God alone was able to free us from this great misery, He sent in His infinite love His only begotten Son Jesus Christ, Who by His bitter passion and death on the cross redeemed fallen man and thus became the Mediator between God and man. But if the grace of Redemption merited by Christ is to be appropriated by the individual, he must be "regenerated by God", that is he must be justified. What then is meant by justification? Justification denotes that change or transformation in the soul by which man is transferred from the state of original sin, in which as a child of Adam he was born, to that of grace and Divine sonship through Jesus Christ, the second Adam, our Redeemer (l.c., cap.iv: "Justificatio impii. . . translatio ab eo statu, in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae, in statum gratiae et adoptionis filiorum Dei per secundum Adam, Jesum Christum, Salvatorem nostrum"). In the New Law this justification cannot, according to Christ's precept, be effected except at the fountain of regeneration, that is, by the baptism of water. While in Baptism infants are forthwith cleansed of the stain of original sin without any preparation on their part, the adult must pass through a moral preparation, which consists essentially in turning from sin and towards God. This entire process receives its first impulse from the supernatural grace of vocation (absolutely independent of man's merits), and requires an intrinsic union of the Divine and human action, of grace and moral freedom of election, in such a manner, however, that the will can resist, and with full liberty reject the influence of grace (Trent, l.c., can.iv: "If any one should say that free will, moved and set in action by God, cannot cooperate by assenting to God's call, nor dissent if it wish. . . let him be anathema"). By this decree the Council not only condemned the Protestant view that the will in the reception of grace remains merely passive, but also forestalled the Jansenistic heresy regarding the impossibility of resisting actual grace. With what little right heretics in defence of their doctrine appeal to St. Augustine, may be seen from the following brief extract from his writings: "He who made you without your doing does not without your action justify you. Without your knowing He made you, with your willing He justifies you, but it is He who justifies, that the justice be not your own" (Serm. clxix, c. xi, n.13). Regarding St. Augustine's doctrine cf. J. Jausbach, "Die Ethik des hl. Augustinus", II, Freiburg, 1909, pp. 208-58. We now come to the different states in the process of justification. The Council of Trent assigns the first and most important place to faith, which is styled "the beginning, foundation and root of all justification" (Trent, l.c., cap.viii). Cardinal Pallavicini (Hist. Conc. Trid., VIII, iv, 18) tells us that all the bishops present at the council fully realized how important it was to explain St. Paul's saying that man is justified through faith. Comparing Bible and Tradition they could not experience any serious difficulty in showing that fiduciary faith was an absolutely new invention and that the faith of justification was identical with a firm belief in the truths and promises of Divine revelation (l. c.: "illumque [Deum] tanquam omnis justitiae fontem diligere incipiunt"). The next step is a genuine sorrow for all sin with the resolution to begin a new life by receiving holy baptism and by observing the commandments of God. The process of justification is then brought to a close by the baptism of water, inasmuch as by the grace of this sacrament the catechumen is freed from sin (original and personal) and its punishments, and is made a child of God. The same process of justification is repeated in those who by mortal sin have lost their baptismal innocence; with this modification, however, that the Sacrament of Penance replaces baptism. Considering merely the psychological analysis of the conversion of sinners, as given by the council, it is at once evident that faith alone, whether fiduciary or dogmatic, cannot justify man (Trent, l. c., can. xii: "Si quis dixerit, fidem justificantem nihil aliud esse quam fiduciam divinae misericordiae, peccata remittentis propter Christum, vel eam fiduciam solam esse, qua justificamur, a.s."). Since our Divine adoption and friendship with God is based on perfect love of God or charity (cf. Gal., v, 6; I Cor., xiii; James, ii, 17 sqq.), dead faith devoid of charity (fides informis) cannot possess any justifying power. Only such faith as is active in charity and good works (fides caritate formata) can justify man, and this even before the actual reception of baptism or penance, although not without a desire of the sacrament (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, cap. iv, xiv). But, not to close the gates of heaven against pagans and those non-Catholics, who without their fault do not know or do not recognize the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Catholic theologians unanimously hold that the desire to receive these sacraments is implicitly contained in the serious resolve to do all that God has commanded, even if His holy will should not become known in every detail. (2) The Formal Cause of Justification The Council of Trent decreed that the essence of active justification comprises not only forgiveness of sin, but also "sanctification and renovation of the interior man by means of the voluntary acceptation of sanctifying grace and other supernatural gifts" (Trent, l. c., cap. vii: "Non est sola peccatorum remissio, sed et sanctificatio et renovatio interioris hominis per voluntariam susceptionem gratiae et donorum"). In order to exclude the Protestant idea of a merely forensic absolution and exterior declaration of righteousness, special stress is laid on the fact that we are justified by God's justice, not that whereby He himself is just but that whereby He makes us just, in so far as He bestows on us the gift of His grace which renovates the soul interiorly and adheres to it as the soul's own holiness (Trent, l. c., cap. vii: "Unica formalis causa [justificationis] est justitia Dei, non qua ipse justus est, sed qua nos justos facit, qua videlicet ab eo donati, renovamur spiritu mentis nostrae: et non modo reputamur, sed vere justi nominamur et sumus, justitiam in nobis recipientes unusquisque suam"). This inner quality of righteousness and sanctity is universally termed "sanctifying (or habitual) grace", and stands in marked contrast to an exterior, imputed sanctity, as well as to the idea of merely covering and concealing sin. By this, however, we do not assert that the "justitia Dei extra nos" is of no importance in the process of justification. For, even if it is not the formal cause of justification (causa formalis), it is nevertheless its true exemplar (causa exemplaris), inasmuch as the soul receives a sanctity in imitation of God's own holiness. The Council of Trent (l. c. cap. vii), moreover, did not neglect to enumerate in detail the other causes of justification: the glory of God and of Christ as the final cause (causa finalis), the mercy of God as the efficient cause (causa efficiens), the Passion of Christ as the meritorious cause (causa meritoria), the reception of the Sacraments as the instrumental cause (causa instrumentalis). Thus each and every factor receives its full share and is assigned its proper place. Hence the Catholic doctrine on justification, in welcome contrast to the Protestant teaching, stands out as a reasonable, consistent, harmonious system. For further explanation of the nature of sanctifying grace, see SUPERNATURAL GRACE. Regarding the false doctrine of the Catholic theologian Hermes, cf. Kleutgen, "Theologie der Vorzeit", II (2nd ed., Munster, 1872), 254-343. According to the Council of Trent sanctifying grace is not merely a formal cause, but " the only formal cause" (unica causa formalis) of our justification. By this important decision the Council excluded the error of Butzer and some Catholic theologians (Gropper, Scripando, and Albert Pighius) who maintained that an additional "external favour of God" (favor Dei externus) belonged to the essence of justification. The same decree also effectually set aside the opinion of Peter Lombard, that the formal cause of justification (i.e. sanctifying grace) is nothing less than the Person of the Holy Ghost, Who is the hypostatic holiness and charity, or the uncreated grace (gratia increata). Since justification consists in an interior sanctity and renovation of spirit, its formal cause evidently must be a created grace (gratia creata), a permanent quality, a supernatural modification or accident (accidens) of the soul. Quite distinct from this is the question whether the personal indwelling of the Holy Ghost, although not required for justification (inasmuch as sanctifying grace alone suffices), be necessary as a prerequisite for Divine adoption. Several great theologians have answered in the affirmative, as for instance Lessius ("De summo bono", II, i; "De perfect. moribusque divin.", XII, ii); Petavius ("De Trinit.", viii, 4 sqq.); Thomassin ("De Trinit.", viii, 9 sqq.), and Hurter ("Compend. theol. dogmat.", III, 6th ed., pp. 162 sqq.). The solution of the lively controversy on this point between Fr. Granderath ("Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie", 1881, pp. 283 sqq.; 1883, 491 sqq., 593 sqq.; 1884, 545 sqq.) and Professor Scheeben ("Dogmatik", II, sec. 169; "Katholik", 1883, I, 142 sqq.; II, 561 sqq.; 1884, I, 18 sqq.; II, 465 sqq., 610 sqq.) seems to lie in the following distinction: the Divine adoption, inseparably connected with sanctifying grace, is not constituted by the personal indwelling of the Holy Ghost, but receives therefrom its full development and perfection. (3) The Effects of Justification The two elements of active justification, forgiveness of sin and sanctification, furnish at the same time the elements of habitual justification, freedom from sin and holiness. According to the Catholic doctrine, however, this freedom from sin and this sanctity are effected, not by two distinct and successive Divine acts, but by a single act of God. For, just as light dispels darkness, so the infusion of sanctifying grace eo ipso dispels from the soul original and mortal sin. (Cf. Trent, sess. VI, can. xi: "Si quis dixerit, homines justificari vel sola imputatione justitiae Christi, vel sola peccatorum remissione, exclusa gratia et caritate, quae in cordibus eorum per Spiritum Sanctum diffundatur atque illis inhaereat. . ., a.s.") In considering the effects of justification it will be useful to compare the Catholic doctrine of real forgiveness of sin with the Protestant theory that sin is merely "covered" and not imputed. By declaring the grace of justification, or sanctifying grace, to be the only formal cause of justification, the Council of Trent intended to emphasize the fact that in possessing sanctifying grace we possess the whole essence of the state of justification with all its formal effects; that is, we possess freedom from sin and sanctity, and indeed freedom from sin by means of sanctity. Such a remission of sin could not consist in a mere covering or non-imputation of sins, which continue their existence out of view; it must necessarily consist in the real obliteration and annihilation of the guilt. This genuinely Biblical concept of justification forms such an essential element of Catholicism, that even Antonio Rosminis's theory, standing half way between Protestantism and Catholicism, is quite irreconcilable with it. According to Rosmini, there are two categories of sin: + such as God merely covers and does not impute (cf. Ps., xxxi, 1); + such as God really forgives and blots out. By the latter Rosmini understood deliberate sins of commission (culpae actuales et liberae), by the former indeliberate sins (peccata non libera), which "do no harm to those who are of the people of God". This opinion was censured by the Holy Office (14 Dec., 1887), not only because without any reason it defended a twofold remission of sin, but also because it stamped indeliberate acts as sins (cf. Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchir.", n.1925). Although it is a Catholic dogma that sanctifying grace and sin (original and mortal) do never exist simultaneously in the soul, there may be, nevertheless a diversity of opinion regarding the extent of this incompatibility, according as it is considered as either moral, physical, or metaphysical in character. According to the now universally rejected opinion of the Nominalists (Occam, Gabriel Biel) and the Scotists (Mastrius, Henno) the contrast between grace and sin is based on a free decree and acceptation of God, or in other words, the contrast is merely moral. This would logically imply in contradiction to the "unica causa formalis" of the Council of Trent, a twofold formal cause of justification (cf. Pohle, "Dogmatik", II, 4th ed., Paderborn, 1909, p.512). Suarez (De gratia, VII, 20) and some of his followers in defending a physical contrast come nearer the truth. In their explanation grace and sin exclude each other with the same necessity as do fire and water, although in both cases God, by a miracle of his omnipotence, could suspend the general law and force the two hostile elements to exist peacefully side by side. This opinion might be safely accepted were sanctifying grace only a physical ornament of the soul. But since in reality it is an ethical form of sanctification by which even an infant in receiving baptism is necessarily made just and pleasing to God, there must be between the concepts of grace and of sin a metaphysical and absolute contradiction, which not even Divine omnipotence can alter and destroy. For this last opinion, defended by the Thomists and the majority of theologians, there is also a solid foundation in Holy Writ. For the contrast between grace and sin is as great as between light and darkness (II Cor., vi, 14; Eph., v, 8), between life and death (Rom., v, 21; Col., ii, 13; I John, iii, 14), between God and idols, Christ and Belial (II Cor., vi, 15 sqq.), etc. Thus it follows from Holy Writ that by the infusion of sanctifying grace sin is destroyed and blotted out of absolute necessity, and that the Protestant theory of "covering and not imputing sin" is both a philosophical and a theological impossibility. Besides the principal effect of justification, i.e. real obliteration of sin by means of sanctification, there is a whole series of other effects: beauty of the soul, friendship with God, and Divine adoption. In the article on GRACE these are described as formal effects of sanctifying grace. In the same article is given an explanation of the supernatural accompaniments -- the three theological virtues, the moral virtues, the seven gifts, and the personal indwelling of the Holy Ghost. These, as freely bestowed gifts of God, cannot be regarded as formal effects of justification. (4) The Qualities of Justification We have seen that Protestants claim the following three qualities for justification: certainty, equality, the impossibility of ever losing it. Diametrically opposed to these qualities are those defended by the Council of Trent (sess. VI, cap. 9-11): uncertainty (incertitudo), inequality (inaequalitas), amissibility (ammisibilitas). Since these qualities of justification are also qualities of sanctifying grace, see GRACE. PROTESTANT BELIEFS: Clasen, Die christliche Heilsgewissheit (1907); Haring, Dikaiosyne Theou bei Paulus (1896); cf. Denifle, Die abendlandischen Schriftausleger uber justitia Dei u. justificatio (Mainz, 1905); Cremer, Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre (2nd ed., 1900); Nosgen, Der Schriftbeweis fur die evangelische Rechtfertigungslehre (1901); Schlatter, Der Glaube im N.T. (3rd ed., 1905); Feine, Das Gesetzesfreie Evangelium des Paulus (1899); Idem, Jesus Christus u. Paulus (1902); Clemen, Paulus, sein Leben u. Wirken (2 vols., 1904); Gottschick, Die Heilsgewissheit des evangelishen Christen in Zeitschr. fur Theol. u. Kritik (1903), 349 sqq.; Denifle, Luther u. Luthertum in der ersten Entwicklung, I (Mainz, 1904); Ihmels, Die Rechtfertigung allein durch den Glauben, unser fester Grund Rom gegenuber in Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift (1904), 618 sqq.; Denifle and Weiss, Luther u. Luthertum etc., II (Mainz). Cf. also Harnack, Dogmengesch., III (4th ed., Freiburg, 1909); Ihmels in Herzog and Jauck, Realencycl. fur protest. Theol., s.v. Rechtfertigung. CATHOLIC TEACHING: Vega, De justificatione doctrina universa, LL. XV absolute tradita (Venice, 1548); Bellarmine, De justificatione impii in Opp. omnia, VI (Paris, 1873); Nussbaum, Die Lehre der kathol. Kirche uber die Rechtfertigung (Munich, 1837); Wieser, S. Pauli doctrina de justificatione (Trent, 1874); Mohler, Symbolik (2nd ed., Mainz, 1890), secs. x-xxvii; Einig in Kirchenlex., s.v. Rechtfertigung; Rademacher, Die ubernaturliche Lebensordnung nach der paulinischen u. johanneischen Theologie (Freiburg, 1903); Mausbach, Die Ethik des hl. Augustinus, II (Freiburg, 1900); Pohle, Dogmatik, II (4th ed., Paderborn, 1909), 484-5556; Hefner, Entstehungsgeach. des Trienter Rechtfertigungs-Dekretes (Paderborn, 1909); Prumbs, Die Stellung des Trid. Konz. zu der Frage nach dem Wesen der heilignachenden Gnade (Paderborn, 1910). JOSEPH POHLE Blessed Justin de Jacobis Blessed Justin de Jacobis Vicar Apostolic of Abyssinia and titular Bishop of Nilopolis, h. at San Fele, Province of Potenza, Italy, 9 October, 1800 d. 31 July, 1860, in the plain of Eydele between the mountains Chedene and Hamamo in Abyssinia, while on his way to Halay where he hoped to regain his health. On 17 October, 1818, he entered the Congregation of the Lazarists at Naples, took vows there on 18 October, 1820, and was ordained priest at Brindisi, 12 June, 1824. After spending some time in the care of souls at Oria and Monopoli, he became superior, first at Lecce, then at Naples. In 1839 he was appointed first Prefect Apostolic of Abyssinia and entrusted with the foundation of Catholic missions in that country. After laboring with great success in Abyssinia for eight years, he was made titular Bishop of Nilopolis in 1847, and shortly afterwards Vicar Apostolic of Abyssinia, but he refused the episcopal dignity until it was finally forced upon him in 1849. Despite imprisonment, exile, and every other kind of persecution from heathens and heretics, he founded numerous Catholic missions, built various schools for the training of a native clergy, and in many other ways labored for the conversion of Abyssinia. The process of his beatification was introduced on 13 July, 1904. DEMIMUID, Vie du Venerable Justin de Jacobis (Paris, 1905); Acta Sanctae Sedis (ROME, 1904), XXXVII, 185-189. MICHAEL OTT Justinian I Justinian I Roman Emperor (527-65) Flavius Anicius Julianus Justinianus was born about 483 at Tauresium (Taor) in Illyricum (near Uskup); d. 565. The theory that he was a Slav by race is now abandoned (Krumbacher, "Byz. Litt.", 237). He was the nephew of Justin I (518-27), being the son of Justin's sister Vigilantia and a certain Sabatius. Already during his uncle's reign he became the chief power in the state. Justin was an old man, weak in body and mind; he gradually handed over all power to his nephew. In 521 Justinian was proclaimed consul, then general-in-chief, and in April, 527, Augustus; in August of the same year Justin died, and Justinian was left sole ruler. The thirty-eight years of Justinian's reign are the most brilliant period of the later empire. Full of enthusiasm for the memories of Rome, he set himself, and achieved, the task of reviving their glory. The many-sided activity of this wonderful man may be summed up under the headings: military triumphs, legal work, ecclesiastical polity, and architectural activity. Dominating all is the policy of restoring the empire, great, powerful, and united. Of these many features of his reign -- each of them epoch-making -- it is impossible to give more than the merest outline here. I. MILITARY TRIUMPHS Justinian carried on the unending war against the Persians with mixed success. His general Belisarius lost a battle at first in 528, then completely routed the Persians at Daras, near Nisibis (June, 530); but on 19 April, 531, the Romans were defeated near Callinicum on the Euphrates; in September a peace was arranged on fairly equal terms. The emperor then conceived the plan of reconquering Africa and Italy, lost to the empire by the Vandal and Gothic invasions. In 533 a fleet of five hundred ships set sail for Africa under Belisarius. In two battles the Romans annihilated the Vandal kingdom, took the king, Gelimer, prisoner to Constantinople, and re-estabished the authority of Caesar in Africa. In 535 Belisarius sailed for Sicily. The island was conquered at once. After a reverse in Dalmatia that province was also subdued. Belisarius in 536 took Rhegium and Naples, entered Rome in triumph, seized Ravenna, sustained a siege in Rome till 538, when the Goths retired. A second general, Narses, then arrived with reinforcements from Constantinople; Milan and all Liguria were taken in 539, and in 540 all Italy up to the frontier of the Frankish Kingdom was reunited to the empire. In 542 the Goths revolted under their king, Totila; by 553 they were again crushed. Narses became the first Exarch of Italy. Verona and Brixia (Brescia), the last Gothic strongholds, fell in 562. The Roman armies then marched on Spain and conquered its south-eastern provinces (lost again in 623, after Justinian's death.) Meanwhile the Crimean Goths and all the Bosporus, even the Southern Arabs, were forced to acknowledge the rule of Rome. A second war against the Persians (540-45) pushed the Roman frontier beyond Edessa. From 549 to 556 a long in Armenia and Colchis (the Lazic War) again established the empire without a rival on the shores of the Black Sea. So Justinian ruled once more over a colossal world empire, whose extent rivaled that of the great days before Diocletian. Meanwhile the emperor was no less successful at home. In 532 a very dangerous revolt (the Nika revolution), that arose from the factions of the Circus (the Blues and Greens), was put down severely. Bury says that the result of the suppression was "an imperial victory which established the form of absolutism by which Byzantine history is generally characterized". (Later Roman Empire, I, 345). II. LEGAL WORK The most enduring work of Justinian was his codification of the laws. This, too, was an important part of his general scheme. The great empire he was reconquering must have the strength of organized unity. He says in the edict of promulgation of his laws that a state rests on arms and law ("De Justin. Cod. Confirmando", printed in front of the codex). The scattered decrees of his predecessors must then be collected in a well-ordered and complete codex, logically arranged, so that every Roman citizen could learn at once the law of the empire on any subject. This codification was Justinian's great work. He made many new laws himself, but his enduring merit is rather the classification of scattered older laws. The legislation that the world owes to Justinian is in outline this: + First, a commission of ten lawyers (including the famous Tribonianus and Theophilus) reduced the bulky and rambling Theodosian Code (published in 438) to an orderly compendium, inserting into it the laws made since it was written. So the "Codex" was produced in 529. + Second, a mass of answers given by authorities (the responsa prudentum that formed acknowledged precedents) were arranged (omitting all superfluities) in fifty books, whereby a law library of a hundred and six volumes was reduced to about one-fifth. This is the "Digest", or "Pandects", published in 530. + Third, a manual of law for students was compiled from the commentaries of Gaius (second century). This, the "Institutes", was published in the same year, 530. + In 534, finally, the whole work was revised, and a fourth part, the "Authentic", or "Novels", was added, containing later decisions made by Justinian's own courts. So the immortal "Corpus Juris Civilis" was produced, consisting of four parts: (a) Digestae seu Pondecta, (b) Institutiones, (c) Codex, (d) Authenticum seu Novellae (an excellent account of its composition is found in Bury's Gibbon, ed. Cit., IV 461-510). It would be difficult to exaggerate the importance of this "Corpus". It is the basis of all canon law (ecclesia vivit lege romana), and the basis of civil law in every civilized country. III. ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY The Catholic cannot applaud the great emperor's ecclesiastical polity, though in this, too, we recognize the statesman's effort to promote peace and union within the empire. It was a matter of course that this union was to be that of the "most holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God" (5 c., De s. tr., I, 1). The Corpus Juris is full of laws against paganism (apostasy was punished by death, 10 c., "De pag.", I, 11), Jews, Samaritans (who began a dangerous revolt in 529), Manichaeans, and other heretics. The decrees of the four general councils were incorporated in the civil law. There was no toleration of dissent. True to the ideal of Constantinople, the emperor conceived himself as "priest and king", supreme head on earth in matters ecclesiastical as well as in the State. He filled his codex with canon law and assumed the most outspoken Erastianism as the law of the empire. And all through his reign he fell foul of the authority of the Church by his attempts to conciliate the Monophysites. Ever since Chalcedon (451) these heretics filled Syria and Egypt, and were a constant source of disunion and trouble to the empire. Justinian was one of the many emperors who tried to reconcile them by concessions. His wife Theodora was a secret Monophysite; influenced by her, the emperor, while maintaining Chalcedon, tried to satisfy the heretics by various compromises. First came the Theopaschite question. Peter Fullo of Antioch had introduced into the Trisagion the clause: "Who didst suffer for us". Pope Hormisdas (514-23) refused to admit it, as savoring of Monophysitism. But Justinian approved it and promoted a Monophysite, Anthimus I (536), to the See of Constantinople. Then followed the great quarrel of the Three Chapters, the lamentable attitude of Pope Vigilius (540-55), and the Second Council of Constantinople (553). In all thus story Justinian appears as a persecutor of the Church, and takes his place, unhappily, among the semi-Monophysite tyrants who caused the long series of quarrels and schisms that were the after-effect of Monophysitism. His ecclesiastical tyranny is the one regrettable side of the character of so great a man. IV. ARCHITECTURAL ACTIVITY Justinian also acquired immortal fame by the impetus he gave to the arts. If any style can ever be ascribed to one man, what we call Byzantine architecture, at least in its perfect form, owes its origin to Justinian and the architects he employed. His activity in building was prodigious. He covered his empire from Ravenna to Damascus with superb monuments. All later building in East and West was derived from his models; two most famous schools, our medieval (Gothic) and the Moslem styles, are the lineal descendants of Justinian's architecture. Of his many buildings may be mentioned the two most famous, the church of Our Lady (now the El-Aqsa mosque) at Jerusalem and, by far the most splendid of all, the great church of the Holy Wisdom (Hagia Sophia) at Constantinople. This church especially, built by Anthemius of Tralles and Isidore of Miletus, and consecrated on 27 December, 537, remains always one of the chief monuments of architecture in the world. Naturally these great enterprises demanded great expense. Justinian's subjects frequently complained of the heavy taxes; many people in the lands he conquered back thought that the glory of being once more Roman citizens was bought too dearly when they realized how much they had to pay to the Roman exchequer. On the other hand, Justinian spent magnificently. In times of calamity, earthquake and famine, the imperial purse was opened to the sufferers with unlimited generosity. The emperor's private life is somewhat clouded by the scandals told of his wife, Theodora. She had been a dancing-girl; there is no doubt that she had led an immoral life before her marriage in 523. She was also a Monophysite. But most scholars now reject the scandalous account of her married life given by Procopius in his "Secret History". And in January, 532, at the time of the Circus revolution that nearly wrecked the state, it was Theodora's courage and presence of mind that saved the situation. For the rest she had a hand in all her husband's policy; administration, diplomacy, church affairs, etc., felt her influence for twenty-one years. If she did not dishonor Justinian by infidelity she certainly led him into semi-Monophysitism (see Diehl, Theodora, imperatrice de Byzance," Paris, 1904). Justinian died in November, 565 (succeeded by his nephew, Justin II, 565-78). He was undoubtedly the greatest emperor after Constantine, perhaps the greatest of all the long line of Roman Caesars. Indeed one may question whether any state can show in its history so magnificent a ruler. His glorious memory lasted through all the ages after him (see Dante, "Paradiso", vi,) and his portrait gleams still from the mosaic in S. Vitale at Ravenna, where he stands in his toga and diadem, surrounded by his court, with a bishop at his side the very type of the majesty of Christian Rome on the Bosporus. The literature on the various sides of Justinian's activity is naturally enormous. His reign is equally important to the historian of the empire, the lawyer, theologian, and archaeologist. These are a few of the most serviceable modern works only: GIBBON (ed. BURY), The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, IV (London, 1898), xl-xliv (an excellent general account, with copious bibliography in Bury's appendix); BURY, A History of the Later Roman Empire, I (London, 1889), bk. IV 333-482 (supplements Gibbon); DIEHL, Justinien et la civilisation byzantine au Vle siecle (Paris, 1901); SCHULZE, Gesch. des Untergangs des griech.-romischen Heidentums, I (Jena, 1887), 434-59; HUTTON, The Church of the Sixth Century (London, 1897); JOERS, Die Reichspolitik Kaiser Justinians (Giessen,1893); KNECHT, Die Religionspolitik Kaiser Justinians I. (Wurzburg, l896); DIEKAMP, Die origenistischen Streitigkeiten (Munster, 1899); Further bibliography is given in DIEHL, Etudes byzantines (Paris, 1905), i and ii. ADRIAN FORTESCUE Benedetto Justiniani Benedetto Justiniani (GIUSTINIANI). Theological and Biblical writer, born at Genoa, about the year 1550; died at Rome, 19 December, 1622. He entered the novitiate of the Society of Jesus, at Rome, in 1579. For a while he taught rhetoric in the Roman College, and next theology at Toulouse, Messina, and Rome. For upwards of twenty years he was the head of the Roman College and regens of the Sacred Poenitentiaria. He filled also the office of chief preacher to the pope. Clement VIII appointed him as theologian to the celebrated Cardinal Cajetan, during the latter's legation in Poland. He is the author of two valuable Scriptural works: "In omnes B. Pauli Epistolas explanationes" (2 vols., Lyons, 1612 and 1613); and "In omnes Catholicas Epistolas explanationes" (Lyons, 1621). In these writings he first gives a paraphrase of the text, and then explains it by means of a commentary. Of his other published works, the "Apologia pro libertate ecclesiastica ad Gallo-Francos" is the best-known. His folio treatise "De Gratia" was not printed, on account of the pope's general order at the time prohibiting the publication of writings on that difficult topic. Among his manuscript opuscules may be mentioned the works: "De Natura brevis disputatio"; "De Sacramentis"; "De Poenitentia"; "De Confessario". His canonical work entitled "De legitima Romani Pontificis electione libri sex" exists only in manuscript. This is also the case with his "Epistola ad Franciscum Brandinum super aliquibus propositionibus philosophicis", and with various volumes of his sermons. R. SIMON, Histoire critique des principaux commentateurs du N. T. (Rotterdam, 1693); ELLIES DUPIN, Bibliothèque des auteurs ecclésiastiques, seventeenth century, part I (Paris, 1708); DE BACKER, Bibliothèque des écrivains de la compagnie de Jésus, 3rd series (Liège, 1856). FRANCIS E. GIGOT Justinianopolis Justinianopolis A titular see of Armenia Prima, suffragan of Sebaste. This see is better known in history under the names of Acilizene and Keltzene. Acilizene is a province situated between the Euphrates and Antitaurus, where Mithridates, pursued by Pompey sought refuge. Strabo (XI, iv, 8 XI, xii, 3, V, xi, 6), Procopius (Bellum Pers., I, 17), and Ptolemy (V, xii, 6) also mention it. The ancient name of Justinianopolis seems to have been Eliza, capital of Acilizene frequently mentioned by the Byzantine historians, and today known as Erzindjan. At first suffragan of Sebaste, later of Camachos, Keltzene was already archiepiscopal see in 980, and had as many as twenty one suffragans. Subsequently, until the fourteenth century, it became again a simple metropolitan, without any suffragans. Lequien (Oriens Christianus, I, 435) mentions six bishops of this town, between the fifth and the eleventh century. An earthquake destroyed Erzindjan in 1784; it has since been rebuilt on a more regular plan, and is today a sanjak the Turkish province of Erzeroum, and serves as headquarters for the staff of the fourth and principal corps of the Turkish army. The town counts 30,000 inhabitants, nearly 10,000 of whom are Armenians, and a few hundred are schismatical Greeks. CUINET, La Turquie d'Asie, I (Paris, 1892), 210-216. S. VAILHÉ St. Justin Martyr St. Justin Martyr Christian apologist, born at Flavia Neapolis, about A.D. 100, converted to Christianity about A.D. 130, taught and defended the Christian religion in Asia Minor and at Rome, where he suffered martyrdom about the year 165. Two "Apologies" bearing his name and his "Dialogue with the Jew Tryphon" have come down to us. Leo XIII had a Mass and an Office composed in his honour and set his feast for 14 April. LIFE Among the Fathers of the second century his life is the best known, and from the most authentic documents. In both "Apologies" and in his "Dialogue" he gives many personal details, e.g. about his studies in philosophy and his conversion; they are not, however, an autobiography, but are partly idealized, and it is necessary to distinguish in them between poetry and truth; they furnish us however with several precious and reliable clues. For his martyrdom we have documents of undisputed authority. In the first line of his "Apology" he calls himself "Justin, the son of Priscos, son of Baccheios, of Flavia Neapolis, in Palestinian Syria". Flavia Neapolis, his native town, founded by Vespasian (A.D. 72), was built on the site of a place called Mabortha, or Mamortha, quite near Sichem (Guérin, "Samarie", I, Paris, 1874, 390-423; Schürer, "History of the Jewish People", tr., I, Edinburgh, 1885). Its inhabitants were all, or for the most part, pagans. The names of the father and grandfather of Justin suggest a pagan origin, and he speaks of himself as uncircumcised (Dialogue, xxviii). The date of his birth is uncertain, but would seem to fall in the first years of the second century. He received a good education in philosophy, an account of which he gives us at the beginning of his "Dialogue with the Jew Tryphon"; he placed himself first under a Stoic, but after some time found that he had learned nothing about God and that in fact his master had nothing to teach him on the subject. A Peripatetic whom he then found welcomed him at first but afterwards demanded a fee from him; this proved that he was not a philosopher. A Pythagorean refused to teach him anything until he should have learned music, astronomy, and geometry. Finally a Platonist arrived on the scene and for some time delighted Justin. This account cannot be taken too literally; the facts seem to be arranged with a view to showing the weakness of the pagan philosophies and of contrasting them with the teachings of the Prophets and of Christ. The main facts, however, may be accepted; the works of Justin seem to show just such a philosophic development as is here described, Eclectic, but owing much to Stoicism and more to Platonism. He was still under the charm of the Platonistic philosophy when, as he walked one day along the seashore, he met a mysterious old man; the conclusion of their long discussion was that he soul could not arrive through human knowledge at the idea of God, but that it needed to be instructed by the Prophets who, inspired by the Holy Ghost, had known God and could make Him known ("Dialogue", iii, vii; cf. Zahm, "Dichtung and Wahrheit in Justins Dialog mit dem Jeden Trypho" in "Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch.", VIII, 1885-1886, 37-66). The "Apologies" throw light on another phase of the conversion of Justin: "When I was a disciple of Plato", he writes, "hearing the accusations made against the Christians and seeing them intrepid in the face of death and of all that men fear, I said to myself that it was impossible that they should be living in evil and in the love of pleasure" (II Apol., xviii, 1). Both accounts exhibit the two aspects of Christianity that most strongly influenced St. Justin; in the "Apologies" he is moved by its moral beauty (I Apol., xiv), in the "Dialogue" by its truth. His conversion must have taken place at the latest towards A.D. 130, since St. Justin places during the war of Bar-Cocheba (132-135) the interview with the Jew Tryphon, related in his "Dialogue". This interview is evidently not described exactly as it took place, and yet the account cannot be wholly fictitious. Tryphon, according to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., IV, xviii, 6), was "the best known Jew of that time", which description the historian may have borrowed from the introduction to the "Dialogue", now lost. It is possible to identify in a general way this Tryphon with the Rabbi Tarphon often mentioned in the Talmud (Schürer, "Gesch. d. Jud. Volkes", 3rd ed., II, 377 seq., 555 seq., cf., however, Herford, "Christianity in Talmud and Midrash", London, 1903, 156). The place of the interview is not definitely told, but Ephesus is clearly enough indicated; the literary setting lacks neither probability nor life, the chance meetings under the porticoes, the groups of curious onlookers who stop a while and then disperse during the inteviews, offer a vivid picture of such extemporary conferences. St. Justin lived certainly some time at Ephesus; the Acts of his martyrdom tell us that he went to Rome twice and lived "near the baths of Timothy with a man named Martin". He taught school there, and in the aforesaid Acts of his martyrdom we read of several of his disciples who were condemned with him. In his second "Apology" (iii) Justin says: "I, too, expect to be persecuted and to be crucified by some of those whom I have named, or by Crescens, that friend of noise and of ostentation." Indeed Tatian relates (Discourse, xix) that the Cynic philosopher Crescens did pursue him and Justin; he does not tell us the result and, moreover, it is not certain that the "Discourse" of Tatian was written after the death of Justin. Eusebius (Hist. eccl., IV, xvi, 7, 8) says that it was the intrigues of Crescens which brought about the death of Justin; this is credible, but not certain; Eusebius has apparently no other reason for affirming it than the two passages cited above from Justin and Tatian. St. Justin was condemned to death by the prefect, Rusticus, towards A.D. 165, with six companions, Chariton, Charito, Evelpostos, Pæon, Hierax, and Liberianos. We still have the authentic account of their martyrdom ("Acta SS.", April, II, 104-19; Otto, "Corpus Apologetarum", III, Jena, 1879, 266-78; P. G., VI, 1565-72). The examination ends as follows: "The Prefect Rusticus says: Approach and sacrifice, all of you, to the gods. Justin says: No one in his right mind gives up piety for impiety. The Prefect Rusticus says: If you do not obey, you will be tortured without mercy. Justin replies: That is our desire, to be tortured for Our Lord, Jesus Christ, and so to be saved, for that will give us salvation and firm confidence at the more terrible universal tribunal of Our Lord and Saviour. And all the martyrs said: Do as you wish; for we are Christians, and we do not sacrifice to idols. The Prefect Rusticus read the sentence: Those who do not wish to sacrifice to the gods and to obey the emperor will be scourged and beheaded according to the laws. The holy martyrs glorifying God betook themselves to the customary place, where they were beheaded and consummated their martyrdom confessing their Saviour." WORKS Justin was a voluminous and important writer. He himself mentions a "Treatise against Heresy" (I Apology, xxvi, 8); St. Irenæus (Adv. Hær., IV, vi, 2) quotes a "Treatise against Marcion" which may have been only a part of the preceding work. Eusebius mentions both (Hist. eccl., IV, xi, 8-10), but does not seem to have read them himself; a little further on (IV, xviii) he gives the following list of Justin's works: "Discourse in favour of our Faith to Antoninus Pius, to his sons, and to the Roman Senate"; an "Apology" addressed to Marcus Aurelius; "Discourse to the Greeks"; another discourse called "A Refutation"; "Treatise on the Divine Monarchy"; a book called "The Psalmist"; "Treatise on the soul"; "Dialogue against the Jews", which he had in the city of Ephesus with Tryphon, the most celebrated Israelite of that time. Eusebius adds that many more of his books are to be found in the hands of the brethren. Later writers add nothing certain to this list, itself possibly not altogether reliable. There are extant but three works of Justin, of which the authenticity is assured: the two "Apologies" and the "Dialogue". They are to be found in two manuscripts: Paris gr. 450, finished on 11 September, 1364; and Claromont. 82, written in 1571, actually at Cheltenham, in the possession of M.T.F. Fenwick. The second is only a copy of the first, which is therefore our sole authority; unfortunately this manuscript is very imperfect (Harnack, "Die Ueberlieferung der griech. Apologeten" in "Texte and Untersuchungen", I, Leipzig, 1883, i, 73-89; Archambault, "Justin, Dialogue a vec Tryphon", Paris, 1909, p. xii-xxxviii). There are many large gaps in this manuscript, thus II Apol., ii, is almost entirely wanting, but it has been found possible to restore the manuscript text from a quotation of Eusebius (Hist. eccl., IV, xvii). The "Dialogue" was dedicated to a certain Marcus Pompeius (exli, viii); it must therefore have been preceded by a dedicatory epistle and probably by an introduction or preface; both are lacking. In the seventy-fourth chapter a large part must also be missing, comprising the end of the first book and the beginning of the second (Zahn, "Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch.", VIII, 1885, 37 sq., Bardenhewer, "Gesch. der altkirchl. Litter.", I, Freiburg im Br., 1902, 210). There are other less important gaps and many faulty transcriptions. There being no other manuscript, the correction of this one is very difficult; conjectures have been often quite unhappy, and Krüger, the latest editor of the "Apology", has scarsely done more than return to the text of the manuscript. In the manuscript the three works are found in the following order: second "Apology", first "Apology", the "Dialogue". Dom Maran (Paris, 1742) re-established the original order, and all other editors have followed him. There could not be as a matter of fact any doubt as to the proper order of the "Apologies", the first is quoted in the second (iv, 2; vi, 5; viii, 1). The form of these references shows that Justin is referring, not to a different work, but to that which he was then writing (II Apol., ix, 1, cf. vii, 7; I Apol., lxiii, 16, cf. xxxii, 14; lxiii, 4, cf. xxi,1;lxi, 6, cf. lxiv, 2). Moreover, the second "Apology" is evidently not a complete work independent of the first, but rather an appendix, owing to a new fact that came to the writer's knowledge, and which he wished to utilize without recasting both works. It has been remarked that Eusebius often alludes to the second "Apology" as the first (Hist. eccl., IV, viii, 5; IV, xvii, 1), but the quotations from Justin by Eusebius are too inexact for us to attach much value to this fact (cf. Hist. eccl., IV, xi, 8; Bardenhewer, op. cit., 201). Probably Eusebius also erred in making Justin write one apology under Antoninus (161) and another under Marcus Aurelius. The second "Apology", known to no other author, doubtless never existed (Bardenhewer, loc. cit.; Harnack, "Chronologie der christl. Litter.", I, Leipzig, 1897, 275). The date of the "Apology" cannot be determined by its dedication, which is not certain, but can be established with the aid of the following facts: it is 150 years since the birth of Christ (I, xlvi, 1); Marcion has already spread abroad his error (I, xxvi, 5); now, according to Epiphanius (Hæres., xlii, 1), he did not begin to teach until after the death of Hyginus (A.D. 140). The Prefect of Egypt, Felix (I, xxix, 2), occupied this charge in September, 151, probably from 150 to about 154 (Grenfell-Hunt, "Oxyrhinchus Papyri", II, London, 1899, 163, 175; cf. Harnack, "Theol. Literaturzeitung", XXII, 1897, 77). From all of this we may conclude that the "Apology" was written somewhere between 153 and 155. The second "Apology", as already said, is an appendix to the first and must have been written shortly afterwards. The Prefect Urbinus mentioned in it was in charge from 144 to 160. The "Dialogue" is certainly later than the "Apology" to which it refers ("Dial.", cxx, cf. "I Apol.", xxvi); it seems, moreover, from this same reference that the emperors to whom the "Apology" was addressed were still living when the "Dialogue" was written. This places it somewhere before A.D. 161, the date of the death of Antoninus. The "Apology" and the "Dialogue" are difficult to analyse, for Justin's method of composition is free and capricious, and defies our habitual rules of logic. The content of the first "Apology" (Viel, "Justinus des Phil. Rechtfertigung", Strasburg, 1894, 58 seq.) is somewhat as follows: + i-iii: exordium to the emperors: Justin is about to enlighten them and free himself of responsibility, which will now be wholly theirs. + iv-xii: first part or introduction: + o the anti-Christian procedure is iniquitous: they persecute in the Christians a name only (iv, v); o Christians are neither Atheists nor criminals (vi, vii); o they allow themselves to be killed rather than deny their God (viii); o they refuse to adore idols (ix, xii); o conclusion (xii). + xiii-lxvii: Second part (exposition and demonstration of Christianity): + o Christians adore the crucified Christ, as well as God (xiii); o Christ is their Master; moral precepts (xiv-xvii); o the future life, judgement, etc. (xviii-xx). o Christ is the Incarnate Word (xxi-lx); o comparison with pagan heroes, Hermes, Æsculapius, etc. (xxi-xxii); o superiority of Christ and of Christianity before Christ (xlvi). o The similarities that we find in the pagan worship and philosophy come from the devils (liv-lx). o Description of Christian worship: baptism (lxi); o the Eucharist (lxv-lxvi); o Sunday-observance (lxvii). Second "Apology": + Recent injustice of the Prefect Urbinus towards the Christians (i-iii). + Why it is that God permits these evils: Providence, human liberty, last judgement (iv-xii). The "Dialogue" is much longer than the two apologies taken together ("Apol." I and II in P.G., VI, 328-469; "Dial.", ibid., 472-800), the abundance of exegetical discussions makes any analysis particularly difficult. The following points are noteworthy: + i-ix. Introduction: Justin gives the story of his philosophic education and of this conversion. One may know God only through the Holy Ghost; the soul is not immortal by its nature; to know truth it is necessary to study the Prophets. + x-xxx: On the law. Tryphon reproaches the Christians for not observing the law. Justin replies that according to the Prophets themselves the law should be abrogated, it had only been given to the Jews on account of their hardness. Superiority of the Christian circumcision, necessary even for the Jews. The eternal law laid down by Christ. + xxxi-cviii: On Christ: His two comings (xxxi sqq.); the law a figure of Christ (xl-xlv); the Divinity and the pre-existence of Christ proved above all by the Old Testament apparitions (theophanies) (lvi-lxii); incarnation and virginal conception (lxv sqq.); the death of Christ foretold (lxxxvi sqq.); His resurrection (cvi sqq.). + cviii to the end: On the Christians. The conversion of the nations foretold by the Prophets (cix sqq.); Christians are a holier people than the Jews (cxix sqq.); the promises were made to them (cxxi); they were prefigured in the Old Testament (cxxxiv sqq.). The "Dialogue" concludes with wishes for the conversion of the Jews. Besides these authentic works we possess others under Justin's name that are doubtful or apocryphal. + "On the Resurrection" (for its numerous fragments see Otto, "Corpus Apolog.", 2nd ed., III, 210-48 and the "Sacra Parallela", Holl, "Fragmente vornicänischer Kirchenväter aus den Sacra Parallela" in "Texte und Untersuchungen", new series, V, 2, Leipzig, 1899, 36-49). The treatise from which these fragments are taken was attributed to St. Justin by St. Methodius (early fourth century) and was quoted by St. Irenæus and Tertullian, who do not, however, name the author. The attribution of the fragments to Justin is therefore probable (Harnack, "Chronologie", 508; Bousset, "Die Evangeliencitaten Justins", Göttingen, 1891, 123sq.; archambault, "Le témoignage de l'ancienne littérature Chrétienne sur l'authenticité d'un traité sur la resurrection attribué à Justin l'Apologiste" in "Revue de Philologie", XXIX, 1905, 73-93). The chief interest of these fragments consists in the introduction, where is explained with much force the transcendent nature of faith and the proper nature of its motives. + "A Discourse to the Greeks" (Otto, op. cit., III, 1, 2, 18), an apocryphal tract, dated by Harnack (Sitzungsberichte der k. preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin, 1896, 627-46), about A.D. 180-240. Later it was altered and enlarged in Syriac: text and English translation by Cureton, "Spicileg. Syr.", London, 1855, 38-42, 61-69. + "Exhortation to the Greeks" (Otto, op. cit., 18-126). The authenticity of this has been defended without success by Widman ("Die Echtheit der Mahnrede Justins an die Heiden", Mainz, 1902); Puech, "Sur le logos parainetikos attribué à Justin" in "Mélanges Weil", Paris, 1898, 395-406, dates it about 260-300, but most critics say, with more probability, A.D. 180-240 (Gaul, "Die Abfassungsverhältnisse der pseudojustinischen Cohortatio ad Græcos", Potsdam, 1902). + "On Monarchy" (Otto, op. cit., 126-158), tract of uncertain date, in which are freely quoted Greek poets altered by some Jew. + "Exposition of the Faith" (Otto, op. cit., IV, 2-66), a dogmatic treatise on the Trinity and the Incarnation preserved in two copies the longer of which seems the more ancient. It is quoted for the first time by Leontius of Byzantium (d. 543) and refers to the Christological discussions of the fifth century; it seems, therefore, to date from the second half of that century. + "Letter to Zenas and Serenus" (Otto, op. cit., 66-98), attributed by Batiffol in "Revue Biblique", VI, 1896, 114-22, to Sisinnios, the Novatian Bishop of Constantinople about A.D. 400. + "Answers to the Orthodox." + "The Christian's Questions to the Greeks." + "The Greek's Questions to the Christians." + "Refutation of certain Aristotelean theses" (Otto, op. cit., IV, 100-222; V, 4-366). The "Answers to the Orthodox" was re-edited in a different and more primitive form by Papadopoulos-Kerameus (St. Petersburg, 1895), from a Constantinople manuscript which ascribed the work to Theodoret. Though this ascription was adopted by the editor, it has not been generally accepted. Harnack has studied profoundly these four books and maintains, not without probability, that they are the work of Diodorus of Tarsus (Harnack, "Diodor von Tarsus., vier pseudojustinische Schriften als Eigentum Diodors nachgewiesen" in "Texte und Untersuch.", XII, 4, Leipzig, 1901). DOCTRINE Justin and Philosophy The only pagan quotations to be found in Justin's works are from Homer, Euripides, Xenophon, Menander, and especially Plato (Otto, II, 593 sq.). His philosophic development has been well estimated by Purves ("The Testimony of Justin Martyr to early Christianity", London, 1882, 132): "He appears to have been a man of moderate culture. He was certainly not a genius nor an original thinker." A true eclectic, he draws inspiration from different systems, especially from Stoicism and Platonism. Weizsäcker (Jahrbücher f. Protest. Theol., XII, 1867, 75) thought he recognized a Peripatetic idea, or inspiration, in his conception of God as immovable above the heavens (Dial., cxxvii); it is much more likely an idea borrowed from Alexandrian Judaism, and one which furnished a very efficacious argument to Justin in his anti-Jewish polemic. In the Stoics Justin admires especially their ethics (II Apol., viii, 1); he willingly adopts their theory of a universal conflagration (ekpyrosis). In I Apol., xx, lx; II, vii, he adopts, but at the same time transforms, their concept of the seminal Word (logos spermatikos). However, he condemns their Fatalism (II Apol., vii) and their Atheism (Dial., ii). His sympathies are above all with Platonism. He likes to compare it with Christanity; apropos of the last judgment, he remarks, however (I Apol., viii, 4), that according to Plato the punishment will last a thousand years, whereas according to the Christians it will be eternal; speaking of creation (I Apol., xx, 4; lix), he says that Plato borrowed from Moses his theory of formless matter; similarly he compares Plato and Christianity apropos of human responsibility (I Apol., xliv, 8) and the Word and the Spirit (I Apol., lx). However, his acquaintance with Plato was superficial; like his contemporaries (Philo, Plutarch, St. Hippolytus), he found his chief inspiration in the Timæus. Some historians have pretended that pagan philosophy entirely dominated Justin's Christianity (Aubé, "S. Justin", Paris, 1861), or at least weakened it (Engelhardt, "Das Christentum Justins des Märtyrers", Erlangen, 1878). To appreciate fairly this influence it is necessary to remember that in his "Apology" Justin is seeking above all the points of contact between Hellenism and Christianity. It would certainly be wrong to conclude from the first "Apology" (xxii) that Justin actually likens Christ to the pagan heroes of semi-heroes, Hermes, Perseus, or Æsculapius; neither can we conclude from his first "Apology" (iv, 8 or vii, 3, 4) that philosophy played among the Greeks the same role that Christianity did among the barbarians, but only that their position and their reputation were analogous. In many passages, however, Justin tries to trace a real bond between philosophy and Christianity: according to him both the one and the other have a part in the Logos, partially disseminated among men and wholly manifest in Jesus Christ (I, v, 4; I, xlvi; II, viii; II, xiii, 5, 6). The idea developed in all these passages is given in the Stoic form, but this gives to its expression a greater worth. For the Stoics the seminal Word (logos spermatikos) is the form of every being; here it is the reason inasmuch as it partakes of God. This theory of the full participation in the Divine Word (Logos) by the sage has its full value only in Stoicism (see LOGOS). In Justin thought and expression are antithetic, and this lends a certain incoherence to the theory; the relation established between the integral Word, i.e. Jesus Christ, and the partial Word disseminated in the world, is more specious than profound. Side by side with this theory, and quite different in its origin and scope, we find in Justin, as in most of his contemporaries, the conviction that Greek philosophy borrowed from the Bible: it was by stealing from Moses and the Prophets that Plato and the other philosophers developed their doctrines (I, xliv, lix, ls). Despite the obscurities and incoherences of this thought, he affirms clearly and positively the transcendent character of Christianity: "Our doctrine surpasses all human doctrine because the real Word became Christ who manifested himself for us, body, word and soul." (II, Apol., x, 1.) This Divine origin assures Christianity an absolute truth (II, xiii, 2) and gives to the Christians complete confidence; they die for Christ's doctrine; no one died for that of Socrates (II, x, 8). The first chapters of the "Dialogue" complete and correct these ideas. In them the rather complaisant syncretism of the "Apology" disappears, and the Christian thought is stronger. Justin's chief reproach to the philosophers is their mutual divisions; he attributes this to the pride of the heads of sects and the servile acquiesence of their adherents; he also says a little later on (vi): "I care neither for Plato nor for Pythagoras." From it all he concludes that for the pagans philosophy is not a serious or profound thing; life does not depend on it, nor action: "Thou art a friend of discourse", says the old man to him before his conversion, "but not of action nor of truth" (iv). For Platonism he retained a kindly feeling as for a study dear in childhood or in youth. Yet he attacks it on two essential points: the relation between God and man, and the nature of the soul (Dial., iii, vi). Nevertheless he still seems influenced by it in his conception of the Divine transcendency and the interpretation that he gives to the aforesaid theophanies. Justin and Christian Revelation That which Justin despairs of attaining through philosophy he is now sure of possessing through Jewish and Christian revelation. He admits that the soul can naturally comprehend that God is, just as it understands that virtue is beautiful (Dial., iv) but he denies that the soul without the assistance of the Holy Ghost can see God or contemplate Him directly through ecstasy, as the Platonic philosophers contended. And yet this knowledge of God is necessary for us: "We cannot know God as we know music, arithmetic or astronomy" (iii); it is necessary for us to know God not with an abstract knowledge but as we know any person with whom we have relations. Thr problem which it seems impossible to solve is settled by revelation; God has spoken directly to the Prophets, who in their turn have made Him known to us (viii). It is the first time in Christian theology that we find so concise an explanation of the difference which separates Christian revelation from human speculation. It does away with the confusion that might arise from the theory, taken from the "Apology", of the partial Logos and the Logos absolute or entire. The Bible of Justin A. The Old Testament For Philo the Bible is bery particularly the Pentateuch (Ryle, "Philo and Holy Scripture", XVII, London, 1895, 1-282). In keeping with the difference of his purpose, Justin has other preferences. He quotes the Pentateuch often and liberally, especially Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy; but he quotes still more frequently and at greater length the Psalms and the Books of Prophecy -- above all, Isaias. The Books of Wisdom are seldom quoted, the historical books still less. The books that we never find in his works are Judges, Esdras (except one passage which is attributed to him by mistake-Dial., lxxii), Tobias, Judith, Ester, Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Abdias, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus. It has been noticed, too (St. John Thackeray in "Journ. of Theol. Study", IV, 1903, 265, n.3), that he never cites the last chapters of Jeremias (apropos of the first "Apology", xlvii, Otto is wrong in his reference to Jer., 1, 3). Of these omissions the most noteworthy is that of Wisdom, precisely on account of the similarity of ideas. It is to be noted, moreover, that this book, surely used in the New Testament, cited by St. Clement of Rome (xxvii,5) and later by St. Irenæus (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., V, xxvi), is never met with in the works of the apologists (the reference of Otto to Tatian, vii, is inexact). On the other hand one finds in Justin some apocryphal texts: pseudo-Esdras (Dial., lxxii), pseudo-Jeremias (ibid.), Ps. xevi (xcv), 10 (Dial., lxxii; I Apol., xli); sometimes also errors in ascribing quotations: Zacharias for Malachias (Dial., xlix), Osee for Zacharias for Malachias (Dial., xiv). For the Biblical text of Justin, see Swete, "Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek", Cambridge, 1902, 417-24. B. The New Testament The testimony of Justin is here of still greater importance, especially for the Gospels, and has been more often discussed. The historical side of the question is given by W. Bousset, "Die Evangeliencitaten Justins" (Göttingen, 1891), 1-12, and since then, by Baldus, "Das Verhältniss Justins der Märt. zu unseren synopt. Evangelien" (Münster, 1895); Lippelt, "Quæ fuerint Justini mart. apomnemoneumata quaque ratione cum forma Evangeliorum syro-latina cohæserint" (Halle, 1901). The books quoted by Justin are called by him "Memoirs of the Apostles". This term, otherwise very rare, appears in Justin quite probably as an analogy with the "Memorabilia" of Xenophon (quoted in "II Apol.", xi, 3) and from a desire to accommodate his language to the habits of mind of his readers. At any rate it seems that henceforth the word "gospels" was in current usage; it is in Justin that we find it for the first time used in the plural, "the Apostles in their memoirs that are called gospels" (I Apol., lxvi, 3). These memoirs have authority, not only because they relate the words of Our Lord (as Bossuet contends, op. cit., 16 seq.), but because, even in their narrative parts, they are considered as Scripture (Dial., xlix, citing Matt., xvii, 13). This opinion of Justin is upheld, moreover, by the Church who, in her public service reads the memoirs of the Apostles as well as the writings of the prophets (I Apol., lxvii, 3). These memoirs were composed by the Apostles and by those who followed them (Dial., ciii); he refers in all probability to the four Evangelists, i.e. to two Apostles and two disciples of Christ (Stanton, "New Testament Canon" in Hastings, "Dictionary of the Bible", III, 535). The authors, however, are not named: once (Dial., ciii) he mentions the "memoirs of Peter", but the text is very obscure and uncertain (Bousset, op. cit., 18). All facts of the life of Christ that Justin takes from these memoirs are found indeed in our Gospels (Baldus, op. cit., 13 sqq.); he adds to them a few other and less important facts (I Apol., xxxii; xxxv; Dial., xxxv, xlvii, li, lxxviii), but he does not assert that he found them in the memoirs. It is quite probable that Justin used a concordance, or harmony, in which were united the three synoptic Gospels (Lippelt, op. cit., 14, 94) and it seems that the text of this concordance resembled in more than one point the so-called Western text of the Gospels (cf. ibid., 97). Justin's dependence on St. John is indisputably established by the facts which he takes from Him (I Apol., lxi, 4, 5; Dial., lxix, lxxxviii), still more by the very striking similarity in vocabulary and doctrine. It is certain, however, that Justin does not use the fourth Gospel as abundantly as he does the others (Purves, op. cit., 233); this may be owing to the aforesaid concordance, or harmony, of the synoptic Gospels. He seems to use the apocryphal Gospel of Peter (I Apol., xxxv, 6; cf. Dial., ciii; Revue Biblique, III, 1894, 531 sqq.; Harnack, "Bruchstücke des Evang. des Petrus", Leipzig, 1893, 37). His dependence on the Protevangelium of James (Dial., lxxviii) doubtful. Apologetical method Justin's attitude towards philosophy, described above, reveals at once the tendency of his polemics; he never exibits the indignation of a Tatian or even of a Tertullian. To the hideous calumnies spread abroad against the Christians he sometimes answers, as do the other apologists, by taking the offensive and attacking pagan morality (I Apol., xxvii; II, xii, 4, 5), but he dislikes to insist on these calumnies: the interlocutor in the "Dialogue" (ix) he is careful to ignore those who would trouble him with their loud laughter. He has not the eloquence of Tertullian, and can obtain a hearing only in a small circle of men capable of understanding reason and of being moved by an idea. His chief argument, and one calculated to convert this hearers as it had converted him (II Apol., xii), is the great new fact of Christian morality. He speaks of men and women who have no fear of death (I Apol., ii, xi, xlv; II, ii; Dial., xxx), who prefer truth to life (I Apol., ii; II, iv) and are yet ready to await the time allotted by God (II, iv1); he makes known their devotion to their children (I, xxvii), their charity even towards their enemies, and their desire to save them (I Apol., lvii; Dial., cxxxiii), their patience and their prayers in persecution (Dial., xviii), their love of mankind (Dial., xciii, cx). When he contrasts the life that they led in paganism with their Christian life (I Apol., xiv), he expresses the same feeling of deliverance and exaltation as did St. Paul (I Cor., vi, II). He is careful, moreover, to emphasize, especially from the Sermon on the Mount, the moral teaching of Christ so as to show in it the real source of these new virtues (I Apol., xv-xviii). Throughout his exposé of the new religion it is Christian chastity and the courage of the martyrs that he most insists upon. The rational evidences of Christianity Justin finds especially in the prophecies; he gives to this argument more than a third of his "Apology" (xxx-liii) and almost the entire "Dialogue". When he is disputing with the pagans he is satisfied with drawing attention to the fact that the books of the Prophets were long anterior to Christ, guaranteed as to their authenticity by the Jews themselves, and says that they contain prophecies concerning the life of Christ and the spread of the Church that can only be explained by a Divine revelation (I Apol., xxxi). In the "Dialogue", arguing with Jews, he can assume this revelation which they also recognize, and he can invoke the Scriptures as sacred oracles. These evidences of the prophecies are for him absolutely certain. "Listen to the texts which I am about to cite; it is not necessary for me to comment upon them, but only for you to hear them" (Dial., liii; cf. I Apol., xxx, liii). Nevertheless he recognizes that Christ alone could have given the explanation of them (I Apol., xxxii; Dial., lxxvi; cv); to understand them the men and women of his time must have the interior dispositions that make the true Christian (Dial., cxii), i.e., Divine grace is necessary (Dial., vii, lviii, xcii, cxix). He also appeals to miracles (Dial., vii; xxxv; lxix; cf. II Apol., vi), but with less insistence than to the prophecies. THEOLOGY God. Justin's teaching concerning God has been very diversely interpreted, some seeing in it nothing but a philosophic speculation (Engelhardt, 127 sq., 237 sqq.), others a truly Christian faith (Flemming, "Zur Beurteilung des Christentums Justins des Märtyrers", Leipzig, 1893, 70 sqq.; Stählin, "Justin der Märtyrer und sein neuester Beurtheiler", 34 sqq., Purves, op. cit., 142 sqq.). In reality it is possible to find in it these two tendencies: on one side the influence of philosophy betrays itself in his concept of the Divine transcendency, thus God is immovable (I Apol., ix; x, 1; lxiii, 1; etc.); He is above the heaven, can neither be seen nor enclosed within space (Dial., lvi, lx, cxxvii); He is called Father, in a philosophic and Platonistic sense, inasmuch as He is the Creator of the world (I Apol., xlv, 1; lxi, 3; lxv, 3; II Apol., vi, 1, etc.). On the other hand we see the God of the Bible in his all-powerful (Dial., lxxxiv; I Apol., xix, 6), and merciful God (Dial., lxxxiv; I Apol., xix, 6), and merciful God (Dial., cviii, lv, etc.); if He ordained the Sabbath it was not that He had need of the homage of the Jews, but that He desired to attach them to Himself (Dial., xxii); through His mercy He preserved among them a seed of salvation (lv); through His Divine Providence He has rendered the nations worthy of their inheritance (cxviiicxxx); He delays the end of the world on account of the Christians (xxxix; I Apol., xxviii, xlv). And the great duty of man is to love Him (Dial., xciii). The Logos The Word is numerically distinct from the Father (Dial., cxxviii, cxxix; cf. lvi, lxii). He was born of the very substance of the Father, not that this substance was divided, but He proceeds from it as one fire does from another at which it is lit (cxxviii, lxi); this form of production (procession) is compared also with that of human speech (lxi). The Word (Logos) is therefore the Son: much more, He alone may properly be called Son (II Apol., vi, 3); He is the monogenes, the unigenitus (Dial., cv). Elsewhere, however, Justin, like St. Paul, calls Him the eldest Son, prototokos (I Apol., xxxiii; xlvi; lxiii; Dial., lxxxiv, lxxxv, cxxv). The Word is God (I Apol., lxiii; Dial., xxxiv, xxxvi, xxxvii, lvi, lxiii, lxxvi, lxxxvi, lxxxvii, cxiii, cxv, cxxv, cxxvi, cxviii). His Divinity, however, seems subordinate, as does the worship which is rendered to Him (I Apol., vi; cf. lxi, 13; Teder, "Justins des Märtyrers Lehre von Jesus Christus", Freiburg im Br., 1906, 103-19). The Father engendered Him by a free and voluntary act (Dial., lxi, c, cxxvii, cxxviii; cf. Teder, op. cit., 104), at the beginning of all His works (Dial., lxi, lxii, II Apol., vi, 3); in this last text certain authors thought they distinguished in the Word two states of being, one intimate, the other outspoken, but this distinction, though found in some other apologists, is in Justin very doubtful. Through the Word God has made everything (II Apol., vi; Dial., cxiv). The Word is diffused through all humanity (I Apol., vi; II, viii; xiii); it was He who appeared to the patriarchs (I Apol., lxii; lxiii; Dial., lvi, lix, lx etc.). Two influences are plainly discernible in the aforesaid body of doctrine. It is, of course, to Christian revelation that Justin owes his concept of the distinct personality of the Word, His Divinity and Incarnation; but philosophic speculation is responsible for his unfortunate concepts of the temporal and voluntary generation of the Word, and for the subordinationism of Justin's theology. It must be recognized, moreover, that the latter ideas stand out more boldly in the "Apology" than in the "Dialogue." The Holy Ghost occupies the third place in the Trinity (I Apol., vi). He inspired the prophets (I Apol., vi;xxxi; Dial., vii). He gave seven gifts to Christ and descended upon Him (Dial., lxxxvii, lxxxviii). For the real distinction between the Son and the Spirit see Teder, op. cit., 119-23. Justin insists constantly on the virgin birth (I Apol., xxii; xxxiii; Dial., xliii, lxxvi, lxxxiv, etc.) and the reality of the flesh of Christ (Dial., xlviii, xcviii, ciii; cf. II Apol., x, 1). He states that among the Christians there are some who do not admit the Divinity of Christ but they are a minority; he differs from them because of the authority of the Prophets (Dial., xlvi); the entire dialogue, moreover, is devoted to proving this thesis. Christ is the Master whose doctrine enlightens us (I Apol., xiii, 3; xxiii, 2; xxxii, 2; II, viii, 5; xiii, 2; Dial., viii, lxxvii, lxxxiii, c, cxiii), also the Redeemer whose blood saves us (I Apol., lxiii, 10, 16; Dial., xiii, xl, xli, xcv, cvi; cf. Rivière, "Hist. du dogme de la rédemption", Paris, 1905, 115, and tr., London, 1908). The rest of Justin's theology is less personal, therefore less interesting. As to the Eucharist, the baptismal Mass and the Sunday Mass are described in the first "Apology" (lxv-lxvii), with a richness of detail unique for that age. Justin here explains the dogma of the Real Presence with a wonderful clearness (lxvi, 2): "In the same way that through the power of the Word of God Jesus Christ our Saviour took flesh and blood for our salvation, so the nourishment consecrated by the prayer formed of the words of Christ . . . is the flesh and blood of this incarnate Jesus." The "Dialogue" (cxvii; cf. xli) completes this doctrine by the idea of a Eucharistic sacrifice as a memorial of the Passion. The role of St. Justin may be summed up in one word: it is that of a witness. We behold in him one of the highest and purest pagan souls of his time in contact with Christianity, compelled to accept its irrefragable truth, its pure moral teaching, and to admire its superhuman constancy. He is also a witness of the second-century Church which he describes for us in its faith, its life, its worship, at a time when Christianity yet lacked the firm organization that it was soon to develop (see ST. IRENÆUS), but the larger outlines of whose constitution and doctrine are already luminously drawn by Justin. Finally, Justin was a witness for Christ unto death. PRINCIPAL EDITIONS:-MARAN, S. Patris Nostri Justini philosophi et martyris opera quæ exstant omnia (Paris, 1742), and in P. G.., VI; OTTO, Corpus apologetarum christianorum sæculi secundi, I-V (3rd ed., Jena, 1875-81); Krüger, Die Apologien Justins des Märtyrers (3rd ed., ed., Tubingen, 1904); PAUTIGNY, Justin, Apologies (Paris, 1904); ARCHAMBAULT, Justin, Dialogue avec Tryphon, I (Paris, 1909). PRINCIPAL STUDIES:-VON ENGELHARDT, Das Christenthum Justins des Märtyrers. Eine Untersuchung über die Anfänge der katholischen Glaubenslehre (Erlangen, 1878); PURVES, The Testimony of Justin Martyr to Early Christianity (lectures delivered on the L.P. Stone Foundation at Princeton Theological Seminary) (London, 1888); TEDER, Justins des Märtyrers Lehre von Jesus Christus, dem Messias und dem menschgewordenen Sohne Gottes (Freiburg im Br., 1906). Works on special points and works of less importance have been mentioned in the course of the article. A more complete bibliography may be found in BARDENHEWER, Gesch. der altkirchl. Litteratur, I (Freiburg im Br., 1902), 240-42. JULES LEBRETON St. Justus St. Justus Fourth Archbishop of Canterbury; died 627 (?). For the particulars of his life we are almost entirely dependent on Venerable Bede's "Historia Ecclesiastica", the additions of medieval writers, such as William of Malmesbury or Elmham, possessing no authority. Justus was one of the second band of missionaries sent by St. Gregory the Great, the company which arrived in 601 to reinforce St. Augustine and which conveyed the relics, books, sacred vessels, and other gifts sent by the pope. It is not certain whether he was a secular priest or a monk. St. Bede is silent on the point and only later monastic writers from Canterbury claim him as one of their own order. In 604 he was consecrated by St. Augustine as first Bishop of Rochester, on which occasion King Ethelbert bestowed on the new see, by charter, a territory called Priestfield and other lands. Other charters in which his name occurs are of dubious authenticity. After the death of Augustine, Justus joined with the new Archbishop, St. Laurence, and with Mellitus of London in addressing letters to the recalcitrant British bishops, but without effect. During the heathen reaction which followed the death of Ethelbert, Justus was expelled from his see and took refuge in Gaul for a year, after which he was recalled by Eadbald who had been converted by St. Laurence. On the death of St. Mellitus (24 April, 624) who had succeeded St. Laurence as archbishop, St. Justus was elected to the vacant primacy. The letter which Pope Boniface addressed to him when sending him the pallium is preserved by Venerable Bede (H. F., II, 8). He was already an old man, and little is recorded of his pontificate except that he consecrated Romanus as Bishop of Rochester and St. Paulinus as Bishop for the North. His anniversary was kept at Canterbury on 10 November, but there is uncertainty as to the year of his death, though 627, the commonly received date, would appear to be correct, especially as it fits in with the period of three years usually assigned by the chroniclers to his archiepiscopate. He was buried with his predecessors at St. Augustine's Abbey, Canterbury, and is commemorated in the English supplement to the Missal and Breviary on 10 November. BEDE, Hist. Ecc. Gentis Anglorum, I, 29; II, 3-16; CHALLONER, Britannia Sancta, II (London, 1745), 263; HOOK, Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury, I (London, 1860); HADDON AND STUBBS, Ecclesiastical Documents, III (London, 1878), 72-81; STUBBS, in Dict. Christ. Biog., S.V.; HUNT, in Dict. Nat. Biog., S.V.; BOLLANDISTS, Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina, I (Brussels, 1898-1899). EDWIN BURTON Juvencus C. Vettius Aquilinus Juvencus Christian Latin poet of the fourth century. Of his life we know only what St. Jerome tells us (De viris, lxxxiv; cf. Chron., ad an. 2345; Epist. lxx, 5; In Matt., I, ii, 11). He was a Spaniard of very good birth, became a priest, and wrote in the time of Constantine. From one passage in his work (II, 806, sq.) and from St. Jerome's Chronicle it must be inferred that he wrote about the year 330. His poem, in dactylic hexameters, is entitled "Evangeliorum libri" (The Gospels). It is a history of Christ according to the Gospels, particularly that of St. Matthew. He goes to the other Evangelists for what he does not find in St. Matthew -- as the story of the Infancy, which he takes from St. Luke. He follows his model very closely, "almost literally", as St. Jerome says. The whole problem for him is to render the Gospel text into easy language conformable to the tradition of the Latin poets, and borrowed especially from Virgil. His task is of no higher order than might be accomplished by a proficient schoolboy; it permits of little originality beyond that exhibited in new words composed, or derived, according to familiar types (auricolor, flammiuomus, flammicomans, sinuamen), elegant synonyms to express the Christian realities (tonans for "God", genitor for the Father, spiramen for the Holy Ghost, uersutia for the Devil), or, lastly, archaic expressions. There is no colour, no movement. The language is correct, the verses well constructed. A few obscurities of prosody betray the period in which the work was written. The whole effect is carefully wrought out. In the prologue Juvencus announces that he wishes to meet the lying tales of the pagan poets, Homer and Virgil, with the glories of the true Faith. He hopes that his poem will survive the destruction of the world by fire, and will deliver him, the poet, from hell. He invokes the Holy Spirit as the pagans invoked the Muses or Apollo. The work is divided into four books, which make arbitrary divisions of the life of Christ. The number four seems to be symbolical, corresponding to the number of the Evangelists. Other traces of symbolism have been found in Juvencus, the most notable being the significance attached to the gifts of the Magi -- the incense offered to the God, the gold to the King, the myrrh to the Man. This interpretation, of which he, certainly, was not the inventor, was to have the greatest success, as we know. Lastly, eight preliminary verses, Juvencus's authorship of which is disputed, characterize the Evangelists and assign emblems to them; but they assign the eagle to St. Mark and the lion to St. John. The Bible text which Juvencus paraphrased was of course an ancient one. He appears, too, to have had recourse at times to the Greek text. The source of his poetical phraseology and his technic is, first, Virgil, then Lucretius, Propertius, Horace, Ovid, Silius, and Status. The cold correctness of the work recommended it to the taste of the Middle Ages, when it was frequently quoted, imitated, and copied. St. Jerome tells us that Juvencus composed another, shorter, Christian poem on "the order of the mysteries" (Sacramentorum ordinem). This work is lost. Modern writers have incorrectly attributed to him the "Heptateuchus", a work of Cyprian of Gaul, and the "De Laudibus Domini", a work of Juvencus's time, but to be credited to some pupil of the rhetoricians of Augustodunum (Autun). The two best editions of Juvencus are those of Marold (Leipzig, 1886) in the "Bibliotheca Teubneriana", and of Hümer (Vienna, 1891) in the "Corpus script. ecclesiast. latinorum". TEUFFEL, Geschichte der römischen Literatur (Leipzig, 1890), 1016; SCHANZ, Geschichte der röm. Literatur, IV (Munich, 1904), 1, 190; BARDENHEWER, tr. SHAHAN, Patrology (St. Louis, 1908). PAUL LEJAY Juvenile Courts Juvenile Courts Tribunals for the trial of children charged with crimes or offences. The maximum age is usually fixed at seventeen years, below which age these courts are generally given exclusive jurisdiction where the crimes are not capital. In some cities, power is also conferred upon these courts to commit to institutions, or other custodial care, juvenile dependents and children found to be in unfit homes. Notably in Washington and Denver, jurisdiction is added to try adults charged with contributing in any way to the delinquency or wrongdoing of a child, and husbands or fathers who fail to support or who desert their wives and children in destitute or necessitous circumstances. Sometimes, as at Washington, laws regulating child labour are enforced through these courts. By the common law, a child under the age of seven years was conclusively presumed to be incapable of committing a crime. Between seven and fourteen yeas of age, criminal intent, without which there can be no crime, must be shown by the prosecution. Malice would supply age, was the maxim. At fourteen, the age of puberty, when the child had all the powers it would ever possess, the law cast upon it full responsibility for its criminal acts. It was sentenced, upon conviction, to the jail or the penitentiary, where enforced association with adult criminals brought about most deplorable results. Society has been slow to awaken to the mistake, nay more, the criminal folly, of this policy, and now, under the operation of juvenile-court laws, all this is being changed. The juvenile court means more than a new forum. It means a new method in dealing with children who commit offences. It is the manifestation of a new and more rational spirit on the part of the State towards children who violate its public law. The State by its punishment of the adult for crime committed, endeavours, on the one hand, to reform the criminal and, on the other, to deter by the severity of its punishment others from transgressing the law. Now it is recognized that the character of children is yet unformed, that, instead of reformation, they stand in need of formation of good habits and character, and so the aim of the juvenile court becomes correction rather than punishment. In some States, the juvenile-court movement has commenced by holding the trial of children a separate session of the ordinary criminal court of first instance. In other States, juvenile courts are established, but judges of other tribunals act successively, in turn, as judges of the juvenile court. Elsewhere, as in Colorado, Maryland, Indiana, and the District of Columbia, there are judges appointed as judges of the juvenile court only, and this is claimed to be the best method by those who have given the movement close study. The judge of the juvenile court soon becomes a specialist in his work, but the demands of the important problem of the child, which is his, require in himself the combined qualities of the jurist, the teacher, the sociologist, and the philanthropist. The juvenile courts of the United States may be grouped under two classes: juvenile courts where the procedure is according to that of the English Court of Chancery, and juvenile courts where the procedure approximates that of the ordinary criminal court. The Juvenile Court of Chicago is presided over by one of the judges of the Circuit Court. The proceedings conform as nearly as may be to the practice in Chancery. The pleadings used are simply a petition and an answer, and the process used is a summons. Such proceedings by the State of Illinois, in dealing with the child who has broken one of its laws, consists of a declaration that the child needs the parental care of the State, which has always been exercised over dependents through the medium of the Court of Chancery, and that it thus requires the parental care of the State, which is parens patrie, by reason of the failure of the father and mother, first as they are, in the order both of nature and of time, to fulfil their obligations towards this child. Accordingly the State does not brand the child as a criminal, but deals with him as a delinquent child requiring the parental correction of the State, not its punishment. Chicago had the earliest juvenile court, and this is the furthest advance in the movement. In fact, it smacks strongly of paternalism on the part of the State; but we should remember that it is paternalism exercised where it is sadly lacking. Practically, the power is invoked not to interfere with the normal family, but to succour the poor little waifs of fortune out of unfit homes, starved and weather-beaten, the companions, oftentimes, of thieves and worse. To the other class belongs the Juvenile Court of New York City, presided over in rotation by the judges of the court of Special Sessions, which is a criminal court for the trial of misdemeanours without a jury. But even here the court has power and authority to extend relief to children who have unfit homes or are otherwise abused by their parents---under our system of jurisprudence, an incident of chancery jurisdiction. New York City is the principal gateway of our country, and the problems of this court are made heavy by the presence in its jurisdiction of many who are strangers both to our language and our customs, and by the acute conditions accompanying an enormous population in which are the extremes of wealth and want. The juvenile court at Washington has a criminal procedure. This court was created by the Act of Congress of 19 March, 1906, and is given original and exclusive jurisdiction of all crimes and offences of persons under seventeen years of age, not capital or otherwise infamous and not punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary. The court is also given jurisdiction over those adults responsible for the delinquency of any child, and over parents or guardians who fail or refuse to provide food, clothing, or shelter for their children, the criminal court of the district having concurrent powers in the latter class of cases. Nor can a dependent child be admitted to any institution supported wholly or in part out of public funds, until the fact of dependence is first ascertained and proved in the juvenile court. In this court are tried all cases arising under the child labour law. Provision is made by the Act for a jury and for appeals in matters of law to the court of appeals of the District of Columbia. The juvenile court is empowered to defer sentence, at its discretion, in the case of any juvenile offender under seventeen years of age, and to place such child on probation, during which it shall be under the jurisdiction of the court. The probation officers are generally employed by the court to make a preliminary investigation before the child is arraigned. This investigation usually results in helpful data about the parentage and antecedents of the child, its habits and its environment. It is comparatively easy to affix a statutory punishment in the case of the adult found guilty of crime. It is a far more difficult matter to correct a wayward child; so that the previous history of the child is most helpful to the judge. Then, too, the services of the physician are often brought into requisition, to cure some physical ill, such as adenoidal growths, which may in a measure account for the delinquency of the child. In both classes of juvenile courts---those whose procedure is after the manner of chancery or equity courts, and those whose procedure is more like that of the ordinary criminal courts---the treatment of the child and the attitude of the judge towards the child are the same. In the treatment, the underlying purpose is the saving of the child, not its punishment, nor even its restraint. And the personality of the judge is an element of vast importance in any juvenile court. "I have always felt and endeavoured to act in each case", said Judge Tuthill, of Chicago, "as I would were it my own son who was before me in my library at home charged with misconduct". The Supreme Court of Utah, in the case of Mill v. Brown, 88 Pacific Reporter, page 609 (1907) said: "To administer juvenile laws in accordance with their true spirit and intent requires a man of broad mind, of almost infinite patience, and one who is the possessor of great faith in humanity and thoroughly imbued with that spirit. The judge of any court, and especially a judge of a juvenile court, should be willing at all times, not only to respect, but to maintain and preserve, the legal and natural rights of men and children alike." The juvenile court must not commit to the jail or the workhouse or the penitentiary the children who must be confined. It may send them to so-called reform schools, institutions that sprang into existence some seventy-five years ago, or to some other place provided for their kindly but custodial care. In the case of Mill v. Brown, supra, we read: "Before the State can be substituted to the right of the parent, it must affirmatively be made to appear that the parent has forfeited his natural and legal right to the custody and control of the child by reason of his failure, inability, neglect, or incompetency to discharge the duty and thus to enjoy the right. Unless, therefore, both the delinquency of the child and the incompetency, for any reason, of the parent concur, and are so found, the court exceeds its power when committing a child to any of the institutions contemplated by the act." Instead of so committing the child, the court may either impose a fine or, what is done in a large percentage of the cases, place the child upon probation. Probation is a new system of custodial care that is rapidly growing in favour as the best method to handle or discipline, not only children who violate the law, but adults as well. Probation means that, with confidence in the promises of the offender to offend no more, the court suspends sentence and enlarges him under the care of the probation officers attached to the court, with a view to releasing him in the future, when his conduct and progress justifies it, from the jurisdiction of the court. The management of penal institutions release prisoners from time to time in a similar manner, but in such cases the release is more accurately and more properly termed parole. The nomenclature employed in the method is, however, far from settled. On probation, the child remains in its home, in its natural environment, where the expenses, too, of its nurture and education should properly be borne. This has resulted in a substantial saving, even from a pecuniary point of view, to the communities where it has been tired, often amounting to as much as sixty thousand dollars per annum, it is estimated, in cities of two hundred and fifty thousand inhabitants. It has been demonstrated that "it is wiser and less expensive to save children than to punish criminals." To do this, probation imposes certain positive duties upon both probation officer and judge, especially where the function of the judge is confined to the juvenile court. In such a case the best results are obtained when the judge becomes in practice his own chief probation officer, carefully supervising the system himself. The judge and the probation officers must labour to develop good character in the child. The aim of probation is character-building. Hereby is brought about the saving of the child, the "citizen of tomorrow", to himself and to his country. Probation is of such importance that it has been termed the keystone of the juvenile court system. By the patient, painstaking efforts of the probation officers, much ignorance is dispelled, and all the helpful agencies in a community are drawn upon to serve the legitimate needs of the child, mentally, morally, and physically. An account of the juvenile court would be incomplete without at least a passing reference to Judge Ben B. Lindsey, of Denver, Colorado, who, through his numerous magazine articles and public addresses throughout the United States upon the juvenile court, is so intimately associated with the institution in the public mind. His excellent services to the children of Denver, his many speeches, addresses, and published articles, have been potent in the speedy spread of the movement for juvenile courts. As above mentioned, to Chicago belongs the honour of having established the first juvenile court, on 1 July, 1899. The pressing need was generally felt, the country was ripe for the movement, and there quickly followed the inauguration of juvenile courts in Denver, Indianapolis, New York, Philadelphia, Washington, until some thirty cities have them, and almost all cities are considering their adoption. This American movement has appealed to Europe, where it has been adopted in Germany, France, Belgium, Sweden, Hungary, Italy, and England. Canada and Australia now have juvenile courts, also South Africa and India. The English law follows closely the legislation to protect child life that has been enacted throughout the United States. By it, safeguards are thrown around the religious belief of the child, by having the court select, if possible, a person of the same religious persuasion or some person who will give an undertaking that the child or young person shall be brought up in accordance with its own religious persuasion. This act is to be cited as the Children's Act, 1908. It is technically 8 Edward VII, Chapter 67, and is popularly known as "The Children's Charter". Thus it is recognized as entering into the fabric of the British Constitution. By it child is defined to mean a person under the age of fourteen years, while the expression young person means one between fourteen and sixteen years of age. With the necessary modifications, the act is applied to Scotland and to Ireland. When the court is satisfied of the guilt of the child, it may, in its discretion, deal with the case by dismissing the charge; by placing the offender under the care of a probation officer; by committing the offender to the care of a relative or of some institution; by ordering the offender to be whipped; by ordering the offender to pay a fine, damages, and costs; by ordering the parent or guardian of the offender to make payment of a fine, damages, or costs; and, where the offender is over fourteen years of age, by sending him to prison. Thus has grown and spread the most remarkable development in jurisprudence of the past decade, a development that is carried on the wings of mercy, kindness, and love, in whose scales of justice are balanced the inexperience of the child and its environment with the responsibility of the parent and the adult, now, for the first time, recognized and enforced by the law of the land. The juvenile court has its origin in the needs of the time. These needs are largely the result of the industrial revolution consequent upon the use of steam and the establishment of the factory system. The old order is changed. Practically, there are no industries in the home. The congregation of workers in factories has promoted the growth of communities and cities. The trend is from the country, with its peace and simple life, to the cities, with their turmoil and dissipations. The conditions in the cities growing out of congestion of population, the use as habitations of flats and tenement houses, have all weakened family life and forced the nervous and mental development of the children into precocity. There is some truth in the saying that there are no children nowadays, and this is a prolific source of the need for juvenile courts. But, as demanded by conditions, the work of these courts is remedial rather than vindictive and punitory. They aim to conserve child-life. All this is in harmony with the spirit of the Catholic Church, whose Divine Founder said: "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not." In the spirit of the Master, she early set her face against the exposure and destruction of infants under paganism. Creches and infant asylums have in all Christian ages been offered as an alternative to child- murder. Devoted sisterhoods and brotherhoods have always maintained orphan asylums, refuges, and hospitals for the protection, safeguarding and training of the orphaned, abandoned and abused little brothers of Christ. The spirit that created the juvenile court is closely akin to the spirit of the Catholic Church, which, in its canonical punishments, has never been moved by a vindictive spirit. Recognizing in the meanest and the weakest, a soul purchased by the Blood of Christ, her sanctions are chiefly correctional and medicinal. This is also the motive of the juvenile court, the essence of which is correction, conservation, remedy; not retaliation or vindictive punishment. Since 1900 numerous articles upon juvenile courts and probation have appeared in periodicals published in the United States and abroad. In the same period, in the published Yearly Proceedings of the National Conference of Charities and Correction, appear addresses upon the subject of Judge Ben B. Lindsey, of Denver; Judge Julian W. Mack, of Chicago; Judge George W. Stubbs, of Indianapolis; Professor Charles R. Henderson, of Chicago; the present writer, and others. See MACK in the Reports of the American Bar Association for 1909; BARROWS, Children's Courts in the United States (reports prepared for the International Prison Commission) (Washington, 1904); LINDSEY, The Problem of the Children and How the State of Colorado Cares for Them (1904); FOLKS, The Care of Destitute, Neglected, and Dependent Children (New York, 1902); Les Tribun aux Speciaux pour Enfants (Paris, 1906); Children's Act (London, 1908); Proceedings of the 75th Anniversary of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul (New York, 1909); HURLEY, Origins of the Illinois Juvenile Court Law (3rd ed., Chicago, 1907). WILLIAM H. DE LACY __________________________________________________________________ Kabbala Kabbala The term is now used as a technical name for the system of esoteric theosophy which for many generations played an important part, chiefly among the Jews, after the beginning of the tenth century of our era. It primarily signifies reception, and, secondarily, a doctrine received by oral tradition. Its application has greatly varied in the course of time, and it is only since the eleventh or twelfth century that the term Kabbala has become the exclusive appellation for the system of Jewish religious philosophy which claims to have been uninterruptedly transmitted by the mouths of the patriarchs, prophets, elders, etc., ever since the creation of the first man. The two works which the advocates of this system treat as the authoritative exposition of its doctrines are the Book of Creation and the Zohar. THE BOOK OF CREATION The Book of Creation is a short treatise consisting of six chapters subdivided into thirty-three very brief sections. It is written in Mishnic Hebrew, and is made up of oracular sentences. It professes to be a monologue of the patriarch Abraham, who enumerates the thirty-two ways of wisdom by which God produced the universe, and who shows, by the analogy which is assumed to exist between the visible things and the letters which are the signs of thought, the manner in which all has emanated from God and is inferior to Him. THE ZOHAR The Zohar, or second expository work of the Kabbala, has justly been called the "Bible" of the Kabbalists. It is written in Aramaic, and its main portion is the form of a commentary on the Pentateuch according to the latter's division into fifty-two weekly lessons. Its title Zohar (light, splendour) is derived from the words of Genesis 1:3 ("Let there be light") with the exposition of which it begins. It is a compilatory work, wherein several fragments of ancient treatises can still be noticed. The following is a brief account of the chief contents -- doctrinal, hermeneutical, and theurgical -- of the Zohar. Doctrinal content of the Zohar The First World Considered in Himself, the Supreme Being is the En-Soph (Endless, Infinite) and, in a certain sense, the En (Non-existent) since existence is in human conception a limitation which as such should not be predicted of Him. We can conceive and speak of God only in so far as He manifests and, as it were, actualizes Himself in or through the Sephiroth. + His first manifestation was by way of concentration in a point called the first Sephira -- "the Crown", as it is called -- which is hardly distinguishable from the En-Soph from Whom it emanates, and which is expressed in the Bible by the Ehieyeh (I am). From the first Sephira proceeded a masculine or active potency called wisdom, represented in the Bible by Yah, and an opposite, i.e. a feminine or passive potency, called intelligence, and represented by Yahweh. These two opposite potencies are coupled together by the "Crown", and thus yields the first trinity of the Sephiroth. + From the junction of the foregoing opposite tendencies emanated the masculine potency called love, the the fourth Sephira, represented by the Biblical El, and the feminine one justice, the fifth Sephira, represented by the Divine name Elohah. From them again emanated the uniting potency, beauty, the sixth Sephira, represented in the Bible by Elohim. And thus is constituted the second trinity of the Sephiroth. + In its turn, beauty beamed forth the seventh Sephira, the masculine potency, firmness, corresponding to Yahweh Sabaoth, and this again produced the feminine potency splendour, represented by Elohe Sabaoth. From splendour emanated the ninth Sephira, foundation, which answers the Divine name El-Hai and closes the third trinity of the Sephiroth. + Lastly, splendour sends forth kingdom, the tenth Sephira, which encircles all the others and is represented by Adonai. These ten Sephiroth are emanations from the En-Soph, forming among themselves and with Him a strict unity, in the same way as the rays which proceed from the light are simply manifestations of one and the same light. They are infinite and perfect when the En-Soph imparts His fullness to them, and finite and imperfect when that fullness is withdrawn from them (Ginsburg). In their totality, they represent and are called the archetypal man, without whom the production of permanent worlds was impossible. In fact, they constitute the first world, or world of emanations, which is perfect and immutable because of its direct procession from the Deity. The Second, Third and Fourth Worlds Emanating immediately from this first world is the world of creation, the ten Sephiroth of which are of a more limited potency, and the substances of which are of the purest nature. From the world of creation proceeds the world of formation, with its less refined ten Sephiroth, although its substances are still without matter. Finally, from this third world proceeds the world of action or of matter, the ten Sephiroth of which are made of the grosser elements of the other works. The Angels Of these worlds, the second, that of creation, is inhabited by the angel Metatron, who governs the visible world, and is the captain of the hosts of good angels who in ten ranks people the third world, that of formation. The demons or bad angels inhabit the fourth world, that of action, the lowest regions of which constitute the seven infernal halls wherein the demons torture the poor mortals whom they betrayed into sin in this life. The prince of the demons is Samael (the "angel of poison or of death"); he has a wife called the Harlot; but both are treated as one person, and are called "the Beast". Man Man was directly created not by En-Soph, but by the Sephiroth, and is the counterpart of the archetypal man. His body is merely a garment of his soul. Like God, he has a unity and a trinity, the latter being made up of the spirit representing the intellectual world, the soul representing the sensuous world, and the life representing the material world. Souls are pre-existent destined to dwell in human bodies, and subjected to transmigration till at last they return to God. Destiny of the World The world also including Samael himself, will return ultimately--viz. at the advent of the Messias born at the end of days--to the bosom of the Infinite Source. Then Hell shall disappear and endless bliss begin. Hermeneutical content of the Zohar All these esoteric doctrines of the Kabbala are supposed to be contained in the Hebrew Scriptures, in which, however they can be perceived only by those initiated into certain hermeneutical methods. The following are the three principal methods of discovering the heavenly mysteries hidden under the letters and words of the Sacred Text: + The Temurah (change) by means of which each letter of the Hebrew alphabet is interchanged with another, according to some definite process, as when Aleph, the first letter, becomes Lamed by interchange with the twelfth, the second, Beth, becomes, Mem, the thirteenth, etc.; or as, when the last letter takes place of the first, the last but one takes the place of the second, etc.; + the Gematriah (Gr. gemetria), which consists in the use of the numerical values of the letters of a word for purposes comparison with other words, which give the same or similar combinations of numbers: thus in Genesis 49:10, "Shiloh come" is equivalent to 358, which is also the numerical value of Mashiah, whence it is inferred that Shiloh is identical with Messias; + the Notarikon (Lat. notarius), or process of reconstructing a word by using the initials of many, or a sentence by using all the letters of a single word as so many initials of other words; for instance, the word Agla is formed from the initials of the Hebrew sentence: "Thou (art) (a) Mighty (God) forever." Theurgical content of the Zohar The theurgical, or last chief element of the Zohar, needs no long description here. It forms part of what has been called the "practical" Kabbala, and supplies formulas by means of which the adept can enter into direct communication with invisible powers and thereby exercise authority over demons, nature, diseases, etc. To a large extent it is the natural outcome of the extraordinary hidden meaning ascribed by the Kabbala to the words of the Sacred Text, and in particular to the Divine names. CONCLUSION Of course, the Book of Creation does not go back to Abraham, as has been claimed by many Kabbalists. Its ascription by others to Rabbi Akiba (d. A.D. 120) is also a matter of controversy. With regard to the Zohar, its compilation is justly referred to a Spanish Jew, Moses of Leon (d. 1305), while some of its elements seem to be of a much greater antiquity. Several of its doctrines recall to mind those of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, the neo-Platonists of Alexandria, the Oriental or Egyptian Pantheists, and the Gnostics of the earliest Christian ages. Its speculations concerning God's nature and relation to the universe differ materially from the teachings of Revelation. Finally, it has decidedly no right to be considered as an excellent means to induce the Jews to receive Christianity, although this has been maintained by such Christian scholars as R. Lully, Pico della Mirandola, Reuchlin, Knorr von Rosenroth, etc., and although such prominent Jewish Kabbalists as Riccio, Conrad, Otto, Rittangel, Jacob Franck, etc., have embraced the Christian Faith, and proclaimed in their works the great affinity of some doctrines of the Kabbala with those of Christianity. FRANCIS E. GIGOT Kafiristan and Kashmir Prefecture Apostolic of Kafiristan and Kashmir Created (1887) by Leo XIII in the extreme North of India. As regards India proper, the district was, prior to 1887, part of the Capuchin Diocese of Lahore. In that year it was confided to the Fathers of the English Foreign Missions (Mill Hill). The Prefecture includes some of the most important British military stations of Northern India, Peshawur at the mouth of the Khyber Pass, Nowshera and Rawalpindi, the latter place being the army headquarters of lieutenant-general commanding the Northern Army in India. Rawalpindi is also the residence of the Prefect Apostolic, the Very Rev. Dominic Wagner, nominated 13 March, 1900. He was born in 1863 in Friesland and ordained in Salford Cathedral by Cardinal Vaughan in February, 1889. He was educated at the Jesuit College of Culemburg in Holland and at St. Joseph's Foreign Missionary College, Mill Hill, London. In the prefecture there are two important convents: the first is at Murree in the charge of the nuns of Congregation of Jesus and Mary. This institution comprises a boarding school for young ladies, a military orphanage, and a day school for outsiders. The other convent is situated at Rawalpindi, and is in charge of the Presentation nuns. They have recently received a number of new postulants from Ireland and hope to found a convent in Kashmir. They will also help Doctor Elizabeth Bielby, who under the quidance of the prefect Apostolic, is about to open (1909) a Catholic hospital for the native women and children of Northern India. At Baramulla, in Kashmir, Father Simon, assisted by a staff of twelve lay teachers, conducts an important school for native Kashmir boys. The pupils number three hundred. The prefecture comprises about fifteen million inhabitants. Twelve million five hundred thousand of these are Mohammedans, two million are Hindoos, five hundred thousand are Buddhists and about five thousand are Catholics. J.A. CUNNINGHAM Kafirs Kafirs A term popularly to nearly all the natives of South Africa. It was originally imposed by the Arab traders of the East coast, and means "unbeliever". The natives do not use the word, but distinguish themselves by the names of their many tribes. Even in legal phraseology there is some confusion; but the following is a serviceable list of the native races of South Africa as known to the law; Kafir, Zulu, Basuto, Bechuana, Pondo, Fingo, Griqua, Damara, Koranna, Bushman and Hottentot. The almost universal language of the South African natives is the Bantu, of which the Kafir group has four subdivisions, Xosa, Zulu, Tabele, Mfengu. It is likely that many of the tribes evangelized by the Jesuits and Dominicans from the fifteenth to the eighteenth centuries were ancestors of our Kafirs. When the Catholic missionaries were driven out, the native converts could not stand alone, and relapsed into barbarism, although individuals had risen high in the scale of civilization. The terrible Zulu chief Chaka carried on an aggressive war against the other tribes, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, and over a million are said to have perished. Thence until 1879 came a series of wars between the Kafirs and the British or Dutch. Today there are, south of the Zambesi, some five million natives, chiefly Kafirs. In Cape Colony, the state which has the largest European population, Europeans are to non-Europeans as 100 to 316. The greatest number of Kafirs occupy the land by tribal or communal tenure, under their own laws and the suzerainty of Great Britain. Some are squatters on private or government lands. There are also mission locations and labour locations. A few have individual titles to land, and some are scattered as servants among the whites. In Cape Colony there are about 5500 registered voters out of a total of about twenty thousand non-European voters. In the other South African states the native voter is a negligible quantity. The importance of missionary work among the Kafirs may be gauged from the following remarkable words of the Native Commission, 1903-5, appointed by all the South African States: The commission considers . . . that no merely secular system of morality that might be applied would serve to raise the native's ideal of conduct, or to counteract the evil influences that have been alluded to, and is of opinion that hope for the elevation of the native races must depend mainly on their acceptance of Christian faith and morals. The tribal system is in many ways an impediment to missionary enterprise, but it is a safeguard against political combination. Alcohol is a problem, and abolition is the policy in all native reserves. Polygamy is decreasing slowly but surely. The dangerous Ethiopian movement (the revolt of native Christians from the control of white missionaries) is felt in all Protestant missions, but has had little footing in Catholic stations. The principal Catholic Kafir missions are now in the hands of Trappists, Oblates of Mary Immaculate, and Jesuits. Full statistics are not obtainable. The census of 1904 shows that in Cape Colony Catholics of non-European descent were under 5000. The Trappists have 58 priests, 223 lay brothers, and 328 nuns, working among the natives: 82 schools, and 42 mission stations. About 12,000 Kafirs in South Africa today have been trained in Trappist stations. South African Native Affairs Commission, 1903-5 (Cape Town, 1905); Census of Cape Colony (Cape Town, 1905); THEAL, History of South Africa (London, 1897); IDEM, The Portuguese in South Africa (Cape Town, 1896); TORREND, Comparative Grammar of the South African Bantu Language (London, 1891); BRYANT, Kafir Dictionary, preface (London, 1905). SIDNEY R. WELCH Johann Matthias Kager Johann Matthias Kager German historical painter, born at Munich, 1566; died at Augsburg, 1634. He was originally a pupil of Pieter de Witte (Candito), but went to Rome when young, and spent several years there. On his return, he was called to Munich by the Elector Maximilian, who appointed him to be his principal painter, and granted him a considerable allowance. He settled down in Augsburg, and spent the rest of his years in that place, becoming burgomaster. He decorated many of the palaces and churches at Munich, but his finest work, called "The Last Judgment", is in the Senate Hall at Augsburg. A notable picture by him is a representation of "David and Abigail", now at Vienna. He etched several plates from his own design, representing religious subjects (dated 1600, 1601, 1603), and his pictures were also engraved by two members of the Sadeler family, and by Kilian, the plates numbering altogether over seventy. He practised in architecture, and painted a few miniatures, but his chief work was in fresco and in oil. WOLTMAN, Gesch. der Malerei; DESCAMPS, La Vie des Peintres (Paris, 1753); SIRET, Dictionnaire des Peintres (Paris, 1883). GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON Kajetan Georg von Kaiser Kajetan Georg von Kaiser Chemist, born at Kelheim on the Danube (Bavaria), 5 January, 1803; died at Munich, 28 August, 1871. He was appointed professor of technology at the University of Munich in 1851, and in 1868 became professor of applied chemistry at the technical high school in the same city. His scientific researches into the chemistry of fermentation are of importance; a saccharometer invented by him in 1842 serves for the determination of the percentages of the contents of wort. In addition to articles in scientific journals, he published the paper Ueber Bieruntersuchungen und Fehler, welche dabei gemacht werden können (Munich, 1846). He also brought out the scientific works of his friend, the chemist and mineralogist, Johann Nepomuk von Fuchs (d. 1856), under the title "Gesammelte Schriften des Joh. Nep. von Fuchs" (Munich, 1856), adding an obituary notice of that scientist. Like Fuchs, Kaiser always remained a faithful and steadfast Catholic, even in the period of 1870-1. It is stated of him in an obituary notice that "his Catholic belief was invulnerable spot in his heart, in which he always maintained his own individuality under every trial". Berichte der deutschen chemischen Gesellschaft, IV (Berlin, 1871); KNELLER, Das Christentum und die Vertreter der neueren Naturwissenschaft (Freiburg im Br., 1904). J. ROMPEL Kaiserchronik Kaiserchronik (Der Keiser und der Kunige buoch.) A German epic poem of the twelfth century. It is at once a kind of "Legend of all the Saints" and a confused but remarkable account of the Roman emperors and also of the German emperors and kings to the crusade of King Conrad III (1147). The language is comparatively good and often quite poetic. The chronicle was written about 1150. Undoubtedly the work of an ecclesiastic of Ratisbon, an earnest partisan of the Guelphs, the chronicle is not improbably to be referred to Konrad der Pfaffe (q. v.), who composed the well-known "Song of Roland" (Rolands-lied). He drew his information from the "Chronicon Wirzeburgense", the Chronicle of Ekkehard (see EKKEHARD IV), and the "Annolied"; it may be that he also drew from some earlier record or rhymed chronicle. Judging from the large number of manuscripts still extant (twelve complete and seventeen partial), it must have been very popular, and it was twice continued in the thirteenth century. The original poem, according to the latest authorities, ended with verse 17283; the first addition, called "Bavarian", comprised 800 verses, while the second, the "Swabian", which brought the poem to the Interregnum (1254-73), consisted of 483 lines. The chronicle was first published in full Massmann (Quedlinburg, 1849-54) in three volumes, under the title: "Die sogenannte Kaiserchronik, Gedicht des 12. Jahrhunderts in 18578 Reimzeilen", with careful researches into manuscripts, investigation of authorship, age, etc. The best edition is that of Schröder: "Die Kaiserchronik eines Regensburger Geistlichen" (Hanover, 1892), in "Mon. Germ. Deutsche Chroniken", I,i; Appendix I is the Bavarian, appendix ii the Swabian continuation. GREDY, Ueber die Kaiserchronik ein Gedicht des 12. Jahrhunderts. Mit neuhochdeutschen Uebertragungen und Anmerkungen (Mainz, 1854); WELZHOFER, Untersuchungen über die deutsche Kaiserchronik (Munich, 1874), in Zeitschrift für deutsches Alterthum, XIV, XVII, XIX, XXVI, XXXII, XXXIV. PATRICIUS SCHLAGER Kaiserwilhelmsland Prefecture Apostolic of Kaiserwilhelmsland Comprises the German part of the island of New Guinea, area about 460,000 sq. miles; about 1,000,000 inhabitants. It was only in August, 1896, that the first Catholic missionaries arrived there, three priests and three brothers. On a coast extending about four hundred miles there are now twelve stations established. The small mission steamboat Gabriel is the means of communication along the coast. The Apostolic prefecture was established in 1896 and transferred to the Society of the Divine Word. It had in 1909 twenty-two priests, seventeen lay brothers, and twenty-nine sisters; there are no native priests, the mission being too new. A cathedral is already planed, St. Michael's in Alexishafen. Since the beginning of the mission there have been 1960 baptisms. There are thirteen parochial schools and 600 pupils; priests instruct in religion, while the sisters (Serv Spiritus Sancti) teach reading, writing, arithmetic, singing and geography. A catechism school has just been started. The principal difficulty is the variety of languages; at St. Michael's about 120 pupils speak twenty-five different languages. The common language is German. Some of the adult pupils learn from the brothers useful trades, e. g. carpentering, joinery, smith-work, boat-building, mason-work, and tailoring. Some farms have been started, so that the lower classes of New Guineans may learn to appreciate and love the work. It is hoped that in time, through the practice of useful occupations, the mission will be entirely self-supporting. Each mission is governed by a priest, who is subject to a dean, whose duty it is to see that the rules are observed. Conferences are held every three or four weeks, and in order to promote the spiritual welfare of the community, an eight-day retreat is given yearly. It was at first proposed to found a leper settlement, but for the present this charitable work has failed, owing to the deep mistrust and superstition of the New Guinean character. Moreover, they have an easier way of disposing of these crippled and afflicted creatures; they simply drive them into the great wilderness. All the natives belong to the Papuan race, but along the coast are found a few of Malay race; the few Malays and Chinese are mostly artisans in various trades. The centre of navigation is Astrolabe Bay Friedrich Wilhelmshafen. The latter station belongs to the New Guinea Company, which has, with few exceptions, the monopoly of all land there. Seven English miles north of it is Alexishafen, superior in every way to Friedrich Wilhelmshafen. E. LIMBROCK Kalands Brethren Kalands Brethren (Kalandbrüder, Fratres Calendarii.) The name given to religious and charitable associations of priests and laymen especially numerous in Northern and Central Germany, which held regular meetings for religious edification and instruction, and also to encourage works of charity and prayers for the dead. They were originally an extension of the meetings of the clergy of the separate deaneries usually held on the first day of each month (Kalendæ, hence their title Kaland). After the thirteenth century these meetings developed in many cases into special, organized societies to which both priests and the laity, men and women, belonged. Special statutes regulated the conduct of the society, its reunions, the duties of the directors in promoting the religious life and Christian discipline, the services to be held, the administration of the general funds, and their application to charitable purposes. A dean was at the head of each association, and a treasurer administered the revenues. The associations were encouraged by the bishops, who assigned them particular churches or at least special altars for Divine Service. The offering of prayers and the Sacrifice of the Mass for deceased members was especially fostered. The oldest known Kaland confraternity is that of Ottberg near Höchster (Westphalia), of whose existence in 1226 we have documentary evidence. The "Calendarii" flourished especially in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, but later decayed. A banquet was introduced at the meetings, which subsequently degenerated in many instances into a revel, leading in certain neighbourhoods to abuses. From Germany the Kaland confraternities spread to Denmark, Norway, Hungary, and France. In the sixteenth century the Reformation led to the dissolution of the majority; the rest gradually disappeared, only one being now known to exist, that of Münster in Westphalia. SCHATZ, Der Kaland, ein Gedicht des 13. Jahrhunderts (Halberstadt Programme, 1850-1); FELLER, Dissertatio de fratribus Calendariis (Leipzig, 1691); BLUMBERG, Ueber die Kalandsbr der (Chemnitz, 1721); DITTMER, Das Heilig-Geist-Spital und die St. Clemens-Kaland zu Lübeck (Lübeck, 1838); BIERLING, Die Kalandsbrüderschaften, bes. in der Diözese Paderborn in Zeitschr. für vaterländ. Gesch. u. Altertumskunde, X, 3rd series (Münster, 1872), 175-237; BODEMANN, Die geistl. Brüderschaften, insbesondere die Kalands- und Kagelbrüder der Stadt Lüneburg im Mittelalter in Zeitschr. des histor. Vereins für Niedersachsen (1882), 64-128; Die norddeutschen Kalandsgesellschaften u. der Kaland in Münster in Hist. -polit. Blätter, LXXXVII (1881), 669-80; MICHAEL, Gesch. des deutschen Volkes, II (Freiburg, 1889), 198; RAUTENSTRAUCH, Die Kalandbr derschaften, das kulturelle Vorbild der sächsischen Kantoreien (Dresden, 1903). J.P. KIRSCH Jan Stephanus van Kalcker Jan Stephanus van Kalcker (GIOVANNI DA CALCAR and JOANNES STEPHANUS CALCARENSIS.) Flemish painter, native of the Duchy of Cleves; b. between 1499 and 1510; d. at Naples, 1546. Vasari refers to this painter several times, mainly with respect to his having been a pupil of Titian, entering his school in 1536, and to his faculty for copying the works of that master with extraordinary accuracy. Kalcker appears to have worked first at Dordrecht, but the greater part of his life was spent at Naples, and there, as Vasari tells us, "the fairest hopes had been conceived respecting his future progress." He was responsible for the eleven large plates of anatomical studies which were engraved for Andrea Vesalio as illustrations for his work on anatomy, and Vasari praises them very highly. Kalcker is also said to have drawn the portraits of the artists in the early edition of Vasari's "Lives". By some writers he has been declared to have been a close imitator of Giorgione; all who write about him unite in stating that his imitations of the works of the great Venetian artists, and also of Raphael, were so extraordinary that they deceived many critics of the day. His pictures are to be seen in Berlin, Paris, Florence, Vienna, and Prague, and his original works are, as a rule, portraits, although at Prague there is a remarkable "Nativity" by him, which was once the property of Rubens. LOMAZZO, Trattato dell' Arte della Pittura, etc. (Milan, 1584); VAN MANDER, Le Livre des Peintres (Paris, 1884), ed. HYMANS; VASARI, Vite de' piu eccelenti pittori (Florence, 1550); also ed. MILANESI (Florence, 1878-85). GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON Valerian Kalinka Valerian Kalinka Polish historian, born near Cracow in 1826; died at Jaroslaw in 1886. He fled from Poland in 1846 on account of political entanglements, worked on the "Czas" newspaper in 1848, but finally took refuge in Paris, where his first work was written -- "Galicia und Cracoio", an historical and social picture of the country from 1772 to 1850. He afterwards thought of writing a history of the Polish emigration, but eventually chose to edit a weekly periodical entitled "Political Polish News", the principal contributors to which were himself and Klaczko. Though forbidden everywhere but in Posen, it existed for four years, and dealt with every aspect of Polish national life. Kalinka's articles show a very practical acquaintance with law, administration, history, and statistics, and had mostly to do with the inner life of Poland. After 1863, when searching for documents for a life of Prince Adam Czartoryski, he stumbled on important papers which he published in two volumes as "The Last Years of Stanislaus Augustus" (1787-95). This work placed him at once in the first rank of Polish writers. Poland had not yet had such an historian, especially in the province of diplomacy and foreign politics. While marking out a new line, it carefully pointed out the errors of the past, and showed how they might have been avoided. Szujski, though unknown to Kalinka, was at the same time working in the same direction. Both were accused of undermining patriotic self- respect, of lowering Poland in foreign eyes, and of destroying veneration for the past. In the preface to this work, Kalinka had already answered these charges. A Pole is not less a Pole when he learns from past errors how to serve his country better. About this time Kalinka entered the novitiate of the Resurrection Fathers in Rome, where, save for a few visits to Galicia, he subsequently resided until in 1877, after a visit to the Catholic missions in Bulgaria, he became chaplain of a convent in Jaroslaw. Here in 1880 appeared the first volume of his "Sejmczteroletni" (The Four Years Diet). Polish literature has no better book, and none whose perusal is more painful. It exhibits all the weaknesses in the leading men of Poland, and all their political blunders. To the many fierce reproaches it called forth Kalinka replied: "History calls first for truth; nor can truth harm patriotism." A grave style, artistic grouping, faithful narrative of facts, profound political insight, and splendid literary talent make this book the greatest historical lesson in the Polish language. The second volume, even surpassing the first, appeared in 1886, and with it came to an end the thirty years labour of Kalinka. He was not only a profound and far-seeing politician and one of Poland's best historians, but also one of her most zealous priests. S. TARNOWSKI Kalispel Indians Kalispel Indians Popularly known under the French name of Pend d'Oreilles, "ear pendants", an important tribe of Salishan stock originally residing about Pend d Oreille lake and river, in northern Idaho and northeast Washington, and now gathered chiefly upon Flathead reservation, Montana, and Colville reservation, Washington. They are commonly distinguished as Upper Kalispel, on the lake, and Lower Kalispel, on the river. They are mentioned under the name of Coospellar by the explorers Lewis and Clark, in 1805, at which time they were in the habit of crossing the mountains annually to hunt buffalo on the Missouri. Somewhat later they became acquainted with the Hudson's Bay traders. In 1844 the work of Christianization was begun by the Jesuit Father Adrian Hoecken, who, four years after the famous Father de Smet had undertaken to carry the Gospel among the Flathead Indians, established St. Ignatius Mission on the east side of Clark's fork, near the Idaho line in the present Stevens county, Washington. When the Mission of St. Mary, on Bitter Root River, was abandoned in 1850, in consequence of the inroads of the Blackfeet, the St. Ignatius Mission grew in importance. In his official report of the commission to the northwestern tribes in 1853, Governor Isaac Stevens gives an extended account of Saint Ignatius, of which he says: "It would be difficult to find a more beautiful example of successful missionary labours." The mission was discontinued in 1855, but in the meantime other Jesuit missions had sprung up, and not only the Kalispel, but also the kindred Colvilles, Lakes, Okanagan, and Flatheads were completely Christianized. In 1855 the Upper band joined with the Flatheads and part of the Kutenai in a treaty with the government by which they were settled on the Flathead reservation in Montana, where some of the Lower band joined them in 1887. In 1872 a part of the Lower band was gathered upon the Colville reservation in Washington. Still others are scattered in various parts of Washington and Idaho. Lewis and Clark estimated the tribe at 1600 souls in 1805. In 1908 there were officially reported 670 "Pend d Oreilles" (Upper band) and 192 "Kalispel" (Lower band) on the Flathead reservation, Montana, and 98 "Kalispel" on Colville reservation, Washington, making, with a few not accounted for, a total of about 1000 souls. The mission work on both reservations is still in charge of the Jesuits, and is recognized by all observers as in the highest degree successful as regards religious observance, general morality, and self-supporting industry. The fathers are assisted at the Flathead mission (St. Ignatius) by Sisters of Providence, Ursulines, and Lamennais Brothers, and the Colville mission (St. Francis Regis; Ward P. O.) by Sisters of Charity of Providence. The principal industries now are farming and stock raising, with fishing and the gathering of edible roots. The earlier more primitive habit of life is thus summarized in an official report of 1870 upon the non-treaty tribes of northeastern Washington, now gathered on Colville reservation: The habits and manner of living of the tribes in this district are nearly similar. They live mostly in lodges and move from place to place where they can most easily procure subsistence. In the spring, after they put in their crops, they go to the Spokane country to dig couse, bitter-root and wild onion. The first two they dry in the sun: the wild onion they mix with the black moss and bake under hot stones. About the middle of May they collect at the several camas grounds, which root (resembling an onion, is sweet and insipid) they dig and prepare as follows: They make a bed six or eight feet in diameter, of smooth stones, on which they build a fire; when the stones are red hot they remove the fire and cover them with green grass two or three inches deep on which they place the camas six to twelve inches deep, and over which they spread green grass; then cover all with earth about six inches deep, on which they build a fire and keep it up from twenty-four to forty-eight hours, according to the amount in the kiln; after being baked it is taken out and dried in the sun. Being thus prepared it will keep for years, and is both nutritious and palatable. Before baking it is white; after black. There are several camas prairies in this district, but the largest is Kalispel on the Pend d Oreille river, at which place hundreds of bushels are dug and prepared for winter's use every year. About 1 July the Indians collect from far and near at Kettle Falls, where they catch their annual supply of salmon which they dry in the shade. They also gather and dry service berries and choke cherries, all of which they store for the winter. While at the falls they attend religious services at the mission three times a day. After they harvest their crops they go into the mountains, hunting and trapping, where they remain until a week before Christmas, when they go to the traders and exchange their furs for supplies. After attending to their religious devotions they return to the mountains about the middle of January, where they remain until spring, when they return to put in their crops. (Winans) LEWIS AND CLARK, Original Journals, VI (New York, 1905); RONAN, Flathead Nation (Helena, 1890); SHEA, Catholic Missions (New York, 1854); DE SMET, Oregon Missions (New York, 1847); IDEM, Western Missions and Missionaries (New York, 1863); IDEM, New Indian Sketches (New York, 1895); STEVENS in Rept. Comr. Ind. Affairs (Washington, 1854); WINANS in Rept. Comr. Ind. Affairs (Washington, 1870); also other Repts. Comr. Ind. Affs. and Director of Bureau of Catholic Ind. Missions (Washington). JAMES MOONEY Kalocsa-Bacs Archdiocese of Kalocsa-Bacs (Colocensis et Bachiensis.) This archdiocese embraces within its territories an archdiocese and a diocese founded by St. Stephen of Hungary in 1010. The question of the foundation of, and of the relations between, Kalocsa and Bacs was for a long time uncertain. George Fejér was of opinion that St. Stephen founded Kalocsa and Bacs as independent sees, and that subsequently St. Ladislau raised Bacs to archiepiscopal rank in 1093, and united it with Kalocsa. Stephen Katona, on the other hand, held that the Archbishopric of Bacs was founded by St. Ladislaus in 1903 by division of the Archbishopric of Kalocsa, the two archdioceses being afterwards reunited in 1135. To Julius Városy we are indebted for the solution of the question: he shows that the Archdiocese of Bacs never existed as an independent see, but that the archbishops of Kalocsa for various reasons changed their residence from time to time to Bacs, so that eventually there arose in this town an independent chapter with its own cathedral, etc. In 1135 the union of Kalocsa and Bacs was canonically confirmed, the chapter at Bacs was raised to archiepiscopal rank, and it was decided that in future the election of an archbishop should rest with the united chapters, but should be held in some third locality. It was also decided that the name of the archdiocese should be Kalocsa-Bacs. Bacs remained the residence of the archbishops, and likewise their burialplace, until 1526, when after the battle of Mohács it fell into the hands of the Turks. When first established the archdiocese was very extensive. It embraced the lands between the Danube and the Theiss from Domsod, which is situated to the south of Vácz (Waitzen), southwards as far as Titel, including also within its territories a portion of Syrmia. As early as 1229 it suffered its first diminution of territory, when Syrmia was formed into a separate diocese. The history of the archdiocese and the archbishops of Kalocsa-Bacs is closely interwoven with that of Hungary. The first archbishop was Astrik, who later appears as Archbishop of Gran. It is not quite clear whether the title of archbishop was personal to Astrik, or was also transmissible to his successors, for, while his immediate successor, George, is spoken of as archbishop, his second successor, Desiderius, is spoken of only as bishop. Then again Desiderius's successor, Fabianus, is called archbishop. The Archbishop of Kalocsa from the beginning was next in rank to the Archbishop of Gran. In 1175, when Gran was vacant, the Archbishop of Kalocsa was chosen to crown Béla III; likewise, in 1204, Archbishop John crowned Ladislaus III. Supported by these two precedents the archbishops of Kalocsa claimed the right to crown the kings of Hungary. In 1212 the question was so far settled that, in case Gran should be vacant, or its archbishop should decline to act, the right to crown the sovereign belonged to Kalocsa. Archbishop Saul (1192-1202) was held in great esteem by the Holy See, which sought his opinion on many questions. Under Ugrin (1219-41) occured the foundation of the great hospital in Kalocsa, and the establishment of the Diocese of Syrmia in 1229. In this time also the wars against the Patarenes in Bosnia broke out, and, more especially after the establishment of the See of Syrmia, these wars against the Patarenes and other unbelievers were the chief occupation of the archbishops. Ugrin also took part in the coronation of Andrew II. He fell in the battle of Muhi against the Tatar hordes in 1241. Archbishop Ladislaus (1317-37) was distinguished for great theological learning. Andrew Brenti (1413-31) took an important part in the preparations for the Council of Constance. Stephan Várday (1456-71) was distinguished for his humanistic culture. He had studied at Italian universities, and brought back with him a taste for the splendour of the Renaissance. As chancellor and intimate friend of King Matthias Corvinus, he was on of the most zealous promoters of humanism and the renaissance in Hungary. Thanks to the recommendation of the king, he had the distinction of being the first archbishop of Kalocsa to the named cardinal, but died before receiving the insignia. Peter Váradi (1480-1501) was also one of Matthias's confidants, but for some unknown reason forfeited the royal favour, was imprisoned in 1484, and regained his freedom only after the king's death in 1490. He thenceforth devoted his energies mainly to the re-establishment of ecclesiastical discipline. To this end he held a diocesan synod, instituted canonical visitations of the parishes, turned his attention to the education of the clergy, sent young ecclesiastics to the universities for more extensive study, and founded a library. He also regulated the temporalities of the archidiocese. Archbishop Paul Tomori (1523-26) led the Hungarian army in the decisive struggle against the Turks, meeting his death in the disastrous battle of Mohács in 1526. The territories of the archdiocese were now overrun by the Turks, who prevented the archbishops from exercising their authority. The Holy See continued to appoint to the archdiocese, but the archbishops possessed only the title without being able to exercise any real jurisdiction. George Draskovich (1572-87) took a conspicuous part in the Council of Trent, and received the cardinal's hat. The population diminished at first under Turkish rule, but as early as 1550 Dalmatian Catholics began to immigrate, and the number of Catholics subsequently increased. To satisfy the religious requirements of the population, the Holy See adopted the expedient of treating the archbishopric as missionary territory, and turned over the care of the faithful to the Franciscans. This condition lasted through the whole period of Turkish domination. Leopold Kolonits (1691-5) was first in a position to enter into personal occupation of the archdiocese, and resume jurisdiction, whereupon the archdiocese ceased to be a missionary district. Still, for a time it was governed by vicars. Paul Szechenyi (1696-1710), the second of this family to become archbishop of Kalocsa (the first, George Szechenyi, was archbishop from 1668 to 1685), played an important part as mediator between Prince Francis Rakóczy II and the Viennese Court, but his efforts to effect a reconciliation were fruitless. A new archiepiscopal curia at Kalocsa was begun in his time, and also the reconstruction of the parish church, etc. Count George Csaky (1710-32), successor of the last-mentioned, laid the foundation of the new cathedral. His successor, Count Gabriel Patachich, may be looked upon as the second founder of the archdiocese. He removed the archiepiscopal residence permanently to Kalocsa, and concentrated all his efforts on the reorganization of the archdiocese. He built the seminary and restored the cathedral chapter. Among the recent archbishops may be specially mentioned Count Franz Nadasdy, whose short reign (1845-51) was devoted mainly to charitable works, but who also played an important part in the political events of these years; Joseph Kunszt (1852-66), who has perpetuated his name in various religious institutions. Archbishop Lajos Haynald is treated in a separate article. The present archbishop is Julius Városy. St. Stephen is now the patron saint of the archdiocese, although it was originally under the protection of St. Paul the Apostole, and the metropolitan church is dedicated to the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. The archiepiscopal chapter of Kalocsa was founded at the same time as the archdiocese. At first it was richly endowed, but in time became so impoverished that Innocent VI reduced the number of canons from twelve to six, but Gregory XI, in 1376, raised the number to ten, where it remained until the battle of Mohács in 1526. There was another chapter at Bacs, already mentioned, but Turkish rule put an end to both. The chapter at Bacs was never re-established, but that of Kalocsa was revived by Archbishop Count Gabriel Patachich in 1738. Clement XII gave the members the right to wear the cappa magna, and the chapter also recovered its right as locus credibilis. There were four canons until 1763, when another stall was established, with which, in memory of the archiepiscopal chapter of Bacs, the title of Provost of Bacs was associated. Finally, in 1776, the number of canons was increased to ten, a figure which obtains to the present day. In 1779 Maria Theresa granted to the canons the badge which they still wear. The Archbishopric of Kalocsa-Bacs has to-day as suffragans the bishops of Transylvania, Csanád, Grosswardein (Lat. Rite), and the (titular) See of Knin (Tinin). The archbishpric is divided into three archdeaconries -- the metropolitan and those of Bacs and Theiss -- subdivided into 16 vice-archdeaconries. Besides the 10 regular cathedral canons, the archdiocese contains 8 titular stalls, 9 titular abbacies, and 10 titular provostships. The number of parish churches is 126; of chapels-of-ease, 226; of parish priests, 105; of curates-in-charge, 23. The total number of priests in the archdiocese is 284; of clerics, 46. There are 5 orders in the diocese, 6 monasteries with 143 monks, and 32 convents with 548 nuns. The right to give benefices is still exercised by 27 patrons. The population numbers 940,038, of whom 647,408 are Catholics, 265,842 non-Catholics, 26,379 Jews, while 409 are attached to no denomination. In Latin: KALONA, Historia metropolit. Ecclesiæ Colocensis (Kalocsa, 1800); PRAY, Specimen hierarchi Hungaricæ, I-II (Pozsony, 1776-79); VÁROSY, Disquisitio historica de unione ecclesiarum Colocensis et Bachiensis in Schematismus archidi c. Coloc. Et Bachiens. (1885 and 1901). In Hungarian: KARACSONYI, Ecclesiastical History of Hungary in its most important phases (Nagy-Várad, 1906), passim; Catholic Hungary (Budapest, 1902); Monograph on the County of Bacs, II (Budapest, 1909) with bibliograpy. A. ALDÁSY Kamerun (Cameroon) Vicariate Apostolic of Kamerun (Cameroons; Cameroon.) Located in German West Africa, between British Nigeria and French Congo, stretching northeast from the coast of the southern shore of Lake Chad. The territory was created a prefecture Apostolic on 22 July, 1890, and given in charge of the Pious Society of Missions (Pallottini). Father Henry Vieter was nominated the first prefect Apostolic. The area is about 191,130 square miles, and the native population (Bantu negroes near the seacoast, Sudan negroes inland) is, according to Streit, about 4,000,000. There are about 1000 whites, mostly Germans. The chief exports are palm kernels and palm oil, rubber, ivory, and cocoa. The climate is hot and moist, and malarial fever abounds, especially in the lowlands. The natives generally are addicted to fetichism, and there are a few Mohamedans. In 1892 the German Government allowed the missionaries to open a preparatory house of studies at Linsburg (Nassau), and later at Ehrenbreitstein and Vallendar (Rhineland). The first missionary station was opened at Marienberg on the river Sanaga, here nearly 4000 feet broad. Other stations were opened (1891) near Falls of the Sanaga, and at Kribi on the Batanga coast. From the beginning the missionaries suffered much from malaria; in 1894, therefore, they opened the station of Engelberg in the Kamerun Mountains, at an altitude of nearly 1400 feet, both as a sanatorium and a missionary centre. In 1898 was opened the station of Duala (22,000), the capital of Kamerun, where, however, Protestant missionaries had preceded the Catholics (there are between seven and eight thousand native Protestants). The mission of St. Peter Claver at Big-Batanga was opened in 1900, and in 1901 that of Yannde, twelve days' walk into the interior. Irasa on the upper Rio del Rey was founded in 1906, and in 1907 the station of Einsiedeln was opened in the Kamerun mountains, at an altitude of about 2800 feet. Another station is almost ready at Victoria; it bears the name of the Blessed Trinity. Einsiedeln serves as a seminary for schoolmasters; it is hoped also that eventually it may graduate priests for the mission. None, however, will receive Holy orders before the age of thirty. In September, 1906, the first synod was held at Duala. The prefecture was raised to the rank of a vicariate Apostolic (21 Dec., 1904), and the first prefect Apostolic made first vicar Apostolic; he was consecrated titular Bishop of Parætonium on 22 January, 1905. On the arrival of the missionaries they found 5 Catholics; in the vicariate there are now 18 priests, 21 brothers, and 30 sisters for the education of natives. Since October, 1890, death has claimed twenty-four of the little band of missionaries, and several have been sent home in time to save their health, which could not resist the severe climate. In the same period there have been about 8027 baptisms. There are at present about 3819 catechumens, each of whom has two years of probation. There are in the mission schools about 5675 boys and girls. All these, however, are not in the schools of the missionary station; many of them are taught in the village schools by black schoolmasters, directed and paid by the missionaries. After leaving the schools, many of the boys are taught useful trades by the lay brothers of the missions. H. VIETER Diocese of Kandy Diocese of Kandy (Kandiensis.) Formerly part of the Vicariate of Southern Colombo, Ceylon, India, from which it was cut off as a vicariate Apostolic on 16 April, 1883, and erected into a diocese on 1 September, 1886. Its only vicar and first bishop is Dom Clement Pagnani, a Sylvestrine Benedictine, b. at Fabriano, near Ancona, Italy, 24 June, 1834; consecrated 25 December, 1879, at which time he was appointed to the Vicariate of Southern Colombo. The Vicariate of Southern Colombo had been in the hands of the Sylvestrine Benedictines since 1855, but the needs of the country demanding a greater supply of missionaries than the Sylvestrines could meet, the Vicariate of Kandy was entrusted to them in 1883, and Leo XIII made other arrangements for Colombo. Actually the Diocsese of Kandy is suffragan of the Archdiocese of Colombo. It comprises the provinces of Central Ceylon and Uwa, where tea and rubber are the main industries. Owing to the hilly nature of the country, the climate of the diocese is more temperate than throughout the rest of the island. From the palm-groves and sweltering heats of Colombo the railway line threads its way a distance of seventy-five miles through tea-plantations, wild bush, and forest, across mountain streams and under crags of limestone overhanging in great boulders, with Adam s Peak looming conspicuous in the distance, until at an elevation of 1734 feet above the sea it reaches the town of Kandy (in Cingalee, Maha-unwara the Great City), former capital of the island, now the residence of the British governor-agent. It stands on the shore of an artificial lake in an amphitheatre of beautifully wooded hills. Its population in 1901 was 26,522. Kandy is first mentioned in the fourteenth century, when the Dalada Milagawa, or Temple of the Tooth, was built to contain that famous relic of Buddha brought to Ceylon for safety about 311. In 1592 the town became the capital of Ceylon, and the king s palace was built about the year 1600. Kandy was the last stronghold of the old dynasty, and kings continued to rule there up to the beginning of the nineteenth century, when the last king, Vikrama Raja Sinha, was taken prisoner by the British (1815) and sent to Vellore. The Temple of the Tooth still remains, and is the scene of annual festivities (Perahara) in honour of this precious relic of the Buddha. The sacred tooth itself, however, was taken by the Portuguese to Goa in 1560, and publicly burned there in presence of the viceroy. The Buddhists claim otherwise, and show in proof of their claim a piece of ivory about two inches long by one inch in diameter, which is said to resemble the tooth of a crocodile rather than of a man. It reposes in the temple on a lotus flower of pure gold under seven concentric bellshaped metal shrines. In the vicinity of Kandy is an immense cemetery where were deposited the bodies of the mighty kings and heroes of Ceylon, and about four miles away are the botanical gardens of Peradenia, covering one hundred and fifty acres with most luxuriant exotic vegetation. Indeed the vegetation all around Kandy is luxuriant, and when the white flower of the cinnamon tree is in blossom the effect is very wonderful. Other trees that furnish the landscape are the ebony, satinwood and halmilla. The woods here also have a curiosity in the nature of a fruit, the caskew, which produces its nut outside of the skin, and form the fruit itself, which is not very palatable, a strong intoxicant is distilled. Serpents are numerous, especially the cobra and the carawilla. Kandy has a municipal council partly elected by the ratepayers and partly by the governor-agent. A figure of extreme interest among the inhabitants for many years now has been Arabi Pasha, the Egyptian patriot, imprisoned or exiled there since the Battle of Tel-el-Kebir in 1882. Besides being the seat of the diocese and the residence of the governor-agent, Kandy is also the residence of the Apostolic delegate to the East Indies, Monsignor Zaleski, Archbishop of Thebes. The town has a seminary known as the Leonianum for native students of India and Ceylon. It is under the care of the Jesuits and numbers eighty-eight students; the course of studies includes philosophy and theology. The population of the Diocese of Kandy, which is made up of various races including Cingalese and Tamils, amounts to 809,506, of whom 27,938 are Catholics; 11,871 are Protestants; 403,909 are Buddhists; 321,350 Hindus; 43,867 Mohammedans; and the remainder unaccounted for. The languages spoken include Cingalee, Tamil, and English. The towns that have churches with resident priests, besides the episcopal city, are Ampitiya, Panvile, Matale, Vahacotte, Gampola, Mavalapitiya, Hatton, Dirubula, Nuvara-Eliya, Badulla, and Bandarawella. Matale, a hundred miles from Ceylon, is the northernmost limit of European civilization. It is a large village and is the centre of a flourishing tea and cocoa plantation; it is famous for its native bazaar, and for a splendid avenue of rain-trees, so called from the circumstance that at night the leaves fold into a kind of sack in which the moisture condenses and at sunrise when the leaves open this is discharged in quite a shower all around. Among the natives many Christians are to be found with Portuguese names, descendants of converts made on the island 400 years ago. Hatton (414 feet above the sea-level) is a restingplace for tourists or pilgrims on their way up Sumana, or Adam s Peak (7400 feet), where Buddha is said to have left the imprint of his foot. Hatton is also the centre of a great tea-growing district. Nuvara-Eliya (6210 feet above the sea) is famous for its cool climate, and has been chosen as the summer residence of the governor-agent. In the neighbourhood is Pidauru Talagala (8300 feet), the highest peak in Ceylon. Badulla is an attractive old town. Dambulla, near Hatton, is famous for its rock temples and natural caves, to which access is obtained along a steep stairway cut about 500 feet up the face of a rock. Besides the churches with resident priests, there are fifteen chapels-of-ease and thirty-two stations in the diocese. The mission work is done by three secular priests, one native priest, twenty-one regulars, and twelve catechists. There are in the diocese six elementary schools for boys with 668 pupils; nine for girls with 921 pupils; one college for boys with fifty-five pupils; two girls with 163 pupils. There are, moreover, four orphanages containing 126 children. The girls are looked after by the Sisters of the Good Shepherd of whom there are seventeen, and by native sisters of whom there are ten. The regular clergy consists of twenty-five Sylvestrine Benedictines and eleven Jesuits. By an ordinance of 1906 the bishop is constituted a corporation sole, with power to acquire and hold property, and to sue and be sued in courts of justice in relation thereto. The management of the schools is in the hands of the missionaries, but the Government sends its inspector every year to hold an examination, on the results of which a grant is made for the upkeep of the school. The Church Missionary Society and the Wesleyan Methodist Mission Society are very active in and around Kandy. TENNENT, Ceylon (London, 1860); BURROWS, Buried Cities of Ceylon (London, 1899); CAVE, Ruined Cities of Ceylon (London, 1900); MURRAY, Handbook of India (London, 1907); CRANE, India Impressions (New York, 1907); BALLOU, Pearl of India (Boston, 1894); PIOLET, Les Missions (Paris, 1902); Missiones Catholic (Rome, 1907). J.C. GREY Kansas Kansas PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Geography Kansas, one of the United States of America, is the central state of the Union, to which it was admitted 29 January, 1861. It has an area of 82,144 square miles, approximately 400 miles from east to west, and 200 miles from north to south. It is bounded on the north by Nebraska, on the east by Missouri, on the west by Colorado, and on the south by Oklahoma. The Territory of Kansas was organized in 1854 with the following limits: beginning at a point on the western boundary of the State of Missouri, where parallel 37° N. crosses the same; thence west on said parallel to the eastern boundary of New Mexico; thence north of said boundary to 38° N.; thence following said boundary westward to the east boundary of the Territory of Utah on the summit of the Rocky Mountains; thence northward on said summit to 40° N.; thence east on said parallel to the western boundary of the State of Missouri; thence south with the western boundary of said state to the place of beginning. It was, however, provided in the organic Act of the Territory that the United States Government should not be inhibited thereby from dividing the Territory of Kansas or from attaching any portion of said territory to any other territory or state of the United States. The State of Kansas is not as large as the territory organized under the same name; in area it ranks the eleventh among the states in the Union, and it is nearly ten times as large as Massachusetts. Surface The general surface of Kansas is undulating. It slopes gently from an average height of about 3650 feet above sea level at its western boundary to 850 at its eastern; the average slope is about seven feet to the mile. There is also an inclination from north to south. The mean elevation of the state is about 2000 feet. As for timber, along the waterways in the eastern part are found black hackberry, locust, cherry, and hickory. Artificial forests are found in almost every county. The state is drained by the Missouri River that forms the north-eastern boundary, and by the Kansas and Arkansas Rivers and their tributaries - all of which belong to the Mississippi system. CLIMATE The climate of Kansas is mild and healthful. In the higher altitudes of western Kansas the air is dry, and wholesome for persons with a tendency to pulmonary diseases. The annual range of temperature is about 120°F. The average temperature of the winter months for twenty years has been 31°F.; of the three summer months 74°F. The mean temperature for the year is thus 53°F. The annual average precipitation, which includes rainfall and the water from melted snow, ranges from fifteen inches in the extreme west to forty-four inches in the extreme south-east. Irrigation is applied in parts of the western countries. HISTORY It is supposed by some grave writers that the "Cow Country" through which Cabeza de Vaca passed in 1535 was the country north of the Arkansas River and the Old Santa Fé trail, now a part of Kansas. The Spaniards under Coronado entered the limits of the present State of Kansas in 1541, and traversed it in a north-easterly direction marking the limit of the expedition with a cross. This was on the bank of a great tributary of the Mississippi River. Another large river which was crossed by the Spaniards was named Sts. Peter and Paul; Coronado was accompanied by several friars. Among them was Father Juan de Padilla, who remaining to convert the Indians after the departure of Coronado, was here slain by the aborigines. Father Marquette's map of the Mississippi region in 1673 designates various Indian tribes that dwelt within the borders of Kansas. Thus he is the first to mention the Kanzas - the tribe from whom the state derives its name. The French in 1705 ascended the Missouri River as far as the Kansas River. Du Tissenet erected a cross with the arms of the King of France in the country of the Padoucas, on 27 September, 1719. According to Du Pratz, in 1721 a band of Spaniards, having a Dominican for their chaplain, were all, with the exception of the priest, massacred by the Missouris whom they had mistaken for Osages, their allies. This happened probably on the present site of Leavenworth. In 1724 M. De Bourgemont made a journey across the territory of Kansas, but during his absence in the following year the entire garrison he had left at Fort Orleans (in Missouri) was massacred by the Indians. Louisiana, of which Kansas was a part, was subject to France until 3 November, 1762 when it became a Spanish possession; only to be retroceded to France in 1800; it was purchased by the United States 30 April, 1803. Lewis and Clark traversed the region in 1804, 1805, and 1806. In 1806 Zebulon M. Pike explored the south of Kansas; at his instance (29 September, 1806) the United States flag replaced the Spanish flag at the Pawnee Indian village in the present Republic County. For some years previous to this the Choteau family carried on the fur trade in Kansas. In 1819 and 1820 Long's scientific exploration of the country lying west of the Allegheny and east of the Rocky Mountains between 35° and 42° N., embraced the state of Kansas. Ft. Leavenworth was established by the Federal government in 1827. Except a few missionaries, Indian traders, hunters, and trappers, there were no whites in Kansas until 1854. In 1844 Captain Fremont explored the valleys of the Kansas and Republican Rivers. In June, 1846, General Kearney set out from Fort Leavenworth for the conquest of New Mexico and California. In 1804 Kansas became a part of the District of Louisiana, for which laws were made by the Governor of Indiana Territory, acting with the judges of that territory. In 1805 Congress changed the District of Louisiana to the Territory of "Louisiana", still embracing Missouri and Kansas. When in 1812 the Territory of Orleans became the Territory of Louisiana, what was hitherto known as the Territory of Louisiana was called Missouri Territory. The 7776 square miles lying south of the Arkansas River and west of longitude 100° W., now within the limits of Kansas, were not a part of the Louisiana Purchase, but were acquired from Mexico. In 1820 Congress passed an Act enabling the people of Missouri Territory to become a state, but prohibiting slavery in all of the Louisiana Purchase north of 36°30'. By the organization of Missouri as a state in 1821, Kansas received an eastern boundary. In 1823 the wagon-trains from Missouri to Santa Fé passing through Kansas opened the commerce of the plains. Besides the Santa Fé trail there was the Oregon trail leading to the valley of the Platte in Nebraska. Property worth millions of dollars was transported by the pack-trains and wagon-trains. An army of men, Americans and Mexicans, were employed as teamsters and packers. In addition to the native Indian tribes, Osages, Pawnees, Kansas, and Pandoucas or Comanches, Indians of eastern states were given reservations in Kansas, designated Indian Territory until 1854 when it was organized as Kansas Territory. Kansas Territory extended westward to the summit of the Rocky Mountains, including a large portion of the present State of Colorado under the name of Arapahoe County. In 1854 the Kansas-Nebraska Act abrogated the Missouri Compromise of 1820, and left the question of slavery to the people of the respective territories when adopting a state constitution. In consequence, the North and South entered into a contest to people the Territory of Kansas. It led to acts of violence and bloodshed between the pro- slavery and anti-slavery parties that resulted in the loss of two hundred human lives and in the destruction of property valued at two millions of dollars. The cities of Leavenworth, Atchison, Topeka, and Lawrence were founded in 1854. The internecine struggle in Kansas, in which John Brown was a prominent factor, was potent in forcing the great war that followed between the Northern and the Southern States. A census taken in February, 1855, showed a white population of 8601. In 1860, according to the United States census, there were 107,206 inhabitants; the drought in this year was a severe calamity. Kansas was admitted as a free State on 29 January, 1861. The motto of the State seal is Ad astra per aspera. In 1861 Topeka was made the permanent capital. The state furnished 20,151 men to the Union army, though the proper quota would have been but 12,930. Out of her military force, Kansas lost 472 officers and 7345 private soldiers. On 21 August, 1863, the notorious guerilla Quantrell attacked Lawrence at daybreak and within five hours left the city a smouldering ruin, with 143 of its citizens slain, and 43 others wounded. Property worth $2,000,000 was destroyed. In October, 1864, some 20,000 Kansas men were under arms to oppose Gen. Sterling Price, who with a large force of Confederates threatened the eastern border of the state. He was decisively beaten on Kansas soil in the battle of Mine Creek following the Battle of the Blue and the Battle of Westport, near Kansas City. Kansas troops were mainly engaged in Missouri, Arkansas, and Indian Territory (now Oklahoma), but saw service as far south as Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. Charles Robinson and Thomas Carney were the war governors of Kansas. After the severe trials of the preceding years, Kansas was greatly helped by the Homestead Law of 1862. In 1886 the State Legislature granted 500,000 acres of State lands to four railroad companies. The counties voted bonds in favour of the railroads; and the United State Congress by liberal grants encouraging the building of railroads, as early as 1867, there were 523 miles of railways in the state. These were of material aid in the development of the great natural resources of Kansas. The early settlers in remote places were justly in dread of the Indians who made their last raid in 1878, when 29 white people were killed by the savages. Since then the red men have left no mark on the pages of Kansas history, and their number within the state has been reduced to about 2000. The legislature of 1863 located the Insane Asylum at Osawatomie, accepted the congressional grant of lands for an agricultural college at Manhattan, and provided for the state university at Lawrence and the state normal school at Emporia. In the following year the deaf and dumb asylum, the blind asylum, and the penitentiary were located, and suitable buildings were erected for these institutions. There followed two reformatories for boys, a reformatory for girls, a hospital for epileptics, a school for feeble-minded youth and the Soldiers' Orphans' Home, besides an additional hospital for the insane at Topeka. The state makes liberal appropriations for the maintenance of each of them. A great number of European immigrants settled, largely in colonies, in the state in the decade following 1870. In 1880 the state constitution was amended by the adoption of the law prohibiting in Kansas the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors, except for medical, scientific, and mechanical purposes. According to the official opinion of the attorney-general in 1881, the use of wine for the "sacrament" is not prohibited. Almost every legislature has passed some law in reference to the enforcement of "prohibition" which in the large cities has never been strictly enforced for any length of time. In 1877, the municipal suffrage bill conferred on women in Kansas the right to vote at school, bond, and municipal elections. About 26,000 women voted in the spring election of 1878. In 1894 the constitutional amendment conferring on women the full exercise of suffrage was defeated by 35,000 votes. ECONOMICS Agriculture and Trade The soil is very productive. It consists in the eastern part of heavy black loam of greatest depth along the streams; and in the western part, of a sandy formation. Kansas is essentially an agricultural state. Wheat and corn are the most important grain products. In 1908, Kansas raised 150,640,516 bushels of corn, with a value of $82,642,461; 76,808,902 bushels of wheat, with a value of $63,855,146. The value of sorghums was $10,258,998; of tame hay $9,534,290; oats $7,118,847; of barley $1,314,343; Irish potatoes $4,431,864. The field products from 32,216,702 acres under cultivation had a value of $189,059,626.28. Alfalfa increases annually in acreage and value of crop. The value of animals slaughtered or sold for slaughter was $67,705,158. Poultry and eggs sold $9,306,651. Butter sold $9,413,317. Milk sold $1,145,922. Garden and horticultural products marketed $786,879. The total value of all farm products in 1908 reached the sum of $277,733,925, without considering the live-stock retained by the farmers and returned by assessors to the value of $197,510,878. In 1909 the value of farm products and live- stock aggregated $532,685,245, which was $57,404,414 in excess of 1908. Bituminous coal is found in most of the counties of the eastern part of the state. It is mined profitably in Crawford, Cherokee, Leavenworth, and Osage Counties. The value of the annual output exceeds $5,000,000. Natural gas and petroleum are found in large quantities. The former is piped and used in the principal cities for fuel and lighting purposes. Salt is mined at Hutchinson, Kanopolis, Lyons, Kingman, Anthony, Wellington, and sterling. The veins are about 1000 feet below the surface and in places are 300 feet thick. The salt area of Kansas is estimated at one million acres. The annual production is about 2,000,000 pounds. The lead and zinc mines are a source of profit and give employment to many in the southeastern part of the state. In the production of these ores Kansas is second only to Missouri. There are quarries of superior limestone, sandstone, and rock gypsum. The limestone, especially in the more central counties, is excellent building material. Cement, lime, clays for brick, tiles, and pottery are among the products that contribute to the industries and wealth of the state. According to the United States census of 1900 the manufactured products of the state attained a value of $172,129,298. In 1903 the mineral production of the state had a value of $27,154,007.85; natural gas a value of $1,115,375. Kansas City is the seat of the second largest packing industry in the world. Here also is one of the most important live-stock markets. Car-shops, wool- len- and paper-mills, iron foundries, furniture factories, soap factories, printing and publishing establishments are found in nearly all the centres of population. Even before the first railway was laid in these parts, there was a commercial route extending from the eastern to the western border of Kansas. The Santa Fé trail, the great overland route of the pioneer days, was established in 1824, and extended from Independence, Missouri, to Santa Fé, New Mexico. Kansas has 11,000 miles of railroads connecting all the principal cities with one another and affording excellent shipping facilities. Four of the great transcontinental systems cross the state from east to west. A two-cent fare rate obtains. There are also interurban electric railways. The Board of Railroad Commissioners has supervision over all common carriers. SOCIOLOGY Population The following compilation contains the results of the fifth decennial census taken in 1905. Total population of the 105 counties of the state 1,544,498. Males 802,704; females 741,219; sex not given 1045. Native 1,400,441; foreign 118,378; birth-place not given 26,149. White 1,487,256; coloured 51,073; colour not given, 6518. The number of families was given as 345,065, and the average number of persons in family 4.47. Of the foreign population there were born in Germany 43,124; Sweden, Norway, and Denmark 17,929; Great Britain 16,815; Russia 11,535; Ireland 8958; British-America 7444; Southern Europe including Austria, France, Italy, and Spain about 12,000. There are 532,635 persons of school age; i.e. between the ages of 5 and 20 years. There are 410,289 men 21 years old and over. Engaged in agriculture 251,956; engaged in professional and personal services 115,207; engaged in trade and transportation 66,923; engaged in manufacturing and mechanical industries 54,991; engaged in mining 10,991. There are 120 towns that have over one thousand inhabitants each; 13 of those have over ten thousand people. Atchison has 20,000, Leavenworth 25,000, Wichita 50,000, Kansas City 90,000, Topeka, the capital of the state, has 45,000. In 1909 the aggregate in cities of above 10,000 was 340,370, or 19.9% of the total population. Education Parents, guardians or others having control of children between the ages of eight and fourteen years are required by law to send such children to public or private school taught by a competent instructor. Ample provision is made for graded schools in towns and districts. At the discretion of the county commissioners or on petition of one-third of the electors of a county, a high-school may be established in any county if the majority of the electors of the county favour it. In the high-schools provision is made for three courses of instruction, each requiring three years' study for completion; namely, a general course, a normal course and a collegiate course. Tuition is free to all pupils residing in the county where the high school is located. The state constitution provided for the establishment by law of a state university for the promotion of literature and the arts and sciences, including a normal and an agricultural department. "All funds arising from the sale or rent of lands granted by the United States to the state for the support of a state university and other grants, donations or bequests either by the state or by individuals, for such purpose, shall remain a perpetual fund to be called the university fund; the interest of which shall be appropriated to the support of the state university." Kansas ranks third, in the United States, in the minimum percentage of illiteracy. Of the 392,009 pupils enrolled in the public schools of the state in 1907-1908, 178,893 were in the rural schools taught by 12,908 teachers. The text-books to be used in the public schools are determined by a text-book commission appointed by the governor. The total cost of these public schools in 1908 was $7,335,443. The state educational institutions are the following; University of Kansas at Lawrence, with 2250 students; Kansas State Agricultural College at Manhattan, with 2166 students; State Normal School at Emporia, and the State Manual Training School, at Pittsburg. The Industrial and Educational Institute at Topeka, and the Western University at Quindaro for coloured youth, receive support from state funds. To these should be added the Kansas State School for the Deaf at Olathe, with 250 pupils, and the School for Blind at Kansas City. The Orphans' Home at Atchison, the Girls' Industrial School at Beloit, and the Boys' Industrial School at Topeka are also educational institutes. The following non-Catholic denominational colleges are accredited by the State Board of Education; Baker University, Baldwin; Bethany College, Holton; College of Emporia, Emporia; Cooper College, Sterling; Fairmount College, and Friends' University, Wichita; Kansas City University, Kansas City; Wesleyan, Salina; Ottawa University, Ottawa; South-western College, Winfield; Washburn College, Topeka. These institutions have invested in equipment and endowment about $3,000,000. They represent faculties of 500 persons, instructing 8000 students at an annual expense of $300,000. Some denominations beside the Catholics, particularly the Lutherans, have a goodly number of primary schools in the state. In 1908 there were more than 300 private and denominational schools in Kansas. The Board of Control of State Charitable Institutions consists of three electors of the state who are appointed by the governor, and thus become the trustees for the following institutions: Industrial School for Girls; the Kansas School for Feeble-Minded Youth; the Osawatomie State Hospital; the Parsons State Hospital; the Topeka State Hospital; the State Industrial School for Boys; the School for the Blind; the School for the Deaf; the Soldiers' Orphans' Home, and all other state charitable institutions. It is the duty of the board to visit and inspect, without notice, once in every three months, the institutions named. All private institutions of charitable nature receiving state aid are subject to the same visitation by the Board of Control. In 1907 the Legislature made appropriations to seventeen private hospitals, nine of which are Catholic, and ten private children's institutions, including the Catholic orphanages, though the sums granted were small compared with the benevolent work done by these institutions. The state penitentiary is governed by a warden and a board of three directors appointed by the governor of the state. Prisoners who have received an indeterminate sentence may be recommended for parole on the expiration of their minimum sentence. Prisoners under twenty-five years of age may be sentenced to the State Reformatory at Hutchinson. The juvenile court has jurisdiction over dependent, neglected, or delinquent children under sixteen years of age. According to the U. S. Census of 1900 all the church property in the state was valued at $8,000,000. The Methodist Episcopal, Presbyterian, Baptist, Christian (Campbellite), Congregational, and Episcopal are the leading Protestant denominations. The Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, and Friends were established among the Indians before the Territory was opened to white settlers in 1854. In 1880, the ten principal Protestant denominations had an aggregate membership of 80,415; there was then about an equal number of Catholics. The latter have in thirty years increased thirty per cent. At Haskell Institute, a Federal school for Indians, Catholic pupils receive religious instructions regularly from the priest. The state prison has a Protestant chaplain, but a priest ministers to the Catholic convicts. At the W. B. Military Home in Leavenworth County and at the Federal and Military prisons at Fort Leavenworth, there are also Catholic chaplains. The sessions of the state Legislature are opened with prayer. Candidates for office are nominated in primary elections. Cities may choose the "Commission" form of government. LEGISLATION Concerning Religion The State Constitution provides among other things as follows; "The right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any person be compelled to attend or support any form of worship; nor shall any control of or interference with the rights of conscience be permitted, nor any preference given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship. No religious test or property qualification shall be required for any office of public trust, nor for any vote at any election; nor shall any person be incompetent to testify on account of religious belief . . . . No religious sect or sects shall ever control any part of the common school or university funds of the state. . . . All property used exclusively for state, county, municipal, literary, educational, scientific, religious, benevolent and charitable purposes, cemeteries, and personal property to the amount of at least $200 for each family, shall be exempt from taxation . . . . The title to all property of religious corporations shall be vested in trustees, whose election shall be by the members of such corporations." The title to the various Catholic Churches and schools is actually vested in the respective bishop of the diocese as trustee. "All oaths shall be administered by laying the right hand upon the Holy Bible or by the uplifted right hand. Any person having conscientious scruples against taking an oath, may affirm with like effect." Concerning Marriage The marriage contract is to be considered in law as a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties is essential, and the marriage ceremony may be regarded either as a civil ceremony or as a religious sacrament, but the marriage relation shall only be entered into, maintained, or abrogated as provided by law. All marriages between parents and children, including grandparents and grandchildren of any degree, between brothers and sisters of the half as well as the whole blood, and between uncles and nieces, aunts and nephews, and first cousins, are declared to be incestuous and absolutely void. Every judge, justice of the peace, or licensed preacher of the Gospel, may perform the marriage ceremony in this state, when a licence issued by the probate judge of any county in the state has been issued. The consent of parent or guardian is required for a licence when the contracting male is under twenty-one years, and the female under eighteen years of age. Insanity in near kindred is a bar. Property, real and personal, which any woman may own in this state at the time of her marriage, shall remain her sole and separate property notwithstanding her marriage. The district court may grant a divorce for any of the following causes: (1) when either of the parties had a former husband or wife living at the time of the subsequent marriage; (2) abandonment for one year; (3) adultery; (4) impotency; (5) when the wife at the time of the marriage was pregnant by another than her husband; (6) extreme cruelty; (7) fraudulent contract; (8) habitual drunkenness; (9) gross neglect of duty; (10) conviction for felony and imprisonment in the penitentiary therefor subsequent to the marriage. When the parties appear to be in equal wrong, the court may in its discretion refuse to grant a divorce. When a divorce is granted the court shall make provision for guardianship, custody, support and education of the minor children of the marriage. A decree of divorce does not become absolute and take effect until the expiration of six months from the day and date when the judgment was rendered in the cause. The wife may obtain alimony from the husband without a divorce in an action brought for that purpose in a district court for any of the causes for which a divorce may be granted. The latest statistics show 2000 divorces and 17,000 marriages in one year. Wills Any person of full age and sound mind and memory having an interest in real or personal property may give and devise the same to any person by last will and testament lawfully executed. Any married person having no children may devise one-half of his or her property to other persons than the husband or wife. Either husband or wife may consent in writing, executed in the presence of two witnesses, that the other may bequeath more than half of his or her property from the one so consenting. A verbal will, made in the last sickness, is valid in respect to personal estate if reduced to writing and subscribed by two competent witnesses within ten days. The legislature of 1909 authorized the assessment of an inheritance tax on estates over $1000, which is, however, not to apply to property exempt from taxation under the constitution. In bequests to kindred the tax is graduated. Sunday Observance Labour, except the household offices of daily necessity, if performed on Sunday is deemed a misdemeanour, and is punishable by a fine not exceeding twenty-five dollars. Persons observing another day of the week as the Sabbath are, however, exempt from the provisions of this statute. Horse-racing, and the sales of merchandise except medicines and provisions of immediate necessity, are also prohibited on the first day of the week. There is a rigid anti-lottery law, and also a law against the use of cigarettes and one forbidding the sale of tobacco to minors under sixteen years of age. The circulation of obscene literature is a misdemeanour and the publishing or dissemination of scandalous prints is a felony. Legal Holidays The following are the legal holidays: Lincoln's Birthday (12 Feb.); Memorial Day (30 May); Labour Day (first Monday of September); Washington's Birthday (22 February); New Year's Day (1 January); Independence Day (4 July); Thanksgiving Day (Thanksgiving Day is fixed annually by the proclamation of the president or governor); the first four of the above, Christmas Day (25 December) and Arbor Day, in April, are not legal holidays except as to negotiable instruments. Exempt from serving as jurors are all persons holding office under the laws of the United States or of Kansas, attorneys and counsellors-at-law, physicians, ministers of the Gospel, professors and teachers of colleges, schools, and other institutions of learning, ferrymen and all firemen organized according to law; all persons more than sixty years of age. A person belonging to any of these classes is, however, not precluded from serving. ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY As early as 1541, the soil of Kansas was hallowed by the blood of Father Juan de Padilla, who fell a victim to his zeal for the conversion of the Indians. Baptism was administered and marriages were blessed by Father Lacroix, in 1822. The Jesuit Father Van Quickenborne began his missionary journeys to the Indian tribes here in 1827. Rev. Joseph Lutz of St. Louis soon thereafter preached to the Kansas or Kaw Indians. In 1835 missionaries visited the Peorias, Weas, and Pienkishaws, a remnant of the Kaskaskias known as the Miamis. St. Francis Xavier's mission and school were established at Kickapoo above Fort Leavenworth in 1836. English was here taught at least as early as 1840. Among the Pottawattomies, in 1838, a permanent Jesuit mission was established by Father Christian Hoecker. In 1841, four Religious of the Sacred Heart, including the saintly Mother Duchesne, opened a school for girls in this mission. The Jesuits opened a school for boys the following year. Osage Mission obtained resident missionaries in the Jesuit Fathers Schoenmakers and Bax in 1847. In this year the Pottawattomies began moving to their new reservation on the Kaw immediately west of the present site of Topeka. This later developed into the St. Mary's Jesuit Mission with its famous college. During the ten years prior to 1848, there were 1430 baptisms including 550 adults among the Pottawattomies. There were at this period 330 Catholic families in this tribe. Sixty years later some of their descendants are found in Pottawattomie County, and are good Catholics. In 1851 the Rt. Rev. J. B. Miege, of the Society of Jesus, a professor of St. Louis University, was consecrated Bishop of Messene and appointed Vicar Apostolic of the Indian Territory east of the Rocky Mountains. He made St. Mary's Mission his residence until August, 1855, when he established himself at Leavenworth, a promising city of the newly organized territory, but where the bishop found but seven Catholic families. At the end of this year in the vast territory under his jurisdiction there were but six churches completed, three being built, eleven stations, and eight priests. The Benedictine Fathers and the Carmelites were invited to Kansas for missionary work. The former in 1859 established a priory which has become an abbey, and laid the foundation for St. Benedict's College at Atchison. Bishop Miege was a man of Apostolic spirit and remarkable discretion. His visitations were made before railroads were built over the prairies and across the plains to points as remote as Denver and Omaha. In 1857, Nebraska Territory was formed into a separate vicariate which came under the jurisdiction of Rt. Rev. James Michael O'Gorman in 1859, leaving only Kansas Territory to Bishop Miege. In 1868 there were in the vicariate twenty-seven priests, of whom thirteen were seculars. There were schools under the conduct of the Religious of the Sacred Heart, of the Sisters of Loreto, of the Sisters of St. Benedict, and of the Sisters of Charity. These last were also in charge of a hospital and orphanage in Leavenworth. In this year on 8 December, Leavenworth Cathedral, a massive brick building of great architectural beauty, was consecrated. Bishop Miege went to Rome for the Vatican Council, and later to South America on a collecting tour. In 1871, the prior of St. Benedict's, Louis Mary Fink, O. S. B., was consecrated Bishop of Eucarpia, to assist Bishop Miege, whom he succeeded on the latter's resignation in 1874, when there were 35,000 Catholics in the state. Bishop Fink remained Vicar Apostolic of Kansas until Leavenworth was made an episcopal see, in 1877, when he became its first bishop with jurisdiction over the State of Kansas. The Catholic population within a few years increased to 80,000 souls. Churches and schools multiplied under his fostering hand. In 1887 two other dioceses, those of Concordia and Wichita, were carved out of Leavenworth. New boundaries were established by Apostolic letters in 1897. The first Bishopelect of Wichita, Rt. Rev. James O'Reilley, died before his consecration. The Rt. Rev. John Joseph Hennessy was consecrated Bishop of Wichita, 30 Nov., 1888; his jurisdiction extends over an area of 42,915 square miles, with 765,000 inhabitants, of whom 30,000 are Catholics. Rt. Rev. Richard Scannell, who was transferred to Omaha in 1890, was the first Bishop of Concordia. The second to be preconized was the Rt. Rev. Thadeus Butler, D. D., who died in Rome before his consecration. The present bishop is the Rt. Rev. John Francis Cunningham, who was for many years vicar-general of Leavenworth, and was consecrated bishop 21 September, 1898. Concordia diocese has an area of 26,685 sq. miles, with about one Catholic to every square mile out of a population of 351,000. The Rt. Rev. Louis M. Fink, after a laborious and fruitful episcopacy of thirty-three years, went to his reward 17 March, 1904. His successor as Bishop of Leavenworth, the Rt. Rev. Thos. F. Lillis, was consecrated 27 December, 1904. The Leavenworth diocese has an area of 12,524 square miles, with a Catholic population of 56,000. The three dioceses have 312 priests, including about 100 religious. Excellent Catholic boarding schools for boys are: St. Mary's College, conducted by the Jesuits, with 400 students; and St. Benedict's, at Atchison, by the Benedictines, with 300 students. There are nine academies, with seven hundred girl pupils, several Catholic high-schools, and ninety parochial schools with 11,000 pupils. There are ten Catholic hospitals, and four orphanages including one for coloured children. A mission for the conversion of the coloured people has existed in Leavenworth for thirty years. The priests of Kansas have been distinguished for their zeal in ministering to their scattered flocks. They invited immigrants to Kansas. The Church has fostered benevolent societies here as elsewhere; the Knight of Columbus have active councils; the Catholic Mutual Benevolent Association has nearly 1200 members. Various nationalities are largely represented in the Catholic societies of the parishes to which they belong. They are mostly of German and Irish extraction, or from South-eastern Europe. The Knights of Father Matthew promote the cause of total abstinence from intoxicating liquors. The State Federation of Catholic Societies represents some five thousand men enlisted in the cause of Christian faith and morality. There is an excellent Catholic paper published with the approbation of the bishops. Parochial schools are found not only in the cities, but in the rural districts, in charge of religious communities of women. Catholics of talent are found among the best professional men. General R. W. Blair who came to Kansas in 1859, for a generation devoted his eminent talents in peace and in war to furthering the best interests of the state. Thomas Ewing, Jr., was chief justice of the first supreme court of the state from February, 1861, to 28 November, 1862, and was distinguished in the Civil War. He died in New York in 1896. ANDREAS, History of Kansas (Chicago, 1883); Laws of Kansas (1909); DASSLER, General Statutes of Kansas (1902); Kansas State Historical Society: Kansas Historical Collections, 1891-1906; Biennial Reports of State Board of Agriculture; Biennial Reports of Board of Control for State Charitable Institutions; Catholic Almanac (1840); Catholic Cabinet (St. Louis, 1847); DUGAN, Catholic Almanac (1858); Sixteenth Biennial Report of State Superintendent of Public Instruction; HILL, Historical Sketches of St. Louis University. J.A. SHORTER Diocese of Kansas City Diocese of Kansas City (Kansanopolitana.) Established 10 September, 1880, to include that part of the State of Missouri, U.S.A., south of the Missouri River, and west of the eastern boundary of the counties of Moniteau, Miller, Camden, Laclede, Wright, Douglass, and Ozark, an area of 23,539 square miles. At the same time, Bishop John Joseph Hogan, of the Diocese of St. Joseph, which comprises that part of the State of Missouri between the Missouri and Chariton Rivers, was transferred to the new see and continued also in charge of the Diocese of St. Joseph as administrator. This arrangement continued until 19 June, 1893, when separate jurisdiction of the Diocese of St. Joseph was established, and the Right Rev. Maurice F. Burke, consecrated Bishop of Cheyenne, in Wyoming, 28 October, 1887, was transferred to the title of St. Joseph. Kansas City is suffragan of St. Louis. When the diocese was established, it had 42 churches, 30 priests, and a Catholic population of 12,000. The first bishop, John J. Hogan, was born at Bruff, County Limerick, Ireland, 10 May, 1829. His early classical studies he pursued in his native land, after which he entered the diocesan seminary at St. Louis, Mo., where he was ordained priest 10 April, 1852. From that date up to his consecration as bishop, 13 September, 1868, he had an active and successful career, building up parishes in a wide and sparsely settled section of north-western Missouri. As soon as he took charge of the Diocese of St. Joseph, his zeal and earnestness gave a new impetus to the affairs of the Church there, and the same was manifest with his advent to Kansas City. The number of priests increased, new churches arose, additional religious communities entered the diocese. In 1896 he asked for a coadjutor, and the Rev. John J. Glennon was consecrated titular Bishop of Pinara, and Coadjutor for Kansas City (29 June, 1896). Bishop Glennon, on 27 April, 1903, was transferred as coadjutor with the right of succession to the See of St. Louis and succeeded to that title 13 October, 1903. Statistics Religious Communities in diocese -- Men: Benedictines, Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits, Lazarists, Father of the Most Precious Blood, Redemptorists, and Christian Brothers. Women: Sisters of St. Benedict, Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Third Order Regular of St. Francis, Third Order of St. Dominic, Sisters of St. Francis, Sisters of the Good Shepherd, Sisters of St. Joseph of Nazareth, Sisters of St. Mary, School Sisters of St. Francis, Sisters of St. Joseph, Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word, Little Sisters of the Poor, Sisters of Loretto, Sisters Of Mercy, Sisters of the Most Precious Blood, Sisters of Charity (Emmitsburg), Sisters of Our Lady of Sion, Sisters of the Visitation, Sisters of Mercy, School Sisters of Notre Dame. Priests, 101 (31 religious); churches with resident priests, 74; missions with churches, 14; stations, 18; chapels, 30; 1 seminary with 20 students; academies for girls, 10; parishes and missions with schools, 42; pupils in academies and schools, 5543; 2 orphan asylums with 245 inmates; 1 industrial and reform school with 60 inmates; total children under Catholic care, 5773; 6 hospitals; 1 home for aged poor; 1 foundling asylum. Catholic population, 55,000. Catholic Directory, 1881, 1910; Church Progress; Western Watchman (St. Louis) files; REUSS, Biog. Cycl. Of the Cath. Hierarchy of U.S. (Milwaukee, 1898). THOMAS F. MEEHAN Prefecture Apostolic of Southern Kan-Su Prefecture Apostolic of Southern Kan-Su Separated from the Northern Kan-su mission in 1905, and committed to the Belgian Congregation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (Scheutveld, Brussels). It includes the seven southern prefectures of Kan-su: Tsin-chou, Ping-liang-fu, Kung-chang-fu, King-chou, Kiai-chou, King-yang-fu and Kung-yuen-fu. It contains about 8,000,000 inhabitants. The first prefect Apostolic is Reverend Everard Joseph Terlaak, dwelling at Tsin-chou. In 1907 the mission consisted of: 1 prefect Apostolic, 10 missionaries, 3 native priests, 23 churches and chapels, 6 schools with 42 students, 1 college with 5 students, 3 orphan asylums with 35 children, 1031 Catholics. In 1908: 1 prefect Apostolic, 12 missionaries, 3 native priests, and 1106 Catholics. V.H. MONTANAR Vicariate Apostolic of Northern Kan-Su Vicariate Apostolic of Northern This vicariate includes the territory of Ku-ku-nor, northern part of Tibet, and the five northern prefectures of the Chinese province of Kan-su: Lan-chou-fu, Si-ning-fu, Liang-chou-fu, Kan-chou-fu, and Su-chou. The climate varies according to the locality. In general, it is healthy, temperate, and bright. Kan-su is inhabited by Chinese, Turks from Turkestan, Mongols, Tangouses or Fan-tse. The vicariate contains about eight million inhabitants; among this number there are 2700 Catholics. The vicar Apostolic dwells at Sung-shu-chang-tsz in the prefecture of Liang-chou-fu. The province of Kan-su formed a part of the Vicariate Apostolic of Shen-si from 1844 to 1878, when it was separated, erected into a distinct vicariate Apostolic, and entrusted to the Belgian Congregation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (Scheutveld, Brussels). In 1886 the northern civil prefecture of Ning-hia was confided to the Vicariate Apostolic of South-Western Mongolia. In 1888 the new Chinese province of Sin-kiang was formed into an independent mission, bearing the name of I-li or Kul-dja. In 1905 the seven southern civil prefectures were separated to form the Prefecture Apostolic of Southern Kan-su. The present vicar Apostolic is Mgr. Ubert Otto. He was consecrated titular Bishop of Assurita 13 Jan. 1891. In 1907 the mission had: 1 bishop, 16 European missionaries, 2 native priests, 24 churches and chapels, 9 schools with 127 students, 1 college with 25 students, 2 orphan asylums with 35 children, and 2498 Catholics. In 1908: 1 bishop, 20 missionaries, 1 native priest, 23 churches and chapels, and 2702 Catholics. V.H. MONTANAR Philosophy of Immanuel Kant Philosophy of Immanuel Kant Kant's philosophy is generally designated as a system of transcendental criticism tending towards Agnosticism in theology, and favouring the view that Christianity is a non-dogmatic religion. Immanuel Kant was born at Königsberg in East Prussia, 22 April, 1724; died there, 12 February, 1804. From his sixteenth to his twenty-first year, he studied at the university of his native city, having for his teacher Martin Knutzen, under whom he acquired a knowledge of the philosophy of Wolff and of Newton's physics. After the death of his father in 1746 he spent nine years as tutor in various families. In 1755 he returned to Königsberg, and there he spent the remainder of his life. From 1755 to 1770 he was Privatdozent (unsalaried professor) at the University of Königsberg. In 1770 he was appointed professor of philosophy, a position which he held until 1797. It is usual to distinguish two periods of Kant's literary activity. The first, the pre-critical period, extends from 1747 to 1781, the date of the epoch-making "Kritik der reinen Vernunft"; the second, the critical period, extends from 1781 to 1794. THE PRE-CRITICAL PERIOD Kant's first book, which was published in 1747, was entitled "Gedanken von der wahren Schatzung der lebendigen Kräfte" (Thoughts on the True Estimation of Living Forces). In 1775 he published his doctor's dissertation, "On Fire" (De Igne), and the work "Principiorum Primorum Cognitionis Metaphysicae Nova Dilucidatio" (A New Explanation of the First Principles of Metaphysical Knowledge), by which he qualified for the position of Privatdozent. Besides these, in which he expounded and defended the current philosophy of Wolff, he published other treatises in which he applied that philosophy to problems of mathematics and physics. In 1770 appeared the work "De Mundi Sensibilis atque Intelligibilis Formis et Principiis" (On the Forms and Principles of the Sensible and Intelligible World), in which he shows for the first time a tendency to adopt an independent system of philosophy. The years from 1770 to 1780 were spent, as Kant himself tells us, in the preparation of the "Critique of Pure Reason". THE CRITICAL PERIOD The first work of Kant in which he appears as an exponent of transcendental criticism is the "Critique of Pure Reason" (Kritik der reinen Vernunft), which appeared in 1781. A second edition was published in 1787. In 1785 appeared the "Foundation for the Metaphysics of Ethics" (Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten). Then came a succession of critical works, the most important of which are the "Critique of Practical Reason" (Kritik der praktischen Vernunft), the "Critique of Judgment" (Kritik der Urtheilskraft, 1790), and "Religion within the Limits of Mere Reason" (Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft, 1793). The best editions of Kant's complete works are Hartenstein's second edition (8 vols., Leipzig, 1867-69), Rosenkranz and Schubert's (12 vols., Leipzig, 1834-42), and the edition which is being published by the Academy of Sciences of Berlin (Kants gesammelte Schriften, herausg. von der königlich preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin, 1902-). During the period of his academic career, extending from 1747 to 1781, Kant, as has been said, taught the philosophy then prevalent in Germany, which was Wolff's modified form of dogmatic rationalism. That is to say, he made psychological experience to be the basis of all metaphysical truth, rejected skepticism, and judged all knowledge by the test of reason. Towards the end of that period, however, he began to question the solidity of the psychological basis of metaphysics, and ended by losing all faith in the validity and value of metaphysical reasoning. The apparent contradictions which he found to exist in the physical sciences, and the conclusions which Hume had reached in his analysis of the principle of causation, "awoke Kant from his dogmatic slumber" and brought home to him the necessity of reviewing or criticizing all human experience for the purpose of restoring the physical sciences to a degree of certitude which they rightly claim, and also for the purpose of placing on an unshakable foundation the metaphysical truths which Hume's skeptical phenomenalism had overthrown. The old rational dogmatism had, he now considered, laid too much emphasis on the a priori elements of knowledge; on the other hand, as he now for the first time realized, the empirical philosophy of Hume had gone too far when it reduced all truth to empirical or a posteriori elements. Kant, therefore, proposes to pass all knowledge in review in order to determine how much of it is to be assigned to the a priori, and how much to the a posteriori factors, if we may so designate them, of knowledge. As he himself says, his purpose is to "deduce" the a priori or transcendental, forms of thought. Hence, his philosophy is essentially a "criticism", because it is an examination of knowledge, and "transcendental", because its purpose in examining knowledge is to determine the a priori, or transcendental, forms. Kant himself was wont to say that the business of philosophy is to answer three questions: What can I know? What ought I to do? What may I hope for? He considered, however, that the answer to the second and third depends on the answer to the first; our duty and our destiny can be determined only after a thorough study of human knowledge. It will be found most convenient to divide the study of Kant's critical philosophy into three portions, corresponding to the doctrines contained in his three "Critiques". We shall, therefore, take up successively (1) the doctrines of the "Critique of Pure Reason"; (2) the doctrines of the "Critique of Practical Reason"; (3) the doctrines of the "Critique of the Faculty of Judgment". "Critique of Pure Reason" In accordance with his purpose to examine all knowledge in order to find what is and what is not a priori, or transcendental, that is anterior to experience, or independent of experience, Kant proceeds in the "Critique of Pure Reason" to inquire into the a priori forms of (a) sensation, (b) judgment, and (c) reasoning. A. Sensation The first thing that Kant does in his study of knowledge is to distinguish between the material, or content, and the form, of sensation. The material of our sense-knowledge comes from experience. The form, however, is not derived through the senses, but is imposed on the material, or content, by the mind, in order to render the material, or content, universal and necessary. The form is, therefore, a priori; it is independent of experience. The most important forms of sense-knowledge, the conditions, in fact, of all sensation, are space and time. Not only, then, are space and time mental entities in the sense that they are elaborated by the mind out of the data of experience; they are strictly subjective, purely mental, and have no objective entity, except in so far as they are applied to the external world by the mind. Because of what is to follow, it is important to ask at this point: Do the a priori forms of sensation, since they admittedly enhance the value of sense-knowledge by rendering it universal and necessary, extend the domain of sense-knowledge, and carry us outside the narrow confines of the material, or data, of the senses? Kant holds that they do not. They affect knowledge, so to speak, qualitatively, not quantitatively. Now, the data of sensation represent only the appearances (Erscheinungen) of things; therefore all sensation is confined to a knowledge of appearances. Sense-knowledge cannot penetrate to the noumenon, the reality of the thing (Ding-an-sich). B. Judgment (b) Taking up now the knowledge which we acquire by means of the understanding (Verstand), Kant finds that thought in the strict sense begins with judgment. As in the case of sense-knowledge, he distinguishes here the content and the form. The content of judgment, or in other words, that which the understanding joins together in the act of judgment, can be nothing but the sense-intuitions, which take place, as has been said, by the imposition of the forms of space and time on the data of sensation. Sometimes the sense-intuitions (subject and predicate) are joined together in a manner that evidently implies contingency and particularity. An example would be the judgment, "This table is square." With judgments of this kind the philosopher is not much concerned. He is interested rather in judgments such as "All the sides of a square are equal", in which the relation affirmed to exist between the subject and the predicate is necessary and universal. With regard to these, Kant's first remark is that their necessity and universality must be a priori. That nothing which is universal and necessary can come from experience is axiomatic with him. There must, then, be forms of judgment, as there are forms of sensation, which are imposed by the understanding, which do not come from experience at all, but are a priori. These forms of judgment are the categories. It is hardly necessary to call attention to the contrast between the Kantian categories and the Aristotelean. The difference is fundamental, a difference in nature, purpose, function, and effect. The important point for the student of Kant is to determine the function of the categories. They serve to confer universality and necessity on our judgments. They serve, moreover, to bring diverse sense-intuitions under some degree of unity. But they do not extend our knowledge. For while representations (or intuitions) without the categories would be blind, the categories without representative, or intuitional, content, would be empty. We are still within the narrow circle of knowledge covered by our sense-experience. Space and time do not widen that circle; neither do the categories. The knowledge, therefore, which we acquire by the understanding is confined to the appearances of things, and does not extend to the noumenal reality, the Ding-an-Sich. It is necessary at this point to explain what Kant means by the "synthetic a priori" judgments. The Aristotelean philosophers distinguished two kinds of judgments, namely, synthetic judgments, which are the result of a "putting-together" (synthesis) of the facts, or data, of experience, and analytic judgments, which are the result of a "taking-apart" (analysis) of the subject and predicate, without immediate reference to experience. Thus, "This table is round" is a synthetic judgment; "All the radii of a circle are equal" is an analytic judgment. Now, according to the Aristoteleans, all synthetic judgments are a posteriori, because they are dependent on experience, and all analytic judgments are a priori, because the bond, or nexus, in them is perceived without appeal to experience. This classification does not satisfy Kant. He contends that analytic judgments of the kind referred to do not advance knowledge at all, since they always "remain within the concepts [subject and predicate] and make no advance beyond the data of the concepts". At the same time he contends that the synthetic judgments of the Aristoteleans have no scientific value, since, coming as they do from experience, they must be contingent and particular. Therefore he proposes to introduce a third class, namely, synthetic a priori judgments, which are synthetic because the content of them is supplied by a synthesis of the facts of experience, and a priori, because the form of universality and necessity is imposed on them by the understanding independently of experience. An example would be, according to Kant, "Every effect must have a cause." Our concepts of "effect" and "cause" are supplied by experience; but the universality and necessity of principle are derived from the a priori endowment of the mind. The Aristoteleans answer, and rightly, that the so-called synthetic a priori judgments are all analytic. C. Reasoning In the third place, Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" is occupied with the reasoning faculty (Vernunft). Here "ideas" play a role similar to that played in sensation and judgment by space and time and the categories, respectively. Examining the reasoning faculty, Kant finds that it has three distinct operations, namely, categorical, hypothetical, and disjunctive reasoning. To these, he says, correspond the three "ideas", the idea of the soul as thinking subject (psychological idea), the idea of matter as the totality of phenomena (cosmological idea), and the idea of God as the supreme condition of all reality (theological idea). He first takes up the idea of the soul, and, examining the course of reasoning of the psychologist who teaches the substantiality, immateriality, and immortality of the human soul, he pronounces that line of philosophical thought to be fallacious, because it starts with the false supposition that we can have an intuitive knowledge of the soul as the substantial subject of conscious states. This, he claims, is an erroneous supposition, for, while we can and do know our conscious states, we cannot know the subject of them. Rational psychology, then, makes a wrong start; its way is full of contradictions; it does not conclusively establish the immortality of the soul. Next, Kant subjects the cosmological idea to a similar analysis. He finds that as soon as we begin to predicate anything concerning the ultimate nature of matter we fall into a whole series of contradictions, which he calls "antinomies". Thus, the propositions, "Matter has a beginning", "The world was created", are apparently no more true than their contradictories, "Matter is eternal", "The world is uncreated." To every thesis regarding the ultimate nature of the material universe an equally plausible antithesis may be opposed. The conclusion is that by pure reason alone we cannot attain a knowledge of the nature of the material universe. Finally, Kant takes up the theological idea, the idea of God, and criticizes the methods and arguments of rational theology. The speculative basis of our belief in the existence of God is unsound he says, because the proofs brought forward to support it are not conclusive. St. Anselm's ontological argument tries to establish an existential proposition without reference to experience; it confounds the order of things with the order of ideas. The cosmological argument carries the principle of causality beyond the world of sense-experience, where alone it is valid. And the physico-theological argument from design, while it may prove the existence of an intelligent designer, cannot establish the existence of a Supreme Being. Kant, of course, does not deny the existence of God, neither does he deny the immortality of the soul or the ultimate reality of matter. His aim is to show that the three ideas, or, in other words, speculative reasoning concerning the soul, the universe, and God, do not add to our knowledge. But, although the ideas do not extend our experience, they regulate it. The best way to think about our conscious states is to represent them as inhering in a substantial subject, about which, however, we can know nothing. The best way to think of the external world is to represent it as a multiplicity of appearances, the ground of which is an unknowable material something; and the best way to organize and systematize all our knowledge of reality is to represent everything as springing from one source, governed by one law, and tending towards one end, the law, the source, and the end being an unknown and (speculatively) unknowable God. It is very easy to see how this negative phase of Kant's philosophy affected the subsequent course of philosophic thought in Europe. The conclusions of the first "Critique" are the premises of contemporary Agnosticism. We can know nothing except the appearances of things; the senses reach only phenomena; judgment does not go any deeper than the senses, so far as the external world is concerned; science and philosophy fail utterly in the effort to reach a knowledge of substance (noumenon), or essence, and the attempts of metaphysics to teach us what the soul is, what matter is, what God is, have failed and are doomed to inevitable failure. These are the conclusions which Kant reaches in the "Critique of Pure Reason"; they are the assumptions of the Agnostic and of the Neo-Kantian opponent of Scholasticism. "Critique of Practical Reason" Kant, it has often been said, tore down in order to build up. What he took away in the first "Critique" he gave back in the second. In the "Critique of Pure Reason" he showed that the truths which have always been considered the most important in the whole range of human knowledge have no foundation in metaphysical, that is, purely speculative, reasoning. In the "Critique of Practical Reasoning" he aims at showing that these truths rest on a solid moral basis, and are thus placed above all speculative contention and the clamour of metaphysical dispute. He has overthrown the imposing edifice which Cartesian dogmatism had built on the foundation "I think"; he now sets about the task of rebuilding the temple of truth on the foundation "I ought." The moral law is supreme. In point of certainty, it is superior to any deliverance of the purely speculative consciousness; I am more certain that "I ought" than I am that "I am glad", "I am cold", etc. In point of insistence, it is superior to any consideration of interest, pleasure or happiness; I can forego what is for my interest, I can set other considerations above pleasure and happiness, but if my conscience tells me that "I ought" to do something, nothing can gainsay the voice of conscience, though, of course, I am free to obey or disobey. This, then, is the one unshakable foundation of all moral, spiritual, and higher intellectual truth. The first peculiarity of the moral law is that it is universal and necessary. When conscience declares that it is wrong to tell a lie, the voice is not merely intended for here and now, not for "just this once", but for all time and for all space; it is valid always and everywhere. This quality of universality and necessity shows at once that the moral law has no foundation in pleasure, happiness, the perfection of self, or a so-called moral sense. It is its own foundation. Its voice reaches conscience immediately, commands unconditionally, and need give no reason for its behests. It is not, so to speak, a constitutional monarch amenable to reason, judgment, or any other faculty. It exacts unconditional, and in a sense unreasoned obedience. Hence the "hollow voice" of the moral law is called by Kant "the categorical imperative". This celebrated phrase means merely that the moral law is a command (imperative), not a form of advice or invitation to act or not to act; and it is an unconditional (categorical) command, not a command in the hypothetical mood, such as "If you wish to be a clergyman you must study theology." One should not, however, overlook the peculiarly empty character of the categorical imperative. Only in its most universal "hollow" utterances does it possess those qualities which render it unique in human experience. But as soon as the contingent data, or contents of a specific moral precept, are presented to it, it imposes its universality and necessity on them and lifts them to its own level. The contents may have been good, but they could not have been absolutely good; for nothing is absolutely good except good will--the acceptance, that is, of the moral law. We know the moral law not by inference, but by immediate intuition. This intuition is, as it were, the primum philosophicum. It takes the place of Descartes' primary intuition of his own thought. From it all the important truths of philosophy are deduced, the freedom of the will, the immortality of the soul, and the existence of God. The freedom of the will follows from the existence of the moral law, because the fact that "I ought" implies the fact that "I can." I know that I ought to do a certain thing, and from this I infer that I can. In the order of things, of course, freedom precedes obligation. In the order of knowledge, I infer freedom from the fact of obligation. Similarly, the immortality of the soul is implied in the moral law. The moral law demands complete fulfilment of itself in absolute human perfection. But the highest perfection that man can attain in this life is only partial or incomplete perfection, because, so long as the soul is united with the body, there is always in our nature a mixture of the corporeal with the spiritual; the striving towards holiness is accompanied by an inclination towards unholiness, and virtue implies a struggle. There must, therefore, be a life beyond the grave in which this "endless progress", as Kant calls it, will be continued. Finally, the moral law implies the existence of God. And that in two ways. The authoritative "voice" of the law implies a lawgiver. Moreover, the nature of the moral law implies that there be somewhere a good which is not only supreme, but complete, which embodies in its perfect holiness all the conditions which the moral law implies. This supreme good is God. "Critique of the Faculty of Judgment" Intermediate between the speculative reason, which is the faculty of knowledge, and practical reason, which is the faculty of voluntary action, is the faculty which Kant calls judgment, and which is the faculty of aesthetic appreciation. As the true is the object of knowledge, and as the good is the object of action, the beautiful and purposive is the object of judgment. By this peculiar use of the word judgment Kant places himself at once outside the ranks of the sensists, who refer all the constituents of beauty to sense-perceived qualities. He is an intellectualist in aesthetics, reducing the beautiful to elements of intellectuality. The beautiful, he teaches, is that which universally and necessarily gives disinterested pleasure, without the concept of definite design. It differs, consequently, from the agreeable and the useful. However, Kant is careful to remark that the enjoyment of the beautiful is not purely intellectual, as is the satisfaction which we experience in contemplating the perfect. The perfect appeals to the intellect alone, while the beautiful appeals also to the emotions and to the aesthetic faculty. Closely allied to the beautiful is the purposive. The same faculty, judgment, which enables us to perceive and enjoy the aesthetic aspect of nature and of art, enables us also to perceive that in the manifold variety of our experience there is evidence of purpose or design. Kant introduced in his "Critique" of the teleological judgment an important distinction between external and internal adaptation. External adaptation, he taught, exists between the organism and its environment, as, for instance, between the plant and the soil in which it grows. Internal adaptation exists among the structural parts of the organism, or between the organism and its function. The former, he believed, could be explained by merely mechanical causes, but the latter necessitates the introduction of the concept of final cause. Organisms act as though they were produced by a cause which had a purpose in view. We cannot clearly demonstrate that purpose. The teleological concept is, therefore, like the "ideas" (the soul, the world, God) not constitutive of our experience but regulative of it. The highest use of the aesthetic faculty is the realization of the beautiful and the purposive as symbols of moral good. What speculative reason fails to find in nature, namely, a beautiful, purposive order, is suggested by the aesthetic judgment and fully attained by religion, which rests on the practical reason. Kant, as is well known, reduces religion to a system of conduct. He defines religion as "the acknowledgement that our duties are God's commandments". He describes the essence of religion as consisting in morality. Christianity is a religion and is true only in so far as it conforms to this definition. The ideal Church should be an "ethical republic"; it should discard all dogmatic definitions, accept "rational faith" as its guide in all intellectual matters, and establish the kingdom of God on earth by bringing about the reign of duty. Even the Christian law of charity must take second place to the supreme exigencies of duty. In fact, it has been remarked that Kant's idea of religion, in so far as it is at all Scriptural, is inspired more by the Old than by the New Testament. He maintains that those dogmas which Christianity holds sacred, such as the mystery of the Trinity, should be given an ethical interpretation, should, so to speak, be regarded as symbols of moral concepts and values. Thus "historical faith", he says, is the "vehicle of rational faith". For the person and character of Christ he professes the greatest admiration. Christ, he declares, was the exemplification of the highest moral perfection. EVALUATION OF KANT Critics and historians are not all agreed as to Kant's rank among philosophers. Some rate his contributions to philosophy so highly that they consider his doctrines to be the culmination of all that went before him. Others, on the contrary, consider that he made a false start when he assumed in his criticism of speculative reason that whatever is universal and necessary in our knowledge must come from the mind itself, and not from the world of reality outside us. These opponents of Kant consider, moreover, that while he possessed the synthetic talent which enabled him to build up a system of thought, he was lacking in the analytic quality by which the philosopher is able to observe what actually takes place in the mind. And in a thinker who reduced all philosophy to an examination of knowledge the lack of the ability to observe what actually takes place in the mind is a serious defect. But, whatever may be our estimate of Kant as a philosopher, we should not undervalue his importance. Within the limits of the philosophical sciences themselves, his thought was the starting-point for Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, and Schopenhauer; and, so far as contemporary philosophic thought in Germany is concerned, whatever of it is not Kantian takes for its distinguishing characteristic its opposition to some point of Kantian doctrine. In England the Agnostic School from Hamilton to Spencer drew its inspiration from the negative teaching of the "Critique of Pure Reason". In France the Positivism of Comte and the neo-Criticism of Renouvier had a similar origin. Kant's influence reached out beyond philosophy into various other departments of thought. In the history of the natural sciences his name is associated with that of Laplace, in the theory which accounts for the origin of the universe by a natural evolution from primitive cosmic nebula. In theology his non-dogmatic notion of religion influenced Ritschl, and his method of transforming dogmatic truth into moral inspiration finds an echo, to say the least, in the exegetical experiments of Renan and his followers. Some philosophers and theologians have held that the objective data on which the Catholic religion is based are incapable of proof from speculative reason, but are demonstrable from practical reason, will, sentiment, or vital action. That this position is, however, dangerous, is proved by recent events. The Immanentist movement, the Vitalism of Blondel, the anti-Scholasticism of the "Annales de philosophie chretienne", and other recent tendencies towards a non-intellectual apologetic of the Faith, have their roots in Kantism, and the condemnation they have received from ecclesiastical authority shows plainly that they have no clear title to be considered a substitute for the intellectualistic apologetic which has for its ground the realism of the Scholastics. WILLIAM TURNER Stanislaw Karnkowski Stanislaw Karnkowski (Karncovious.) Archbishop of Gnesen and Primate of Poland, born about 1526; died at Lowicz, in the Government of Warsaw, 25 May (al., 8 June), 1603. As early as 1563 (according to Gams not until 1568) he was named Bishop of Wlozlawsk (Wladislavia, Kalisch), and rendered great service to religion and educationby founding, besides several schools, a seminary for priests in his episcopal residence. By order of the Synod of Petrikau (1577), he made a new collection of synodal laws under the title "Constitutiones synodorum metrolpitanae ecclesiae Gnesnensis provincialium" (Krakow, 1579). His politicaland religious influence in contemporary Poland was great. Under King Sigismund II August (1548-72) the Reformation made great progress in Poland, especially the Calvinist teaching, while the Lutherans and Socinians bitterly opposed each other. When Sigismund died, Henry of Valois, later Henry III of France, was elected King of Poland. On his entry into Meseritz,Karnkowski welcomed him in the name of the Polish estates. The archbishop also attended the coronation (1574), and tried to keep the throne new king in Poland, but in the same year the French throne fell vacant and he returned to France. Karnkowski then urged the election of Stephen Báthori, Prince of Transylvania. The latter was suspected of favouring the Reformation, but under the influence of Karnkowski he declared openly for Catholicism, and was crowned king 1 May, 1576, by Karnkowski, as Uchanski, Primate of Poland and Archbishop of Gnesen, had refused to crown him. Uchanski died 5 April, 1581, and Karnkowski was named his successor in the same year (21 April) in the archiepiscopal See of Gnesen and Primacy of Poland; as such, he governed Poland after the death of Stephen Báthori (12 Dec., 1586). Eventually he succeeded in electing as king Sigismund III Vasa (1587-1632). Through this young king, formerly Crown Prince of Sweden, and reared a good Catholic by his mother Katharina, Karnkowski hopedto stay the progress of the Reformation in Poland. After Cardinal Hosius, the archbishop was the most prominent opponent of the Polish Reformation. He favoured the Jesuits in every way, built a college for them at Kalisch, and a seminary at Gnesen. He established an institute for twelve noble students, which is still extant, under the direction of the cathedral chapter of Gnesen. It was he who urged the Jesuit Jacob Wujek to translate the Holy Scriptures into Polish; this translation was approved by thepope and is still regarded as a classic (Sommervogel, "Bibl. de la C. deJ.", VIII, 1234 sp.). Karnkowski wrote several important works, mostly theological; among them are: "Eucharistia", forty discourses in Polish on the Blessed Sacrament (Krakow, 1602); Polish Sermons on the Messias or the Redemption (Krakow, 1597); "De jure provinciali terrarum civitatumque Prussiae" (Krakow, 1574); "Liber epistolarum familiarium et illustrium virorum" (Krakow, 1584). He is buried in the Jesuit church at Kalisch. GREGOR REINHOLD Kaskaskia Indians Kaskaskia Indians Formerly chief tribe of the confederacy of Illinois Indians (q. v.). The name is of uncertain etymology, but may possible have reference to a "hide scraper." With the other Illinois they probably made their first acquaintance with the French at the Jesuit mission station of Chegoimegon (Lapointe near Bayfield, Wisconsin), established by the noted Father Claude Allouez in 1667. In 1673, Father Marquette, on his return from the lower Mississippi, was kindly received at their village, and on their earnest request returned later and founded among them in April, 1675, the Mission of the Immaculate Conception, the first of the Illinois missions, apparently about the present site of Utica, Lasalle Co., Illinois. On his death, a month later, the work was suspended until taken up again in 1677 by Allouez, who remained until the arrival of Lasalle in 1679, by whom the mission was turned over to the Recollects, Fathers Gabriel de la Ribourde and Zenobius Membré. In consequence of the opposition of the Indian priests, the attacks of the Iroquois, and the murder of Father Ribourde by the Kickapoo, the Recollect tenure was brief. In 1684 Allouez returned, but withdrew a second time on the rumoured approach of Lasalle from the south in 1687. In the latter year also the Jesuit Father James Gravier visited the tribe. In 1692 the celebrated Jesuit Father Sebastian Rasle restored the mission, which continued thenceforward under Jesuit auspices for a period of eighty years. In 1693 Gravier (q. v.) took charge and with Binneteau, Pinet, Marest, and others laboured with much success until his death in 1706 from a wound received at the hands of an unconverted Peoria. He compiled the first grammar of the language, and about the year 1700 was instrumental in settling the tribe in a new village about the present Kaskaskia, Illinois, near the mouth of the river of the same name, which remained their principal town and mission station until their final removal from the State. When visited by Charlevoix in 1721 the Kaskaskia were considered Christian, although a considerable portion of the other Illinois still adhered to their old forms. Notwithstanding the apparent success of the mission, the whole Illinois nation was in rapid decline from the hostilities of the northern tribes and the wholesale dissipation introduced by the French garrisons. In 1764 the Kaskaskia, who may have numbered originally 2000, were reported at 600, and in 1778 at 210, including 60 warriors. In 1762 the Jesuits were suppressed by the French Government, and any later work was carried on by secular priests. In 1795 the Kaskaskia first entered into treaty relations with the United States, and in 1832, together with the kindred Peoria, they ceded all of their remaining original territory in Illinois and were assigned to a reservation in what is now north-eastern Oklahoma, were they still reside, the entire confederated band, including Kaskaskia, Peoria, and other representatives of the old Illinois, together with the remnant of the Wea and Piankishaw of Indiana, numbering only 200 souls, not one of whom is full-blood, and not more than a dozen of whom retain the language. Indian Commissioner s Annual Repts.; Jesuit Relations; Illinois Missions; KAPPLER, Indian Treaties (Washington, 1903); SHEA, Catholic Missions (New York, 1854). JAMES MOONEY Upper Kassai Prefecture Apostolic of Upper Kassai Erected as a simple mission in 1901, and detached, as a prefecture Apostolic, from the Vicariate of Belgian Congo since 20 August, 1901. The residence of the prefect Apostolic is the mission of St. Joseph de Luluabourg situated a few miles to the south of the station of the Belgian colony of Luluabourg, in the district of Lualaba-Kassai, the chief town of which is Lusambo, residence of the district commissioner. The prefecture, at the time of its creation, comprised almost all the Lualaba-Kassai district. It was bounded on the north by the Vicariate of Belgian Congo (district of the Equateur); on the east by the same vicariate (territory of the Katanga Company); on the south by Portuguese Congo; on the west by the Lubue river. In 1908 it was enlarged by taking as its boundaries on the east the left bank of the Lualaba, and on the west the Prefecture of the Kwango, which is in charge of the Jesuit Fathers. The climate is hot and damp and the ground marshy. Fever is endemic, while the sleeping sickness makes great ravages among the blacks and may be communicated to white men by the tsetse fly. The languages used are those of the Bena Lulua, the Baluba, Bena Kanioka, the Batetela, the Bakuba, the Bakete, and the Balunda. It is impossible to fix even approximately the number of inhabitants, more than half of the prefecture being as yet unexplored. All that can be said is that the population numbers millions of pagans all devoted to a rude fetichism. Man lives there in the primitive state; in certain regions, among others that of the Bakete, the natives, men and women, go entirely naked. Only one religious order of men is engaged in the evangelization of this country, the Congregation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary of Scheut-les-Bruxelles; there is also but a single religious order of women, the Sisters of Charity of Ghent, Belgium. Since 15 November, 1891, when P re Cambier arrived alone at Luluabourg to commence the evangelization of these regions, eleven residences have been established. They are, in order of their foundation: (1) St-Joseph de Luluabourg; (2) Mérode Salvator (Kala Kafumba); (3) St-Trudon de Lusambo; (4) Hemptinne St-Bénoit; (5) Tielen St-Jacques; (6) Bena Makima St-Victorien; (7) St-Antoine de Lusambo; (8) Lusambo; (9) Udemba; (10) Pangu-hopital; (11) Liège-Sacrés-Coeurs at Katanga. Besides these large residences, tended by at least three priests or two priests and a lay brother, nineteen fermes-chapelles (or Christian villages) have been established in the prefecture. They are named: (1) Louvain-Alma-Mater; (2) Grammont Notre-Dame sur la Montagne; (3) Notre-Dame de Lourdes; (4) Lourdes-Notre-Dame; (5) Ypres; (6) St-Antoine; (7) Flobecq Notre-Dame de la Paix; (8) Tshibata Notre-Dame de Congo; (9) Louvain Adolphe Edmond; (10) Courtrai St-Amand; (11) Kasangai St-Remi; (12) Bakete; (13) Tshifwadi Sacré-Coeur; (14) Tshileta; (15) Kanjiki St-Jean; (16) Hely St-Aignan; (17) Merode Westerloo; (18) Li ge St-Urbain; and (19) Harelbeke St-Charles. The religious in charge are thirty-three priests and thirteen brothers of the Congregation of Scheut, and twenty Sisters of Charity of Ghent, who live in three residences, St-Joseph, St-Trudon de Lusambo and Hemtinne St-B noit. There are in the prefecture about twenty churches and chapels; over five thousand Catholics and about six thousand catechumens; eleven schools, attended by about eight hundred boys and five hundred girls. Over seven hundred orphans are cared for in orphan asylums. The Prefect Apostolic of Upper Kassai is Most Rev. Emeri Cambier, born at Flobecq (Belgian Hainault), 2 January, 1865. He was ordained priest 20 November, 1887, arrived in the Congo in 1888, at Luluabourg in 1891, and in 1904 was placed at the head of the newly created prefecture Apostolic. The King of Belgium has lately named him an officer of the Royal Order of the Lion in recognition of his services in South Africa. BATTANDIER, Annuaire pontificale catholique (Paris, 1910); Missiones catholic (Rome, 1910). EMERI CAMBIER Angelica Kauffman Angelica Kauffmann Born at Coire, in the canton of Grisons, Switzerland, 30 October, 1741; died at Rome, 5 November, 1807. She was the pupil of her father, Johann Joseph, a painter of mediocre talent, who, nevertheless, had an excellent knowledge of the principles underlying his art, and initiated Angelica at an early age into the difficult use of colours. An astonishingly precocious child, she was summoned to Como by the bishop, Monsignor Nevroni, who desired her to make a portrait of him, at which time she had not yet completed her twelfth year. Francis III of Este, Duke of Modena and Governor of Milan, declared himself her protector. Cardinal Roth invited her to Constance and commissioned her to paint his portrait. At the same time Angelica showed a great aptitude for music and singing, and some of her father s friends strongly urged her to give up painting, but in vain. This episode in her life she has represented in a picture, showing herself, between Painting and Music, bidding farewell to Music. Nevertheless, while cultivating the latter muse less ardently than the other, she was still a clever musician. Italy again attracted her; after visits to Parma and Florence, successively, she arrived, in 1763, at Rome, where she attended Winckelmann s courses in perspective. On a visit to Venice she made the acquaintance of some English noblemen, and a result of this meeting was her decision to take up residence in London (1766). Reynolds, whose portrait she executed, accorded her a most flattering reception, and conceived for her a passion to which she could never give any encouragement. Among the pictures which she painted in England we may mention "The Mother of the Gracchi", "The Sacrifice of Messalina", the "Meeting of Edgar and Elfrida", and "Cupid and Psyche". She also engraved many of her works. Her vanity made her the victim of a cruel deception: she allowed herself to be captivated by the engaging manners of a stranger who represented himself to be Count Frederick de Horn, and married him (1767). When the imposture was discovered, a separation followed (1768). The talent of Angelica Kauffmann, suggestive of the Reynolds manner, was highly appreciated in England. The Royal Academy of London elected her as one of its original members. Gessner and Klopstock sang of her, and the latter, in recognition, received a sentimental picture. The pretended Count de Horn having died in 1781, Angelica was free to contract a second marriage; she married the Venetian painter, Antonio Zucchi, and they determined to return to Italy. After a sojourn at Venice, during which Angelica painted "Leonardo da Vinci dying in the arms of Francis I", they visited Naples and then went to Rome to establish themselves permanently. There she opened a salon, where G. de Rossi and Seroux d Agincourt, the latter then engaged on his "Histoire de l'art par les monuments", were frequently to be seen. Goethe, when he visited Rome, was also received in her salon, and speaks of it in the account of his journey. She painted for the Emperor Jospeh II, who was then travelling in Italy, the Return of Arminius victorious over the legions of Varus and "Æneas celebrating the Funeral Rites of Pallas". In the last years of her life she was sorely tried by reverses of fortune and by the death of her husband (1795). "The poverty does not terrify me," she confided to an intimate friend, "but the loneliness kills me." She languished for some twelve years. The academicians of St. Luke assisted at her obsequies in the church of S. Andrea delle Frate, where she was buried. It was chiefly as a portraitpainter that Angelica Kauffmann was distinguished; her light touch is not wanting in grace, nor her colouring in brilliancy. In this genre, the portrait of the Duchess of Brunswick, sister of George III, is considered her masterpiece. Her portrait of herself is to be seen in the Berlin Museum. Her historical pictures are altogether inferior; the sentimentalism of the period in which she lived contributed to their vogue, and they have since declined considerably in the general estimation, chiefly because the drawing leaves too much to be desired. GHERARDO DE ROSI, Vita di Angelica Kauffmann pittrice (Florence, 1810); KONYNENBURG, Kunstverdiensten van Angelica Kauffmann en Raphael (Amsterdam, 1810); DE WAILLY, Angelica Kauffmann (2 vols., Paris, 1838); WESSELY in Kunst und Künstler des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit (Leipzig, 1876). GASTON SORTAIS Alexander Kaufmann Alexander Kaufmann Poet and folklorist, born at Bonn, 14 May, 1817; died at Wertheim, 1 May, 1893. He came of a well-known patrician family, whose members were prominent during the eighteenth century, some being in the city regiment of Bonn and others in the service of the former Elector of Cologne. Kaufmann was related to the two historical painters, Andreas and Karl Müller. At Bonn he studied jurisprudence, languages, and history; in 1844 he was appointed teacher of Prince Karl von Löwenstein-Wertheim-Rosenberg, who, in 1850, made him keeper of the archives at Wertheim, which post he retained until his death. He published "Gedichte" (1852), "Mainsagen" (1853), and "Unter den Reben" (1871). His original research for Karl Simrock's legends of the Rhine, and his own legends of the Main are very valuable. He collaborated with the highly imaginative poet Georg Friedrich Daumer in Mythoterpe, ein "Mythen-, Sagen- und Legendenbuch"; did critical research work on "Cæsarius von Heisterbach" (1850, 1862); and translated "Wunderbare Geschichten aus den Werken des Cæsarius von Heisterbach" (1888-91). His posthumous "Biographie des belgischen Dominikaners Thomas von Chantimpre" was published in 1899. KARL HOEBER Leopold Kaufmann Leopold Kaufmann Chief Burgomaster of Bonn, brother of the poet and folklorist Alexander Kaufmann, born 13 March, 1821; died 27 Feb., 1898. With his brother Alexander, he attended the grammar school of his native city, and in the autumn of 1840, through Ernst Moritz Arndt, who had shortly before been reinstated in his professorship, Kaufmann was matriculated as student of law at the University of Bonn. Together with his scientific studies he cultivated an intelligent love of music and singing; held inspiring intercourse with such composers as Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy, and Franz Liszt, with poets like Gottfried Kinkel, and with his future wife Johanna, née Mockel; and with these artistic friends he founded a poetical society called the "Maikäferbund". On the occasion of the first Beethoven festival and of the unveiling of the Beethoven Monument, in the summer of 1845, Kaufmann founded the still extant male choral society of Bonn, the "Concordia". When the revolutionary disturbances broke out in May, 1848, and many of the burgomasters in the Rhenish provinces voluntarily gave up their positions, he was appointed first government referendary of the burgomaster administrator at Unkel on the Rhine, and one year later deputy landrath or president of the District of Zell on the Moselle. In October, 1850, he was elected Burgomaster of Bonn, which at that time contained 18,000 inhabitants, and assumed office in the following May. In 1859 he received the title of chief burgomaster. Among the important enterprises which he planned for the welfare of the city, and which he carried out with prudence and energy, may be mentioned the foundations for extensive docks on the Rhine, the drainage of the entire city, laying out new plans for alignment and rebuilding, and eventually for a canal. For the systematic aid of the poor he laid out the city in districts; he also built an asylum for the insane. He provided for the young by a systematic reorganization of the public schools, and for the support of the orphans. Very successful too were his exertions for the artistic adornment of the beautiful cemetery of Bonn, of the tombs of Schiller's widow and his son Ernst, those of the composer Robert Schumann, and the poet A. W. von Schlegel. In 1861, Kaufmann was appointed by the King of Prussia a life member of the Upper House on the nomination of the city of Bonn. On the question of reforming the army, he voted with the so-called constitutional deputies on 11 October, 1862, for the budget as arranged by the Lower House. On the hundredth anniversary of Ludwig von Beethoven (b. at Bonn, 12 Dec., 1770), the Beethoven Hall was built. In August, 1871, the Beethoven musical festival, and in August, 1873, the Schumann festival were held, two significant musical events, the success of which was largely due to Kaufmann, and which procured for Bonn the renown of a first-class artistic centre. After the Vatican decree of 18 July, 1870, Bonn and Munich became the centres of the Old Catholic movement. Whilst several of Kaufmann's most esteemed friends joined the new sect, he always remained true to the Church. In 1874 he was unanimously re-elected burgomaster for the third time by the town council of Bonn, for a term of twelve years, but he became a victim of the Kulturkampf. Although he recognized the necessity for the government taking measures with the object of regulating its attitude towards the Church, and declared himself prepared in his official capacity to carry out the May Laws, his confirmation was refused by the administration on 8 May, 1875, a measure which resulted in an interpellation by Windt-Lorst in the Reichstag and the Prussian Diet. At the end of 1876, Kaufmann was elected to the Lower House from the electoral district of München-Gladbach, joined the Centre party, and soon became a member of its governing committee. In the Reichstag he frequently spoke in the interest of art and science. He was likewise one of the founders of the "Görresgesellschaft", for fostering science in Catholic Germany (1876), and for the first fifteen years was its general secretary. After 1882, he was vice-president of the Borromeo Society for disseminating good books. In 1886 he refused re-election to the Reichstag, and henceforth devoted himself to the promotion of art and of useful undertakings, particularly to the decoration of Bonn cathedral. Among his writings may be mentioned: "Albrecht Dürer" (Cologne, 1881; 2nd ed., 1887); "Bilder aus dem Rheinland" (1884); "Philipp Veit, Vorträge über Kunst" (1891). KARL HOEBER Franz Philip Kaulen Franz Philip Kaulen Scriptural scholar, born 20 March, 1827, at Düsseldorf; died at Bonn, 11 July, 1907. He attended the gymnasium in his native city, studied theology at the University of Bonn from 1846 to 1849, and was ordained priest at Cologne on 3 September, 1850. For several years he was engaged on the mission in various stations of the Diocese of Cologne, until in 1859 he was appointed lecturer at the Konvikt or theological school at Bonn. In 1862 he received the degree of Doctor of Divinity from the University of Würzburg in virtue of a commentary on the Book of Jonas; in 1863 he obtained a chair of Old Testament exegesis at the University of Bonn; in 1880 and 1882 he was appointed extraordinary and ordinary professor of theology at the same university; in 1890 he was raised to the dignity of a domestic prelate by Leo XIII; in 1900 he received the grand cross of the Order of the Knights of the Holy Sepulchre, and in 1903 he was made a member of the Biblical Commission. During the same year (1903) he was compelled to give up teaching owing to an apoplectic stroke. The study of the Bible was Kaulen's aim from the beginning. He kept it before his mind even when engaged in the ministry or in the conferences at the theological school of Bonn; and nearly all his works refer to it or kindred subjects. His principal works are: (1) "Lingu Mandschuric Institutiones", a grammar of the Manchu language (Ratisbon, 1875); (2) "Die Sprachverwirrung zu Babel", or the confusion of languages at Babel (Mainz, 1861); (3) "Librum Jonae exposuit Fr. Kaulen", or a commentary on the Book of Jonas (Mainz, 1862); (4) "Geschichte der Vulgata", or a history of the Vulgate (Mainz, 1861); (5) "Sprachliches Handbuch zur biblischen Vulgata", or a linguistic manual to the Latin Vulgate (Mainz, 1870); (6) "Einleitung in die Heilige Schrift Alten und Neuen Testamentes", or Introduction to the Sacred Scripture of the Old and New Testament (Freiburg, 1876-86); (7) "Assyrien und Babylonien" (1876); (8) "Der biblische Schöpfungsbericht", or the Biblical account of the creation (Freiburg, 1902); (9) "Thomas von Villanova, ein Büchlein von der göttlichen Liebe", or a book on Divine love (Freiburg, 1872); (10) three books of devotion, "Alleluja", "Brot der Engel" or Bread of the Angels, and "Die ewige Anbetung" or the perpetual adoration. The books of Kaulen were much in demand; some -- e. g. the grammar to the Vulgate, the "Introduction" and "Assyria and Babylon" -- passed through several editions. A lasting monument of his theological learning is found in the second edition of the "Kirchenlexikon". The first edition of his work which comprised 11 volumes, a supplement, and a general index, was issued by the publishing firm of Benjamin Herder (q. v.). A second edition soon appeared necessary: in 1877 the editorship was entrusted to Dr. Joseph Hergenröther, then professor in Würzburg, but, at the elevation of the latter to the cardinalate in 1879, was finally given to Dr. Kaulen, who presided over the work until it was completed. The new or second edition comprises twelve volumes and a general index; the first volume appeared in 1886, the last in 1901, and the index, prepared by the Rev. Hermann Joseph Kamp, with an introduction on the divisions of theology by Dr. Melchior Abfalter, in 1903. Kaulen was helped in this gigantic enterprise by the Rev. Dr. Hermann Streber, by the Rev. A. M. Weiss, O.P., who prepared the catalogue of subjects, and by a large number of learned contributors, the list of whom is given at the end of the last volume. The part taken by Kaulen consisted in editing the articles contributed, in revising several articles taken over from the first edition, and in contributing many articles of his own; the enumeration of his personal contributions fills almost five columns in the general list of contributors. The selection of Kaulen for this great theological work was most fortunate. In the preface to the first volume, written in 1882, he declared that the articles should combine depth of learning with ecclesiastical correctness and a clear, intelligible presentation of the subject, which programme was carried out through the entire work. Mitteilungen der Herderschen Verlagshandlung (Freiburg, September, 1908); Der Katholik, no. vi (Mainz, 1907). FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER Wenzel Anton Kaunitz Wenzel Anton Kaunitz An Austrian prince and statesman, born at Vienna 2 February, 1711; died there 27 June, 1794. His parents had destined him for the Church, and the age of thirteen years he already held a canonry at Münster. Soon, however, he gave up the idea of becoming an ecclesiastic, and studied law at Vienna, Leipzig, and Leyden. He afterwards made an extensive educational journey through England, and Italy, and was then made aulic councillor in 1735. At the German Diet of Ratisbon in 1739 he was one of the imperial commissaries. March, 1741, he was sent on a diplomatic mission to Florence, Rome, and Turin, and in August, 1742, was appointed Austrian ambassador at Turin. Two years later he was appointed minister plenipotentiary to the Government of the Netherlands, in which capacity he was to all intents the actual ruler of the Netherlands, because Archduchess Marianne, whom Maria Theresa had invested with the government of the Netherlands, died a week after his arrival, and her husband, Prince Charles of Lorraine, was commanding the Austrian army in Bohemia against the King of Prussia. When Brussels was taken after a three weeks siege by Maurice de Saxe on 20 February, 1746, Kaunitz went to Antwerp, and, when the French army followed him to that place, he left for Aachen, whence his urgent request to be recalled from his difficult position was finally heeded by the empress in June, 1746. In 1748he represented the interests of Austria at the Congress of Aachen, and reluctantly signed the treaty on 23 October, 1748. Extremely displeased at the treaty which deprived Austria of the provinces of Silesia and Glatz, guaranteeing them to Frederick II, Kaunitz sought a way to regain these provinces and destroy the predominance of the King of Prussia. He advocated an alliance with France, and, when sent as ambassador to Paris in September, 1750, began to lay the foundation for this alliance, which, however, was not concluded until six years later. In 1753 he was recalled and became chancellor of state and minister of foreign affairs. Towards the end of 1755 he again began negotiations with France concerning an anti-Prussian alliance. This time the circumstances were in his favour. France felt itself slighted at the alliance into which Prussia had entered with England, and a defensive alliance between Austria and France, known as the Treaty of Versailles, was entered into on 1 May, 1756. This treaty, however, was only the preliminary to the so-called Second Treaty of Versailles, signed on 1 May, 1757; in this it was stipulated that the two powers would fight against the King of Prussia, until Silesia and Glantz were restored to Austria. A similar alliance was effected with Russia on 2 February, 1757. Both these alliances owed their existence to Kaunitz who was also practically the supreme manager of Austrian affairs during the ensuing Seven Years War. Empress Maria Theresa placed implicit reliance in his ability and devotion to his country, and no reform of any importance was undertaken during her rule, which did not originate from Kaunitz or at least bear the impress of his co-operation. In 1760 he founded the Austrian Council of State, consisting of six members, improved the financial management, and introduced various other governmental changes. In 1764 he was created a prince of the empire with the title of Count von Rittberg. The paramount influence which Kaunitz wielded during the reign of Maria Theresa grew considerably less during the reign of her son, Joseph II. In the main, Joseph II and Kaunitz pursued the same ends, viz. Territorial expansion, increase of the central state authority and limitation of the authority of the nobility, entire subjection of the Church to the State, the supervision of the latter over the former even in the minutest ritual and disciplinary regulations, a better education of the common people, and more consideration for their legal rights. But, despite the unity of their aims, they had numerous disagreements, because each was too opinionated to give up his views in deference to those of the other. In addition, Kaunitz was extremely vain and eccentric. He spent hours preparing his elaborate toilet at which he was assisted by a host of servants, having each a particular duty to perform. He manifested a childish fear of contagious diseases and could not bear to hear the word death or plague mentioned in his presence. Emperor Joseph in a letter to his brother Leopold, written about two weeks before his death, says of Kaunitz: "Would you believe that I have not seen him for almost two years. Since the day on which I returned sick from the army I can no longer go to him, and he does not come to me for fear of contagion." Despite his many faults, Kaunitz always had Austria's welfare, as he understood it, at heart, and his long experience and cautiousness often put a wholesome restraint on the rash and impulsive disposition of Joseph II. He favoured the first Partition of Poland in 1772, was instrumental in obtaining Bukowina from the Turks in 1775, and, though unsuccessful in his intended annexation of Bavaria in 1778, he obtained for Austria at the Peace of Teschen in May, 1779, the so-called Innviertel, i. e. that part of the territory of Berghausen which lies between the Danube, the Inn, and the Salza. In matters of religion Kaunitz was one of the foremost adherents of the intellectual movement known as the "Enlightenment" (Aufklärung). He even surpassed Joseph II in his endeavours to make the Church and its clergy mere tools in the hands of state officials. When Pius VI visited Vienna in 1782, Kaunitz treated him very rudely and advised that the clergy be forbidden to come to Vienna while the pontiff was visiting there. He also counselled Joseph II on this occasion to make no concessions to the pontiff in ecclesiastical affairs. He imbibed his deep hatred for the clergy as ambassador at Paris, where he had for some time Jean-Jacques Rousseau as private secretary. He was moreover a friend and great admirer of Voltaire and the French Encyclopedists, whose works had become his chief mental pabulum. His influence which was on the wane during the reign of Joseph II grew still less during the reign of Leopold II (1790-2). At the accession of Francis II in 1792 he resigned as chancellor. ARNETH, Biographie des Fürsten Kaunitz (Vienna, 1899); IDEM in Allgem. Deutsche Biog., XV (Leipzig, 1882); WOLF, Oesterreich unter Maria Theresia, Josef II., und Leopold II. (Berlin, 1882); The Cambridge Modern History, VI (New York, 1909), passim; SCHLITTER, Kaunitz, Philipp Cobenzl, und Spielmann. Ihr Briefwechsel (Vienna, 1899); ARNTEH AND FLAMMERMONT, Correspondance secrète du comte de Mercy Argenteau avec l Empereur Joseph II et le prince Kaunitz (2 vols., Paris, 1890-1); BEER, Josef II., Leopold II. Und Kaunitz. Ihr Briefwechsel (Vienna, 1873); BRUNNER, Correspondances intimes de l'Empereur Joseph II avec son ami le comte Cobenzl et son premier ministre le prince de Kaunitz (Mainz, 1871). MICHAEL OTT Edward Kavanagh Edward Kavanagh American statesman and diplomat, born at Newcastle, Maine, 27 April, 1795; died there, 21 Jan., 1844. His father, James Kavanagh, came to America from Ireland in 1780, settled in Maine, and became a prosperous merchant and shipowner. His mother, Sarah Jackson, was a native of Boston and a convert to the Catholic Faith. Their home was for many years a centre of hospitality for the missionary priests labouring in Maine. One of these, Father (afterwards Cardinal) Cheverus, was an intimate friend of the family. Edward Kavanagh entered Georgetown College in 1810, and changed to St. Mary's Baltimore, in 1812. His classical studies were completely in Europe, where he acquired a useful familiarity with modern languages. Returning home, he devoted himself to his father's business, which had suffered severely in the War of 1812, and to the study of law. He was admitted to the Bar, and won esteem as a counsellor. Failing in an attempt to enter the diplomatic service, he turned to politics, was elected to the Maine Legislature in 1826, was secretary of the Senate in 1830, and in 1831, as commissioner, explored the northern frontier of the State and presented to the governor a valuable report on the subject. Elected to Congress in 1831, he served two terms. In 1835 he was named chargé d'affaires at Lisbon, Portugal, and ranked as chief American representative in that country. Though Portugal was in the throes of revolution and bankruptcy during the five years of his residence, Mr. Kavanagh settled all claims pending at his arrival, and negotiated a favourable commercial and navigation treaty. He resigned in 1841, and returning the Maine was elected to the State senate as its presiding officer. The boundary controversy was at fever heat, and he was chosen to be one of four commissioners to negotiate at Washington the preliminaries for the Webster-Ashburton Treaty. On the resignation of Governor Fairfield, Mr. Kavanagh succeeded to the office of governor which he held for nine months. He suffered much from rheumatism during the latter years of his life. He died sustained by the sacraments of the Church of which he was a faithful and uncompromising member all his life. Though not eloquent, he was a convincing speaker and an accomplished scholar. Longfellow's story, "Kavanagh", is not founded on the Maine statesman's career. He is buried in the shadow of St. Patrick's church, Newcastle (Damariscotta Mills). CHARLES W. COLLINS Julia Kavanagh Julia Kavanagh Novelist and biographer, born 7 Jan., 1824, at Thurles, Ireland; died 28 October, 1877, at Nice, France. She was an only child. Her father, Morgan Kavanagh, a poet and philologist, was the author of some curious works on the source and science of languages. At an early age she accompanied her parents to London, but soon removed to France, where she received her education and remained till her twentieth year. This lengthy residence in France, with several other long visits later in life, gave her an insight into French life and character, which she portrayed most faithfully in many of her works. In 1844 she returned to London, and at once embraced literature as a profession. She began by writing tales and essays for the periodicals of the day. Her first book, "The Three Paths", a tale for children, appeared in 1847. It was followed by "Madeleine" (1848), a story founded on the life of a peasant girl of Auvergne. This gave her a literary reputation which was increased by her historical biographical works: "Women in France during the Eighteenth Century" (1850), "Women of Christianity Exemplary for Acts of Piety and Charity" (1852), "French Women of Letters" (1862), and the companion volume "English Women of Letters" (1862). As a biographer she shows great power and a fine sense of discrimination in portraying her characters, though the claims she makes for her heroines are at times somewhat exaggerated. It is, however, as a novelist, that she is best known. Her studies of French life and character, which are worked into almost all her stories, are excellent and show her at her best. Her plots, though not of great depth, are well developed and of sufficient action to hold the interest. "Her writing", remarked a contributor to the London Athenæum at the time of her death, "was quiet and simple in style, but pure and chaste, and characterized by the same high-toned thought and morality that was part of the author's own nature." She wrote about twenty novels, which have had a wide circulation in America and in England, and have been translated into French. The best known are "Madeleine" (1848), "Nathalie" (1851), "Daisy Burns" (1853), "Rachel Gray" (1855). About 1853 she made a prolonged tour of the Continent, and in 1858 published her experience under the title of "A Summer and Winter in the Two Sicilies". Her life was rather uneventful; a great part of her time was devoted to the care of her widowed mother, who was an invalid. At the outbreak of the Franco-German War, Miss Kavanagh, who was living in Paris with her mother, moved to Rouen and thence to Nice, where she died in her fifty-fourth year. After her death appeared a collection of short tales bearing the appropriate title: "Forget-me-nots" (1878). READ, Cabinet of Irish Literature (London, 1891); Academy (10 Nov., 1877, London); Athenæum (17 Nov., 1877, London); Irish Monthly, VI; preface to Forget-me-nots (1878). MATTHEW J. FLAHERTY Joseph Kehrein Joseph Kehrein Educator, philologist, and historian of German literature, born at Heidesheim, near Mainz, 20 October, 1808; died at Montabaur, Hesse-Nassau, 25 March, 1876. In 1823 he entered the gymnasium in connection with the diocesan seminary at Mainz, and after its suppression in 1829 he continued his classical studies at the state gymnasium of the same place, where he graduated in 1831. After studying philology at the University of Giessen from 1831 to 1834, he taught at the gymnasium of Darmstadt, 1835-1837, at that of Mainz, 1837-1845, was pro-rector at the newly founded gymnasium of Hadamar in Nassau, 1845-1846, professor at the same place, 1846-1855, director of the Catholic teachers' seminary at Montabaur, 1855-1876, and at the same time director of the Realschule at the same place, 1855-1866. He is the author of numerous works, chiefly on the German language, on the history of German literature, and on pedagogy. The best known among them are:"Die dramatische Poesie der Deutschen" (2 vols., Leipzig, 1840); "Grammatik der neuhsch-deutschen Sprache" (2 vols., Leipzig, 1842-51); Geschichte der katholischen Kanzeiberedsamkeit der Deutschen" (w vols., Ratisbon, 1843); "Die weltliche Beredsamkeit der Deutschen" (Mainz, 1846); "Grammatik der deutschen Sprache des 15-17. Jahrhunderts" (5 vols., Leipzig, 1854-56; 2nd ed., 1863); "Biographisch-kritisches Lexikon der katholicsch-deutschen Dichter, Volks- und Jugenschriftsteller des 19. Jahrhundrets" (2 vols., Wurzburg, 1868-71); "Handbuch der Erziehung und des Unterrichts" (Paderborn, 1876; 12 ed., 1906); "Ueberblick der Geschichte der Erziehung" (Paderborn, 1873; 11th ed., 1899). He also edited "Katholische Kirchenlieder aus den altesten deutschen Gesangbuchern" (3 vols., Wurzburg, 1859-65); "Lateinische Sequenzen des Mittelaters" (Mainz, 1873). MICHAEL OTT Jacob Keller Jacob Keller Controversialist, born at Sackingen, Baden, Germany, in 1568; died at Munich, Bavaria, 23 February, 1631. After entering the Society of Jesus in 1589 and completing his studies, he taught the classics at Freiburg and was professor of philosophy and of moral and dogmatic theology at Ingolstadt. He was appointed rector of the college of Ratisbon in 1605, and of the college of Munich in 1607, which post he held until 1623. In 1628 he was reappointed to the rectorship of Munich, and was still holding the office when a stroke of apoplexy ended his life. Besides his literary and scholastic attainments (for he was regarded as a genius), he possessed uncommon executive ability, and in spite of his extreme humility was consulted not only by his religious superiors, but also by Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria, who often sought his advice and entrusted to his care affairs of moment, which he discharged with much success. His principal works are: "Tyrannicidium" (Munich, 1611) and "Catholisch Pabsttumb" (Munich, 1614). The former, which appeared both in German and Latin, was an answer to certain calumnies printed by a Calvinist with reference to the teaching of the Society of Jesus on the subject of Tyrannicide. Father Keller showed that the Jesuit teaching was no other than that of the greatest theologians, both Catholic and Protestant. The work on the papacy was a reply to aspersions cast on the Holy See by Jacob Heilbrunner, and is a veritable treasure-house of answers tot he objections of Protestants. It was followed by a public debated between Keller and Heilbrunner, in which the latter was completely silenced. Keller published fourother works which were the last word on the subject, and left his adversary utterly defeated. Among his other works are: "Ludovicus IV Imperator defensus contra Bzovium" (Munster, 1618), a work of real historical value; "Vita R.P. Petri Canisii". Of local rather than general interest are a number of other polemical writings, e.g. "Litura seu castigatio Cancellariae Hispanicae a Ludovico Camerario, Excancellario Bohemico, Exconciliario Heidelbergensii . . . instructae"; "An der theil Anhaldischer Cancellay"; "Tubus Galilaeanus"; "Rhabarbarum domandae bili quam in apolgiae sua proritavit Ludov. Camerarius propinatum". He published a large number of other writings, sometimes under his own, sometimes under an assumed name, mostly controversial. J.H. FISHER Lorenz Kellner Lorenz Kellner Educationist, born at Kalteneber in the district of Eichsfeld, 29 January, 1811; died at Trier, 18 August, 1892. He was the son of Heinrich Kellner who had been a pupil of Pestalozzi at Yverdon and had introduced Pestalozzi s methods at the normal school he conducted, the first of its kind in the Catholic district of Eichsfeld. Out of these private courses for the training of elementary school-teachers developed the still-existing seminary for teachers at Heiligenstadt. Lorenz Kellner graduated at the Gymnasium Josephinum at Hildesheim, and then studied with great success at the evangelical seminary for teachers at Magdeburg. After being a teacher at the Catholic elementary school at Erfurt for two years, he was made rector of the school; in both positions he showed great talent for teaching and a genuine love of children. In 1836 his father s normal school was enlarged into a seminary for teachers, of which the elder Kellner remained the head while Lorenz was made his only assistant. In 1848 von Eichhorn, the Prussian minister of worship and education, called Lorenz to Marienwerder in West Prussia as member of the government district council and of the school-board. After labouring at Marienwerder for seven years Kellner was summoned to fill the same offices at Trier. As there were at this date no institutions for the training of teachers in Trier, Kellner founded several seminaries both for male and female teachers during the twenty-nine years of his official activity here. In his chief work, "Praktischer Lehrgang für den deutschen Unterricht" (1837-40), the teaching of grammar was systematically connected with the reading-book. This was, for that period, a very important advance when contrasted with the current methods of grammatical instruction. In 1850 appeared his best-known work, "Zur Pädagogik der Schule und des Hauses. Aphorismen", which was translated into several languages. It contains altogether 178 essays which cover the entire field of training and teaching. His "Skizzen und Bilder aus der Erziehungsgeschichte" (3 vols., 1862) was the first and also the best treatment of the history of pedagogics by a Catholic author. In 1863 the Academy of Münster in Westphalia made Kellner Doctor of Philosophy honoris causa, in recognition of his services on behalf of the German language and of pedagogics. Kellner's "Kurze Geschichte der Erziehung und des Unterrichts" (1877) is a book of practical suggestions for teachers; his "Volksschulkunde" was a theoretical and practical guide for Catholic teachers of both sexes, school inspectors, and seminaries. His "Lebensblätter, Erinnerungen aus der Schulwelt" (1891) is a work of great interest. After his death was published "Lose Blätter, Pädagog. Zeitbetrachtungen und Ratschläge von Kellner" (1897). BECK, Lorenz Kellner: Ein Blatt zur Erinnerung (Trier, 1893); OPPERMANN in REIN, Encyclop d. Handbuch der Pädagogic (2nd ed., Langensalza, 1903-), s.v. KARL HOEBER Book of Kells Book of Kells An Irish manuscript containing the Four Gospels, a fragment of Hebrew names, and the Eusebian canons, known also as the "Book of Columba", probably because it was written in the monastery of Iona to honour the saint. It is likely that it is to this book that the entry in the "Annals of Ulster" under the year 1006 refers, recording that in that year the "Gospel of Columba" was stolen. According to tradition, the book is a relic from the time of Columba (d. 597) and even the work of his hands, but, on palæographic grounds and judging by the character of the ornamentation, this tradition cannot be sustained, and the date of the composition of the book can hardly be placed earlier than the end of the seventh or beginning of the eighth century. This must be the book which the Welshman, Geraldus Cambrensis, saw at Kildare in the last quarter of the twelfth century and which he describes in glowing terms (Topogr. Hibern., II, xxxviii). We next hear of it at the cathedral of Kells (Irish Cenannus) in Meath, a foundation of Columba's, where it remained for a long time, or until the year 1541. In the seventeenth century Archbishop Ussher presented it to Trinity College, Dublin, where it is the most precious manuscript (A. I. 6) in the college library and by far the choicest relic of Irish art that has been preserved. In it is to be found every variety of design typical of Irish art at its best. Some small portions at the beginning and end of the manuscript have been lost, but otherwise it is in a very good state of preservation. It was apparently left unfinished, since some of the ornaments remain only in outline. It is written in part black, red, purple or yellow ink, and it has been thought that the hands of two scribes, neither of whom is known to us by name, are discernible in the writing and illumination of the manuscript. The most characteristic ornaments of the Book of Kells, as of other illuminated Irish manuscripts of the period, are the closely coiled spirals connected with each other by a number of curves and terminating in the so-called "trumpet pattern". Almost equally characteristic are the zoomorphic interlacements, coloured representations of fanciful beings, or of men, animals, birds, horses, dogs, and grotesque, gargoyle-like human figures, twisted and hooked together in intricate detail. Other frequently occurring designs are a system of geometrical weaving of ribbons plaited and knotted together, and a simpler ornamentation by means of red dotted lines. The versatility and inventive genius of the illustrator surpasses all belief. Lines diverge and converge in endless succession, and the most intricate figures, in lavish abundance and with astounding variety of ornament, are combined and woven into one harmonious design. In spite of the extent of the work and its thousands of exquisite initials and terminals, there is not a single pattern or combination that can be said to be a copy of another. The artist shows a wonderful technique in designing and combining various emblems, the cross, vine, dragon, fish, and serpent. The drawing is perfection itself. It has been examined under a powerful magnifying glass for hours at a time and found to be, even in the most minute and complicated figures, without a single false or irregular line. Some of the most accomplished of modern draughtsmen have attempted to copy its elaborate designs, but, such is the delicacy of the execution, that they had to abandon the task as hopeless. In a space of one inch square were counted no less than 158 interlacings of white ribbon with a black border on either side. On the other hand, the pictures of the personages delineated are feeble and primitive and show but a limited knowledge of the human figure and its relative proportions. No words can describe the beauty and the extreme splendour of the richly coloured initial letters, which are more profuse in the "Book of Kells" than in any other manuscript. The only thing to which they can be compared is a bed of many coloured crocuses and tulips or the very finest stained glass window, which they equal in beauty of colouring and rival in delicacy of ornament and drawing. The artist possessed a wonderful knowledge of the proportion of colour and the distribution of his material -- sienna, purple, lilac, red, pink, green, yellow, the colours most often used -- and he managed the shading and tinting of the letters with consummate taste and skill. It is remarkable that there is no trace of the use of silver or gold on the vellum. Sometimes the colours are laid on in thick layers to give the appearance of enamel, and are here and there as bright and soft and lustrous as when put on fresh more than twelve hundred years ago. Even the best photographic and colour reproductions give but a faint idea of the beauty of the original. Especially worthy of notice is the series of illuminated miniatures, including pictorial representations of the Evangelists and their symbols, the Blessed Virgin and the Divine Child, the temptation of Jesus, and Jesus seized by the Jews. These pictures reach their culminating point in what is, in some respects, the most marvellous example of workmanship that the world has ever produced, namely the full page monogram XPI which occurs in the text of the Gospel of St. Matthew. It is no wonder that it was for a long time believed that the "Book of Kells" could have been written only by angels. JOSEPH DUNN School of Kells School of Kells Kells (in Gaelic Cenannus) was the chief of the Irish Columban monasteries. It was founded most probably in 554, that is nine years before Columba founded Iona, and during the saint's life was eclipsed by the greater fame of the insular monastery. Kells still contains several ancient monuments which tradition closely connects with Columba's residence there. Of these the most interesting is "Columba's House", a tall high-pitched building, of which the ground floor formed an oratory, while the croft between the convex arching of the oratory and the roof of the building was the chamber or sleeping compartment of the saint. There are also two fine crosses dating probably from the ninth century, when Kells held the principatus of all the Columban monasteries both in Erin and Alba -- one stands in the market-place and the other in the churchyard. The latter is a finely sculptured cross, having on the plinth the inscription Patricii et Columbae [ crux], which would seem to imply that it was intended to commemorate the memory of Patrick, who founded the original church of Kells, and Columba, who founded the monastery. There is also a fine round tower, still ninety feet high, built doubtless during the Danish wars to protect the church and monastery. The "Book of Kells", called also the Great Gospel of Columcille, which legend attributed to the pen of Columcille himself, was preserved in Kells down to Usher's time. It was stolen in 1006, when the gold was stripped off its cover, but the book and case were afterwards found in a bog. It was regarded as the "chief relic of the western world", and Professor Westwood of Oxford declared that "it is unquestionably the most elaborately executed manuscript of so early a date now in existence." It is preserved at present in Trinity College, Dublin. Kells and Iona were always closely connected. Shortly after the burning of Iona by the Danes in 802, its abbot fortunately got "a free grant of Kells without a battle" -- for it had originally belonged to Columcille. Thereupon a "new religious city" -- the old one being probably in ruins -- was rebuilt in Kells; and the Abbot Cellach of Iona transferred his residence and insular primacy to Kells, which henceforward became the acknowledged head of the Columban houses. The abbot also carried with him the shrine of Columba, which, however, more than once crossed and re-crossed the sea throughout the ninth century. During this and the two following centuries Kells became a great school of learning and art, and continued to flourish in spite of the frequent ravages of the Danes. The celebrated Cathach, the battle-standard of the O'Donnells, was preserved in the monastery and enshrined there in a beautifully wrought casket. It contained a psaltery said to have been written by the hand of Columba himself. Mac Robartaigh, Comharb of Kells, had its marvellous cover made in his own house. His family belonged to Tirhugh in County Donegal, and gave many abbots and sages and scholars at this period to the school of Kells. The most famous of them all was the renowned Marianus Scotus -- an Irish Muredach Mac Robartaigh -- a celebrated scribe and commentator on Scripture, to be carefully distinguished from his namesake, Marianus Scotus, the chronicler. Leaving his beloved Kells he journeyed all the way to Ratisbon, a pilgrim for Christ, and there founded for his countrymen in the land of the stranger the celebrated Monastery of St. James. He himself unwearyingly copied the Scriptures, and is described by Aventinus in his "Annals of Bavaria" as "a distinguished poet and theologian, second to no man of his time". The poems are lost, but the commentaries survive though still unpublished. They include a commentary on the Psalms, which was considered so valuable that it was not allowed outside the walls of the monastic library without a valuable deposit being left to secure its safe return. There is also extant in the Cotton collection an unpublished codex containing the treatise of Marianus Scotus consisting of "Extracts from the Writings of Various Doctors on the Gospel". His most famous work, however, was a commentary on St. Paul's Epistles, with marginal and interlinear notes. It is still unpublished amongst the treasures of the Imperial Library of Vienna, and is especially valuable because it contains many entries in the pure Middle Gaelic of the eleventh century, written by a man who was at once an accomplished scribe and most excellent Irish scholar. This learned work shows that Marianus was acquainted with the writings of nearly all the Latin Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries. It was completed, he tells us himself, on Friday, the sixteenth day before the Kalends of June, 1079. The devoted scribe and commentator, who is commonly and justly styled the Blessed Marianus Scotus, lived for ten years more, and after his death was universally regarded as a saint. He was, after Adamnan, Abbot of Hy, justly esteemed as the greatest glory of the Columban schools. His namesake, the chronicler, died some six years before him. JOHN HEALY Ven. John Kemble Ven. John Kemble Martyr, b. at Rhydicar Farm, St. Weonard's, Herefordshire, 1599; d. at Widemarsh Common, Hereford, 22 August, 1679; son of John Kemble, formerly of Kemble, Wiltshire, afterwards of Llangarren, and of Urchinfield (now part of the parish of Hardwicke), and Anne, daughter of John Morgan, of The Waen, Skenfrith, Monmouthshire. His uncle, George Kemble, of Pembridge Castle, Welsh Newton, was the father of Captain Richard Kemble, who saved Charles II at the battle of Worcester. Ordained priest at Douai College, 23 February, 1625, he was sent on the mission 4 June, and in his old age lived with his nephew at Pembridge Castle. Arrested there by Captain John Scudamore of Kentchurch, he was lodged in Hereford Gaol in November, 1678, and condemned under 27 Eliz. c. 2 at the end of March following. Ordered to London with Father Charles Baker, he was lodged in Newgate and interviewed by Oates, Bedloe, and Dugdale. Sent back to Hereford, the aged priest spent three more months in gaol. Before leaving for his execution he smoked a pipe and drank a cup of sack with the under-sheriff, this giving rise to the Herefordshire expressions "Kemble pipe", and "Kemble cup", meaning a parting pipe or cup. Sir John Hawkins in a note to "The Compleat Angler" turns Kemble into a Protestant in Mary's reign. One of the martyr's hands is preserved at St. Francis Xavier's, Hereford. His body rests in Welsh Newton churchyard. Bromage, Ven. Fr. John Kemble (London. 1902); Catholic Record Society's Publications (London. privately printed 1905-), II. 295. 297; Gillow, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s.v.; Archbold in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v.; Challoner, Memoirs of the Missionary Priests (Leamington s.d.), II, 411; Walton, Compleat Angler (London, 1808), 394. JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT John Kemp John Kemp Cardinal, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Chancellor of England; b. at Wye, Kent, about 1380; d. at Lambeth, 22 March, 1454. He was the son of Thomas Kemp of Ollantigh, near Ashford, and Beatrice Lewknor, and was educated at Merton College, Oxford. Having become doctor of laws, he practised as an ecclesiastical lawyer with such success that in 1415 he was made dean of the Court of Arches and vicar-general to the Archbishop of Canterburz. King Henry V also utilized his diplomatic talents in several embassies. Appointed Bishop of Rochester by papal provision, 26 June, 1419, he was consecrated in the following December. In 1421 he was translated to Chichester, and eight months later to London, by provision of Martin V. On the death of King Henry V, whom he had served as Chancellor of Normandy, he was made a member of the new council, in which capacity he supported Cardinal Beaufort against Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester. In 1426 he was made first Chancellor and then Archbishop of York. His political differences with Gloucester led to his resigning the chancellorship in 1432, but he continued to be active in public life as a supporter of the peace party, who wished to end the long war with France. In 1433 he was the head of the important but fruitless embassy to the congress of Arras, when a settlement was vainly attempted under the auspices of the papal legates. In 1439 he was created cardinal by Eugene IV, his title being Sancta Balbina. After the deaths of his opponent Gloucester and his friend Beaufort, he set himself to resist the power of the Duke of Suffolk, and in 1450 he was again chancellor. In this capacity he put down the Kentish rebellion, and amid the growing likelihood of civil war remained the mainstay of the king's party against the Yorkists. In 1452 Nicholas V transferred him from York to Canterbury, giving him the pallium on 24 Sept. The same pope made him a cardinal bishop by dividing the See of Porto from that of Santa Rufina and making Kemp bishop of the last-named diocese His last days were agitated by the tumultuous proceedings of the London cltizens, who, supported by the Yorkists, were threatening him with violence, when the end came. He lies buried in Canterbury cathedral. More statesman than bishop, he was accused with reason of neglecting his dioceses, but his private life was distinguished by wisdom, learning and uprightness. HOOK, Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury (London, 1860-1884); WILLIAMS, Lives of the English Cardinals (London, 1868); GAIRDNER, Preface to the Paston Letters (London, 1872); TOUT in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v. EDWIN BURTON Vicariate Apostolic of Kenia Vicariate Apostolic of Kenia Coextensive with the civil province of Kenia (Kenya) in British East Africa, to which the station of Limuru is added. It extends east as far as the Rivers Tana and Seca, west to the Seca, south to the mountains of Aberdare and the River Guaso-Ugiro, while its northern limits are as yet indeterminate. Originally part of the Vicariate Apostolic of Northern Zanzibar, it was first entered by several priests of the Institute Consolata of Turin. In September, 1905, the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda erected it into an independent mission, and in 1909 the mission was in turn created a vicariate Apostolic. Its superior, Father Philippus Perlo, was made titular Bishop of Maronia and the first head of the new vicariate. The climate of Kenia is, for the most part, temperate and healthy. The language of the natives is chiefly Kikuju and Kiswaili. The population is estimated at between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000, almost entirely savage, and given over to various forms of fetichism and nature-worship. Conversions, however, are being gradually effected. The vicariate includes 17 regular priests of the Institute Consolata; 10 European catechists; 80 chapels -- the more important of which are located at Tusu-Kasongori, Fort Hall, Limuru, Kekondi, Niere, Mogoiri, and Karema; schools at the different stations; 1 orphanage; the Order of the Institute Consolata with 8 houses and 27 religious, and the nuns of St. Vincent Cottolengo with 6 houses and 31 sisters. Missiones Catholic' (Rome 1907); PIOLET, Les Missions, V; Gerarchia Cattolica (Rome, 1909); Ann. Eccl. (Rome, 1908). STANLEY J. QUINN James Kennedy James Kennedy Bishop of St. Andrews, Scotland. Born about 1406; died 10 May, 1466. Of the ancient house of Kennedy of Denure, he was a son of Lady Mary, daughter of King Robert III, and was therefore a cousin of James II, then reigning in Scotland. After studying on the Continent, he was appointed Bishop of Dunkeld in 1438, and Abbot of Scone soon afterwards, and in 1440 he succeeded Henry Wardlaw as Bishop of St Andrews. Appointed chancellor in 1444, he showed himself a vigorous reformer of the civil and ecclesiastical abuses rampant in Scotland, and consequently incurred the enmity of many of the nobles. Kennedy soon resigned the chancellorship, finding it incompatible with his ecclesiastical duties, to which he devoted himself with the greatest assiduity. His zeal for learning was shown by his foundation and munificent endowment, in 1450, of St. Salvator's College, St. Andrews, with the sanction and approval of Nicholas V and Pius II. He introduced the Franciscan Observants into St. Andrews, in 1458; and he also built a vessel -- described by his comtemporaries as "a vast ship of great burden" -- for trading purposes, called the St. Salvator, which remained the property of the see till 1472, when it was wrecked. At the death of James II, in 1460, Kennedy was chosen a regent of the kingdom, and exercised the office until his death five years later. The remains of his splendid tomb are still to be seen in the ruined chapel of St. Salvator's. Kennedy was one of the most learned, wise, and pious prelates of the ancient Scottish Church. LYON, History of St. Andrews (Edinburgh, 1843), I, 218-230; Registr. Prior. S. Andreae (Edinburgh, 1841); LANG, St. Andrews (London. 1893); 79-86; LINDSAY OF PITSCOTTIE, Chronicles of Scotland, ed. DALYELL, (Edinburgh, 1814); CRAWFORD, Chancellors of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1864), II, 138, 196, an eloquent panegyric. D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR Kenosis Kenosis A term derived from the discussion as to the real meaning of Phil. 2:6 sqq.: "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But emptied [ ekenosen] himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as man." Protestant opinions The early Reformers, not satisfied with the teaching of Catholic theology on this point, professed to a deeper meaning in St. Paul's words, but Luther and a Melanchton failed in their speculations. John Brenz (d. 10 September, 1570), of Tübingen, maintained that as the Word assumed Christ's human nature, so His human nature not only possessed the Divinity, but also had the power to make use of the Divinity, though it freely abstained from such a use. Chemnitz differed from this view. He denied that Jesus Christ possessed the Divinity in such a way as to have a right to its use. The kenosis, or the exinanition, of His Divine attributes was, therefore, a free act of Christ, according to Brenz; it was the connatural consequence of the Incarnation, according to Chemnitz. Among modern Protestants the following opinons have been the most prevalent: + Thomasius, Delitzcsh, and Kahnis regard the Incarnation as a self-emptying of the Divine manner of existence, as a self-limitation of the Word's omniscience, omnipresence, etc. + Gess, Reuss, and Godet contend that the Incarnation implies a real depotentation of the Word; the Word became, rather than assumed, the human soul of Christ. + Ebrard holds that the Divine properties in Christ appeared under the Kantian time-form appropriate to man; his kenosis consists in an exchange of the eternal for a time-form of existence. + Martensen and perhaps Hutton distingusih a double life of the Word: In the Man-Christ they see a kenosis and a real depotentiation of the Word; in the world the purely Divine Word carries the work of mediator and revealer. According to Godet, and probably also Gore, the Word in His kenosis strips Himself even of His immutable holiness, His infinite love, and His personal consciousness, so as to enter into a human development similar to ours. Catholic teaching According to Catholic theology, the abasement of the Word consists in the assumption of humanity and the simultaneous occultation of the Divinity. Christ's abasement is seen first in His subjecting Himself to the laws of human birth and growth and to the lowliness of fallen human nature. His likeness, in His abasement, to the fallen nature does not compromise the actual loss of justice and sanctity, but only the pains and penalties attached to the loss. These fall partly on the body, partly on the soul, and consist in liability to suffering from internal and external causes. As to the body, Christ's dignity excludes some bodily pains and states. God's all-preserving power inhabiting the body of Jesus did not allow any corruption; it also prevented disease or the beginning of corruption. Christ's holiness was not compatible with decomposition after death, which is the image of the destroying power of sin. In fact, Christ had the right to be free from all bodily pain, and His human will had the power to remove or suspend the action of the causes of pain. But He freely subjected Himself to most of the pains resulting from bodily exertion and adverse external influences, e.g. fatigue, hunger, wounds, etc. As these pains had their sufficient reason in the nature of Christ's body, they were natural to Him. Christ retained in Him also the weaknesses of the soul, the passions of His rational and sensitive appetites, but with the following restrictions: (a) Inordinate and sinful motions are incompatible with Christ's holiness. Only morally blameless passions and affections, e.g. fear, sadness, the share of the soul in the sufferings of the body, were compatible with His Divinity and His spiritual perfection. (b) The origin, intensity, and duration of even these emotions were subject to Christ's free choice. Besides, He could prevent their disturbing the actions of His soul and His peace of mind. To complete His abasement, Christ was subject to His Mother and St. Joseph, to the laws of the State and the positive laws of God; He shared the hardships and privations of the poor and the lowly. (See COMMUNICATO IDIOMATUM.) Lombard, lib. III, dist. XV-XVI, and Bonav., Scot., Biel on these chapters; St. Thomas, III, Q XIV-XV, and Salm., Suar., IV, xi-xii; Scheeben, Dogmatick, III, 266-74; Bruce, Humiliations of Christ, 113 sqq.; Gobe, Bampton Lectures (1891), 147; Hanna in The New York Review, I, 303 sqq.; the commentators on Phil., ii, 6, sqq. A.J. MAAS Kenraghty Kenraghty (KIMRACHA, KINRECHTIN, or MAKENRACHTUS; in Irish MACIONNRACHTAIGH, anglicized HANRATTY and ENRIGHT). Irish priest, d. 30 April, 1585, at Clonmel, Co. Tipperary. He was the son of a silversmith at Kilmallock, embraced the ecclesiastical state, studied abroad, and graduated bachelor in theology. Returning to Ireland, he became chaplain to Gerald, sixteenth Earl of Desmond, and shared the fortunes of his patron's struggle against Queen Elizabeth. In September, 1583, a fugitive with the earl, he was surprised on Sliabh Luachra by Lord Roche's gallowglasses, and handed over to the Earl of Ormond. By Ormond's command he was chained to one Patrick Grant, and sent to prison at Clonmel. Here he lay in irons, exhorting, instructing, and hearing confessions at his prison grate until April, 1585. His jailer was then bribed by Victor White, a leading townsman, to release the priest for one night to say Mass and administer the Paschal Communion in White's house on Passion Sunday. The jailer secretly warned the President of Munster to take this opportunity of apprehending most of the neighbouring recusants at Mass. In the morning an armed force surrounded the house, arrested White and others seized the sacred vessels, and sought the priest everywhere. He had been hidden under straw at the first alarm, and, though wounded when the heap was probed, ultimately escaped to the woods. Learning, however, that White's life could not be saved but by his own surrender, he gave himself up, and was at once tried by martial law. Pardon and preferment were offered him for conforming, but he resolutely maintained the Catholic Faith and the pope's authorlty, and was executed as a traitor. His head was set up in the market-place, and his body, purchased from the soldiers, was buried behind the high altar of the Franciscan convent. He is one of the Irish martyrs whose cause of canonization is now in progress. O'REILLY, Memorials of those who suffered for the Catholic Faith in Ireland (London, 1868); MURPHY, Our Martyrs (Dublin, 1896); Calendar of State papers, Ireland, 1574-1585 (London, 1867); O'SULLEVAN BEARR, Patriciana Deccas (Madrid, 1629); Holding in Spicilegium Ossoriense, Ist ser. (Dublin, 1874). CHARLES MCNEILL Francis and Peter Kenrick Francis Patrick and Peter Richard Kenrick Archbishops respectively of Baltimore, Maryland, and of St. Louis, Missouri. They were sons of Thomas Kenrick and his wife Jane, and were born in the older part of the city of Dublin, Ireland, the first-named on 3 December, 1797, and the second on 17 August, 1806. An uncle, Father Richard Kenrick was for several years parish priest of St. Nicholas of Myra in the same city, and he cultivated carefully the quality of piety which he observed at an early age in both children. I. FRANCIS PATRICK KENRICK Francis Patrick was sent by his uncle to a good classical school, and at the age of eighteen was selected as one of those who were to go to Rome to study for the priesthood. Here he became deeply impressed with the gentle bearing of Pius VII, who had just then been restored to his capital after long imprisonment by Napoleon Bonaparte, and the lesson it taught him bore fruit many years afterwards when he was called on to deal with the onslaughts on Catholics and their Church in the United States in the years of the Nativist and Know-nothing uprisings. His progress in his clerical studies was rapid, his sanctity conspicuous -- so much so as to mark him out for early distinction. He confined himself to the study of his class-books, lectures, and the study of the Scriptures, and worked out in his own mind not a few weighty problems. He soon acquired a familiarity with the patristic writings and the Sacred Text that enabled him later on to give the Church in the United States valuable treatises on theological and Biblical literature. He consulted no translations, but took the Hebrew text or the Greek, and pondered on its significance in the light of his own reason and erudition. The rector of Propaganda College Cardinal Litta, had no hesitation in selecting him despite his youth, when a call came from Bishop Flaget for priests for the American field. He was chosen for the chair of theology at Bardstown Seminary, Kentucky. This post he held for nine years at the same time teaching Greek and history in the College of St. Joseph in the same state, and giving in addition professorial help in every educational institution in the state. He also did much valuable work in the missionary field, and engaged in controversy in the public press with some aggressive polemists of the Episcopal and Presbyterian communions. He made many converts at that time, and in 1826-7 had fifty to his credit, as well as a record of twelve hundred confirmations and six thousand communicants. His fame as a preacher was widespread, and his manner most winning. In 1829 he attended the Provincial Council of Baltimore as theologian to Bishop Flaget, and was appointed secretary to the assembly. There, among the other weighty subjects, had to be considered the distracted state of the Diocese of Philadelphia, then labouring under the troubles begotten of the Hogan schism. Hogan was an excommunicated priest, who persisted in celebrating Mass and administering the sacraments despite the interdict, and had a considerable following in the city. Bishop Conwell had by this time become enfeebled and nearly blind, and Rev. William Matthews of Washington had been appointed vicar-general to assist him. Before the council rose it had named Father Kenrick as coadjutor bishop and forwarded the nomination to the Holy See. It was soon confirmed, Doctor Kenrick's title being Bishop of Arath in partibus. He was consecrated in Bardstown by Bishop Flaget, assisted by Bishops England, Conwell, David, and Fenwick, on 6 June 1830, being then only thirty-four years old. A quarrel with the trustees of St. Mary's broke out immediately on his arrival, resulting in an interdict being placed upon the church by the new bishop. This brought the trustees to their senses, and they gave up the contest for the control of the funds -- the power by means of which they had been to browbeat the preceding ordinaries. Bishop Kenrick soon obtained the passage of a law to prevent the recurrence of such conflicts, by having the bishop's name substituted for those of the trustees in all bequests for the Church. His first thought, after this trouble was over, was the erection of a seminary for the training of young men for the priesthood, the humble quarters in which he began the experiment eventually being succeeded by the present seminary of St. Charles Borromeo at Overbrook. A terrible outbreak of cholera took place in Philadelphia soon after the bishop's arrival, and he gained the gratitude of the authorities and the people at large for his exertions in the mitigation of the pest. He sent the Sisters of Charity to attend the stricken, and gave the parochial residence of St. Augustine's as a temporary hospital; the local priests, at the same time, went about fearlessly among the stricken, ministering to their spiritual comforts. For these services he was voted public thanks by the mayor and councils of the city. To the Sisters of Charity was tendered a service of plate by the grateful authorities, but this offer was promptly and politely declined by those ladies. Soon after this episode Bishop Kenrick set about the utilization of the press for the spread of Catholic doctrine. He started the "Catholic Herald" placing the paper under the direction of the Reverend John Hughes, afterwards Archbishop of New York. He also began the erection of the Cathedral of St. John the Evangelist to replace St. Mary's, which had been so fruitful a source of trouble to him and his predecessor. Graver trouble soon started up in the form of the anti-Catholic Nativist outbreak of 1844. Furious mobs, maddened by inflammatory harangues about the Bible and the public schools, started out in Philadelphia, as in Boston and other cities, to attack churches and convents. They burned St. Augustine's in Philadelphia and and attacked St. Michael's and St. John's, but were driven off by the military. They burned many houses in Kensington, the Catholic district, and killed many unoffending people, but were dispersed at Iength by the soldiery, leaving several of their number dead. Bishop Kenrick, during this reign of terror, did everything he could to stem the rioting. He ordered the doors of all the churches to be closed and cessation of Divine worship as a protest against the supineness of the authorities, the clergy went about in ordinary civil attire, and the sacred vessels and vestments were taken from the churches to places of security with private families. These prudent measures had the effect of restoring a state of peace to the city. The Diocese of Philadelphia had earlier included Pittsburg in a large part of New Jersey, and in 1843 it was divided, the Rev. Michael O'Connor being consecrated Bishop of Pittsburg in August of that year by Cardinal Fransoni at St. Agatha's in Rome. This step proved a great relief to Bishop Kenrick, upon whom the care of his vast diocese and its arduous visitations at a period of primitive crudeness in travelling and accommodation, were beginning to leave a deep mark. In 1845 he visited Rome for the first time since his consecration and was received most graciously by the pope. In August, 1851, Bishop Kenrick was transferred to Baltimore as successor to Archbishop Eccleston, who had just died. Moreover he received from the Holy See the dignity of Apostolic delegate, and in this capacity he convened and presided over the First Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1852. One of the results of that important gathering was the establishment of branches of the Society for the Propagation of the Faith. It was Archbishop Kenrick also who in 1853 introduced the Forty Hours' devotion into the United States. In 1854 he was called upon by the Holy Father to collect and forward to him the respective opinions of the American bishops on the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The latter part of the same year found him back in Rome as a participant in the ceremonies attendant on the proclamation of that dogma. A fresh outbreak of anti-Catholic fury took place soon after the archbishop's return, occasioned by the arrival of Monsignor Bedini as papal nuncio, and the inflammatory and Iying speeches of the ex-priest Alessandro Gavazzi, on the nuncio's action while in Bologna during the rising against Austria. Many churches and convents were burned as in the previous outbreak, and many lives were lost in New England and Kentucky, in Cincinnati and other cities. But no religious disturbances occurred in Maryland to perturb the archhishop's closing years. The Civil War, however, soon came to rend his heart, and he died on the morning after the battle of Gettysburg (8 July, 1863), his end being hastened, it was believed, by rumours of the terrible slaughter that went on not far from his residence. When Bishop Kenrick went to Philadelphia in 1830 there were only four churches in the city and one in the suburbs, and ten priests, when he left at in 1857, the diocese contained 94 churches and many religious institutions, and was the home of 101 priests and 46 seminarians, besides numerous religious orders. The chief literary works of Archbishop Kenrick were a new translation of the Bible, with a commentary; a "Moral and Dogmatic Theology"; a "Commentary on the Book of Job", "The Primacy of Peter", and letters to the Protestant bishops of the United States on Christian unity. I. PETER RICHARD KENRICK Peter Richard had to work closely in the scriveners office of his father after the latter's death in order to help to maintain his mother and himself, as well as carry on the business, but was enabled by his own industry and his uncle's help to enter Maynooth College at the age of twenty-one. Previous to his entry he had been tolerably well trained in Latin and other essentials by Father Richard, while his taste for secular literature had been acquired through associations with the unfortunate poet and littérateur, James Clarance Mangan, who had for several years worked beside him as a clerk at the scrivener's desk. After five years' assiduous study he was ordained to the priesthood by Archbishop Murray of Dublin, and, on the death of his mother, after a few months of local missionary work, left for the United States on the invitation of his brother and took up work with him in Philadelphia. He was given the post of president of the seminary as well as that of rector of the cathedral and vicar-general of the diocese. This was in the latter part of 1833. During his seven years of missionary work with his brother he produced several works which built up his fame as a theologian, as "Validity of Anglican Ordinations examined" (Philadelphia, 1841), "New Month of Mary", and "History of the Holy House of Loretto" in 1840 he left for Rome, with the idea of entering the Jesuit Order, but was dissuaded from carrying out his intention by the superior in Rome. Bishop Rosati met the young priest there, and requested the Holy See to give him to the See of St. Louis as his coadjutor, so pleased was he with his character and qualities. The Holy See assented, and both returned from Rome to have the ceremony of consecration performed in the United States. This was done in Philadelphia, Bishop Rosati officiating and the new prelate's brother and Bishop Lefevre of Detroit assisting, while Bishop England delivered the consecration. The new bishop was given the title of Drasa, and had the right of succession in St. Louis. Bishop Rosati died a short time afterwards on a special mission in Haiti, and the care of the diocese devolved upon his young coadjutor at a much earlier period than either could have anticipated. It was no sinecure, for the financial affairs of the Church in St. Louis were in a deplorable condition. There was a very heavy debt on the cathedral, and he found the Catholics of the diocese by no means anxious to remove it. The bishop then saw that he must either resign or get other means of raising funds, and he took the bold course of getting into the real-estate business. He was most successful. A local gentleman named Thornton made a bequest of 300,000 dollars to the Church, others deposited their money with the bishop; he made fortunate investments in real estate; and, when values generally declined on the outbreak of the Civil War, he paid all his depositors in gold. The St. Louis diocese was enormous in extent at that time, as it embraced the whole of the States of Missouri and Arkansas, and half of Illinois, the task of visitation was one of immense toil, but the new bishop did not shrink from it. He had for helper and companion Rev. Thomas Cusack, with whom he had often to ride hundreds of miles on horseback, and sleep at night time in a log cabin or boarded hut. The paucity of churches in the diocese he also found a great drawback, the lack of clergy was another. He soon obtained much help from the Lazarists and Jesuits, as well as from the German population. The Visitation nuns and Sisters of St. Joseph, as well as the Sisters of Charity driven out by fire and flood from other places, came to St. Louis, and soon matters began to look brighter for the bishop. By a brief from Pope Pius IX, the dignity of archhishop was bestowed upon him; and at the Seventh Provincial Council of Baltimore a petition to have five suffragan bishops appointed -- namely for St. Paul, Dubuque, Nashville, Chicago, and Milwaukee -- was adopted, and was granted by the Holy See. After consecrating many bishops and ordaining many priests, the archbishop went to Baltimore to attend the First Plenary Council, and made a profound impression on the assembly by his logical keenness and his great erudition. The Civil War found him a resolute defender of the Church's position, when the "Drake Constitution" which proposed a test oath for all ministers of religion, was passed in Missouri. He sent out an order that all his clergy must refuse to take the oath, as its terms were insulting. Some of the clergy were sent to prison for doing so, but the archbishop took their cases from court to court and ultimately succeeded in having the Drake Law declared unconstitutional. At the Vatican Council of December, 1869, he was one of the prelates who were opposed to the definition of the dogma of Papal Infallibility, and voted "non placet" at the preliminary private sitting. He did not attend the session at which the dogma was promulgated, but publicly submitted to the voice of the majority as the authority of the Church, when he learned of the proclamation. For coadjutor bishops he had firstly the Right Reverend P.J. Ryan, and secondly the Right Reverend John J. Kain, who on his death succeeded him. The archbishop's golden jubilee was celebrated with great distinction in 1891, but he was then in very feeble health. He died on 3 March two years afterwards. His best known work, besides "Anglican Ordinations," is the "Month of Mary" (Philadelphia, 1843). The growth of the St. Louis province under his rule was described by Archbishop Hennessy at the jubilee celebration in 1891 as "stupendous". During his episcopate sixteen new Sees were carved out of the original Diocese of St. Louis, viz. Little Rock (1843), Santa Fe and St. Paul (1850); Leavenworth (1851); Alton and Omaha (1857); Green Bay, La Crosse, St. Joseph, and Denver (1868); Kansas City (1880) Davenport (1881) Wichita, Cheyenne, Concordia, and Lincoln (1887). Kenrick, MS. Diary and Itinerary in Philadelphia Archives and Correspondence in Archives of Baltimore and St. Louis; CLARKE, Lives of Deceased Prelates (New York, 1872); SHEA, Catholic Church in the United States (New York, 1892); O'CONNER, Archbishop Kenrick and His Work (Philadelphia, 1867); SPALDLING, Sketches (Baltimore, 1800); WEBB, Centenary of Catholicism in Kentucky (Louisville, 1884); WALSH, Jubilee Memoir (St. Louis, 1891); VALETTE, Catholicity in Eastern Pennsylvania in Catholic Record (Philadelphia, 1800). JOHN J. O'SHEA Saint Kentigern St. Kentigern (Or Mungo) Bishop, founder of the See of Glasgow, b. about 518; d. at Glasgow, 13 January, 603. His mother Thenaw was daughter of a British prince, Lothus (from whom the province of Lothian was called); his father's name is unknown. According to Jocelyn's life of Kentigern, the saint was born at Culross in Fife, and brought up until manhood by St. Serf (or Servanus) at his monastery there; but Skene shows that this connection between the two saints involves an anachronism, as St. Serf really belongs to the following century. At the age of twenty-five we find Kentigern (the name means "head chief", but he was popularly known as Mungo -- in Cymric, Mwyn-gu, or "dear one"), beginning his missionary labours at Cathures, on the Clyde, the site of modern Glasgow. The Christian King of Strathclyde, Roderick Hael, welcomed the saint, and procured his consecration as bishop, which took place about 540. For some thirteen years he laboured in the district, living a most austere life in a cell at the confluence of the Clyde and the Molendinar, and making many converts by his holy example and his preaching. A large community grew up around him, became known as "Clasgu" (meaning the "dear family") and ultimately grew into the town and city of Glasgow. About 553 a strong anti-Christian movement in Strathclyde compelled Kentigern to leave the district, and he retired to Wales, staying for a time with St. David at Menevia, and afterwards founding a large monastery at Llanelwy, now St. Asaph's, of which he appointed the holy monk Asaph superior in succession to himself. In 573 the battle of Arthuret secured the triumph of the Christian cause in Cumbria, and Kentigern, at the earnest appeal of King Roderick, returned thither, accompanied by many of his Welsh disciples. For eight years he fixed his see at Hoddam in Dumfriesshire, evangelizing thence the districts of Galloway and Cumberland. About 581 he finally returned to Glasgow, and here, a year or two later, he was visited by St. Columba, who was at that time labouring in Strathtay. The two saints embraced, held long converse, and exchanged their pastoral staves. Kentigern was buried on the spot where now stands the beautiful cathedral dedicated in his honour. His remains are said still to rest in the crypt. His festival is kept throughout Scotland on 13 January. The Bollandists have printed a special mass for this feast, dating from the thirteenth century. JOCELYN OF FURNESS, Life of Kentigern, c. 1185, printed, with English translation, in PINKERTON, Lives of the Scottish Saints (Paisley, 1889-95), is the only ancient authority, except a fragment of c. 1164; see FORBES, St. Ninian and St. Kentigern in Historians of Scotland, V (Edinburgh, 1874); see also STACK, Life of St. Mungo (Glasgow); FORBES, Kalendars of Scottish Saints (Edinburgh, 1872), 373-82; EDMONDS, The Early Scottish Church (Edinburgh, 1906), lx; BELLESHEIM, Hist. of Cath. Ch. of Scotl., I (Edinburgh, 1887), 149-157; Acta SS. (Brussels, 1863), II, 97-103. D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR Kentucky Kentucky A state situated between the parallels of latitude 36° 30 and 39°6' N., and between the meridians 82° and 89°38' W. The name is Indian -- Kantuckee -- and is said by some to signify "prairie or meadow land" in allusion to the large treeless area found in the south central part of the state at the time of the advent of the white man; by others it is said to mean "Dark and bloody ground", the region having been a common battle-ground for the various Indian tribes in the adjoining territory. The latter is the more popular interpretation, but there does not seem to be any more satisfactory authority for the one than for the other. The state is bounded on the north and northwest by the Ohio River, separating it from Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, the low water mark on the northern shore being the state line; on the east by Virginia and the Big Sandy River, which separates it from West Virginia; on the South by Tennessee and Virginia; on the west by the Mississippi River, which separates from Missouri. Its total area is 40,598 Square miles, of which 417 square miles are water. Its greatest length from east to west is about 400 miles, and its greatest width from north to south is about 180 miles. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS The southeastern section of the state is mountainous, the general elevation ranging from 1000 to 1500 feet, with some crests near the southeastern border, in the Cumberland and Pine Mountains, rising to a height of 3000 feet. North and west of this section is the famous Blue-Grass Region, gently undulating in formation with an elevation of about 800-900 feet. On the south and west of the Blue Grass country is a limestone plateau sloping from an elevation of about 1200 feet in the east to about 400 feet in the west. Portions of this plateau are marked by cone-shaped hills rising to as height of about 1000 or 1200 feet, and in another portion frequent sinks, or depressions, are found through which the surface water finds is way into underground passages. Many cafes or caverns exist in this region, the most notable being the Mammoth Cave, the largest natural cavern in the world. Western Kentucky, particularly west of the Tennessee River, is low and sandy. The mean annual temperature is about 55° Fahrenheit. Extremes of cold and heat are infrequent and of short duration. The mean rainfall is 46 inches, with a somewhat greater precipitation along the southern border. The Blue-Grass Region, an area of about 10,000 square miles, has a blue limestone sub-structure, the disintegration of which renders the soil very fertile. The bottoms, along the rivers, on account of the alluvial deposit, are likewise very productive. The mountainous southeastern portion of the state is generally unfit for agriculture, and the extreme western portion, where the soil is formed from weathered sandstone, is must less fertile and productive than the limestone territory, though the area incapable of cultivation is less than one-sixth of the whole. POPULATION AND WEALTH The population of the state, according to the Federal Census for 1880, was 1,648,690; for 1890 it was 1,858,635; and 2,147,174 for 1900. In 1909 it was estimated (Federal Census Department) at 2,406,859. In 1900 there were 50,249 persons of foreign birth and 284,706 negroes. Ten other states have a larger negro population, and the increase in this race is materially less than among the whites. There are no Indians, and the number of Chinese and Japanese is probably less that 100 in the entire state. The largest cities with their respective populations are as follows: Louisville (1900) 204,731 (Federal estimate for 1909: 236,688); Covington (1900) 42,938 (Federal estimate for 1909: 51,715); Newport (1900), 28,301 (Federal estimate for 1909: 31,345; Lexington (1900), 26,369 (Federal estimate for 1909: 30,690). MATERIAL RESOURCES The total assessed valuation of property in 1908 was $750,393,881 of which $559,176,016 was real estate and $191,226,865 was personalty. The new revenue of the State for that year was $3,601,969.40. In 1909 there were 148 national banks in Kentucky, with an aggregate capital stock of $17,078,500, an aggregate surplus of $6,283,739.56, and individual deposits amounting to $53,487,487.16. The total resources of the nationasl banks of Kentucky aggregate $114,158,595.84. There are 406 state banks and trust companies with an aggregate capital of $19,642,770, an aggregate surplus of $5,304,746, and deposits aggregating $66,947,965.84. Mining The chief mineral products of Kentucky are coal (the most important of all), petroleum, natural gas, fluorspar, clay products, and limestone. The total mineral output for 1907 amounted in value to $19,294,341. Agriculture Of the total area of Kentucky in 1900, farm lands occupied 85.9 per cent, and of this 62.5 per cent was improved. The average size of the farms has steadily decreased. In 1909 the average was 93.7 acres, which is less than half what it was fifty years previous. More than 67 per cent of the farms are operated by owners of the land. Indian corn (maize) is the principal crop, exceeding in average and value that of all the other leading crops combined. In 1908 the total area planted in Indian corn was 3,336,000 acres; in wheat, 758,000 acres; in oats, 173,000 acres; in hay, 500,000 acres; in tobacco, 240,000 acres. The total value of all principal crops in 1908 was $92,566,600. Kentucky produces nearly all the hemp grown in the United States; but the demand for this product has so far decreased that in 1900 only 14,107 acres were planted in the state. More tobacco is grown in Kentucky than in any other state in the Union, the product being twice as much as that of North Carolina, which is next in rank. The Kentucky crop, usually equals one-third of the total production of the United States. Grazing On account of the climate, the large production of grain, and the excellence of the pasturage, stock-raising is very extensively carried on. The total value of live stock in 1909 was $95,100,000 horses, $37,905,000; mules, $21,942,000; horned cattle, $25,312,000; other live stock, $9,941,000. The Blue-Grass Region is the home of the Kentucky thoroughbred, the best known and most highly valued horse in America. No other part of the country devotes so much attention to the raising of horses of fine breed, and nowhere else in America are so many farms devoted exclusively to this business. The centre of the industry is in Fayette County, though many valuable breeding farms are in the adjoining counties. Manufactures Kentucky is an agricultural state. Its manufactures depend largely upon the products of its farms. Corn- and grist-mills are its principal manufacturing enterprises. Other enterprises closely allied with the products of the soil are the manufacture of tobacco, distilled and malt liquors, lumber and timber products. A comparison of industrial conditions in 1900 and in 1905 shows an increase in the latter year of 75.4 per cent in capital invested, 26.5 in wages paid, and 20.6 in value of output. Although Kentucky is the leading tobacco-growing state in the country, there has been a decrease in the manufacture of this product in the state, so that Kentucky, formerly the second state in the Union in the value of its output of manufactured chewing and smoking tobacco and snuff, is now third, with a total output of $13,117,000 for the year 1905. Transportation The Ohio River affords a means of transportation along the full length of the state's northern boundary, and the Mississippi River on the west. The Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers are navigable for steamboats across the entire width of the state, and the Kentucky and Green Rivers are navigable for more that one hundred miles of their course. In 1900 there were 3093 miles of railroad, and 3574 miles in 1908. The total valuation of railroad property for purposes of taxation in 1908 was $63,753,699; and gross receipts for the same year were $40,464,504, and the net earnings $11,641,956. EDUCATION The Kentucky State University, a public institution owned by the state, is located at Lexington in Fayette County. Each county is entitled annually to send one student to the university for each 3000 white pupils in its public schools, and one for each fraction of 3000 over 1500, based on the last official census preceding the appointment. Each county is entitled to at least one appointment. Students, except those entered solely in the Departments of law and medicine, are entitled to free tuition, room rent, fuel, light, and all other advantages of the university. This institution was formerly the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Kentucky, and was established in 1865. By an Act of the Legislature, in 1908, the name was changed and it became the State University. The total number of students in all departments in 1909 was 772, and there were 61 professors and assistants. There are two normal schools for the training of white teachers, one at Richmond, in Madison County, and the other at Bowling Green, in Warren County. There is also a normal school for coloured students at Frankfort (the state capital), in Franklin County. All of these institutions are maintained by public taxation. Each county in the state, excluding cities and towns having separate school systems, and graded school districts whose tax levy is not less that 20 cents, constitutes a school district. Each district is divided into educational divisions. There may be four, six, or eight of these divisions, as deemed expedient. Educational divisions are required to contain as nearly as possible an equal number of pupils. Each of these educational divisions is in turn divided into school districts, and each school district elects one trustee. The trustees from the school districts constitute a division board, and organize as such for the purpose of caring for the schools in their respective educational divisions. The chairmen of the division boards constitute the county board of education, and this county board has general supervision over all educational matters in the county; is authorized to establish, and when established has charge of the county high schools; estimates the needs and requirements of the schools and certifies to the county governing body the amount of money necessary to be raised for school purposes in the county. The county is required to levy a tax on the general school district not exceeding 20 cents on every $100 of the assessed value of property in the district, to meet the requirements of the County Board of Education. All cities of the first, second, third and fourth classes -- i.e. all cities having a population in excess of 3000 -- maintain separate school systems in accordance with the provisions of their respective charters. The state at large levies a general tax over the entire state, and this fund is used in the payment of salaries of teachers. The local sub-divisions provide school buildings and pay all other expenses incidental to the maintenance of the schools. The total number of children of school age, according to the last school census was 739,352. The actual number enrolled in the public schools was 441,377, and the average daily attendance 293,691. The total number of teachers was about 9000. In 1908, there were 24,610 Catholic children attending the Catholic schools of the state. There was expended in the last fiscal year by the state and local taxing districts for public school purposes, exclusive of expenditures for the State University, normal schools, schools for the blind, deaf and dumb, etc., $3,891,936.65. CHARITIES AND CORRECTION There are three asylums for the insane: one situated at Lexington in Fayette County, another at Lakeland in Jefferson County, and third at Hopkinsville in Christian County. All of these institutions have competent superintendents and physicians in charge. Inmates who are without means are maintained by the state. There is an institution for feeble-minded children at Frankfort, where children between the age of six and eighteen years whose condition of mind is such that they can be taught to read or write, and can be educated to do work, are received, and if unable to pay are maintained by the state. At Danville, in Boyle County, the Kentucky School for the Deaf is established, and near Louisville, in Jefferson County, there is an institution for the education of the blind. Indigent and afflicted children are received at these institutions and educated at the expense of the state. The Kentucky Confederate Home, for the benefit of Kentucky's indigent and infirm veterans of the Confederacy, is in Jefferson County, and is maintained by the state. The legislature makes annual appropriations for the support of the Kentucky Children's home society, a private corporation devoted to the care of homeless and destitute children, and it has also made an appropriation for the assistance of a sanitarium at Louisville for the treatment of persons afflicted with tuberculosis. There are two state prisons: one at Frankfort, and the other Eddyville in Lyon County. The management is by a board of commissioners of three members elected by the Legislature, and the convicts are worked under the contract system. The prison commissioners have the power to parole prisoners, except in cases of rape or incest, or where the prisoner has previously served a term of imprisonment or broken his parole. Prisoners convicted of murder cannot be paroled until they have served at least five years. The governor has the power of granting reprieves or pardons in all cases except treason, in which case the General Assembly alone has the power of granting the pardon. Houses of reform for boys and girls are established in Fayette County. Juvenile offenders under twenty-one years of age are committed to these institutions. The courts are authorized to fix an indeterminate sentence for such offenders, so as to keep them confined until they have attained the age of twenty-one. The management of these institutions is vested in the prison commissioners, who have power to parole and discharge such inmates whenever their conduct is such as to warrant the belief that they will in future conduct themselves properly. GENERAL HISTORY Kentucky was originally a part of Fincastle County, Virginia. It became a separate county in 1776. Dating as far back as 1543, when De Soto's survivor's descended the Mississippi River as far as Kentucky, there are records of numerous expeditions into the state. In 1654 Colonel Wood, an Englishman, is said to have explored as far as what is now the western boundary of the state, and in 1673 the renowned Jesuit missionary, Father Jacques Marquette, descended the Mississippi as far as the Ohio. From Marquette we have the first authentic account of the Indian tribes inhabiting what is now the western portion of the state. In 1730 John Salling, while exploring the Roanoke River, was captured by the Indians and carried through Kentucky to the Tennessee River. He was afterwards captured by the Illinois tribe and taken to Kaskaskia, where he was ransomed. A Frenchman named Longueil descended the Ohio in 1739, and discovered Big Bone Lick in what is now Boone County, and in 1747 Dr. Thomas Walker of Virginia crossed the Cumberland Mountains and discovered the Cumberland and Kentucky Rivers. The most extensive explorations, and the most important as bearing upon the actual settlement of Kentucky, were made about the year 1769 by Daniel Boone, John Findlay, and four others from North Carolina. Part of this expedition returned after a short time, but Boone remained in Kentucky for two years and then returned to North Carolina, intending a lead a party into Kentucky for permanent settlement. In 1774 John Harrod conducted a party of forty perons into the territory and settled at Harrodsburg. The year following, Daniel Boone brought his party and erected a fort and established a settlement at Boonesboro. These were the first settlements in Kentucky. There were no resident Indian tribes in the central and eastern portion of the territory at this time, but numerous bands of savages traversed it, and the first settlers were constantly harassed, the fort at Boonesboro being attacked three times in 1777 and 1778. In 1775 Richard Henderson purchased from the Cherokee Indians many thousands square miles of land in Kentucky and attempted to organize a separate state under the name of Transylvania. He proceeded to the extent of sending a delegate to Congress, but his representative was not recognized, and Virginia declared his purchase from the Indians invalid. In 1778 about twenty families accompanied General George Rogers Clark upon his expedition against the British posts in Illinois. They landed on a large island just above the Falls of the Ohiio River, directly opposite the present site of Louisville, and immediately erected blockhouses and established a settlement. The following year a portion of these settlers moved to the main shore and erected a fort at a point which is now the foot of Twelfth Street. On 17 April 1779, a public meeting was held and the town was definitely established by the election of trustees. There is no record indicating the religious belief of any of these early settlers, but from some of the names appearing in the records of the town prior to 1800, it is fair to assume that there were a number of Irish Catholics. In 1780 Virginia, in order to afford a better government, divided Kentucky into three counties, but the settlers, who had by this time become quite numerous, believed that their interest would be better served by separation from the parent state. Eight separate conventions were held before a satisfactory agreement of separation was arrived at, and it was not until July, 1790, that the territory was formally separated. By an Act of 1 February, 1791, Congress authorized the admission of Kentucky into the Union, the Act to become effective 1 June 1792. In April, 1792, the first Constitutional Convention assembled at Danville in what is now Boyle County, and adopted a constitution. The first Legislature met at Lexington in June, 1792, elected Isaac Shelby governor, and decided upon Frankfort as the capital of the state. In 1799 a second Constitution was adopted, which made the governor and other state officers elective by the people. The second Constitution remained in force from 1800 to 1850, at which time a new Constitution was adopted which remained in force until 1891, when the present Constitution became effective, upon its ratification by the people. One of the most interesting incidents in the history of Kentucky was what is known as the Old-Court and New-Court controversy. In the early days of Kentucky coin had been very scarce, and commerce among the people had been carried on generally by the bartering of merchandise. In 1802, under the pretext of forming a company for insuring cargoes on the western waters, the Kentucky Insurance company obtained a charter from the Legislature in which there was fraudulently inserted a clause giving it the right to issue paper money. Thus commenced a period of wild-cat money. Between 1806 and 1820 more that forty banks were chartered with similar power and with an aggregate capital of $9,920,000. These banks were generally conducted n a very loose and unbusinesslike manner. The state was flooded with paper money, and a period of wild speculation followed, resulting in the inevitable panic. To afford relief, the Legislature, between the years 1822 and 1826, passed various laws, but the Court of Appeals held them unconstitutional. In 1824 the Legislature, exasperated by the action of the Court of Apeals, attempted to legislate the court out of office and to establish a new court. One of the bitterest fights in the history of the state followed. The old court declined to recognize the right of the Legislature to oust it from office, and refuse to recognize as constitutional the court established by the Legislature. In 1826 the issue of the old court and the new court brought about an election, characterized by the most intense excitement, which resulted in the triumph of the Old-Court party, and the election of a Legislature which repealed the Acts attempting to establish the new court. Kentucky has taken a very active part in the military affairs of the nation. In the war of 1812 about 7000 troops -- a number far in excess of Kentucky's pro rata -- served in the Federal army. A portion of these soldiers served in the North under Harrison, and the balance in the South under Jackson. At the battle of New Orleans fully one-fourth of Jackson's army was made up of Kentuckians. In the Mexican War Kentucky's quota should have been 2400 men, but she sent more than 10,000. And in the Civil War, when the people of the state were divided in their sympathies, about 80,000 men enlisted in the Federal army and about 40,000 in the confederate army. The Know-nothing lodges made their appearance in Kentucky in 1854, and spread with the utmost rapidity; so much so that in 1855 the American, or Know-nothing Party elected its candidates for governor and the other state offices. Intense bitterness towards Catholics was manifested all over the state at this election, but in the city of Louisville fanatical frenzy reached its climax. A mob dominated the city of election day (Bloody Monday), Catholics were assaulted, their property plundered, and their houses destroyed. Twenty-two persons killed, many wounded, and more than twenty houses of Catholics destroyed, was the sum of the outrages of this day of horrors. The city government was under the control of the Know-nothings and no serious effort was made to protect life or property. Insult and violence were the lot of the Catholic people on all sides. Fortunately, the good sense of the people rebelled against the domination of this party of violence; its candidates were defeated in the general election of the following year, and with a few years the last vestige of the party disappeared. (See also LOUISVILLE, DIOCESE OF.) RELIGION Growth of the Church in Kentucky The Boone family were among the first Catholic settlers of Maryland, and upon the strength of this fact it has been contended that Daniel Boone was a Catholic. Nothing, however, that is recorded of the life of this famous Kentucky pioneer seems to support this contention. In all probability, Dr. George Hart and William Coombes, who accompanied John Harrod, and settled at Harrodsburg in 1774, were the first Catholic settlers. Dr. Hart, if not the first, was certainly one of the first physicians to settle in Kentucky. He practised his profession at Harrodsburg until about the year 1786, when he moved to the vicinity of Bardstown, in what is now Nelson County, in order to join his co-religionists who had recently emigrated from Maryland. The first distinctively Catholic body of immigrants came from Maryland in the year 1785. A league of sixty families, mostly from St. Mary's County in that state, was formed for the purpose of emigrating to Kentucky, and in the same year twenty-five of these families, under the leadership of Basil Hayden, arrived in Kentucky and settled near the present site of Bardstown (Nelson County). In the following year, a second settlement, about ten miles distant from the first, but on better lands, was begun by Edward and Charles Beaven. Between this date and 1795 five separate bodies of Catholic immigrants settled in the vicinity of these earlier settlements, and a thriving Catholic colony was begun. In 1786 one of the companies of immigrants, while on its way to join the first settlers in Nelson County, attracted by the beauty and fertility of the country through which they were passing, decided to go no farther, and settled in what is now Scott County, near the centre of the famous Blue-Grass Region. By 1796 it is estimated that there were 300 Catholic families in Kentucky. The first missionary priest to reach Kentucky was the Rev. M. Whelan, who came in the year 1787 with a band of immigrants under the leadership of Edward Howard. In 1790 Father Whelan returned to Maryland. Six months later the Rev. Wm. De Rohan arrived, but without faculties and unaccredited to Kentucky. He performed such service as he could, but the settlements were without full priestly attention until 1793, at which time the Rev. Stephen Theodore Badin (q.v.)and the Rev. M. Barriêres were sent to Kentucky by the Bishop of Baltimore. Father Barriêres remained but four months, but Father Badin laboured in the mission for about twenty-six years. After the departure of Father Barriêres, for three years Father Badin was the only priest in the whole of Kentucky. In 1797 the Rev. M.J.C. Fournier and, in 1799, the Rev. Anthony Salmon joined Father Badin, but the latter of these two companions of Father Badin was killed by a fall from a horse nine months after his arrival, and Father Fournier died in 1803. Again Father Badin was alone in Kentucky until 1805, when the Rev. Charles Nerinckx, a native of Belgium, joined him. Father Nerinckx laboured in the state for nineteen years, sharing with his associate all the hardships of this most trying mission, and by his wonderful zeal and great piety materially promoting the progress and prosperity of the Church. A French colony under the leadership John A. and Louis Tarascon arrived at Louisville in the year 1806 and settled near the Falls of the Ohio, to engage in the milling business, utilizing the falls for power. These colonists were, or at least should have been, Catholics, but the early missionaries do not appear to have considered them very faithful children of the Church. However, when the first church was built, in 1811, the name of J.A. Tarascon appears on the list of trustees for the new parish. Father Badin was the first pastor, and continued as such until 1817, when he was succeeded by the Rev. G.I. Chabrat, like him, a Frenchman, who was in turn succeeded by the Rev. Philip Horstman, a native American. In 1808 the Diocese of Bardstown was erected, to include in its jurisdiction the whole of Kentucky as well as Tennessee (see DIOCESE OF LOUISVILLE). In 1841 the see was transferred to Louisville, and in 1853 the establishment of the Diocese of Covington (q.v.) brought into existence the present ecclesiastical division of the State of Kentucky into the two dioceses of Louisville and Covington. Kentucky enjoys the distinction of having been the first great nursery of the Faith in the United States west of the Alleghenies. Closely connected with this fact (which will be more especially dealth with in the article DIOCESE OF LOUISVILLE) was a remarkably early development of new religious congregations in the old Diocese of Bardstown. In Marion County, the Sisterhood of Loretto, founded in 1812 as "Friends of Mary at the Foot of the Cross", and, in Nelson County, the Sisters of Charity of Nazareth, founded in the same year, were almost, if not quite, the earliest religious institutes to originate in the United States (see LORETTO, SISTERS OF; NAZARETH, SISTERS OF CHARITY OF). Of the older institutes of women, the Sisters of the Third Order of St. Dominic have been established in Kentucky since 1822; the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, since 1842; Ursuline Nuns, since 1858; Benedictine Nuns, since 1859; Sister of the Poor of St. Francis, since 1860; Visitandines, since 1864; Sisters of Mercy, since 1867; Little Sisters of the Poor, since 1869; The Sisters of Notre Dame and others have come into the state more recently. Among the religious orders of men, the Order of Preachers found their first home in the United States neear Springfield, Washington County, Kentucky (St. Rose of Lima, 1806), where they are still flourishing; the Trappists founded their famous Abbey of Gethsemani (q.v.), in Nelson County, in 1848; the Franciscans took charge of the parish of St. Boniface, Louisville, in 1849; the Benedictines came to Covington in 1858. Other male religious orders and congregations in Kentucky are the Passionists, Xaverian Brothers, Brothers of Mary, and Fathers of the Resurrection. The total Catholic Population of the state is estimated at 189,854, about three-fourths of that number (which includes upwards of 4000 coloured Catholics) being in the Diocese of Louisville. Legislation Directly Affecting Religion The Bill of Rights of the Constitution of Kentucky guarantees to all citizens the right to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience, and it also provides that no public funds raised for educational purposes shall be used in the aid of any church, or any sectarian or denominational school. It is further provided by statute that no sectarian, infidel, or immoral publications shall be used or distributed in the common schools of the state; nor shall any sectarian, infidel, or immoral doctrine be taught therein. The court of last resort in Kentucky, in construing these provisions of the constitution and Statutes (Hackett v. Graded School, 120 Ky. 608), held that they are not violated by reading verses from the King James Version of the Bible, without note or comment, nor by the recital of the following prayer: Our Father who are in heaven we ask Thy aid in our day's work. Give us wisdom and strength and patience to teach these children as they should be taught, may teacher and pupil have mutual love and respect. Watch over these children both in the schoolroom and on the playground. Keep them from being hurt in any way, and at last when we come to die may none of our number be missing around Thy throne. These things we ask in Christ's name. The laws of the state provide that no work or business shall be done on Sunday except the ordinary household offices or other work of necessity or charity, or work required in the operation of a ferry, skiff, steamboat, or steam or street railway. But persons who belong to a religious society which observes some other day than Sunday are not liable for the penalties provided in this act if they actually observe as a Sabbath one day in each seven. There are specific enactments penalizing the sale of liquor, barbering, pool and billiard playing, and hunting. The enforcement of the law with reference to Sunday observance is very lax, particularly in the cities. So also with reference to the sale of liquor on Sunday. In some of the cities this law is not enforced at all, in others some effort is made its enforcement, and in some places it is rigidly enforced. The law provides that if any proceeding is directed by law to take place, or any act is directed to be done on a particular day of the month, and that day happens to fall on Sunday, the proceeding shall be had, or the act done on the following day. Oaths may be administered by any judge of a court, notary public, clerk of a court, examiner, master commissioner, or justice of the peace within his district or county. Persons refusing for conscientious reasons to take an oath may affirm. The oath is ordinarily administered by the officer and the person to be sworn, both raising their right hands, the officer repeating the oath and the person responding: I do. Testimony taken out of the state, to be used in proceedings in the courts of the state, may be taken before a commissioner appointed by the governor or by any other person empowered by commission directed to him by consent of the parties, or by order of a court; or before the judge of a court, justice of the peace, mayor of a city, or a notary public. Any person profanely cursing or swearing is liable to a fine of one dollar for each offence, and every oath is deemed a separate offence. If the offence is committed in the presence of a court of record or justice of the peace, the said court or justice may instantly, without further proof, inflict the penalty. Instances of the enforcement of this law are very rare. There is no law providing for prayer at the sessions of the Legislature, but it is the custom to open the daily session of both branches of the general assembly with prayer. The ministers of the various denominations representing the churches of the capital city are invited without prejudice or partiality. The Catholic priest takes his turn with the others. The only religious holidays recognized by law are Christmas and New Year's Day. Other legal holidays are Washington's Birthday, Decoration Day (May 30), Independence Day, Labor Day (first Monday in September), and all days specially designated by the President of the United States or the governor of the state. No clergyman or priest, without the consent of the person confessing, is permitted to testify concerning any confession made to him in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the Church to when he belongs. Any number of persons may associate to form a corporation, having no capital stock, for religious, charitable or educational purposes. Incorporation may be effected by the persons concerned filing articles of incorporation with the Secretary of State, and having the same recorded in the county court of the county where the corporation intends to conduct is business. The articles must set forth the name of the proposed corporation, the object for which it is organized, and such other facts as the incorporators deem proper to mention. Such corporations have the right to contract and be contracted with, to sue and be sued, to have and use a common seal, and to receive and hold property. They are not subject to the general laws relating to corporations, except that they must designate an agent upon whom service of process may be had, and that they are at all times subject of visitation by the Legislature. Places actually used for religious worship, with the grounds attached thereto, not exceeding one-half acre in cities and towns, and not exceeding two acres in the country; places of burial not held for profit; institutions of purely public charity and institutions of education not used or employed for gain; all parsonages and residences owned by any religious society and occupied as a home and for no other purpose by the minister of any religious denomination, with not exceeding one-half acre in the city, and two acres in the country, are exempt from taxation. This constitutional provision has been construed so as to bring within its meaning seminaries for the education of young men for the ministry, even though is management is denominational. So also other educational institutions under similar control, even though tuition is charged. Property of the Young Men's Christian Association is also held exempt under this provision of the constitution, so also orphan asylums and homes for sick, indigent, and homeless persons are held exempt, even though they are denominationally controlled; provided they are not operated for gain. The expression "purely public charity" used in the Constitution, has been defined by the Court of Appeals of Kentucky as meaning a charity which performs in whole or in part a duty which the Commonwealth owes to the sick, indigent, homeless, and helpless. All institutions, therefore, which aid the state in the performance of this duty are exempt from taxation. These exemptions, however, do not apply to local assessments for street-improvements, against which there is no exemption provided by law. Clergymen are not required to serve on petit juries, though they may do so. But there is not such exemption from service on grand juries. Militia service in actual practice is, or course, purely voluntary, but clergymen are not exempt in the event of enforced enlistment. Marriage and Divorce Marriage is prohibited and void (1) when either party is an idiot or lunatic: (2) when either of the parties has a husband or wife living and undivorced; (3) when not contracted in the presence of an authorized person or society, provided, however, that if the person attempting to perform the marriage ceremony had no authority, and yet either of the parties believed he had such authority, and the marriage is consummated under that belief, it will be valid; (4) when at the time of the marriage the male is under fourteen and the female is under twelve years of age; (5) when one person is white and the other is a negro. A man is not permitted to marry his mother, grandmother, sister, or grandchild, nor the widow of divorced with of his father, grandfather, son, or grandson, nor the daughter, granddaughter, mother, or grandmother of his wife, nor the daughter or granddaughter of his brother or sister, nor the sister of his father or mother. A woman cannot marry her father, grandfather, brother, son, or grandson; nor the widower or divorced husband of her mother, grandmother, daughter, or granddaughter; nor the son, grandson, father, or grandfather of her husband; nor the son or grandson of her brother or sister, or the brother of her father or mother. All marriages coming within any of the above-mentioned degrees of relationship are void. If, however, a marriage is valid where contracted it will be recognized as valid in Kentucky. Marriage may be solemnized by a minister or priest of any denomination in regular communion with any religious society, who has obtained a license for that purpose from the county court of the county of his residence. The county judge and such justices of the peace as the county court may authorize may solemnize marriages or it may be solemnized by consent given in the presence of a religious society having no officiating minister, where either party is a member of such religious society, and the ceremony is in conformity with the usage prevailing in such society. Judgments in divorce cases are entered without the intervention of a jury. Courts of general equity jurisdiction hear and determine all such actions. Divorce may be granted for the following reasons: + To both parties, first, for such impotency or malformation as prevents sexual intercourse; second, living apart without co-habitation for five consecutive years next before the institution of the action. + To the party not in fault; first, abandonment for one year; second, living in adultery; third, condemnation for felony; fourth, the existence of some loathsome disease; fifth, force, fraud, or duress in obtaining the marriage; sixth, union with a religious society which forbids husband or wife continuing the marital relation. + To the wife when not in like fault; first, on account of a confirmed habit of drunkenness accompanied with a wasting of his estate and failure to suitable provide for his family; second, habitually behaving towards his wife, for a period of not less than six months, in a cruel manner; third, such cruel beating or attempted beating or injury as indicates an outrageous temper and probable danger to the wife. + To the husband; first, where the wife is pregnant by another man at the time of marriage; second, when not in like fault, habitual drunkenness on the part of the wife for not less than one year; third, adultery or such lewd or lascivious behaviour as indicates unchastity. Divorced persons may marry again, but only one divorce shall be granted the same person, except where adultery or one of the grounds for which divorce may be granted to both parties is charged. Divorce from bed and board may be granted for any of the causes above mentioned or for any other cause deemed sufficient by the court. An absolute divorce restores to the parties all property obtained from the other either before or during marriage in consideration thereof. The custody of children is determined by the chancellor from the proof in the case. Sale of Intoxicants Under the operation of local-option laws, 96 of the 119 counties of the state have voted out liquor. The larger cities, however, are not affected by these laws. It is forbidden to ship liquor into local option territory, but this law is generally not effective because it cannot affect shipments from points outside the state. Wills and Testaments Every person more that twenty-one years of age may dispose of his or her estate by will. Wills are required to be attested by two subscribing witnesses unless wholly written and signed by the testator in person. There is no limitation upon charitable bequest, but the State imposes a tax of 5 per cent upon all bequests over $500, including those for charitable purposes, except where made to husband or wife, father or mother, child or children or their lineal descendants, or the husband or wife of a daughter or son. Cemeteries All cemeteries not conducted for profit are exempt from taxation. The directors or trustees of incorporated cemeteries are required by law to make a full and complete report of the financial condition of the association to the stock-holders and lot-owners. Severe penalties are provided for unlawfully disinterring bodies or for the mutilation of graves or monuments. WEBB, The Centenary of Catholicity in Kentucky (Louisville, 1884); COLLINS, Historical Sketches of Kentucky (Louisville, 1847); ed. RICHARD COLLINS (Louisville, 1874); BUTLER, The History of the Commonwealth of Kentucky (Louisville, 1834); MARSHALL, The History of Kentucky (Frankfort, 1824); DURRETT, The Centenary of Kentucky (Louisville, 1892). FRANK M. TRACY Compiled by Pat and Gordon Hermes Miles Gerard Keon Miles Gerard Keon Journalist, novelist, colonial secretary, lecturer, last descendent of the Keons, of Keonbrooke, County Leitrim, Ireland; b. 20 February, 1821; d. at Bermuda, 3 June, 1875. He was the only son of Myles Gerard Keon, barrister, and on his mother's side was descended from the Fallons of Runnymede, County Roscommon. Both parents dying in his infancy, Keon was left to the care of his maternal grandmother and, later, to that of his uncle, Francis Philip, Count Magawly. He studied at the Jesuit college at Stonyhurst, where he wrote the prize poem on Queen Victoria's accession (Stonyhurst Magazine, no. 32). An adventurous pedestrian tour across the Continent followed graduation, terminating in a brief service in the French army in Algeria. On his return to England he studied law at Gray's Inn, abandoning it shortly for literary pursuits. In 1843 he published "The Irish Revolution, or What can the Repealers do? And what shall be the New Constitution?" ("Tablet", IV, 532), and, in 1845, a vindication of the Jesuits (Oxford and Cambridge Review, September, 1845), a controversial article that provoked more than passing interest. The results of his pedestrian tour and military service were apparent in a series of contributions to Colburn's "United Service Magazine" (from September, 1845, to October, 1846). For a few months in 1846 he became editor of "Dolman's Magazine", and on 21 November of that year, married Anne de la Pierre, daughter of an English army officer. In 1847 appeared his "Life of Saint Alexis, the Roman Patrician". For the next twelve years he served on the staff of the "Morning Post", becoming its representative at St. Petersburg in 1850. In 1852 his first novel, "Harding, the Money-Spinner", appeared, serially, in the "London Journal", and, in 1856, on the occasion of the coronation of Alexander II, he was again at St. Petersburg representing the "Morning Post". It was on this occasion that he met Boucher de Perthes, in whose reminiscences Keon is pleasantly appreciated. On his return in 1859 from Calcutta, where he had been sent "under a mistaken arrangement" to edit the "Bengal Hurkaru", he was appointed colonial secretary at Bermuda, a position which he held until his death. In 1866 appeared "Dion and the Sibyls, a romance of the First Century". The year following, at Mechanics' Hall, Hamilton, he gave a course of lectures on "Government, its Source, its Form, and its Means", declining, subsequently to lecture in the United States on account of his official position. He attended the opening of the Council of the Vatican at Rome in 1869. KENT in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v.; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s.v.; HEWITSON, Stonyhurst Present and Past, 244 sqq.; BOUCHER DE PERTHES, Voyage en Russie en 1856 (1859), passim; Burke's Peerage; Stonyhurst Magazine (March and June, 1886). JARVIS KEILEY Diocese of Kerkuk Diocese of Kerkuk (CHERCHENSIS). A Chaldean Catholic diocese. The ancient name of the city was Karka of Beit-Slokh in the Beit-Garmai, a province of the Persian Empire. Christianity flourished there very early. In 318 two brothers, Adurpawa and Mihrnarsé, with their sister Mahdoukh, were martyred there. In the fifth century, under King Yezdegert II (438-57), the "History of the city of Beit-Slokh" makes mention of hundreds and thousands of martyrs slain in this city (Moesinger, "Monumenta Syriaca", II). Mention may also be made of a bishop, Mana, in the fourth century, with six nuns: Thekla, Danak, Taton, etc.; the Bishop St. Isaac, in the fifth century; St. Sirina, in 559; etc. The "Synodicon Orientale" (Paris, 1902, 674) mentions nine metropolitans of Beit-Slokh who assisted at various councils between 410 and 612. Lequien (Oriens Christ., II, 1331) speaks of others, many of whom were Catholics. At the beginning of the nineteenth century a number of Nestorians recognized the authority of the pope, who created for them the Diocese of Kerkuk. At present it contains 6000 Catholics, 15 stations, 16 churches and chapels, 22 native priests, and 5 primary schools. The city of Kerkuk itself, which has 30,000 inhabitants and constitutes a sanjak in the vilayet of Mosul, contains only about 300 or 400 Catholics, the remainder of the inhabitants being Mussulmans, Jews, or Nestorians. CUINET, La Turguie d'Asie, II (Paris), 847-53; Revue de l'Orient Chrétien, I (1896), 444-45; Missiones Catholic (Rome, 1907), 812; DIVAL, La Littérature Syriaque (Paris, 1899), 130-32; 143-45; LABOURT, Le Christianisme dans l'empire perse (Paris, 1904), passim. S. VAILHÉ Francis Kernan Francis Kernan Lawyer, statesman; born in Steuben County, New York, 14 January, 1816; d. at Utica, New York, 7 September, 1892; son of General William Kernan, who came to America from County Cavan, Ireland, in 1800, and of Rose Anna Stubbs, his wife. He attended Georgetown College, D.C., from 1833 to 1836, studied law in Utica, N.Y., in the office of Joshua A. Spencer, and later became his partner. He won fame as an advocate of ability, especially in legal conflict with such leaders of the bar as Denio, Jenkins, Beardsley, Doolittle, Hunt, and Conkling. His rank in his profession was well summed up by Judge Martin Grover, as being without a superior as an all-round lawyer at the bar of New York State. In dress, manner, decision, learning, and unassuming dignity of bearing and geniality, he was a rare type of the best of the old school of lawyers. Kernan's political services to his country covered a wide range. He was school commissioner of Utica, manager of the New York State Hospital, official reporter of the Court of Appeals from 1854 to 1857, member of the Constitutional Convention of 1867, regent of the University of the State of New York from 1870 to his death, member of Assembly from 1860 to 1862, member of the House of Representatives from 1863 to 1865, United States Senator from 1876 to 1882. In all these positions he was conspicuous for ability, fidelity to his convictions, zeal in their advocacy, and fairness as a partisan. As a rule, he spoke extemporaneously, with clearness, vigour, and feeling, and to the point; his speeches were models of clear and convincing statement and analysis. He numbered among his friends Abraham Lincoln, Horatio Seymour, Samuel J. Tilden, Thomas F. Bayard, Grover Cleveland, and other distinguished Americans, and his counsel and advice were often sought by them. Both as a member of the New York Assembly and as a congressman, he was a "War Democrat". In Congress he rendered important service as a member of the judiciary committee, and was thoroughly in accord with the national government in its efforts to maintain the integrity of the Union. He showed so decided a spirit of justice and moderation that he was often consulted by President Lincoln on matters pertaining to the conduct of the war. In July, 1876, at the St. Louis convention, Senator Kernan nominated Samuel J. Tilden for the presidency. In the Democratic convention of 1884, held at Chicago, he was not a delegate, but he was present at the special request of the leaders of his party and was one of the most efficient advocates, outside of the convention, for the nomination of Grover Cleveland. In the disastrous Democratic campaign of 1872, he was a candidate for governor against John A. Dix. He was a devout and practical Catholic, frequently assisting at Mass and approaching the sacraments. He represented Georgetown College at the Catholic Congress of laymen at Baltimore in 1889, and delivered a memorable address on that occasion. In charity he gave much, considering his means, as he was never a very wealthy man, to his church and to charitable institutions; and his legal advice was often freely given to the clergy and to his Alma Mater, Georgetown College, which bestowed upon him the degree of Doctor of Laws. Kernan's home life was very happy. In 1843 he married Hannah A. Devereux, daughter of Nicholas Devereux, of Utica, who was one of the principal founders and benefactors of the Catholic Church and its charitable institutions in Central and Western New York. He brought up a family of ten children and was a great home-lover, with no fondness for the theatre, opera, or club life. He was fond of reading, of an innocent game of cards, and was a fine conversationalist. Occasionally, but not often, he attended dinners and receptions in Washington and Utica. Duty, not pleasure, was his watchword. He often worked in his home at night over lawsuits and congressional speeches. In person he was tall, had a good figure, and an attractive, intellectual face. Without pretence or sham, he was one of nature's gentlemen. His old age was calm, genial, peaceful, and contented. He served his country and his Church to the best of his ability and was a shining example of what a Catholic lawyer and statesman should be. THOMAS P. KERNAN Diocese of Kerry and Aghadoe Diocese of Kerry and Aghadoe The Diocese of Kerry and Aghadoe (Kerriensis Et Aghadoensis), suffragan of Cashel, Ireland, is sixty-six miles in length, and sixty-one in breadth, containing a superficial area of 983,400 acres, and extending over the whole County of Kerry and a portion of that of Cork; in 1901 the Catholic population was 187,346. This diocese, in its actual condition, was constituted by the union of two very ancient sees -- Ardfert and Aghadoe, but the precise date of this incorporation cannot now be definitely ascertained. All we know is that it had taken place before the Synod of Rathbrassil (1110), for it is there proposed and sanctioned that the see of the then united Diocese of Ardfert and Aghadoe should be at Rathass near Tralee. Our ecclesiastical historians give a detailed account of the various journeys of St. Patrick, who, though visiting the neighbouring County of Limerick, never set foot in Kerry, being content (as the ancient chroniclers say) with giving this remote corner of Ireland his blessing, while standing on some point of vantage in West Limerick and viewing the lofty mountains and vast bogs of ancient Kerry. Nevertheless, we know from many sources that Christianity was introduced here at a very early period. This fact is attested not merely by the annalists, but also by the many monuments of great antiquity and Christian character which still exist in various districts of the diocese. The first bishop whom we find mentioned in connection with the history of Kerry, was named Erc, and there can be no reasonable doubt that this bishop was St. Erc of Slane, who died according to the Annals of Ulster in 512. He exercised episcopal jurisdiction in the county before the birth of St. Brendan, and from what we read about his relations with that great saint, must have resided there almost continuously for several years afterwards. It is very probable he came to Kerry soon after the mission of St. Benignus, who was sent by St. Patrick in 450 to preach to the tribes of West Munster, and "to unite them to the Church by the saving waters of baptism". This visit of St. Benignus was comparatively short, for he was called away to North Clare and Connaught, where his apostolic labours may have been more urgently needed. To complete, however, the conversion of Kerry thus auspiciously begun, St. Patrick sent one of his most zealous and devoted bishops, St. Erc, who had spiritual charge not only of Kerry, but also of a wide range of south-west Limerick, in the heart of which lay the convent of St. Ita at Killeedy, over which he seems to have had jurisdiction. He was the special friend and tutor of St. Brendan, the patron of Kerry, whose feast is celebrated on 16 May. There is not among the ancient saints of Erin a more interesting figure than this patron of Kerry. His travels by land, and still more his voyages by sea, have made him famous from the earliest times. Very ancient manuscript copies of his famous seven years' voyage in the Atlantic Ocean are found in several European libraries, while his romantic career was a favorite theme with the poets and romancers of medieval Europe. (See Brendan, Saint.) The other ancient see included in the modern Diocese of Kerry, is that of Aghadoe. Another native saint, Finan Cam, was the first to build a church at Aghadoe, which in after times became the see of a bishop. It was this saint also who founded the famous monastery and school of Innisfallen, a lovely island in the Lower Lake of Killarney. It was here that one of the greatest of Ireland's kings was educated - Brian Boru, who destroyed the power of the Danes at Clontarf in 1014, while his distinguished professor, Maelsuthain O'Carroll, was most probably the original compiler of the famous Annals of Innisfallen. The principal copy of this valuable work is preserved in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. It begins with a general history of the great empires of the world down to A.D. 430. The remainder, and the more valuable portion of the Annals, contains a brief chronicle of Ireland to 1319. This monastery, owing to its situation, escaped the ravages of the Danes, who had worked such ruin on other churches in Kerry. Unfortunately, there are few records of the early bishops either of Ardfert or Aghadoe previous to the Norman invasion in the twelfth century. All we know is, each had its distinct succession of bishops, and each cathedral had its separate chapter. But these, in the days of persecution, were allowed to lapse. The chapter of Kerry was re-established by Brief of His Holiness, Pius IX, in 1858. Owing to persecution, and the disturbed state of the country, this diocese had no bishops from 1610 to 1641, and again from 1653 to 1703, being governed during both these periods by vicars Apostolic. From this latter date there has been no interruption in the episcopal succession. Many of its bishops have been men of distinction. We may mention Dr. Richard O'Connell (1641-1653), who at a very trying time successfully resisted the determined attacks of heresy on the faith of the people. In modern times Kerry had Dr. David Moriarty (1856-1877), a most accomplished pulpit orator, and Dr. Daniel McCarthy (1878-1881), for many years professor in the College of Maynooth, and author of valuable works on Sacred Scripture. The religious orders were introduced into the diocese chiefly through the piety and zeal of some of the ancient lords of the county. The Franciscans came to Ardfert in 1253, to Muckross in 1440, and to Lislaughtin in 1464. The Dominican convent in Tralee was founded in 1213. The Cistercians built the Abbey of Kyrie Eleison in Odorney in 1154, while at a much earlier period religious communities existed at Killagha in the parish of Kilcoleman, at Derrinane, at Rattoo, etc. During the reigns of Henry VIII and Elizabeth all those religious establishments were destroyed, the priests were expelled, while their property was confiscated. The successful career of Cromwell and his lieutenants had a still more disastrous effect on the religious condition of this remote see in southwest Munster. In modern times there has been a satisfactory revival. Though these ancient monasteries, and the parochial churches throughout the diocese, were utterly ruined in days of persecution, there has been a complete restoration from the wreck and disaster of those sad times. The Dominicans are again established in Tralee, while the Franciscans flourish -- if not in lovely Muckross, still in Killarney not far away. The parish churches, which were mostly thatched cabins not so long ago, are now magnificent stone structures raised through the zeal and energy of a faithful priesthood, aided by the generosity and religious spirit of the laity of the county. The ancient cathedrals at Ardfert and Aghadoe are now in ruins, but the modern cathedral of Kerry, canonically erected in the ancient parish of Aghadoe by special Brief dated 18 May, 1858, surpasses even old Ardfert -- still magnificent, though in ruins. It was designed by Pugin and was begun under Bishop Egan in 1840. For over fifty years it remained in an unfinished state, but the present occupant of the See of Kerry and Aghadoe, Most Rev. Dr. John Mangan, has with char- acteristic energy undertaken the completion of this magnificent structure according to the original designs of its celebrated architect. Dr. Mangan was born in the parish of Listowel in 1843, and was educated at Killarney and Maynooth, where he won the highest academical distinctions. His missionary life in Kerry was mainly spent in the parishes of Glengariff and Kenmare, which, owing to their extent, always demand great labour on the part of their pastor. As a reward for his energy and zeal, he was appointed archdeacon of Aghadoe, parish priest of Kenmare, and vicar-general of the diocese in 1901. He was raised to the episcopate, 21 July, 1904. This diocese consists of 51 parishes, has 49 parish priests, two admin- istrators, and 69 curates. It has 99 churches, 2 friaries, 5 monasteries, and 17 convents. DENIS O'CONNOR Hermann von Kerssenbroch Hermann von Kerssenbroch (KERSSENBROICK). A teacher and historian, b. at Monchshof, near Barntrup (Lippe), about 1520; d. at Osnabruck, 5 July, 1585. He attended school first at Paderborn, and after 1533 at Münster until his parents were banished from that city by the Anabaptists. He completed his studies at Cologne, where, in 1541, he received his degree of Bachelor of Philosophy and the Liberal Arts. In 1545 he left Cologne to teach in a superior school, probably at Dusseldorf, after which he was rector at Hamm (1545-50), and head of the Pauline Gymnasium at Münster, which had formerly held a high reputation. After twenty-five years of fruitful activity there, he was obliged to leave Münster, and he was placed in charge of the Schola Salentina at Dusseldorf, founded by the Electoral Prince salentin of Cologne, where he remained, however, only three years. In 1578 he took charge of a superior school at Werl, which he soon gave up to return to Osnabruck, where he remained as rector of the cathedral school for the rest of his unsettled life. He was a remarkable teacher, and it is chiefly owing to his farsightedness that the school system of Westphalia, which was on the decline, began in a short time to show signs of new life. His first care was to place on a better financial footing the wretchedly paid teachers of the time who were chiefly dependent on the meagre contributions from the parents of their pupils. A still extant programme or studies of the Pauline Gymnasium for the year 1551, entitled "Ratio studiorum scholae Monasteriensis, saeculi, XVI" (in Driver, "Bibliotheca Monasteriensis", Münster, 1799, 165-72), shows that as teacher he laid greatest stress on a thorough grounding in Latin and Greek, advocating also the study of Hebrew, but utterly disregarding the exact and historical sciences (Realien). He required a high degree of skill in the preparation of written work, and careful and constant practice in oral recitation. Pupils flocked to him as to a revered master, while as a practical organizer of the school system he was received everywhere with open arms. But while in his capacity of teacher he was held in high repute, as historian he suffered much unpleasantness and even persecution, his literary work had a strong influence on his career, being the cause, as it was, of his frequent change of habitation. His first known work, written while he was at Cologne, was a poem in dactylic hexameters, "Brevis descriptio belli Monasteriensis contra anabaptistica monstra gesti", skilful in workmanship, but of slight importance. His principal work deals with the same subject, "Historia Anabaptistarum Monasteriensium". As might be expected from a humanist it is embellished with rhetorical flourishes which produce at times an unpleasant effect. It was written on a broad scale, forming a history of the whole city from 1524 to 1554. The author had at his disposal ample sources of information, in addition to the amounts of many eyewitnesses and his own experiences, which placed him in a position to give a complete picture of the bloody disturbances of these times. He lacked, however, the essential qualifications of an historian, the critical faculty and an impartial judgment, so that the work, written at the instance and with the assistance of the cathedral chapter, was in parts most biased, to the prejudice of the muncipal authorities and the patricians. Their anger roused, they compelled him to retract several passages as being erroneous, to deliver over his manuscript, and to promise on oath to write no more books. This work was published in 1730 at Leipzig by Meneke in "Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum", vol. III, and in a German translation at Frankfort in 1771 under title "Geschichte der Wiedertäufer zu Münster nebst einer Beschreibung der Hauptstadt", Detmer brought out a revised edition: "Hermanni a Kerssenbroch anabaptistici furoris Monasterium inclitam Westphaliae metropolim evertentis historica narratio" (Münster, 1899), parts of it being extremely instructive. Kerssenbroch's position in Münster having become insupportable, he went to Paderborn, and while there, in spite of his oath, he published "Catalogus episcoporum paderbonensium eorumque acta" (Lemgo, 1578), availing himself of Gobelinus Persona and others. The open violation of his oath lost him the respect of many friends, and forced him to leave Paderborn. At Werl he prepared a vindication which, however, was never printed, "Causarum captivitatis M. Hermanni a Kerssenbrock succinta narratio cum earundem vera et solida confutatione". To revenge himself upon his enemies, he resorted to a means which imperilled his life; he wrote a biting satire "Noctua", in which he so exasperated his opponents that they sent a delegation to Werl to call him to account for perjury and breaking his oath, and his only safety lay in flight. DETMER, Hermann von Kerssenbroch's Leben und Schriften (Münster, 1900); Allg. Deut. Biog., s. v.; Geschichtsquellen des Bistums Münster, II (Münster, 1853), pp. xxxvii-lx. PATRICIUS SCHLAGER Baron Kervyn de Lettenhove Baron Joseph-Marie-Bruno-Constantin Kervyn de Lettenhove Belgian statesman and historian, b. at Saint-Michel-lez-Bruges, 17 August, 1817; d. there, 3 April, 1891. He entered very early on a political career, and in 1861 was sent to the Chamber of Representatives by the district of Eecloo. He took an active part in most parliamentary debates on foreign affairs and public instruction and in 1870 upon the accession of his party, the Constitutional Catholics, he received the portfolio of the Interior. His ministerial career, however, was short-lived; he made the mistake of appointing to the governorship of Limburg P. de Decker, a former minister whose name had been connected with a financial failure (see BELGIUM) and was compelled to resign. He remained in the Chamber of Representatives, but gradually withdrew from politics and devoted his time to historical researches. He had already won some fame in that field: in 1856 the French Academy had crowned his work "Etudes sur les Chroniques de Froissart." Kervyn travelled extensively in Europe, visiting most libraries and archives of note, gathering data for his historical works, some of which have modified on a number of points the prevailing opinion of his time. His style is grave and polished but somewhat bombastic. He has been charged, but without sufficient reason, with unfairness to Queen Elizabeth, William the Silent, and Marnix de Sainte Aldegonde. His most important works besides the one already mentioned are: "Histoire de Flandre" (Brussels, 1847-50); "Lettres et négociations de Philippe de Commines" (Brussels, 1867); "Chroniques relatives à l'histoire de la Belgique sous la domination des ducs de Bourgogne" (Brussels, 1870-7), "Marie Stuart" (Paris, 1889); "Relations de la Belgique et de l'Angleterre sous le règne de Philippe II" (Brussels, 1882-91). KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, Biography, I (Bruges, 1900); Memoirs and Bulletins of the Royal Academy of Belgium (Brussels): Bibliographie de Belgique (Brussels, 1890); Bibliographie Academique (Brussels, 1855). PIERRE MARIQUE Matthias Kessels Matthias Kessels Sculptor, b. at Maastricht, 1784; d. at Rome, 3 March, 1836. He was first apprenticed to a goldsmith at Venloo, but went early to Paris and studied at the Beaux Arts. In 1806 he found his way to St. Petersburg, and abode there eight years, making silver and was models and sculptures of various kinds. In 1814 he returned to Paris and attached himself to the atelier of Girodet; finally, having decided to go Rome, he was received into the studio of Thorvaldsen; it is of interest to know that he worked on the famous reliefs of "Day" and "Night" (1819). In a competition opened by Canova for young artists, Kessels won the highest award with his "St. Sebastian pierced with arrows", a piece of frank and beautiful workmanship. For the Duke of Alba, Kessels executed his small "Disk-thrower reclining", and the "Cupid whetting his darts", for the Prince of Orange, "Paris resting" a colossal marble placed at Laeken, and which obtained for him the Order of Leopold; for the Duke of Devonshire, the heroic "Disk-thrower in action". He also made a group in marble of figures in the Deluge, and the tomb in Rome of the Countess de Celles, wife of the Ambassador of the Netherlands. Lesser works are the "Woman weeping over an Urn", the "Genius of Art," and a bust of Admiral Tromp. Kessels excelled particularly in religious subjects: "Christ at the Column", colossal busts of Christ and the Virgin Mary, a low relief of the head of Our Saviour, the Four Evangelists in terra-cotta, and a "Pieta". He was engaged on a "St. Michael overcoming the Hydra of Anarchy", for the church of Ste-Gudule, Brussels, when death claimed him. Kessels is not much known, but he belongs to the Roman School, founded by Canova and Thorvaldsen, which adhered strictly to idealism and to the laws prescribed by the antique. He is one of the group with Schadow, Wolff, and others. He was a member of the Academy of St. Luke and of the Institute of the Netherlands. A "Disk-thrower" by him is in the gardens of the Palais des Academies, Brussels. LUKE, History of Scutpture, tr. BUNNETT (London, 1872); NAGLER, Neues Alletgemeines Kunstler Lexicon (Munich, 1854). M.L. HANDLEY Wilhelm Emmanuel, Baron von Ketteler Wilhelm Emmanuel, Baron von Ketteler Bishop of Mainz, b. at Münster, in Westphalia, 25 Dec., 1811; d. at Burghausen, 13 July, 1877. He was about to enter the Prussian bureaucracy when, in 1837, the persecution conducted by Prussia against Archbishop Droste-Vischering of Cologne touched Ketteler's religious spirit and led him to resign. In 1841 he studied theology at Munich University, and in 1843 he completed his preparation for the priesthood at the Seminary of Münster. In 1844 he became a curate at Beckum and in 1846 rector of Hopsten in Westphalia. Elected by the District of Tecklenburg und Warendorf to the Frankfurt Parliament in 1848, Ketteler distinguished himself by his broad and discerning intelligence of the social movements of his time. In the oration which he delivered, 21 Sept., 1848, at the funeral of General Auerswald and Prince Lichnowsky, victims of a riot, he exonerated the great body of the German people from responsibility for the crime. At the Catholic Congress of Mainz (Oct., 1848), one of the first of the great meetings of German Catholics, he offered a toast to "the plain people" and declared that as religion has need of freedom, so has freedom need of religion. Finally, during the Advent of 1848, he preached at Mainz two sermons, on the Catholic theory of property and on the duties of Christian charity, developing the sociology of St. Thomas Aquinas, and demonstrating the manner in which it answered every social need of the times. He became rector of St. Hedwig in Berlin, Oct., 1849, where Bishop Diepenbrock of Breslau entrusted him with the task of bringing back to Catholicism the famous Protestant novelist, Ida von Hahn-Hahn. He reorganized the large St. Hedwig Hospital, and for the first time since the Reformation led a Corpus Christi procession through the streets of Berlin. In 1849 the nomination of Professor Schmid as bishop by the canons of Mainz was rejected by Pius IX, to whom Schmid's views were justly an object of suspicion. The chapter after some opposition proposed three names to Pius IX, among them Ketteler's and on 15 March, 1850, the pope named him bishop of that see. The circumstances of his nomination and its acceptance by the grand-ducal Government of Hesse marked a defeat for the Josephist bureaucracy which for twenty-five years had tyrannized over the Church in all the small states of the ecclesiastical province of the Upper Rhine. Ketteler immediately inflicted two more defeats upon this bureaucracy: he re-opened in 1851 the theological seminary of Mainz and thereby freed his clergy from the influence of the theological faculty of Giessen, where the State had hitherto required Catholic seminarians to study; moreover he called a "concursus" for some vacant rectories without asking the permission of the State. Through his institution of diocesan conferences and the introduction of numerous male and female congregations, Mainz became a model diocese. The Brothers of St. Joseph and the Sisters of Providence, two orders founded by Ketteler, were destined to a larger growth. As to the relations between the Church and the State in the Grand Duchy of Hesse, they rested chiefly on the good understanding between Ketteler and Dalwigk, the minister. Their written agreement (1854) was not approved by Rome, which preferred that all the bishops of the ecclesiastical province of the Upper Rhine should act as a unit in their struggle against the legislation which the smaller German states were seeking to impose on all of them. The new agreement, which after a visit to Rome, Ketteler negotiated with Dalwigk (1856), was sent to Rome by the bishop for approval, but was never returned. Until 1870 religious peace was maintained in Hesse through the harmonious relations between the bishop and the minister. Religious Conflicts in Baden Ketteler played a very active part in the difficulties which broke out between the Baden government and Archbishop Vicari; he published a brochure defending the latter and a visit of Ketteler's to Karlsruhe, in January, 1854, almost brought about an understanding between Vicari and the Prince Regent of Baden. Bismarck, however, then Prussia's plenipotentiary at Frankfurt, exercised such a strong influence over the Baden ministry that the attempted reconciliation failed. In 1865, when the opposition of the Catholics to the Baden school law caused a severe persecution, Ketteler invoked the intervention of Emperor Francis Joseph, and in two pamphlets refuted the formula of Minister Lamey, according to which "law was the public conscience superior to private consciences." After Archbishop Vicari's death (1868) it was again Ketteler who defended against Minister Jolly the electoral right of the Freiburg canons. At Ketteler's suggestion, on the occasion of the eleventh centenary of St. Boniface, were inaugurated the conferences of German bishops; since then they have grown more frequent and are almost annual since 1869. In this way he was the chief promoter of an institution which for the past forty years has greatly aided the cohesion and strength of the German episcopate. During 1864-66 his name was mentioned for the archbishoprics of Posen or Cologne, and Bismarck seemed for a moment to favour the nomination. Ketteler as a Social Reformer Ketteler thought that he was not exceeding his rights as a bishop when he spoke authoritatively on social questions. In 1848 he believed that social reform had to begin with the interior regeneration of the soul. Later he was to enter more deeply into economical problems. When about 1863, the Liberal Schulze-Delitzsch and the Socialist Lassalle made forcible appeals to the German workingmen, Ketteler studied their doctrines and even consulted Lassalle in an anonymous letter on a scheme of founding five small co-operative associations of workingmen. The Labour Question and Christianity In a book published in 1864, "The Labour Question and Christianity," he adopted Lassalle's criticism of the modern treatment of labour, and admitted the reality of an insurmountable law. In opposition to Schulze-Delitzsch he pointed out the futility of the remedies proposed by the Liberals; he advocated labour associations, and even accepted the idea of co-operative unions to be established, not as Lassalle wished, by state subvention, but by generous aid from Christian capitalists. In a Socialistic meeting at Rondsdorf, 23 May, 1864, Lassalle paid homage to Ketteler's book. On his side, Ketteler, whom three Catholic workmen had asked in 1866 if they could conscientiously join the "workingmen's association" founded by Lassalle, was disposed to dissuade them from so doing owing to the anti-religious spirit of Lassalle's successors; nevertheless in his reply he duly acknowledged Lassalle's "respectful recognition of the depth and truth of Christianity." At this time he counted particularly upon the initiative of Christian charity for the organization of productive co-operative associations destined to restore social justice on a more equal scale. In 1869 he went still further: in a sermon preached near Offenbach, 25 July of that year, he particularized certain urgent reforms (increase of wages, shorter hours of labour, prohibition of child-labour in factories, prohibition of women's and young girls' labour); these claims, he thought, should be presented to the public authorities. In Sept., 1869, at the Fulda conference of the German bishops, he showed how necessary for the removal of economic evils was the intervention of the Church in the name of faith, morals, and charity. He also made clear the right of workingmen to legal protection and urged that in every diocese some priests should be selected to make a study of economic questions. This Fulda discourse of Ketteler brought the Church of Germany into closer relations with the new social activity; on the other hand, his programme for protection of labour, taken up again in 1873 in his pamphlet on "Catholics in the German Empire," long served the German Centre as a basis for their social claims. Doctrinal Controversies; The Vatican Council Though not professionally a theologian, Ketteler made his influence felt in the various doctrinal controversies of his time. In his "Liberty, Authority, and Church" (1862) he took a stand on the question of Liberalism and set forth the Christian attitude towards the various meanings of the word liberty. The theological "school" which Ketteler established in his seminary at Mainz, and whose chief representatives were Moufang and Heinrich, was noted for its adherence to Scholastic theology and its hostility to the anti-Roman tendencies of "Germanism" and "German Science" represented by Döllingerer and the Munich School. The former urged with much tenacity the theological seminaries, as preferable to the theological faculties of the universities, for the education of the Catholic clergy, and earnestly strove since 1862, for the establishment of that free Catholic university in Germany which is yet a desideratum. Despite this firm attitude, Ketteler had great intellectual charity, and could understand theological views that differed somewhat from his own, and when necessary could be their advocate; it was doubtless to him that Kuhn of Tübingen was indebted for escaping condemnation at Rome. On the eve of the Vatican Council, Ketteler was not very favourably inclined towards the dogmatic definition of papal infallibility: "In our time it is not opportune to increase the number of dogmas," he wrote to Bishop Dupanloup. Enemy as he was of political absolutism and centralization, he feared that a declaration of papal infallibility would result in religious absolutism and centralization. He submitted to the episcopal assembly at Fulda (1 Sept., 1869) a series of observations which he had asked from Francis Brentano, professor at Würzburg, and in which the definition of papal infallibility was treated as inopportune; at the same time he rough-drafted the letter in which this assembly urged all Christians to submit to the future council. Though belonging to the minority in the council, he protested more than once against the "Roman Letters" of Döllingerer, published at Munich under the pseudonym of "Quirinus." He circulated in the council a pamphlet of the Jesuit Quarella, which in some respects seemed to militate against the doctrine of infallibility, but he did not personally accept all the theories of this work. It was he who suggested the petition of May, 1870, in which a number of bishops demanded that the eleven charters of the "Schema" on the Church be taken up before entering on the discussion of infallibility. On 23 May he declared in a plenary meeting that he had always believed in papal infallibility, but he asked whether the theological proofs put forward sufficed to justify its dogmatic definition. He was not present at the final vote and left Rome after a written declaration that he submitted beforehand to the decision of the council. In September, 1870, he signed, with other German bishops, the Fulda declaration in favour of the newly defined dogma. Ketteler and German Unity The political changes that now took place in Germany, and the indirect effect they might have upon Catholic interests, were a source of much anxiety to him. When Austria's defeat at Sadowa (1866) filled the Catholics of Germany with consternation, and proved that their dream of an Austrian Germany was quite over, Ketteler tried to revive their courage in his "Germany after the War of 1866." He advised them to meet halfway the coming changes, and to let no one surpass them in their love of the German Fatherland. On the other hand, he besought Prussia not to be misled by those who would make her an instrument of Protestantism or of certain philosophical theories, and urged the respect of all existing political and social autonomies. After the establishment of German unity (1870-71) Ketteler's chief concern was to obtain for German Catholics in the new empire such liberties and guarantees as the Constitution granted them in Prussia. This much he demanded in a letter to Bismarck (1 Oct., 1870), also during a visit he paid him in the spring of 1871, and in a speech in the Reichstag (3 April, 1871), where he served as a deputy from the Baden constituency of Waldürn-Tauberbischofsheim. The National Liberal party, on the contrary, urged the new empire towards religious persecution. Ketteler conferred once more with Bismarck, on 16 March, 1871, again pleaded with him for the Catholics, and then, on 14 March, 1872, resigned his seat in the German Parliament. He kept in touch, however, with religious polities, and wrote important pamphlets against the Prussian Kulturkampf, also against similar measures which the National Liberals, yet influential with Dalwigk's successors, were inaugurating in Hesse. During the Kulturkampf his share in the Fulda episcopal conferences was often predominant. He and Archbishop Melchers of Cologne were potent in the decision passed in 1873 urging the bishops to oppose the May Laws by absolute passive resistance, and, on the other hand, advocating a conciliatory attitude towards the Prussian law on the administration of church property. In 1873 his views on the rights of Christianity and of a bishop led him to enter the broader political field in his book on "The Catholics in the German Empire" in which he drew up a platform for the Centre Party and offered wise direction to the State. He contrasted frequently the Liberalism of 1848, sincerely respectful of religious belief, with the "National Liberalism" of Bismarckian Germany, the old German idea of local autonomy with the idea of centralization borrowed from France. He hated in Bismarckian Germany the spread of political absolutism quite as in modern industrialism he hated the development of capitalist absolutism. The spirit of initiative which characterized this bishop is well set forth in a letter written, 6 May, 1870, to Haffner, future Bishop of Mainz: "I am heart and soul attached to the new forms which in days to come the old Christian truths will create for all human relations." Of him Windthorst said, in 1890: "We venerate him unanimously as the doctor and leading champion of Catholic social aspirations." RAICH, Briefe von und an Ketteler (Mainz, 1879); PFUELF, Bischof Ketteler (Ibid., 1899), a three volume work of first-class importance; IDEM, in Stimmen aus Maria Laach (1908), 550-561, an account of Ketteler's ideas on the school question and on ecclesiastical reforms; DE GIRARD, Ketteler et la question ouvriere (Berne, 1896); DECURTINS, preface to Oeuvres choisies de Mgr de Ketteler (Bale, 1892); GOYAU, L'Allemagne religieuse: le catholicisme, 1800-1870, II-IV (Paris, 1905-1909); IDEM, Ketteler (Paris, 1907), treats of the principal social ideas of Ketteler. A complete bibliography of Ketteler's works is given at the end of the third volume of Pfuelf. GEORGES GOYAU Erasmus Darwin Keyes Erasmus Darwin Keyes Soldier, convert, b. at Brimfield, Massuchusetts, U.S.A., 29 May, 1810; d. at Nice, France, 14 October, 1895. His father, Justus, was a prominent physician and surgeon. Receiving an appointment to the West Point Military Academy, young Keyes graduated there in 1832 and was commissioned a lieutenant in the Third Artillery. After service in the South during the Nullification troubles, 1832-33, he was military aide to General Scott, with the rank of captain (1837-41), on duty connected with the Indian conflicts. From 1854 to 1858 he was instructor of calvary and artillery tactics at West Point, and received his commission of major, 12 Oct., 1858. Gen. Scott appointed him military secretary, 1 January, 1860, and he became colonel of the 11th Infantry, 14 May, 1861, and soon after brigadier-general of the volunteers, the Civil War having broken out. General Keyes participated in the first battle of Bull Run, and commanded a corps in the Army of the Potomac. For gallantry at the battle of Fair Oaks, he received the brevet of brigadier-general in the regular army. On 6 May, 1864, he resigned from the army and went to California, where he engaged in mining and other business enterprises. He became a Catholic in San Francisco, in 1866. His death took place in France, but his remains were brought back to New York for interment. He was the author of "Fifty Years' Observation of Men and Events" (New York, 1884), which contains many anecdotes of public interest. CULLUM, Biog. Register of the Officers and Graduates of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. (New York, 1868). THOMAS F. MEEHAN Power of the Keys Power of the Keys The expression "power of the keys" is derived from Christ's words to St. Peter (in Matthew 16:19). The promise there made finds its explanation in Isaias 22, in which "the key of the house of David" is conferred upon Eliacim, the son of Helcias, as the symbol of plenary authority in the Kingdom of Juda. Christ by employing this expression clearly designed to signify his intention to confer on St. Peter the supreme authority over His Church. For a consideration of the text in its dogmatic bearing, see POPE; PRIMACY. In the present article our sole purpose is to give a brief historical account of the meaning attached to the expression by ecclesiastical writers. I. THE FATHERS (1) In the Fathers the references to the promise of Matthew 16:19, are of frequent occurrence. Almost invariably the words of Christ are cited in proof of the Church's power to forgive sins. The application is a natural one, for the promise of the keys is immediately followed by the words: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth", etc. Moreover, the power to confer or to withhold forgiveness might well be viewed as the opening and shutting of the gates of heaven. This interpretation, however, restricts the sense somewhat too narrowly; for the remission of sins is but one of the various ways in which ecclesiastical authority is exercised. We have examples of this use of the term is such passages as August., "De Doctrina Christi", xvii, xviii: "Quid liberatius et misericordius facere potuit. . .nisi ut omnia donaret conversis. . .Has igitur claves dedit Ecclesiae suae ut quae solveret in terra soluta essent in coelo" (How could He [Christ] have shewn greater liberality and greater mercy. . .than by granting full forgiveness to those who should turn from their sins. . .He gave these keys to His Church, therefore, that whatever it should remit on earth should be remitted also in heaven) (P.L., XXIV, 25; cf. Hilary, "In Matt.", xvi, P.L., IX, 1010). It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock on which the Church is founded. In their references to the potestas clavium, they are usually intent on vindicating against the Montanist and Novatian heretics the power inherent in the Church to forgive. Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins. This could not be had the gift been a personal one (tract. 1 in Joan., n. 12, P.L., XXXV, 1763; Serm. ccxcv, in P.L., XXXVIII, 1349). From these passages certain Protestant controversialists have drawn the curious conclusion that the power to forgive sins belongs not to the priesthood but to the collective body of Christians (see Cheetham in "Dict. Christ. Antiq.", s.v.). There is, of course, no suggestion of this meaning. St. Augustine merely signifies that the power to absolve was to be imparted through St. Peter to members of the Church's hierarchy throughout the world. Some few of the Fathers, however, are careful to note that the bestowal of this power upon St. Peter alone, apart from the other Apostles, denoted his primacy among the twelve (Optatus, "De Schism. Don.", vii, 3, in P.L., XI, 1087). Origen dilates at length on this point, but teaches erroneously that the power conferred upon the Twelve in Matthew 18:18, could only be exercised within certain restrictions of place, while that conferred upon St. Peter in Matthew 16:18, was of universal extent (Comm. in Matt., P.G., XIII, 1179). (2) Occasionally, though infrequently, Christ's promise is not restricted to signify the power to forgive sins, but is taken in the fuller meaning of the gift of authority over the Church. Thus St. Gregory in his letter to the Emperor Maurice, after quoting Christ's words in Matthew 16:18-19, writes: "Behold he [Peter] received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power of binding and loosing is committed to him, the care of the whole Church and its government is given to him [cura ei totius Ecclesiae et principatus committitur (Epist., lib. V, ep. xx, in P.L., LXXVII, 745)]. St. Maximus in a sermon on the feast of Saints Peter and Paul (P.L., LVII, 403) says that to St. Peter was given the key of power (clavis potentioe), to St. Paul the key of knowledge (clavis scientioe). The idea of a key of knowledge is clearly derived from Christ's words to the Pharisees, Luke 11:52: "You have taken away the key of knowledge." This distinction of the clavis potentioe and clavis scientioe recurs frequently in the medieval writers, though without reference to St. Paul. II. THE SCHOLASTICS By the Scholastic theologians the precise significance of the term was closely analysed. (1) The view which is now universally accepted is exposed at length by Suárez (De Poenit., disp. xvi). According to him, the phrase as employed by Christ in His promise to St. Peter denotes the gift of ecclesiastical authority in its widest scope. This authority was to be in a sense peculiar to St. Peter and his successors in the chief pastorate; for they alone were to possess it in its fullness. But it was to be exercised in due measure by the other members of the Divinely instituted hierarchy according to their several degrees. Thus understood, the potestas clavium includes + the power of order, namely power exercised in regard to sacrifice and sacrament, + the power of jurisdiction, and + the power to define in questions of faith and morals. The various powers thus conferred upon the Church were held to belong either to the clavis potentioe or to the clavis scientioe, the latter of these two being understood to signify the power to teach, while the other departments of authority pertained to the clavis potentioe. The distinction is, however, a theological refinement, and is not involved in the expression itself. As Suarez urges, Christ, when using the plural form, did not intend to indicate that the gift was twofold. (2) The meaning attached to the term by the older Scholastics was, however, different from this. They followed the patristic tradition, and confined its significance to the judicial authority exercised in the Sacrament of Penance. The power of the keys, St. Thomas tells us (Summa Theologica Supp:17:2, ad 1um), is a necessary consequence of the sacerdotal character. It is, in fact, identical in essence with the power to consecrate and to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The one sacerdotal gift is applied to different ends in the different sacraments. Such, too, appears to be the teaching of Pope John XXII in a well-known passage dealing with this subject (Extravag., tit. xiv, De verborum signif., c. v, Quia quorundam). The definition, "Clavis est specialis potestas ligandi et solvendi qua judex ecclesiasticus dignos recipere et indignos excludere debet a regno" (The keys are a special power of binding and loosing by which the ecclesiastical judge should receive the worthy [into the kingdom of heaven] and exclude the unworthy therefrom), generally accepted in the Scholastic period (Pet. Lomb., "Sent.", IV, dist. xviii; John XXII, loc. cit.; St. Thomas, loc. cit.), might seem indeed to include jurisdiction in the external as well as in the internal forum. But in point of fact it was not so understood. The distinction between the clavis potentioe and the clavis scientioe was employed here. By the clavis scientioe was understood the priestly authority to interrogate the penitent and thus obtain cognizance of the facts of the case; by the clavis potentioe, the authority to grant or refuse absolution. The view just exposed is inadmissible as an interpretation of Christ's words. For it is plain that He desired to confer by them some special prerogative on Peter, while, according to this interpretation, the potestas clavium is common to all priests. (3) Hence there were not wanting theologians who narrowly restricted the scope of the gift, and asserted that it denoted the special prerogatives appertaining to St. Peter and his successors, and these alone. Thus Cardinal Cajetan (Opusc., I, tract. iii, De Rom. Pont., c. v) held that while the power of binding and loosing belonged to all priests, the power of the keys -- authority to open and shut -- was proper to the supreme pontiff; and that this expression signified his authority to rule the Church, to define dogma, to legislate, and to dispense from laws. A similar opinion would seem to have been held by the Franciscans whose views are rejected by John XXII (loc. cit.). They contended that the popes held a clavis scientioe and a clavis potentioe; and that, though in the case of the clavis potentioe a decision arrived at might be reversed be a subsequent act, no reversal was possible where the clavis scientioe had been employed. (4) Macedo in his treatise "De Clavibus Petri" (Rome, 1660), attributes to certain theologians and canonists the opinion that the keys denote the supreme authority in the civil and ecclesiastical spheres, and that Christ conferred upon the pope a direct supremacy over both orders. We have, however, been unable to verify this statement. Indeed the writers who attributed to the pope an indirect authority only, in regard to civil governments, found an argument for their views in this very passage. They pointed out that it was the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and not of the kingdoms of this earth, which Christ bestowed upon His vicar. MACEDO, De Clavibus Petri (Rome, 1660); SUAREZ, De Poenitentia, disp. xvii; ST. THOMAS, Summa Theol., Suppl., Q. xvii; the Scholastic commentators on the Lib. Sent. in lib. IV, dist. xviii; A LAPIDE, In Matt., xvi, 18. G.H. JOYCE Kharput Kharput Armenian Uniat diocese created in 1850. The city of Kharput, Armenian Kharpert, which means "rocky fortress", is very ancient. Although it was built under the first Armenian kings it has nevertheless no history. It is situated on a mountain about 4350 feet high and there are still to be seen the ruined fortress and ancient tower, also walls rather well preserved. Because of its height and also owing to its lack of water, Kharput is being by degrees abandoned by its inhabitants, who have preferred to take up their abode in Mezré, a city about three miles distant in the plain. The two cities are in constant communication and Kharput still contains 30,000 inhabitants. It is the capital of the vilayet of Mamouret-ul-Aziz recently created. The Armenian Catholic diocese numbers 3000 faithful, 8 parishes, 6 churches, 3 chapels, 14 stations, 14 primary schools, chiefly at Kharput-Mezré and Malatia. There are about 72,000 Christians throughout the vilayet, which contains about 600,000 inhabitants. The Armenian Protestants have a large American mission at Kharput, which is the headquarters of all those in Armenia. CUINET, La Turquie d'Asie, II (Paris, 1892), 317-357; Missiones Catholicoe (Rome, 1907), 755. S. VAILHÉ Kiang-Nan Kiang-nan (Vicariate Apostolic) The present Vicariate comprises the two provinces of Kiang-su and Ngan-hwei. Its alluvial lands make it, especially Kiang-su, one of the richest and most populous countries of China. The number of inhabitants of both provinces exceeds 60,000,000. Father Matteo Ricci, S. J., was its first missionary, introducing the Catholic religion into this country at the end of the sixteenth century. He found a powerful aid in the person of the emperor's minister, the famous academician Paul Siu Kwang-k'i, whom he met first at Kwang-tung and later at Peking. Baptized in 1603 at Nan-king, Paul Siu returned to Shang-hai, his native place, and there converted many pagans. In 1607 he took with him from Peking Father Lazzaro Cattaneo, who built a residence and a chapel still to be seen at Shanghai. Returning to Peking, he first followed the Jesuit fathers in their disgrace, was restored to favour in 1628, and died there in 1633. In 1641 his remains wee transferred to Zi-ka-wei, where they still rest, and the principal establishment of the new mission is in the vicinity his tomb. The Jesuits Franciso Brancati and Geronimo de Gravina were at this period building the churches of Sun-kiang, Su-chou, Tsong-ming; Father Sambriani, those of Nan-king, Shanking, Yang-chou, Hwai-ngan. The mission of Kiang-nan enjoyed peace from 1644 to 1661, but the missionaries were too few for the work. In 1660 the Vicariate Apostolic of Kiang-nan was created and confided to Bishop Ignazio Cotolendi of the Paris Society of Foreign Missions. During the persecutions from 1664 to 1671 twenty Jesuits were exiled to Macao, Father Verbiest in Peking obtaining their release in the latter year. After the death of K'ang-hi, Yung Chen exiled all the missionaries of the provinces; a few, however, succeeded in hiding themselves, and, helped by twelve or fifteen Chinese priests, attended to the wants of the Christians. In 1690 Alexander VIII created the Diocese of Nan-king, placing it under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Goa and with authority over the provinces of Kiang-nan and Ho-nan. The first bishop of Nan-king was Allessandro Ciceri of Milan, a Jesuit, consecrated at Macao on 2 Feb., 1696. His last successor was Gaietano Pires-Pireira, a Portuguese Lazarist (d. at Peking, 1846). After 18336 the Diocese of Nan-king was governed by Apostolic administrators until 1856, when the episcopal see was abandoned. In 1736 the mandarins commenced a bloody persecution which lasted a whole century. At Kiang-nan Fr. Tristan of Athemis was the first priest arrested. The superior of the mission, Father Anthony Joseph Henriquez, was pursued and surrendered on 21 Dec., 1747. Both missionaries were strangled as Su-chou 17 Sept., 1748. The process of their beatification is not yet finished. Three Jesuit missionaries followed in Kiang-nan, viz., Fathers Ignatius Perez, Martin Correa, and Godefroy of Lambeckhoven, named Bishop of Nan-king on 15 May, 1752, and consecrated at Macao on 22 July, 1756. He remained thirty years at Kiang-nan with two Chinese Jesuit priests, Mark Kwan and John Yau. It is related that in 1784 Bishop Godefroy entered Su-chou as a chair-dealer to ordain some new priests. He died on 22 May, 1787, but not before sorrowfully proclaiming, as bishop, the dissolution of his own Society. Before his death he obtained the favour of re-entering the Society, yet surviving in Russia. For the next fifty years only Chinese priests conducted the Kiang-nan mission. In 1830, two Portuguese Lazarists, Fathers Maranda and Henriquez, arrived in Kiang-nan. From 1835 to 1840 Father Ferdinand Faivre and Peter Lavaissière made temporary sojourns in the mission. In reality, from 1787 to the return of the Jesuits in 1840, Kiang-nan was governed by native priests, who kept alive the Faith. In 1833 Gaietano Peres-Pereira was made Bishop of Kiang-nan, and resided at Peking, relegating his powers to Father Henriquez, a Lazarist like himself residing at Macao. On 1 Oct., 1838, Mgr Peres, last Bishop of Nan-king, conferred the powers of vicar-general to Father Louis de Besi, named in 1841 Vicar-Apostolic of Shan-tung and administrator of the diocese of Nan-king and consecrated titular Bishop of Canopus. He arrived at Kiang-nan in 1842, and obtained some French Jesuits from Propaganda, and from Father Roothan, then General of the Society of Jesus. Fathers Gotteland, Benjamin Brueye, and François left Europe on 28 April, 1840. In 1842 a treaty between England and China resulted in the opening of five Chinese ports, among them Shanghai. Five new fathers and one brother left France for China in 1842. They made the voyage with M. de Lagrené, ambassador of France to Peking, who in 1844 obtained permission for the preaching of the Catholic religion in China. Bishop de Besi appointed Fr. Brueye to found the seminary, which was opened on 3 Feb., 1843, with twenty-three students. In 1853 it was established at Song-kia-tu. In 1849 all the Christian settlements were confided to the French Jesuits; they contained four thousand seven hundred and fifty Christians. The rebels invaded in 1853 a great part of the province and remained there eleven years. The Jesuit Fathers established themselves in 1847 at Za-ka-wei, near the tomb of Paul Siu, at which period of the orphanages of the mission were commenced. An asylum for girls was a founded in 1855 near Wang-tan. In 1853 the Chang-mau rebels (Tai-ping) took possession of Nan-king, then of Shanghai, but abandoned the latter in 1854. Bishop de Besi left for Rome in 1847, leaving the government of the mission to his co-adjutor, Bishop Maresca. In 1849 the latter was named administrator of the Diocese of Nan-king, but returned to Europe, owing to ill-health, on 8 April, 1855. On 13 Nov. of the same year he died at Naples. The Diocese of Nan-king was then suppressed, and the Vicariate Apostolic of Kiang-nan the entrusted to the French Jesuits. Father Pierre André Borgniet became administrator Apostolic in 1856. During the eight years of his administratorship the rebels laid waste all the Christian missions of Kiang-nan except that of Shanghai. Then followed the wars of the French and English against China, beginning in 1857. A treaty was signed in 1858, but the war was renewed in 1860, at the end of which entrance into China was obtained. In 1859 the rebels held only Nan-king, but suddenly became stronger. Father Massa was arrested by them but made his escape; his brother Louis, however, was killed by defending the orphanage of Tsai-kia-wan. The orphan asylum was pillaged and burned, and many Christians were massacred. A few Christian natives of Manila were able to defend Tung-kia-tu and Za-ka-wei. In 1862 Admirals Hope and Protet opened a campaign, but the latter as killed at Nan-kiau. Major Gordon, who commanded some four to five thousand men, gained some advantage, but was dismissed in 1866 by the Chinese. At the end of the same year the rebels were driven out of every place they had held. The missions, however, suffered much in the meantime. Father Vuillaume was killed on 4 March, 1862; between 1856 and 1864 twenty-four missionaries died, and before the close of 1865 six or seven were victims of typhus. Bishop Borgniet died of cholera on 31 July, 1862. Mgr Hippolyte Adrien Languillat, Bishop of Sergioplois and Vicar Apostolic of Chi-li since Sept., 1856, was named Vicar Apostolic of Kiang-nan on 2 Feb., 1865, and at once undertook to restore the ruins occasioned by the rebels. He went in Rome in 1867 and brought back with him religious Helpers of the Souls in Purgatory and some Carmelites. He founded the observatory about the same period, and took part in the Vatican Council in 1870, but in 1874 a stroke of apoplexy almost disabled him for any active service. The following are the statistics for the years 1865 and 1878. In 1865, 42 European priests and 12 Chinese priests, 184 missions, 71,184 Christians, and 5038 pupils in the schools; in 1878, 56 European and 26 native priests, 585 missions, 93,310 Christians, 9135 pupils in the schools. Father Carrére suffered much at Nan-king. Driven out of this city by Li Hung Chang, he was recalled by the consul of France from Shanghai; he died on 17 Aug., 1868. A hospital for aged men was established at Shanghai in 1867, and the St. Francis Xavier School was opened. A severe persecution broke out in 1876. In March some residences were pillaged, and a catechist massacred. On 13 July a Chinese priest was massacred with some of his students and a boy from the school. The chapel was set afire, and the bodies of the victims were consumed. The girls of the school and their teachers were taken into captivity. Everywhere the property of the Christians wee pillaged, and their chapels burned. Bishop Languillat died during this persecution, at Zi-ka-wei, on 29 Nov., 1878. Bishop Valentine Garnier, already chosen coadjutor, was named his successor; he was fifty-four years old, and governed the mission nineteen years. The accounts of his administration from 1879 to 1878 are as follows: in 1879, 50 European and 29 Chinese priests, 580 missions, 345 schools for boys with 6222 pupils, 213 schools for girls with 2791 pupils, 91,175 Christians; in 1898, 116 European and 40 Chinese priests, 896 missions, 390 schools for boys with 10,663 pupils, 449 schools for girls with 5208 pupils, 155,177 Christians. The fathers succeeded in establishing themselves finally in the centre of Ngan-hwei. In 1882, Bishop Garnier sent missionaries to Su-chou-fu, the most northern prefecture of the province of Kiang-su. The fathers bought a house in the city, and then commenced their difficulties, which lasted fourteen years. On 5 Feb., 1889, the European concession of Chin-kiang was attacked by the Chinese, the consulate of the United States was pillaged and burned, but the church and residence of the mission was spared. On 2 May, 1891, some of the rabble besieged the orphanage of the mission, but soldiers rescued the orphans. On 12 May, 1891, Wu-hu and then Ngan-king were attacked, but the presence of a French vessel saved them. However, five or six chapels were pillaged and burned in the interior of the province. Tranquility was restored, thanks to the presence of Admiral Besnard. Bishop Garnier died on 14 July, 1898. Bishop Simon was named Vicar Apostolic in Jan., 1899, and consecrated on 25 June; he died on 25 Aug. of the same year at Wu-hu. At the end of 1900, Bishop Paris, superior of the mission, was named Vicar Apostolic and titular Bishop of Silanda. The following was the condition of the mission in 1907: 1 bishop; 142 Jesuits of whom 26 are Chinese; 35 native priests; 696 churches or chapels; one grand seminary at Zi-ka-wei with 29 students; one little seminary with 15 students; 558 schools for boys with 14,175 pupils; 604 schools for girls with 9360 pupils; two colleges for boys with 408 students; 2 colleges for European girls with 766 students (in Shanghai); 1 English school with 543 pupils; 1 French schools with 336 pupils; 6 hospitals with 3898 patients; 6 asylums for old men with 198 inmates; 37 orphanages with 6584 children; 29 Little Brothers of Mary; 32 Carmelite nuns, 20 of whom are natives; 91 Helpers of the Souls in Purgatory, 33 of whom are natives; 31 Sisters of Charity; 9 Little Sisters of the Poor; 173 Chinese religious; 145,219 Catholics, and 92,018 catechumens. (See China). Piolet. Les Missions Catholiques Françaises au XIXe siècle, III (Paris, 1900), vi; Missiones Catholicæ (Rome). V.H. MONTANAR Eastern Kiang-Si Eastern Kiang-si (Vicariate Apostolic) The mission of Eastern Kiang-si was separated from the mission of Northern Kiang-si in 1885. It includes 8,000,000 inhabitants and is formed from the four prefectures of Fu-chou-fu, Yao-chou-fu, Kwang-sin-fu, and Kien-chang-fu. The first vicar Apostolic is the present incumbent, Mgr Casimir Vic, a Lazarist, named in 1885 titular bishop of Metellopolis. He resides at Fu-chou-fu. The Catholic seminary included in 1899: 1 bishop, 16 Lazarists (including three Chinese), six native priests, six Sisters of Charity, forty-eight Sisters of St. Ann, fifty-six schools with 1910 pupils, sixty-six churches and chapels, ten orphanages with 622 children. In 1908: 1 bishop, 21 Lazarists, ten native priests, 96 churches and chapels, 2 seminaries with 31 students, 73 schools with 1787 pupils, 2 hospitals, one leper house, 13 hospices for aged men with 150 inmates, 13 orphanages with 539 children, 6 Sisters of Charity, 12 Chinese Sisters of St. Joseph, 16,295 Catholics, 3500 catechumens. Missiones Catholicæ (Rome). V.H. MONTANAR Northern Kiang-Si Northern Kiang-si (Vicariate Apostolic) Father Matteo Ricci of the Society of Jesus was the first missionary who entered the province of Kiang-si at the end of the sixteenth century. It was during his voyage from Canton to the capital of China that he remained for some time in this province, and preached the Gospel with success. After him, during the seventeenth century, some missionaries belonging to different religious orders came. Innocent XII organized this province into a vicariate Apostolic, and entrusted it to Rev. Fr. Alvares Benavento of the Augustinian order, appointing him titular Bishop of Ascalon. The new vicar fixed his residence in Kan-chou-fu. During his administration, the Jesuit fathers built beautiful churches and founded flourishing Christian communities at Yao-chou, Kin-kiang, and Nan-change, capital of the province. Bishop Benavento died at Macao, 1705. He was not replaced on account of the persecution. The mission was entrusted to Bishop Ventallot, Vicar Apostolic of Fu-kien. The vicars Apostolic of Fu-kien maintained the mission of Kiang-si under their jurisdiction until the appointment of Bishop Carpena, who obtained in 1838 that the missions of Kiang-si and Che-kiang be removed from his jurisdiction and transferred to the Lazarist Fathers. In 1722 we find Father Entrecolles, S. J., at King-te-chen, whence he sent a magnificent study on the art of Chinese moulding. In 1785 the first Lazarist missionaries arrived at Peking to take the place of the Jesuit missionaries. They were charged with the missions of Kiang-si and Kiang-nan. Unable to get themselves into those missions on account of the persecutions of Youn-ching and Kien-long, they delegated the native priests to visit the Christians. In 1790, Blessed Clet was sent to Kiang-si, where no European missionaries had set foot during the preceding forty years. He remained alone during three years. The persecution broke out again during the reign of Kia-king. Blessed Clet, assisted by the Chinese Lazarists, administered during this time the missions confided to the Lazarist Fathers. He was arrested in Ho-nan in 1819, and on 18 Feb., 1820, suffered death by strangulation at the age of seventy-two. In 1832, Father Laribe arrived in Kiang-si. In 1838, at the request of Bishop Carpena, Kiang-si and Che-kiang were separated from the Vicariate Apostolic of Fu-kien. Bishop Rameaux, former missionary of Hu-pe, was named vicar Apostolic of the new vicariate formed by the union of Kiang-si and Che-kiang. At this time there were approximately 9000 Catholics in Kiang-si. In 1845, Bishop Rameaux died of apoplexy.The mission of Che-kiang was separated from that of Kiang-si and Bishop Laribe was named vicar Apostolic of Kiang-si. From 1856 to 1860 the ravages of Changmau (Tai-ping) reduced the Christians to 6000. In 1870, at the arrival of Bishop Bray, there were 7388 Christians and more than 1050 catechumens. There were then four European missionaries and ten native priests. In 1879 Leo XIII divided Kiang-si into the vicariates of Southern Kiang-si and Northern Kiang-si. Finally, in 1885, the Vicariate Apostolic of Eastern Kiang-si was separated from Northern Kiang-si. Bishop Paul Ferrant was named co-adjutor to Bishop Bray in 1898, and titular Bishop of Barbalissus; he assumed the direction of the mission in 1905. In the succeeding years, the mission of Northern Kiang-si was the scene of bloody persecutions. Father Laruche and five Little Brothers of Mary were massacred at Nan-chang on 25 Feb., 1906; the mission and the school were burned. Three other missionaries and five Daughters of Charity saved their lives by fleeing to Kiu-kiang. The mission of Northern Kiang-si comprises to-day (1910) the six following civil prefectures: Kiu-kiang-fu, residence of the vicar Apostolic, Yoci-chou-fu, Nan-chang-fu, capital of the province, Nan-kang-fu, Lin-kiang-fu, and Yuan-chou-fu. It contains about ten million inhabitants. In 1899 the Catholic mission included: 2 bishops, 11 Lazarist priests, of whom 2 were Chinese, 2 native priests, 14 Daughters of Charity, 1471 Catholics. Condition of the mission in 1907: 1 bishop, 16 European missionaries, 4 native priests, 98 churches and chapels, two seminaries with 24 students, 50 schools with 1439 scholars, 1 school directed by the Little Brothers of Mary, 24 Daughters of Charity, 8395 Catholics. In 1908: 1 bishop, 18 European missionaries, 4 native priests, 110 churches and chapels, 11,397 Catholics. Missiones Catholicæ. V.H. MONTANAR Southern Kiang-Si Southern Kiang-si (Vicariate Apostolic) Southern Kiang-si was separated from the mission of Northern Kiang-si in 1879, and organized into an independent Vicariate Apostolic. The mission possessed at the time 2000 Catholics among a population of ten million. This part of Kiang-si had been greatly neglected up to this time, due to its remoteness. Father Rouger, a Lazarist, was the first superior of the new mission. He retained the title of pro-vicar until 1884, when he was named vicar Apostolic. He established his residence at Ki-ngan-fu. At his death in 1887, Mgr Cogret assumed the direction of the mission. The latter came from Peking, and found only two missionaries in the mission. Southern Kiang-si was often a prey to persecution. In 1884 the Christian districts were pillaged. In August, 1900, the chapels on the frontiers of Kwang-tung were again pillaged, and then burned, and the Christians driven from their homes. Later, toward the end of 1907, Father Candugler, an Italian Lazarist, and more than sixty Christians were massacred at Ta-ho-li; the churches and more than twenty Christian villages were pillaged and destroyed by fire. The following is the account rendered at different periods of the condition of the mission. In 1890: 1 bishop, 16 priests, 27 chapels and churches, 2 seminaries with 28 students, 4 colleges with 87 students, 7 native Daughters of St. Anne, 4 orphan asylums with 136 children, 5229 Catholics, and more than 4000 catechumens. In 1908: 1 bishop, 15 missionaries, 6 native priests, 43 chapels and churches, 2 seminaries with 42 students, 1 college with 30 students, 4 orphan asylums with 317 children, 4 Little Brothers of Mary, 5 Daughters of Charity, 15 native Daughters of St. Anne, 8637 Catholics, and about 3000 catechumens. Missiones Catholicæ. V.H. MONTANAR Kickapoo Indians Kickapoo Indians Apparently corrupted from a longer term signifying "roamers", a tribe of Algonquian stock, closely related dialectically to the Sauk and Foxes, and living when first known in south central Wisconsin, whence they gradually moved southward, taking up a position about the lower Wabash in Illinois and Indiana, upon lands seized from the Illinois and Miami. In their general habit, as well as in their mythology and general forms, they closely resembled the Sauk and Foxes. They were agricultural, occupying fixed villages of bark houses in summer, and oval mat-covered lodges in winter, and making frequent excursions into the plains beyond the Mississippi to hunt buffalo and steal horses. As their name implies, they were known for their roving and adventurous disposition. Their religious beliefs centred about two mythic hero brothers, to whom all good was attributed, and who ruled over the spirit world. They held the dog particularly sacred. They had a systems of eleven clans (see Indians), which is still kept up, descent following the male line, and the name of the individual indicating the clan to which he belonged. As a people the Kickapoo have usually been hostile to the white man and his civilization. They are possibly identical to the tribe mentioned by the Jesuit Druillettes in 1658, but were first definitely met by Alloues in 1869, as visitors, with other tribes, to the Francis Xavier Mission, on Green Bay, Wisconsin. In 1680 they killed the Recollect missionary Father Gabriel de la Ribourde on the banks of the Illinois. They joined the Foxes against the French in the long war beginning in 1712, and in 1728, together with the Maseoutens, captured Father Ignatius Guignas and condemned him to the stake, but afterwards adopted him, and through his influence made peace with the French the next year. They aided the Pontiacs against the English in 1764, aided the northern tribes in the ensuing destruction destruction of the Illinois, and joined the same tribes and the English in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. Between 1809 and 1819 they ceded all their lands in Illinois and Indiana, removing first to Missouri and later to Kansas. About this period a noted prophet named Kanakuka rose among them, preaching the doctrine of temperance, peace, and a return to the old Indian life. About the year 1852 a large party left the main body in Kansas and moved down into Texas and thence to Mexico, where they were later joined by others and became known as the Mexican Kickapoo. In 1873 a part of these were induced to return and settled in central Oklahoma, but the rest remained in Mexico, upon a reservation granted by the Mexican Government, in the Santa Rosa mountains, eastern Chihuahua. Both in Kansas and Oklahoma they are noted for their conservative and unprogressive tendency. Through the operation of an unfortunate allotment agreement in 1891 with power to sell their allotted lands, the Oklahoma band has been rendered practically homeless. A few are under the influence of the Catholic mission at Sacred Heart, or of the Friends working in the same region, but the majority are still heathen. From a a possible two thousand when first known, they have decreased to about eight hundred souls in 1908, of whom one hundred and ninety-five were in Kansas, two hundred and thirty-four in Oklahoma, and the rest in Mexico, there having been a constant movement from Oklahoma to Mexico in the past five years. Com. Ind. Affairs, Annual Reports (Washington); Jesuit Relations, Thwaites ed. (Cleveland, 1898-1900); Hodge, Handbook Am. Inds., I (Washington, 1907); Kapler. Indian Treaties (Washington, 1903); Maugry, Découvertes, VI (Paris, 1886); Mooney, Ghost Dance Religion (Kanakuk), in 14th Rep. Bur. Am. Ethnology, II (Washington, 1896); Shea, Catholic Missions (New York, 1854). JAMES MOONEY Kielce Kielce (Russian Kieltzy; Latin Kielcensis) Diocese in the sourthern part of Russian Poland, comprises the government (province) of Kielce and a part of the government of Piotrkow. Kielce, the episcopal see, contains four Catholic churches, one Orthodox and one Protestant church, and a Jewish synagogue. The church of the Assumption, now the cathedral, was founded in 1173 by Gedeon, Bishop of Cracow. The beautiful church of the Holy Trinity was founded in 1646. The church of St. Adalbert (twelfth century) is built where, according to tradition, the saint suffered martyrdom. The church of St. Michael the Archangel was founded in 1221 by Ivan Odrowazi, Bishop of Cracow. The diocesan seminary was founded by Bishop Szaniawski in 1727, and now (1910) has ten professors and seventy-nine seminarians. Kielce has also a hospital, in charge of the Sisters of Charity, and two high schools. The Diocese of Kielce, first erected in 1807 by Pius VII, was separated from and made subject to the Archdiocese of Cracow. At present it is a suffragan of Warsaw. The first bishop, Adalbert de Boza Gorski (1753-1817), of Cracow, incurred the enmity of the Russians, and on his death the diocese was suppressed and again added to Cracow. Afterwards, owing to strong Russian supervision, it was detached from Cracow and placed under Warsaw. Pope Leo XIII re-established the diocese 26 December, 1882. The second bishop was Thomas Theophilus Kulinski (1823-1907), who was on fairly harmonious terms with the Russian Government, but since his death the see has been vacant. The diocese, divided into eight deaneries, has (1910) 944,604 Catholics; 5325 Orthodox; 3560 Protestants; and 103,759 Jews; 242 parish churches; 21 other churches; 141 chapels; 339 secular clergy, and 8 Franciscans, the only regular clergy permitted by the Government; 1 convent of Norbertines with 12 nuns; and 10 establishments of the Sisters of Charity with 47 sisters. Elenchus omnium ecclesiarum diæcesis Kielcensis (Kielce, 1910); PUCHALSKI, Seminaryum Kieleckie: rys historyczny (Kielce, 1901); BATTANDIER, Ann. Pontifical (Paris, 1910). ANDREW J. SHIPMAN Saints Kieran Sts. Kieran There are many Irish saints of this name, but the most celebrated is St. Kieran of Clonmacnoise (see CLONMACNOISE). Of the others, St. Kieran of Seir-Kieran and St. Kieran of Disert-Kieran are the best known. The former is founder of Seir-Kieran, Kings County (about A.D. 450), and also of the See of Ossory (see OSSORY, DIOCESE OF). His history is obscure, but he flourished during the greater part of the fifth century, and is venerated in England, Brittany, Wales, and Scotland, on 5 March. St. Kieran of Disert-Kieran, Co. Meath, called by the Irish annalists "Kieran the Devout", wrote a "Life of St. Patrick." He died in 775 on 14 June, on which day his feast is celebrated. St. Kieran, patron of Clonsost, is commemorated on 30 April, and St. Kieran, son of Colga, on 19 May. W.H. GRATTAN-FLOOD School of Kildare School of Kildare Kildare (Irish: Cill-Dara), originally known as Druim Criaidh, or the Ridge of Clay, situated in Magh Liffe, or the Plain of the Liffey, came to be known as Cill-Dara, or the Church of the Oak, from the stately oak-tree so much loved by St. Brigid, who under its branches laid the foundations of what in process of time became a monastic city. Through the influence and talent for rule and organization possessed by the holy foundress the little oratory she built soon expanded into a large double establishment, one portion being for women, the other for men, and crowds of devotees flocked thither from far and near to make pilgrimages or hear words of heavenly wisdom from the lips of the "Mary of the Gael". "Seeing, however," says her biographer, "that this state of things could not exist without a pontiff to consecrate her churches and ordain the sacred ministers, she chose an illustrious anchorite, celebrated for his virtues and his miracles, that as bishop he might aid her in the government of the Church, and that nothing should be wanting for the proper discharge of all ecclesiastical functions." In these words of the biographer, "ut ecclesiam in episcopali dignitate cum eâ gubernaret", there is surely nothing to justify the absurd statement sometimes made that Brigid claimed to have authority over, or give canonical jurisdiction to, this illustrious anchorite. She simply selected him to govern the establishment under her advice and guidance, and he got his jurisdiction in the ordinary way. In those days of violence and turmoil a needed sense of security would be afforded a convent of nuns by having hard by a house of monks with a prudent bishop at their head. And not only did Brigid procure the renowned St. Conlaeth to rule and ordain, but she had another bishop, St. Nadfraoich, to preach and teach the Gospel, and thus she hoped to make Kildare a great and independent home of sanctity and learning. And such in truth it became. Cogitosus, a monk of Kildare in the eighth century, and the author of what is known as the "Second Life of St. Brigid", calls Kildare "the head-city of all the bishops", and Conlaeth and his successors "arch-bishops of the bishops of Ireland", and goes on to refer to the primacy of honour and domestic jurisdiction acknowledged in the abbess of this city by all the abbesses of Ireland. To this primacy, maintained all along, is due the unique distinction enjoyed by Kildare of having recorded by the annalists, till comparatively recent times, the succession of its abbesses in parallel columns with that of its abbots. Cogitosus also makes mention of the enormous crowds that, in his time, used to come to Kildare from "all the provinces of Erin", especially on St. Brigid's feast-day, 1 February, to pray and to have cures effected at her venerated shrine. From the interesting description he gives of the church we learn that it was very spacious and beautiful, that it had divisions rigidly distinct for the men and the women, and was lavishly adorned with pictures and embroidered hangings, which set off its highly ornamental windows and doorways. Unhappily, no portion of this church now remains, nor indeed of any of the ancient buildings, with the exception of the Round Tower. This tower, the loftiest in Ireland - being 136 feet 7 inches high - has an elaborately worked doorway of a graceful finish rarely met with in those hoary sentinels of the past. Bishop Conlaeth, himself a man of remarkable artistic genius, founded at Kildare a school in metal work which grew and prospered as the years went on. And from Gerald Barry we learn to what a high pitch of perfection the art of illumination had been brought in that city. Nothing, he says, that he saw at Kildare impressed him so much as the "Evangelistarium", or manuscript of the Four Gospels, according to the version of St. Jerome, which, by reason of the extraordinary grace and ingenuity displayed in the letters and figures, looked rather like the work of angels than of men. The famous "Book of Leinster" was probably copied from originals preserved in the School of Kildare, by Finn MacGorman, who became Bishop of Kildare in 1148. Even during the most stormy periods of the school's history we find recorded interesting facts and dates concerning its professors. We read of Cobthac, who died in 1069, and was celebrated for "his universal knowledge of ecclesiastical discipline"; and of Ferdomhnach, the Blind, who was deeply versed in knowledge of the Sacred Scriptures. In 1135 Diarmaid MacMurrogh, of contemptible memory, "forcibly carried away the Abbess of Kildare from her cloister, and compelled her to marry one of his own people"; and in the following year Diarmaid O'Brien and his brothers sacked and set fire to the town. But the School of Brigid continued in spite of the ravages of native and foreign despoiler. The holy fire called the "inextinguishable", which had probably been kept alight since the days of Brigid, was put out by order of Henry de Londres, Archbishop of Dublin, who perhaps thought the practice savoured of superstition. Our opinion is that it simply arose from a desire on the part of the spiritual daughters of St. Brigid to secure a means by which lamps might be kept perpetually burning before the shrines of their sainted foundress. Be that as it may, the fire was kindled again by the Bishop of Kildare, and with a steady flame it burned till the fierce storm of persecution in the reign of Elizabeth extinguished it and every other monastic light in Ireland. COLGAN, Trias Thaumaturga (Louvain, 1647); STOKES, Lives of the Saints from the Book of Lismore (Oxford, 1890); O'HANLON, Lives of the Irish Saints; HEALY, Ireland's Ancient Schools and Scholars (5th ed., Dublin, 1908). JOHN HEALY Kildare and Leighlin Kildare and Leighlin (KILDARENSIS ET LEIGHLINENSIS) One of the four suffragans of Dublin, Ireland. These two dioceses continued to be separate from their foundation until 1678, when, owing to the extreme tenuity of the episcopal revenues -- about fifteen pounds sterling a year each -- the Diocese of Leighlin was given in commendam by the Holy See to the Bishop of Kildare, Dr. Mark Forstall. The Diocese of Kildare includes the northern half of that county, the eastern portion of King's County, as far as Tullamore, and the two northern baronies of Queen's County, and it embraces the ancient territories of Offaly, Carbury, and Hy Faelain. Its direction lies east and west. The Diocese of Leighlin lies north and south, including one half of Queen's County, all County Carlow, and portions of Kilkenny, Wexford, and Wicklow Counties. It embraces ancient Leix, which connects it with Kildare and a portion of Ui Ceinnsealaigh. The united diocese is one of the largest dioceses in Ireland, comprising 1,029,829 acres; and the Catholic population according to the census of 1901, was 130,377, out of a total of 149,168. History When St. Patrick had preached the Gospel in the North and West of Ireland, he turned his steps to the South, and coming into Leinster from Meath by Druim Urchailli he passed through Straffan and Clane to Naas. Pitching his tent on its green, he there baptized its joint kins, Ailill and Illan, sons of Dunling, and Ailill's two daughters, Mogain and Fedelm. Their people seeing this soon embraced the Gospel also, and Patrick placed his nephew, Auxilius, as bishop at Kilashee, a few miles south of Naas, and Iserninus with Mac Tail as bishops at Old Kilcullen. From here he went towards Athy, founding churches at Narraghmore and other places, and, crossing the Barrow, continued his journey by Ballyadams and Stradbally to Morett. Here he built a church and then turning north re-crossed the Barrow south of Rathangan, and going by Lullymore, Allen, and Kilcock, he returned to Tara. These events occurred about the year 448. Later on St. Patrick made a second journey into Leinster, and coming to Rathvilly in County Carlow he baptized King Crimthan, his wife Mel, and his son and heir, Dathi. He translated Iserninus (Fith) from Kilcullen to Aghade. At Donaghmore in Ui Ceinnsealaigh he met his old friend Dubtach, the chief bard of Erin, who alone amongst King Laoghaire's hosts had stood up to salute him at Tara. He was accompanied by Fiacc, his gifted pupil and successor- apparent. Patrick, being in need of a suitable candidate for the episcopacy, consecrated Fiacc on Dubtach's recommendation, and placed him at Domnach Fiacc, midway between Clonmore and Aghold. Years afterwards he transferred him to Sletty, blessing his church there, and making his see quasi-metropolitan. This pre-eminence afterwards passed to Ferns, then to Kildare, and later on to Dublin. The fame of Fiacc's virtues and miracles followed him from Domnach Fiacc, bringing crowds of pilgrims to Sletty, and soon a large monastery grew up of which he was the first abbot. St. Fiacc practiced extraordinary austerities even in his old age, spending each Lent in the cave of Drum Coblai (the doon of Clopook), so that the fame of his sanctity still survives in the district. He died in 510. In the next century the See of Sletty was transferred to Leighlin, which means either "the half glen" or "the white plain." St. Laserian (also called Molaise) was the first bishop and patron saint of Leighlin, b. 566; d. 18 April, 639. He was the son of Cairel de Blitha, a Ulidian noble, and Gemma, daughter of a Scottish king. Part of his youth was spent in Scotland. On his return home he refused the chieftainship of his clan, went into retirement, and ultimately set out for Rome, where he studied for fourteen years and was ordained by Gregory the Great. Returning to Leighlin he entered the great monastery which St. Gobban had established, and soon found himself its abbot, St. Gobban having retired in his favour and gone into Ossory. This establishment soon became famous, and contained as many as 1500 monks. St. Laserian took the leading part in settling the Easter controversy. In the Synod of Magh-lene he successfully defended the Roman computation, and was sent by the council as delegate to Rome. There, in 633, he was consecrated first Bishop of Leighlin by Honorius I. On his return from the centre of Catholic unity Laserian pleaded the cause of the Roman practice so powerfully at another synod in Leighlin that the controversy was practically ended for the greater part of the country. The list of his successors, sometimes called abbots and sometimes bishops, is practically complete. The cathedral of Leighlin was built about the middle of the twelfth century in the plainest Gothic, to replace the original church of wood. It was plundered several times both by the Danes and by the native chieftains, and the great religious establishments of Sletty and Killeshin shared the same fate. In the reign of Henry VIII it was seized by the Reformers, was made a Protestant church, and has continued as such ever since. The sufferings of the Catholics were so intense during the persecutions which raged over Ireland for more than two centuries, that towards the end but a remnant of the clergy remained. What the number of the clergy was in these dioceses before the Reformation, we cannot say for certain; but from the ecclesiastical ruins we have the means of forming a fair estimate. Over these dioceses, at the present day, there lie scattered the mouldering ruins of 240 churches and 63 religious houses, bearing mute but eloquent testimony to the persecutions borne by the Catholics, and to the numbers of the clergy who suffered banishment or death. Nor were these convents small or unimportant; there were many large monasteries of the different religious orders, including the four great Cistercian Abbeys of Abbeyleix, Baltinglass, Duiske, and Monasterevan. The abbey church of Duiske, Graignamanagh, is one of the few abbey churches at present in possession of their rightful owners, and actually devoted to the service of the old religion. There were eight round towers in these dioceses, two of which are still entire, Kildare and Timahoe. The earthen rampart of the Pale can he traced for a mile between Clane and Clongowes College. Abbey and Shrine of St. Brigid Before the time of St. Laserian of Leighlin, St. Conleth and St. Brigid were the patron saints of Kildare. The latter was a native of the district, though born at Faughart, near Dundalk. In 487 she received the religious habit from St. Macaille, Bishop of Croghan in Offaly, and coming to Kildare formed a community of the pious virgins who flocked around her. Her first house was a humble cell under a large oak, which gave Kildare its name -- Cill-Dara, the cell of the oak. The fame of her sanctity attracted such a concourse of pilgrims to Kildare that a city soon sprang up which included a religious community of men. To meet the spiritual wants of the new city St. Brigid requested the appointment of a bishop. Great deference was paid to her wishes, and, as she had recommended St. Conleth, he was consecrated the first Bishop of Kildare about 490. He had been leading the life of a recluse at Old Connell near Newbridge, was a skillful artificer in gold and silver; and the ancient crosier in the museum of the Royal Academy is believed to be the work of his hands. It is said that as bishop he made a journey to Rome, and returned with vestments for his church at Kildare, in which latter place he died, 3 May, 519. A fire was kept burning day and night at Kildare by St. Brigid for the use of pilgrims and travellers, and for the same purpose, as well as in memory of the saint, it was continued till the total suppression of the religious houses at the Reformation. The firehouse was a cell or vault twenty feet square, and its ruins existed till 1792. The first church of Kildare was probably of wood, and, being designed for two communities of different sexes, the nave was divided by a partition or screen. For an account of the church and its relies see BRIGID, SAINT. Kildare with its church was plundered and burned frequently. Sometimes it suffered from the Danes, sometimes from the native chieftains, and sometimes by accident. Its records give about twenty-five catastrophes of the kind. At the Reformation the cathedral was seized by the Protestants, and a portion of it was used for a church. The rest of the building became a ruin, and so remained till 1875-96, when it was completely restored by private contributions, and is now the Protestant cathedral. Bishops of Kildare The bishops of Kildare were frequently called abbot-bishops and bishops of Leinster down to the Synod of Kells. The record of succession is practically complete down to the union of the two dioceses. For the episcopal lists see, besides Gams and Eubel, Brady, "Episcopal Succession in England, Scotland, and Ireland" (Rome, 1877). Dr. Leverous (1497-1577) was consecrated Bishop of Kildare in 1555, and early in Elizabeth's reign, when the bishops of Ireland were summoned before the Lord Deputy to take the oath of supremacy, the Bishop of Kildare pre-emptorily refused, and being asked the reason of his refusal replied: "All ecclesiastical authority is from Christ, Who has never conferred it on a woman, even His blessed mother. How then can it be sworn that in future ages God would confer it on a woman?" He added: "The Apostle has commanded that no woman should dare even to speak with authority in the church much less to preside and govern there." He was deprived of his temporalities, forced to fly for safety to Adare, Co. Limerick, where he conducted a school, and finally returning he died at Naas, aged 80. The school of Kildare was among the most famous in Ireland (see KILDARE, SCHOOL OF). There were also great and ancient schools at Sletty, Killeshin, Tullow, Clonenagh, and elsewhere in the diocese. A synod was held at Geashill in 550 (most probably), a national synod at Clane in 1162, to establish codes of morality for both laity and clergy; a provincial synod at Tierhogar, Portarlington (28 Jul., 1640), to provide for the exigencies of the penal times, and a national synod at Tullow, in 1809, to condemn the teachings of the Abbe Blanchard. Diocesan Writers Among the writers of the diocese and the works attributed to them are the following: St. Fiacc of Sletty, a poem in Irish on the life of St. Patrick, a poem in Latin on St. Brigid, other compositions and prayers; St. Eimhin (Emin) of Monasterevan (about 600), the "Tripartite Life" of St. Patrick, the "Life of St. Congall," "Emin's Tribute (or Rule)," the "Lay of the Bell of St. Emin," etc.; St. Moling (see FERNS), a poem on Clonmore-Maedoc, one on the Borumha tribute of which he obtained the remission; St. Brogan of Clonsast, a litany in Irish on the B.V. Mary, indulgenced by Pius IX, a poem foretelling the Danish invasion, the lost "Book of Clonsast"; St. Aedh, Bishop of Sletty (698), a life of St. Patrick; Aengus the Culdee, 830, the "Feilire," the "Martyrology of Tallaght," "Litany of the Saints," "De sanctis Hiberniae lib. V," a history of the Old Testament in metre, the "Saltair-na-rann"; Siadhal (Sedulius), Abbot of Kildare, 827, notes on the Epistles of St. Paul; Anmchadh (Animosus), Bishop of Kildare, 980, the fourth life of St. Brigid; Finn Mac Gorman, Bishop of Kildare, 1160, the "Book of Leinster" -- a most valuable historical work; Maguire, Bishop of Leighlin, 1490, the "Yellow Book (or Long Book) of Leighlin"; Gallagher, Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin, 1737-51, Irish sermons; Doyle (J.K.L.), Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin (q.v.); Rev. D.W. Cahill (q.v.); Comerford, coadjutor Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin, history of the diocese in three vols., books of devotion; Rev. J. Farrell, sermons and lectures. Among the priceless works which have been lost to the diocese and Ireland are the following: the "Book of Clonsast," the "Book of Clonenagh"; the "Yellow Book of Leighlin"; the "Book of Kildare" -- if it be not the existing "Book of Kells," as many suppose. When the storm of persecution had spent its force, the revival of Catholicism was as marvellous here as over the rest of Ireland, and the following is a summary of what a century has seen accomplished in the diocese: Carlow ecclesiastical college, the first to be established in Ireland since the Reformation; 1 diocesan lay college; 2 colleges of religious; 21 convents with their schools; 9 Christian schools; 234 primary schools; 1 cathedral; 164 churches. There are 49 parishes in the diocese, with 133 secular and 18 regular clergy. The present occupant of the see is The Most Rev. Patrick Foley, D.D., b. at Mensal Lodge near Leighlinbridge, in 1858; ordained priest at Carlow in 1881; and, having spent the interval in Carlow College as professor and president, consecrated bishop in May, 1896. He is a Commissioner of National Education (1905) and a member of the governing body of the Dublin College of the National University of Ireland (1908). COMERFORD, Collections relating to the diocese of Kildare and Leighlin (Dublin, 1883); O'HANLON, Lives of the Irish Saints (Dublin, 1875-); O'DONOVAN, Four Masters; IDEM, Ordnance Survey of Ireland; WARE-HARRIS, Writers and Antiquities of Ireland (Dublin, 1764); LEWIS, Topographical Dictionary (Dublin, 1839); SHEARMAN, Loca Patriciana (Dublin, 1874); WALSH, The Irish Hierarchy (Dublin, 1854); HEALY, Ireland's Ancient Schools and Scholars (Dublin, 1902), IDEM, Life and Writings of St. Patrick (Dublin, 1909); Irish Catholic Directory (1909). E. O'LEARY St. Kilian St. Kilian (Killena, Cillíne). Apostle of Franconia and martyr, born about 640 of noble parents probably in Ireland (according to others in Scotland though Scottica tellus, as it is called by the elder "Passio", may also in medieval times have meant Ireland. The later "Passio" says: "Scotia quæ et Hibernia dicitur"); died 8 July, probably in 689. He was distinguished from his youth for his piety and love of study, and, according to the later "Passio", embraced the monastic life. Trithemius and later writers say that he was a monk in the celebrated monastery of Hy: that he was later the abbot of this monastery is also held by Trithemius; however, that, a supposition, cannot be proved. The statement in the older "Passio" that Kilian was raised to the purple before leaving his native land may be accepted as trustworthy, although the later "Passio" refers this event to his sojourn in Rome. In accordance with the custom then prevailing in the Irish Church, he was assigned to no particular diocese, but was district bishop or travelling bishop. One day he made up his mind to be a missionary, left his native country with eleven companions, travelled through Gaul, thence across the Rhine, and finally reached the castle of Würzburg, inhabited by the Thuringian (Frankish) Duke Gozbert, who was, like his people, still pagan. Kilian resolved to preach the Gospel here, but first journeyed with his companions to Rome to receive missionary faculties from the pope. John V, whom he expected to find, had died meanwhile (2 August, 686), and was succeeded by Conon from whom Kilian obtained his faculties. From the sources already cited, we learn that the arrival of St. Kilian and his companions at Würzburg and the journey to Rome occurred in the summer of 686, that they arrived in the latter city in the late autumn, and that their labours at Würzburg continued during 687 and the following years. The original group separated on the return journey -- some departing to seek other fields of missionary work, while St. Kilian with two companions, the priest Coloman and the deacon Totnan, came back to Würzburg. He took this town as the base of his activity, which extended over an ever-increasing area in East Franconia and Thuringia, and converted Duke Gozbert with a large part of his subjects to Christianity. Concerning the cause of the martyrdom of the three missionaries, the early documents supply the following information: After Duke Gozbert had become a Christian, St. Kilian explained to him that his marriage with Geilana, his brother's widow, was unlawful under the Christian dispensation, and secured the duke's promise to separate from her. In consequence of this action, Geilana plotted vengeance against the saint, and caused him and his two companions to be secretly murdered in the absence of the duke, their corpses being immediately buried at the scene of the crime together with the sacred vessels, vestments, and holy writings. This is generally held to have happened on 8 July, 689, although opinions vary as to the exact year. The early documents relate further that, after the duke's return, Geilana at first denied any knowledge of what had become of the missionaries; the murderer, however, went mad, confessed his crime, and died miserably, Geilana also dying insane. Recent critics, especially Hauck and Riezler (see bibliography), question without sufficient grounds the authenticity of these statements in the matter of detail, especially as regards the cause and the immediate circumstances of the martyrdom of the three missionaries. Through prejudice against the Irish Church the Protestant party has also disputed the absolutely reliable information about the journey to Rome undertaken by St. Kilian and his assistants. His missionary labours through Eastern Franconia and his martyrdom are, however, accepted without question by everyone. Although Kilian's work was not continued after his death, St. Boniface on his arrival in Thuringia found at least evidence of his predecessor's influence. The relics of the three martyrs, after wonderful cures had brought renown to their burial place, were transferred in 743 by Saint Burchard, first Bishop of Würzburg, to the Church of Our Lady, where they were temporarily interred. Later, when Burchard had obtained Pope Zachary's permission for their public veneration, they were solemnly transferred -- probably on 8 July, 752 -- to the newly finished Cathedral of the Saviour. Still later they were buried in St. Kilian's vault in the new cathedral erected on the spot where tradition affirms the martyrdom to have taken place. The New Testament belonging to St. Kilian was preserved among the treasures of Würzburg Cathedral until 1803, and since then has been in the university library. Kilian is the patron saint of the diocese, and his feast is celebrated in Würzburg on 8 July with great solemnity. The chief source of information is the older and shorter "Passio" (which begins "Fuit vir vitæ venerabilis Killena nomine"), formerly considered to date from the tenth or ninth century. Emmerich (after the example of the "Histoire littéraire de la France", IV, Paris, 1738, p. 86), and Hefner (see below) on very good grounds now connect the appearance of this chronicle with the solemn translation of the relics in 752, which raises its historic value beyond the reach of attack. The later and more voluminous "Passio" is an amplified and embellished version of the earlier one and cannot be relied upon when the accounts differ. Both have been published by H. Canisius, "Antiquae lectiones", IV, pt. ii (Ingolstadt, 1603), pp. 625-47; by Mabillon, "Acta Sanctorum O.S.B.", II (Paris, 1669), p. 991-3; in the "Acta Sanctorum" for 8 July (see below), and finally, with a collection of later sources and with the office of St. Kilian of the Würzburg Church, by Emmerich (see below). Acta SS., II, July (Paris and Rome, 1867), 599-619; Eckhart, Commentarii de rebus Franciæ orientalis, I (Würzburg, 1729), 270-83, 451 sqq.; Gropp, Lebensbeschreibung des hl. Kiliani und dessen Gesellen (Würzburg, 1738); Stamminger, Franconia sancta, I (Würzburg, 1881), 58-133; Emmerich, Der heilige Kilian, Regionarbischof u. Martyrer (Würzburg, 1896; Göpfert, St. Kilianus-Büchlein (Würzburg, 1877; 2nd ed., 1902); Bellesheim, Gesch. der kath. Kirche in Irland, I (Mainz, 1890), 168-71; Schrödl in Kirchenlex., s.v.; O'Hanlon, Lives of the Irish Saints, VII (Dublin, s.d.), 122-43; Moore in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v. Cilian. The authenticity of the older "Passio" is combated by: Hauck, Kirchengesch. Deutschlands, I (3rd and 4th ed.), 386 sq.; Riezler, Die Vita Kiliani in Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde, XXVIII (1903), 232-4. In opposition to the views put forward in these works, the authenticity of the document is upheld in Hefner, Das Leben des hl. Burchard in Archiv des historischen Vereins von Unterfranken u. Aschaffenburg, XLV -- published separately (Würzburg, 1904), pp. 33, 57; cf. also Hagiographischer Jahresbericht für die Jahre 1904-1906 (Kempten and Munich, 1908), 110. FRIEDRICH LAUCHERT Killala Killala (ALLADENSIS). Diocese. It is one of the five suffragan sees of the ecclesiastical Province of Tuam, and comprises the north-western part of the County Mayo with the Barony of Tireragh in the County Sligo. In all there are 22 parishes, some of which, bordering on the Atlantic Ocean, consist mostly of wild moorland, sparsely inhabited. Lewis's Topographical Dictionary sets down the length of the diocese as 45 miles, the breadth 21 miles, and the estimated superficies as 314,300 acres -- of which 43,100 are in the County Sligo, and 271,200 in the County Mayo. In the census returns for the year 1901 the Catholic population is given as 61,876, and the non-Catholic as 3576. The foundation of the diocese dates from the time of St. Patrick, who placed his disciple St. Muredach over the church called in Irish Cell Alaid. In a well that still flows close to the town, beside the sea, Patrick baptized in a single day 12,000 converts, and on the same occasion, in presence of the crowds, raised to life a dead woman whom he also baptized. Muredach is described as an old man of Patrick's family, and was appointed to the Church of Killala as early as 442 or 443. His feast-day is 12 August. It is probable that he resigned his see after a few years, and retired to end his life in the lonely island in Donegal Bay which has ever since borne his name, Innismurray. It was at Killala that Patrick baptized the two maidens whom he met in childhood at Focluth Wood by the western sea, and whose voices in visions of the night had often pathetically called him to come once more and dwell amongst them. He did come, and he baptized them, and built them a church where they spent the rest of their days as holy nuns in the service of God. Little or nothing is known of the successors of Muredach in Killala down to the twelfth century. Of the sainted Bishop Cellach, for example, we learn merely that he came of royal blood, flourished in the sixth century, and was foully murdered at the instigation of his foster-brother. His name is mentioned in all the Irish martyrologies. Beyond doubt, however, the most illustrious of them all belongs to modern times. With pardonable pride the people of Killala still, and will ever, recall the fact that John McHale, Archbishop of Tuam, was a child of their diocese, and, if we may so speak, served his apprenticeship as bishop amongst them. He was born at Tubbernavine, at the foot of Mount Nephin, 6 March, 1791; became Coadjutor Bishop of Killala in 1825, bishop in 1834, and later in the same year was transferred to Tuam, where for nearly half a century he exercised a more potent influence on the civil and ecclesiastical history of Ireland than perhaps any of his contemporaries, with the single exception of O'Connell. He died 7 November, 1881, and is buried in the sanctuary of the Tuam cathedral. After him came Doctor Finan, a Dominican priest of remarkable piety and attainments, but rather unfit, owning to his continental training, to direct the affairs of an Irish diocese. On his resignation in the year 1838, a parish priest of the Archdiocese of Tuam, Rev. Thomas Feeney, who had formerly been professor and president of St. Jarlath's College, Tuam, was chosen for the task of repairing the injury that ecclesiastical discipline had suffered during his reign. Feeney is said to have been a most happy selection under the circumstances. Thirty-five years of his firm and resolute rule obliterated practically all traces of the wretched controversies that distracted the diocese under his predecessor. The town of Killala is remarkable in Irish history as the place where the French under General Humbert landed in 1798. The exact spot is by the rocky ledge in the outer estuary of the Moy known as "St. Patrick's Rocks", from which it is said that the saint set sail when making his escape as a poor young slave from Ireland. The French officers occupied the palace of the Protestant bishop where they lived for a short time with his lordship and family. The bishop (Stock) has written a most interesting and authentic account of the "Invasion", and of the sayings and doings of these gentlemen which he himself saw and heard. Along the left bank of the river are the ruins of several monasteries. Rosserk, a Franciscan house of strict observance, was founded in 1460. The beautiful Abbey of Moyne still stands nearly perfect on a most picturesque site just over the river, and further on, north of Killala, was the Dominican Abbey of Rathfran, also delightfully situated. On the promontory of Errew running into Lough Conn there was another monastery which existed as such till comparatively recent times. A fine round tower in Killala itself, still in perfect preservation, indicated the ancient celebrity of the place as an ecclesiastical centre. Indeed it may be safely stated that in no other portion of Ireland of equal extent were the labours of St. Patrick and the holy founders of religious institutions who came after him so arduous and full of interest as in this beautiful district of Tirawley. Tireragh and Tirawley need not rely entirely for their fame on the traditions of the past, near or remote. Under the present occupant of the See of Killala religion has made quiet but very gratifying progress. One may judge of the learning and ability of Dr. Conmy from the fact that in Maynooth he held a distinguished place in the class that produced such men as the Cardinal Primate of Ireland and Archbishop Carr of Melbourne. After several years of fruitful labours as professor and missionary priest he was called in 1892 from the parish of Crossmolina to wield the crosier of Muredach. His rule has been characterized by prudence, and justice that is well tempered with mercy. Amongst his most conspicuous services to the twin cause of religion and education must be reckoned the building and equipping, from funds raised almost exclusively from his own faithful priests and people, of the splendid seminary that now graces the town of Ballina, and bids fair to revive the olden name of the School of Killala founded by St. Patrick. The bishop lives in a plain but commodious dwelling in Ballina, hard by the diocesan seminary, which since its opening has been the dearest object of his episcopal zeal. WARE, Antiquities of Ireland, ed. HARRIS (Dublin, 1739); Annals of the Four Masters, ed. O'DONOVAN; LEWIS, Topographical Dictionary of Ireland (London, 1837); Tripartite Life of St. Patrick (Rolls series), ed. STOKES (London, 1837); KNOX, Notes on the Diocese of Tuam, etc. (Dublin, 1904); HEALY, Life and Writings of St. Patrick (Dublin, 1905). JOHN HEALY Killaloe Killaloe (LAONIA) A suffragan diocese of Cashel; it comprises the greater part of County Clare, a large portion of Tipperary, and parts of King's and Queen's Counties, Limerick, and Galway. Its Irish name is Cill-da-Lua, so named from St. Lua, an abbot who lived about the end of the sixth century, and whose oratory can still be seen in Friar's Island, near the town of Killaloe. Though St. Lua gave his name to the diocese, St. Flannan is its patron saint. He was of royal lineage, his father being the saintly Theodoric, King of Thomond, who towards the close of his life received the monastic habit from St. Colman at Lismore. St. Flannan was the first Bishop of Killaloe, and is said to have been consecrated at Rome by John IV about 640. In the time of St. Flannan, the Diocese of Killaloe was not so extensive as it is at present. It did not then include the old dioceses of Roscrea and Inniscathy. It was only when these were suppressed at the Synod of Rathbresail in the first quarter of the twelfth century, that Killaloe assumed its present shape, which is almost coterminous with the boundaries of the ancient Kingdom of Thomond. The parish of Seir Kieran in King's County, though in Thomond, was allowed to remain subject to the Diocese of Ossory, out of respect to the memory of St. Kieran. The old See of Roscrea grew around a monastery founded there by St. Cronan about the middle of the sixth century. This monastery became a famous school, and it was within its walls that the scribe Dimma wrote for St. Cronan the copy of the Four Gospels now in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin, for which Tatheus O'Carroll, chieftain of Ely, made a costly shrine in the twelfth century. The Diocese of Roscrea was coextensive with the territory of the O'Carrolls, added to that of the O'Kennedys. Ware holds that St. Cronan was Bishop of Roscrea, but Lanigan thinks that Ware has been misled by the fact that Roscrea became an episcopal see. Like the Diocese of Roscrea, the Diocese of Inniscathy grew around the monastery of Inniscathy, founded by St. Senan in the early portion of the sixth century. There is no question about St. Senan being the first bishop of the Diocese of Inniscathy, which comprised the Baronies of Moyarta, Clonderlaw, and Ibricken, in Clare; the Barony of Connello, in Limerick; and in Kerry, the ancient region of the Hy-Fidgente. The last Bishop of Inniscathy was Hugh O'Beachain, who died in 1188. Nevertheless, there were titular bishops of the see up to the close of the fourteenth century. The remains of the cathedral church of Inniscathy and a round tower now mark the ancient see of St. Senan. The Clog-oir, too, still in existence in County Clare, is a highly-prized relic of Inniscathy. St. Brecan's churches of Carntemple, Doora, and Clooney, St. Tola's church at Dysert O'Dea, St. Senan's hermitage at Bishop's Island, near Kilkee, St. Caimin's church and school at Iniscaltra, St. Brendan's and St. Cronan's abbeys at Birr and Roscrea may be named amongst hundreds of churches, schools, and hermitages, which covered Killaloe like a network and which in their decay attest to the devotion to the Catholic Faith of the far-famed Dalgais. Some of these foundations deserve mention. Iniscaltra, a green little island in Lough Derg, was celebrated nursery of sanctity and learning in Thomond. It is associated principally with St. Caimin, who made Iniscaltra the seat of a very famous school, which attracted pupils even from foreign countries. A fragment of the commentary on the Psalms collated with the Hebrew text, written by St. Caimin (640), is preserved in the Franciscan convent, Merchant's Quay, Dublin. Birr also was a celebrated seat of learning in Thomond, founded by St. Brendan (550). The Gospels of McRegol, now in the Bodleian Library, were written by McRegol, Abbot of Birr, in 820. Terryglass also was a school of great repute founded by St. Columba (552). It was here that St. Patrick is said to have baptized the Dalgais from Northern Thomond, who crossed Lough Derg in their coracles to meet him. The monastery of Lorrha, founded by St. Ruadhan (550), can claim that it was within its walls that the famous Stowe Missal, now in the library of Lord Ashburnham, was written; but the desertion of Tara owing to the alleged cursing of St. Ruadhan, is without historical foundation. The abbeys at Ennis and Quin are striking illustrations of the piety and munificence of the foremost chieftains of the Dalgais. About 1240 Donogh Cairbreach O'Brien built the monastery for Conventual Franciscan friars. It was considered one of the finest houses of the order in Ireland, and ultimately it became the occasion of Ennis being made the capital of County Clare. Even in ruin it is beautiful; the east window especially is much admired for its size, grace, and symmetry. Here are buried some of the Kings of Thomond and their chieftains. The Abbey of Quin is one of the noblest remains of monastic antiquity in Ireland, and is in so perfect a state of preservation that little more than a roof is required to make it fit to house the monks and have their chant daily re-echo within its walls. It was founded by Sheda McNamara in 1402. In 1641 a college was opened at the abbey, which soon had eight hundred students. But the most interesting historical remains are to be found at the picturesque little town of Killaloe, the ancient seat of the bishop, which is built on a ridge commanding a fine view of Lough Derg. For here we have the oratory of St. Lua in Friar's Island, the very perfect stone-roofed oratory of St. Flannan, and St. Flannan's cathedral, built in 1160 by Donald O'Brien, King of Limerick, near the site of Brian Boroimhe's royal palace of Kincora. St. Flannan's cathedral was, till the early years of Elizabeth's reign, the Catholic cathedral of the Diocese of Killaloe. Since then it has been in Protestant hands. Owing to the cruel persecution of the Catholic religion and its bishops and priests, and the suppression of the monasteries in Clare at the opening of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the churches and monasteries fell into decay and ruin, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass being offered up on some rock on a mountain-side, or some lowly "Mass house." It is only since the time of Catholic Emancipation, a glorious era in the annals of Killaloe when the priests of Clare gave powerful aid to O'Connell to win the Clare election, that a "second spring" has come, and that Thomond has been again covered with handsome and commodious churches. The first successor of St. Flannan in the Diocese of Killaloe whose name has come down to us, is Cormacan O'Mulcaishel, who died in 1019; and from the death of St. Flannan to the time of the learned O'Lonergain in 1150, the names of only five prelates have been recorded. But from this period the succession becomes regular and complete. In 1179, Constantine O'Brien, fifth in descent from Brian Boroimhe, was Bishop of Killaloe; he attended the Council of Lateran. Conor O'Heney, another Bishop of Killaloe, also attended the Council of Lateran in 1215. Cornelius Ryan, a Franciscan friar, and brother of a chieftain, was consecrated Bishop of Killaloe in 1576. He had a remarkable career. From the time of his appointment he used his marked ability and great organizing power in aid of the Earl of Desmond, who championed the Catholic cause, and succeeded in obtaining for him the support of Gregory XIII and Philip of Spain. For years he shared in all the perils of the insurrection, and he was regarded by Elizabeth and her minions as a most formidable opponent. When the Desmond insurrection ended in disaster, he escaped to the Continent and died at Lisbon in 1617. John O'Moloney was another eminent Bishop of Killaloe. He was born in Kiltanon, County Clare, in 1617, was a doctor of the Sorbonne and, before his appointment to Killaloe, had been canon of Rouen, in France. He was named bishop by Propaganda in 1671, at the urgent request of the Catholics of the diocese, his qualifications for the exalted office being set forth in various testimonials from the doctors of the University of Paris, and several French bishops and archbishops. In 1673 he was deputed by the Irish bishops to visit France and endeavour to induce the French king and his minister to found an Irish ecclesiastical college in Paris. He succeeded in his mission, and a few years later the Irish college, of which he is regarded as the founder, was opened. In 1689 he was named Bishop of Limerick, retaining Killaloe in administration, but he was soon forced to flee to France, where he died in 1702 at the Sulpician house at Issy, near Paris. The present bishop is the Most Reverend Dr. Fogarty, born in 1859 near Nenagh, County Tipperary. Before his elevation to the episcopate he was vice-president of Maynooth College, where he had been for fifteen years previously a distinguished professor of dogmatic and moral theology. His consecration took place in 1904, at the procathedral at Ennis, the seat of the bishop and also of a well-equipped diocesan college. The diocesan chapter, including dean, archdeacon, and canons, was re-established by papal decree on 11 February, 1903. Catholic population, 137,574, according to census of 1901; non-Catholic population, 8329; parishes, 57; secular clergy, 142; parochial and district churches, 143; houses of regular clergy, 2, viz. Franciscans at Ennis, Cistercians at Roscrea; convents of Sisters of Mercy, 12; Convent of Sacred Heart, 1; number in community, 198; monastic houses, 6; number in community, 63. Annals of Four Masters (Dublin, 1846); LANIGAN, Ecclesiastical History of Ireland (Dublin, 1829); HEALY, Ancient Schools and Scholars (Dublin, 1897); DWYER, Diocese of Killaloe (Dublin, 1878); FROST, History of Clare (Dublin, 1893); MALONE, Life of St. Flannan (Dublin, 1902); MESCALL, Story of Inniscathy (Dublin, 1902); STOKES, Early Christian Art in Ireland (London). MICHAEL BREEN Kilmore Kilmore (KILMORENSIS) Diocese in Ireland, includes almost all Cavan and about half of Leitrim. It also extends into Fermanagh, and has half a parish in both Meath (Kilmainham Wood) and Sligo (Ballintrillick). It is accordingly seen to be roughly coincident with ancient Breffney, embracing both Breffney O'Rourke and Breffney O'Reilly. St. Fedlemid, or Felim, who flourished in the early part of the sixth century, is the first known Bishop of Kilmore. He is patron of the diocese, and his feast is celebrated on 9 August, the day of his death. A holy well near the old Catholic cathedral of Kilmore still bears his name. From Hugh O'Finn, appointed 1136, to Andrew MacBrady, consecrated in 1445, the bishops of this see were often styled Episcopi Brefinioe; and no bishop outside of Breffney is known to have ever claimed jurisdiction over it. With a hiatus or two, all its rulers during this period have been ascertained. Many of them are also sometimes called bishops of Triburna, probably from the name of a village near Butlersbridge, close to which village was the episcopal church and most probably the episcopal residence. The spot now marked by the graveyard of Urney (Triburna) contains some remains of this very ancient structure. Towards the middle of the fifteenth century, the above-mentioned Andrew MacBrady (1445-55) rebuilt on a much larger scale the primitive church of St. Fedlemid, situated about seven miles due south of Triburna, and in 1454, with the approval of Pope Nicholas V, made it his cathedral. Thenceforth this church (cill mor, i.e. great church) imparted its name to the surrounding parish and also to the diocese, just as the church of Triburna did before, or just as the town of Cavan has given its name to the whole County of Cavan. Bishop MacBrady lived at Kilmore. During the penal times many of his successors, in striving to discharge their sacred functions, suffered untold hardships. Richard Brady (1580-1607), for instance, was three times thrown into chains. In 1601 the friary of Multifarnam, in which he sought refuge, was burned over his head by the English soldiers. As late as the middle of the eighteenth century, Bishop Andrew Campbell (1753-1769 or 1770), to escape the dangers that beset him, had to go on his visitations disguised as a Highland piper. A beautiful oil-painting representing him so attired is preserved in the dining-room of the diocesan college at Cavan. The cathedral chapter of Kilmore originally consisted, besides the bishop, of eleven canons, together with a dean and an archdeacon. But in 1636 the latter two titles alone remained. Of later years they too have wholly disappeared. The seal of the ancient chapter of "Tirbrina" was dug up at Urney about sixty years ago. In 1636 Kilmore was described as having forty parishes. In July, 1704, in compliance with the provisions of the act passed the previous year for "registering the popish clergy," thirty-nine Kilmore "popish parish priests" gave in their names. "Curates or assistants" were excluded, being placed on the same footing as regulars, and "had to depart out of this Kingdom before the 20th July" under divers pains and penalties. It is worth noting that twelve of these thirty-nine priests had been ordained by Oliver Plunket, the saintly Primate of Armagh; and one of them, the Rev. Owen McHugh of Killesher, at Rome, in 1682, by Pope Innocent XI. Three parishes claim to have been founded by St. Patrick in person: Drumlease, Cloonclare, and Oughteragh (now Ballinamore). Father Maguire, a well-known controversialist, died parish priest of the last-mentioned place. Drumlease derives its name (drum-lias, ridge of the huts) from the sheds St. Patrick is said to have raised there; and the neighbouring village of Dromahair was for long called Carrig-Padruig, or Patrick's Rock. The saint, struck by the scenic beauty of the surroundings, designed to establish there his primatial see. For twenty years he left his foster-son and destined successor, Benignus, in charge of it; and it was only towards the end of his life that he reluctantly changed his intention, and adopted Armagh. In the seventh century the diocese gave illustrious names to the Church, to the parish of Mullagh we owe St. Kilian (d. 688), the Apostle of Franconia; to Killinkere, St. Ultan (d. 656); and to Templeport, St. Aidan, or Mogue (d. 651). Inishmagrath, in the next century, was probably the birthplace of the scholarly St. Tighernach; Ballaghameehan, in the previous century, was under the care of St. Molassius (or Laserian, d. 563), the founder of Devenish; his copy of the Gospels, which was encased in a reliquary about the year 1001, is now in the Dublin Museum. The most famous religious house in Kilmore was St. Mary's friary in Cavan town, founded by the O'Reillys in 1300. The Dominicans were the first religious to be introduced; in 1393 they left and were replaced by Franciscans. After the Suppression, in the time of James I, the monastery was converted into a courthouse; in the beginning of the last century it was used as a Protestant place of worship. The crumbling tower of this church is all that remains of it. In its graveyard the remains of three noted Irishmen were interred: Owen Roe O'Neill, Ireland's noblest soldier, who died at Clough Oughter in 1649; Hugh O'Reilly, Bishop of Kilmore (1625-28), Primate of Armagh (1629-52), and founder of the Catholic Confederacy; most probably also Myles O'Reilly, surnamed the Slasher, Ireland's greatest swordsman. Their graves were purposely concealed through fear of desecration, and cannot now be pointed out. The other chieftain family of Breffney, the O'Rourkes, founded Creevelea (creeve, branch, and liath, grey) beside Dromahair in 1508, and brought thither the Franciscans. A beautiful chased silver chalice, bearing an inscription declaring that it was presented to this monastery in 1619 by Mary the wife of "Thaddeus Ruaire," is still in use in Butlersbridge chapel in the parish of Cavan. Creevelea, as the annals declare and as its ruined chancel and cloisters attest, was one of the most imposing of the many noble structures that the Franciscans had. The priory of Drumlane, established before 550, was confiscated in 1670. Its round tower is still in a good state of preservation. An abbey yet traceable beside St. Fedlemid's church in Kilmore is said to date from the sixth century, and to have been founded by St. Columbcille. On Trinity Island, two miles to the west of it, the White Canons of St. Norbert eatablished in 1237 or 1239 the Abbey of Holy Trinity. It was confiscated in 1570. A beautifully carved doorway, transferred from its ruins, now adorns the vestry of Kilmore Protestant cathedral, the memorial church of the Anglican bishop Bedell. The Protestant cathedral and episcopal palace and gardens are located on the sites once sanctified by St. Fedlemid and St. Columbcille. At Mounterconnaught, at Ballylinch in Kilmore, and also at Drumlumman there existed as late as the seventeenth century hospitals for the poor. They were dissolved, says Archdall, though chargeable with no crime but that of being endowed; in 1605 they were granted by King James I to Sir Edward Moore, ancestor of the Earls of Drogheda. Kilmainham Wood, County Meath, a preceptory belonging to the Knights Templars, was erected by the Preston family some time in the thirteenth century. On the shores of Lough Melvin in Ballaghameehan, Leitrim, St. Tighernagh founded a convent for his mother St. Mella, who died before 787. It was known as Doiremelle. He also built for himself the monastery of Killachad somewhere in County Cavan. On Church Island in the lake just mentioned St. Sinell (d. 548), St. Patrick's bell-founder, had a retreat called Kildareis. Finally on Lackagh Mountain, near Drumkeeran, St. Natalis (d. 563) founded the monastery of Kilnaile, whose beehive cells may still be traced on the bleak mountain top amid the rocks and brown heather. The Catholic population of the diocese in 1901 numbered 109,319 -- a decline of nearly one-third since the census of 1871 -- and its non-Catholic population, 24,447, a somewhat greater decrease. It has 42 parishes and usually 104 or 105 priests. St. Patrick's College, Cavan, opened by Dr. Conaty in 1874, replaces St. Augustine's Seminary, established by Dr. Browne in 1839; it is one of the finest diocesan buildings in Ireland. The Poor Clares, brought to Cavan town in 1861, care for an industrial school or orphanage. In 1872 they established a second convent at Ballyjamesduff. The Sisters of Mercy have convents at Belturbet, Ballinamore, and Cootehill. All the communities are in charge of technical and primary schools. Intermediate schools for boys are at Manorhamilton and Ballyjamesduff. The Most Rev. Andrew Boylan, C.SS.R. (b. 1842), a native of the diocese, consecrated Bishop of Kilmore in 1907, died on 25 March, 1910. HEALY, Life of St. Patrick (Dublin, 1907); BRADY, Episcopal Succession in England, Ireland and Scotland, I (Rome, 1876), 167- 70; WALSH, Irish Hierarchy (Dublin, 1884), 83-84; COTTON, Fasti Eccl. Hibern., III, 154-56; V, 228. JOSEPH MEEHAN Robert Kilwardby Robert Kilwardby Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal-Bishop of Porto and Santa Rufina; died at Viterbo, 11 Sept., 1279. Nothing is known of his birth or early life, except that he studied at Paris and probably Oxford. For many years he taught grammar and logic at Paris with special success, devoting particular attention to the development of the use of the syllogism, during which time he composed numerous treatises on grammar and philosophy. Of these the work "De divisione scientiarum" was widely studied, as is evidenced by the numerous MS. codices still extant. Later in life he also wrote some theological works: "De passione Christi", "De sacramento altaris", and some commentaries on Scripture. Feeling called to the Order of Preachers, he abandoned his secular career and became a Dominican, devoting himself to theology and the study of the Scriptures and the Fathers. In 1261 he was chosen provincial of the order in England, an office which he held till 1272. Shortly after he ceased to be provincial he was chosen by Pope Gregory X to fill the See of Canterbury, which had then been vacant for two years. As archbishop-elect he, together with other nobles and prelates, proclaimed Edward I as King of England on the death of Henry III, and appointed a regency to govern the kingdom till the new king returned from the Crusades. He was consecrated at Canterbury on 26 Feb., 1273, by the Bishop of Bath and Wells, William Bytton, the pope having allowed him to nominate the consecrating prelate. On 8 May he received the pallium, and he was enthroned at Canterbury in September of the same year, he being the first friar to become metropolitan. As archbishop he showed little interest in politics, but was very energetic in the administration of the spiritual duties. Having held a convocation in London, he entered upon a thorough visitation of the province. This was interrupted in 1274, as he had to leave England to attend the Council of Lyons. Here he distinguished himself as an ardent supporter of the pope's authority, and his own reputation as a great master of theology added weight to his advocacy. On his return to England he resumed his canonical visitation, traveling through the large dioceses of Winchester and Lincoln. In 1276 he visited the University of Oxford, where he condemned several errors, deprived masters who held erroneous opinions, and took other measures for safeguarding purity of doctrine. In the same year (16 June, 1276) he had the consolation of attending the translation of the relies of St. Richard at Chichester, whose life he had encouraged his brother Dominican, Ralph Boeking, to write. As primate he held two important provincial synods in 1273 and 1277, in which the lower clergy were granted fuller representation than had formerly been allowed. In his private life he was noted for his sanctity, his charity to the poor, and his success as a peacemaker. He was a great benefactor of his own order, and bought the site for a Dominican house at Castle Barnard in London. In 1278 Pope Nicholas III nominated Kilwardby as Cardinal-Bishop of Porto and Santa Rufina, and on 25 July he left England for Italy, taking with him all the registers and archives of Canterbury Cathedral. This unfortunate loss has never been recovered, and the earliest records of the see are those of his successor Archbishop Peckham, who vainly endeavoured to recover the lost papers. The change of life was too severe for an old man, and he fell ill shortly after joining the papal court at Viterbo. There he died in the following year and was buried in the convent of his own order. QUÉTIF AND ECHARD, Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum 1, 374-380; HOOK, Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury (London, 1860-84); WILLIAMS, Lives of the English Cardinals (London, 1868); TOUT, in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.; CHEVALIER, Répertoire des sources historiques du moyen âge (Paris, 1905). EDWIN BURTON Benedictine Abbey of Kilwinning Benedictine Abbey of Kilwinning Located in Ayrshire, Scotland, in the town of the same name, where a church was said to have been founded early in the eighth century by St. Winning. Winning has been identified by some scholars with St. Finnan of Moville, an Irish saint of much earlier date; other authorities say he was a Welshman, called Vynnyn, while the Aberdeen Breviary (published 1507) gives Scotland as his birthplace. What is certain is that there was a Christian church at Kilwinning, and also a monastery of Culdees, several centuries before the foundation of the Benedictine house by Hugh de Morville, Constable of Scotland, and a great territorial magnate of the district, somewhere between 1140 and 1162. Timothy Pont, who had seen the cartulary of the abbey, now lost, and who wrote in 1608, gives 1171 as the date, and Richard de Morville (one of the murderers of St. Thomas of Canterbury) as the founder; but the weight of evidence is in favour of Hugh and the earlier date. "The structure of this monastery," says Pont, "was solid and grate, all of freestone cutte, the church fair and staitly after ye modell of yat of Glasgow, with a fair steiple of 7 score foote of height, yet standing quhen I myselve did see it." The length of the church was 225 feet, breadth of the nave sixty-five feet; and the monastic buildings covered several acres. A community of Tyronensian Benedictines was brought from Kelso; the abbey was soon richly endowed by royal and noble benefactors, possessing granges, large estates, and the tithes of twenty parish churches, and a revenue equivalent to some 20,000 pounds sterling a year. For nearly four centuries Kilwinning remained one of the most opulent and flourishing Scottish monasteries. The last abbot was Gavin Hamilton, who whilst favouring the Reformation doctrines, was a strong partisan of Queen Mary. He was killed in a fight outside Edinburgh in June, 1571. The suppression and destruction of the abbey soon followed and its possessions, held for a time by the families of Glencairn and Raith, were erected in 1603 into a temporal lordship in favour of Hugh, Earl of Eglinton, whose successors still own them. The Earls of Eglinton have taken some pains to preserve the remains of the buildings, which include the great west doorway with window above, the lower part of the south wall of nave, and the tall gable of south transept with its three lancet windows. The "fair steiple" was struck by lightning in 1809, and fell down five years later. Collections towards a History of the Abbey of Kilwinning in Arch. and Histor. Collect. of Ayr and Wigton, I (Edinburgh, 1878), 115- 222; PONT, Cunninghame, ed. DOBIE (Glasgow, 1876), 254 etc.; HAY, Scotia Sacra in MS. Advoc. Library, Edinburgh, 505; KER, Kilwinning Abbey (Ardrossan, s.d.); WYLIE, Hist. of Mother Lodge, Kilwinning, with Notes on the Abbey, (Glasgow, 1878); GORDON, Monasticon (Glasgow, 1868), 494. D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR Kimberley Kimberley (KIMBERLIENSIS) Vicariate apostolic; suffragan of Adelaide, erected by Leo XIII, 5 May, 1887. The Vicariate of Kimberley embraces the whole district of that name, and is under the Apostolic administration of the Bishop of Geraldton. The territory forms one of the six land districts into which Western Australia is divided, and in this, the northwest portion of the state, a plentiful supply of gold is found. The Bishop of Perth, Dr. Matthew Gibney, whose diocese was charged with the administration of the Kimberley Vicariate, was early engaged in determining upon a suitable place to organize a new settlement for the aborigines of the district. On 4 June, 1890, he set out in person, with Abbot Ambrose of the Trappist Order, to observe the conditions of the locality, and the journey resulted in the establishment of a mission station, the Holy House of the Sacred Heart, at Beagle Bay. In response to the invitation of Dr. Gibney, supported by the recommendation of Cardinal Moran, the fathers of La Trappe took charge of the mission. The natives, computed at between five hundred and six hundred, were found mostly on the western coast in the vicinity of Beagle Bay. The country was well wooded, deficient in water courses, but abounding in springs, with luxuriant vegetation in the neighbourhood of the swamps. A temporary monastery was constructed of wood covered with large sheets of bark, and at a few yards distance was erected a church of the same poor material. Difficulty was experienced in maintaining the staff of not less than ten promised to the Government in return for certain concessions, and the abbot was forced to leave the community for a year (February, 1891-March, 1892) through the necessity of obtaining recruits. On the departure of the Trappists for Europe, the Pallotine Fathers, or Fathers of the Pious Society of Missions, were installed in their stead through the instrumentality of the Bishop of Geraldton, under whose jurisdiction the vicariate had meantime passed. Besides the chief house at Beagle Bay, the mission has flourishing stations at Broome and Disaster Bay, and from the beginning good results have been achieved in the work of Christianizing the natives. In 1903 stability was given to the undertaking of the erection of a commodious monastery and convent; the missionary body, too, was strengthened by the coming of one priest and five lay brothers. Since that date a new chapel and school have been raised. In June, 1907, nine sisters of the Order of St. John of God arrived at the mission from Subiaco, Perth. The community, under the direction of Mother Antonia O'Brien, is especially concerned with training the girls and caring for the sick. During the last three years remarkable progress has been made; the mission at the present time (1910) numbers four priests, twelve brothers, and nine sisters. There are churches at Beagle Bay and at Broome. Schools have also been established at these two centres: the former, a mixed school founded from Perth, has an attendance of 56 girls and 55 boys; the latter, also a mixed school founded from the Beagle Bay institution, has 39 pupils. Both are in charge of the sisters of St. John of God. (See AUSTRALIA, Period of Comparative Calm.) Australasian Catholic Directory (1910); Annuaire Pontifical Catholique (Paris, 1909); Missiones Catholicae (Rome, 1907), 677; MORAN, History of the Catholic Church in Australasia (Sydney, s.d.), 583 sqq.; Gerarchia Cattolica (1910). P.J. MACAULEY Kimberley in Orange Kimberley in Orange (KYMBERLEYENSIS IN ORANGIA). The portion of South Africa which at the present day forms the Vicariate of Kimberley in Orange became in the division of the Vicariate of Good Hope part of the Eastern District, and later on part of the Vicariate of Natal. In 1886 it became a separate vicariate comprising Basutoland, Griqualand-West, Bechuanaland, and the Orange River Colony (then Free State). On 8 May, 1894, Basutoland was separated and made an independent prefecture. At the present day the vicariate includes the Orange River Colony, Griqualand-West, and Bechuanaland, and since the late Anglo-Boer war all this territory is under British rule. The whole vicariate lies between the Tropic of Capricorn and the southernmost point of the Orange River Colony, and between 22 deg. and 30 deg. East Longitude. Before the discovery of diamonds the white population was practically composed of Boers. The number of Catholics was insignificant. The towns now in existence were then mere small villages or had no existence at all. But in 1870 Kimberley began to attract attention; diamonds had been first discovered about three years previously by John O'Reilly, and immigration brought to South Africa and especially to Kimberley multitudes of Europeans, most of them Irish and English. By the time Kimberley was leaping into existence there was already a priest in Bloemfontein, Father Hoendervangers of the Order of Saint Norbert, who had followed the troops as military chaplain during a war between the British and Boers in 1854. He built a church which was replaced by a new one in 1880. When Father Hoendervangers left Bloemfontein he was replaced by Father Victor Bompart, sent by Dr. Jolivet to minister to the scanty Catholic population. For some time the number of Catholics remained limited to eight or ten. All of them were poor and consequently unable to support the priest who very often saw himself on the verge of starvation. However, Father Bompart never swerved from his duty; he was always ready to face sacrifice. His greatest trial was neither starvation nor physical sufferings, but the fruitlessness of the soil he had to cultivate. Being obliged to live in the midst of an element prejudiced against anything which might remind them of Rome and hating the very name of Catholic, his labours were to remain apparently fruitless for several years. The Boers were at that time, as they are now, unwilling to hear of another creed than their own. Their ministers never wearied of railing at and abusing pope and priests. Owing to such a spirit conversions have been always few; many prejudices, however, have been overcome by schools conducted by nuns of various orders. When Kimberley started into existence the number of Catholics in the locality necessitated the frequent visit of the priest and very soon the establishment of a permanent mission. Fathers Bompart, Lebihan, and Hidien used to visit them occasionally. Father Hidien finally established a Catholic Society and began the erection of a hospital. A poor and small chapel was first erected, but owing to the increase of the Catholic congregation, a larger and more substantial one was planned and built. Its erection is due to the indefatigable Father Hilary Lenoir, O.M.I. The whole vicariate is greatly indebted to him for all the missions he has founded or helped to found; Kimberley, Mafeking, and Harrismith have, thanks to him, their churches and presbyteries. When, in 1886, a separate vicariate was erected, the Right Reverend Anthony Gaughren, O.M.I., was appointed the first Vicar Apostolic; he was elected in May, 1886, consecrated on 10 August, 1886, and died in Kimberley on 15 January, 1901. On 29 January, 1902, his brother, the Right Rev. Matthew Gaughren, O.M.I., was elected to replace him, and was consecrated Bishop of Tentyra on 16 March, 1902. Under the jurisdiction of these two bishops the Vicariate of Kimberley has seen its churches and schools multiplied. In 1910 the vicariate possesses: 16 churches and chapels; 19 priests (of whom 16 belong to the Order of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate); one college under the management of the Christian Brothers, where over 300 boys receive a thorough education. The Sisters of the Holy Family conduct 6 parochial schools and 3 boarding schools. The Sisters of Mercy have two schools, a boarding school in Mafeking and a parochial school in Vryburg. The Sisters of St. Jacut conduct at Taungs a school for natives. Taungs has been up to the present day the only native mission. It was founded in May, 1898, by Father Porte, O.M.I., and counts over 400 Catholics. The total number of children frequenting Catholic schools is at present over 1200. Besides the schools, there is in the Vicariate of Kimberley an establishment for orphans, the poor, and the aged; it is managed by the Sisters of Nazareth. The devotedness and self-sacrifice of these Sisters have not a little contributed to overcome the prejudices of Protestants who help them generously in the upkeep of their establishment, where over one hundred and fifty children and aged persons are cared for; it may be mentioned that all the primary schools are in part supported by the Government. Besides the 16 Oblates and the 3 secular priests, 3 lay brothers, 11 Christian Brothers (Irish), 42 Sisters of the Holy Family of Bordeaux, 14 Sisters of Nazareth, 5 Sisters of Saint Jacut, and 12 Sisters of Mercy are carrying out the work of regeneration in the vicariate. One of the great obstacles to evangelization in this vicariate is caused by the fact of the population being scattered and unsettled. This prevents the priest from being in continual touch with his flock. The small number of priests has not permitted an increase of mission work amongst the natives, who far outnumber the white population. At present the mining industry seems to be the only source of material wealth, and its duration is uncertain. In the farming districts, though communication has been facilitated by the construction of railways, the future seems precarious owing to droughts, cattle diseases, locusts, etc. As a consequence the population is unsettled and shifting, and sacerdotal vocations within the vicariate are hardly to be expected for the present. Catechisms and prayer books in the native language have, however, been compiled by Father Porte who made an expedition into Bechuanaland, in 1898, and discovered that the natives, while akin in race and speech to the Basutos, are more rooted in fetishism. Annals of the Oblate Fathers; South Africa and its future (Cape Town. s.d.); KEANE, The Boer State, Land and People (London, 1900); BRYDEN, Gun and Camera in South Africa (London, 1893); WOLDERS, Aus dem Orange-Freistat (1885); PIOLET, Les Missions Catholiques, V (Paris, s.d.), 320-362; NORRIS-NEWMAN, With the Boers in the Transvaal and Orange Free State in 1880-81 (London, 1882); LITTLE, South Africa: Sketch-book of Men and Manners (London, 1888). A. LANGOUET Kingdom of God Kingdom of God (In Matthew, generally, Kingdom of Heaven). In this expression the innermost teaching of the Old Testament is summed up, but it should be noted that the word kingdom means ruling as well; thus it signifies not so much the actual kingdom as the sway of the king -- cf. Dan., iv, 28-29. The Greek basileia of the New Testament also has these two meanings -- cf. Aristotle, "Pol.", II, xi, 10; II, xiv; IV, xiii, 10. We find the theocracy sketched in Ex., xix, 6; in the establishment of the kingdom, I Kings, viii, 7: "They have not rejected thee, but me, that I should not reign over them." Still more clearly is it indicated in the promise of the theocratic kingdom, II Kings, vii, 14-16. It is God Who rules in the theocratic king and Who will avenge any neglect on his part. All through the Psalter this same thought is found; cf. Ps. x, 5; it is constantly insisted that God's throne is in heaven and that there is His kingdom; this may explain St. Matthew's preference for the expression "kingdom of heaven", as being more familiar to the Hebrews for whom he wrote. The Prophets dwell on the thought that God is the Supreme King and that by Him alone all kings rule; cf. Isaias, xxxvii, 16, 20. And when the temporal monarchy has failed, this same thought of God's ultimate rule over His people is brought into clearer relief till it culminates in the grand prophecy of Dan., vii, 13 sq., to which the thoughts of Christ's hearers must have turned when they heard Him speak of His kingdom. In that vision the power of ruling over all the forces of evil as symbolized by the four beasts which are the four kingdoms is given to "one like the son of man". At the same time we catch a glimpse in the apocryphal Psalms of Solomon of the way in which, side by side with the truth, there grew up among the carnal-minded the idea of a temporal sovereignty of the Messias, an idea, which was (Luke, xix, 11; Matt., xviii, 1; Acts, I, 6) to exercise so baneful an influence on subsequent generations; cf. especially Ps. Sol., xvii, 23-28, where God is besought to raise up the King, the Son of David, to crush the nations and purify Jerusalem, etc. In the Greek Book of Wisdom, however, we find the most perfect realization of what was truly implied by this "rule" of God -- "She [Wisdom] led the just man through direct paths and shewed him the kingdom of God", i.e. in what that kingdom consisted. In the New Testament the speedy advent of this kingdom is the one theme: "Do penance: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand", said the Baptist, and Christ's opening words to the people do but repeat that message. At every stage in His teaching the advent of this kingdom, its various aspects, its precise meaning, the way in which it is to be attained, form the staple of His discourses, so much so that His discourse is called "the gospel of the kingdom". And the various shades of meaning which the expression bears have to be studied. In the mouth of Christ the "kingdom" means not so much a goal to be attained or a place -- though those meanings are by no means excluded; cf. Matt., v, 3; xi, 2, etc. -- it is rather a tone of mind (Luke, xvii, 20-21), it stands for an influence which must permeate men's minds if they would be one with Him and attain to His ideals; cf. Luke, ix, 55. It is only by realizing these shades of meaning that we can do justice to the parables of the kingdom with their endless variety. At one time the "kingdom" means the sway of grace in men's hearts, e.g. in the parable of the seed growing secretly (Mark, iv, 26 sq.; cf. Matt., xxi, 43); and thus, too, it is opposed to and explained by the opposite kingdom of the devil (Matt., iv, 8; xii, 25-26). At another time it is the goal at which we have to aim, e.g. Matt., iii, 3. Again it is a place where God is pictured as reigning (Mark, xiv, 25). In the second petition of the "Our Father" -- "Thy kingdom come" -- we are taught to pray as well for grace as for glory. As men grew to understand the Divinity of Christ they grew to see that the kingdom of God was also that of Christ -- it was here that the faith of the good thief excelled: "Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom." So, too, as men realized that this kingdom stood for a certain tone of mind, and saw that this peculiar spirit was enshrined in the Church, they began to speak of the Church as "the kingdom of God"; cf. Col., I, 13; I Thess., ii, 12; Apoc., I, 6, 9; v, 10, etc. The kingdom was regarded as Christ's and He presents it to the Father; cf. I Cor., xv, 23-28; II Tim., iv, 1. The kingdom of god means, then, the ruling of God in our hearts; it means those principles which separate us off from the kingdom of the world and the devil; it means the benign sway of grace; it means the Church as that Divine institution whereby we may make sure of attaining the spirit of Christ and so win that ultimate kingdom of God Where He reigns without end in "the holy city, the New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God" (Apoc., xxi, 2). MAURICE, The Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven (London, 1888); SCHURER, The Jewish People in the Time of Christ, div. II, vol. II; WEISS, Apoligie du Christianisme, II and X; and especially ROSE, Etudes sur les Evangiles (Paris, 1902). HUGH POPE Kingisel Kingisel The name of two abbots who ruled Glastonbury in the seventh and eighth centuries respectively. KINGISEL I Kingisel I, whose name also appears as Hemgisel, Hengislus, and Hanigestus, became abbot in A.D. 678. According to William of Malmesbury it was during his first year of office that King Kentwine granted six hides to the abbey upon condition that the monks should always have the right of freely electing their abbot according to the Rule of Saint Benedict. In 681 King Baldred granted to him and his successors the manor of Pennard near Glastonbury. In this charter, which is given by Dugdale from the Ashmolean MS., the abbot's name is spelled differently in two sentences, a slip which has led Bishop Tanner (Notitia Monastica) and Mr. Eyston (Little Monument) to suppose that two different persons were referred to. It was during the reign of this abbot that King Ina began his series of munificent benefactions to the abbey. Kingisel I died in the year 705 and was succeeded by Berwald. KINGISEL II Kingisel II, whose name is also found as Cingislus, Cengillus, and Hengissingus, was apparently fourth abbot after his namesake; he succeeded to the position in the year 729 and died in 744. William of Malmesbury states that Ina's successor, Edelard, made him grants of land, and the Ashmolean MS. gives a charter of Cudred, or Cuthred, King of the West Saxons, which confirms to the abbey all the previous grants made to it. In this charter the name is spelled Hengisilus. His successor was Cumbertus. Almost the only record of these abbots consists in the various charters in which they are named. The question as to the genuineness of these early charters is a difficult one, but it may be safely said that at the present day the general trend of opinion is more favourable to them than was the case in 1826, at which date, however, Warner, in his "History of the Abbey of Glaston," wrote concerning Ina's charter, "The reasons for questioning its genuineness do not appear to be serious." (See also GLASTONBURY ABBEY). TANNER, Notitia Monatica (London, 1744); WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY, De antiquitate Glastoniensis Ecclesioe in GALE, Scriptores, XV (Oxford, 1691), also ed. HEARNE (Oxford, 1722), and in MIGNE, P.L., CLXXIX; EYSTON, Little Monument to the. . .Abbey. . .of Glastonbury, ed. HEARNE (Oxford, 1722); WARNER, History of the Abbey of Glaston (Bath, 1826); DUGDALE, Monasticon Anglicanum, I (London, 1846). See also biography to article GLASTONBURY ABBEY. G. ROGER HUDLESTON First and Second Samuel First and Second Books of Kings (Also know as the First and Second Books of Samuel. For the First and Second Books of Kings in the Authorized Version see Kings, Third and Fourth Books of. In the Vulgate both titles are given (Liber Primus Samuelis, quem nos Primum Regum dicimus, etc.); in the Hebrew editions and the Protestant versions the second alone is recognized, the Third and Fourth Books of Kings being styled First and Second Books of Kings. To avoid confusion, the designation "First and Second Books of Samuel" is adopted by Catholic writers when referring to the Hebrew text, otherwise "First and Second Books of Kings" is commonly used. The testimony of Origen, St. Jerome, etc., confirmed by the Massoretic summary appended to the second book, as well as by the Hebrew MSS., shows that the two books originally formed but one, entitled "Samuel". This title was chosen not only because Samuel is the principal figure in the first part, but probably also because, by having been instrumental in the establishment of the kingdom and in the selection of Saul and David as kings, he may be said to have been a determining factor in the history of the whole period comprised by the book. The division into two books was first introduced into the Septuagint, to conform to the shorter and more convenient size of scrolls in vogue among the Greeks. The Book of Kings was divided at the same time, and the four books, being considered as a consecutive history of the Kingdoms of Israel and Juda, were named "Books of the Kingdoms" (Basileiôn biblía). St. Jerome retained the division into four books, which from the Septuagint had passed into the Itala, or old Latin translation, but changed the name "Books of the Kingdoms" (Libri Regnorum) into "Books of the Kings" (Libri Regum). The Hebrew text of the Books of Samuel and of the Books of Kings was first divided in Bomberg's edition of the rabbinical Bible (Venice, 1516-17), the individual books being distinguished as I B. of Samuel and II B. of Samuel, I B. of Kings and II B. of Kings. This nomenclature was adopted in the subsequent editions of the Hebrew Bible and in the Protestant translations, and thus became current among nonCatholics. CONTENTS AND ANALYSIS I-II Books of Kings comprise the history of Israel from the birth of Samuel to the close of David's public life, and cover a period of about a hundred years. The first book contains the history of Samuel and of the reign of Saul; the second, the history of the reign of David, the death of Saul marking the division between the two books. The contents may be divided into five main sections: (1) I, i-vii, history of Samuel; (2) viii-xiv or, better, xv, history of Saul's government; (3) xvi-xxxi, Saul and David; (4) II, i-xx, history of the reign of David; (5) xxi-xxiv, appendix containing miscellaneous matter. The division between (3) and (4) is sufficiently indicated by the death of Saul and by David's accession to power; the other sections are marked off by the summaries, vii, 15-17; xiv, 47-58; xx, 23-26; xv, however, which is an introduction to what follows, according to the subjectmatter belongs to (2). (1) History of Samuel Samuel's birth and consecration to the Lord, I, i-ii, 11. Misdeeds of the sons of Heli and prediction of the downfall of his house, ii, 12-36. Samuel's call to the prophetic office; his first vision, in which the impending punishment of the house of Heli is revealed to him, iii. The army of Israel is defeated by the Philistines, Ophni and Phinees are slain and the ark taken; death of Heli, iv. The ark among the Philistines; it is brought back to Bethsames and then taken to Cariathiarim, v- vii, 1. Samuel as judge; he is instrumental in bringing the people back to the Lord and in inflicting a crushing defeat on the Philistines, vii, 2-17. (2) History of Saul's Government The people demand a king; Samuel reluctantly yields to their request, viii. Saul, while seeking his father's asses, is privately annointed king by Samuel, ix-x, 16. Samuel convokes the people at Maspha (Mizpah) to elect a king; the lot falls on Saul, but he is not acknowledged by all, x, 17-27. Saul defeats the Ammonite king, Naas, and opposition to him ceases, xi. Samuel's farewell address to the people, xii. War against the Philistines; Saul's disobedience for which Samuel announces his rejection, xiii. Jonathan's exploit at Machmas; he is condemned to death for an involuntary breach of his father's orders, but is pardoned at the people's prayer, xiv, 1-46. Summary of Saul's wars; his family and chief commander, xiv, 47- 52. War against Amalec; second disobedience and final rejection of Saul, xv. (3) Saul and David David at Court David, the youngest son of Isai (Jesse), is anointed king at Bethlehem by Samuel, xvi, 1-33. He is called to court to play before Saul and is made his armourbearer, xvi, 14-23. David and Goliath, xvii. Jonathan's friendship for David and Saul's jealousy; the latter, after attempting to pierce David with his lance, urges him on with treacherous intent to a daring feat against the Philistines by promising him his daughter Michol in marriage, xviii. Jonathan softens his father for a time, but, David having again distinguished himself in a war against the Philistines, the enmity is renewed, and Saul a second time attempts to kill him, xix, 1-10. Michol helps David to escape; he repairs to Samuel at Ramatha, but, seeing after Jonathan's fruitless effort at mediation that all hope of reconciliation is gone, he flees to Achis, King of Geth, stopping on the way at Nobe, where Achimelech gives him the loaves of proposition and the sword of Goliath. Being recognized at Geth he saves himself by feigning madness, xix, 11-xxi. David as an Outlaw He takes refuge in the cave of Odollam (Adullam), and becomes the leader of a band of outlaws; he places his parents under the protection of the King of Moab. Saul kills Achimelech and the priests of Nobe, xxii. David delivers Ceila from the Philistines, but to avoid capture by Saul he retires to the desert of Ziph, where he is visited by Jonathan. He is providentially delivered when surrounded by Saul's men, xxiii. He spares Saul's life in a cave of the desert of Engaddi, xxiv. Death of Samuel. Episode of Nabal and Abigail; the latter becomes David's wife after her husband's death, xxv. During a new pursuit, David enters Saul's camp at night and carries off his lance and cup, xxvi. He becomes a vassal of Achis, from whom he receives Siceleg (Ziklag); while pretending to raid the territory of Juda, he wars against the tribes of the south, xxvii. New war with the Philistines; Saul's interview with the witch of Endor, xxviii. David accompanies the army of Achis, but his fidelity being doubted by the Philistine chiefs he is sent back. On his return he finds that Siceleg has been sacked by the Amalecites during his absence, and Abigail carried off with other prisoners; he pursues the marauders and recovers the prisoners and the booty, xxix-xxx. Battle of Gelboe; death of Saul and Jonathan, xxxi. (4) History of the Reign of David David at Hebron He hears of the death of Saul and Jonathan; his lament over them, II, i. He is anointed King of Juda at Hebron, ii, 1-7. War between David and Isboseth, or Esbaal (Ishbaal), the son of Saul, who is recognized by the other tribes, ii, 8-32. Abner, the commander of Isboseth's forces, having quarrelled with his master, submits to David and is treacherously slain by Joab, iii. Isboseth is assassinated; David punishes the murderers and is acknowledged by all the tribes, iv-v, 5. David at Jerusalem Jerusalem is taken from the Jebusites and becomes the capital, v, 6-16. War with the Philistines, v, 17-25. The ark is solemnly carried from Cariathiarim to Sion, vi. David thinks of building a temple; his intention, though not accepted, is rewarded with the promise that his throne will last forever, vii. Summary of the various wars waged by David, and list of his officers, viii. His kindness to Miphiboseth, or Meribbaal, the son of Jonathan, ix. War with Ammon and Syria, x. David's Family History His adultery with Bethsabee, the wife of Urias, xi. His repentance when the greatness of his crime is brought home to him by Nathan, xii, 1-23. Birth of Solomon; David is present at the taking of Rabbath, xii, 24-31. Amnon ravishes Thamar, the sister of Absalom; the latter has him assassinated and flies to Gessur; through the intervention of Joab he is recalled and reconciled with his father, xiii-xiv. Rebellion of Absalom; David flies from Jerusalem; Siba, Miphiboseth's servant, brings him provisions and accuses his master of disloyalty; Semei curses David; Absalom goes in to his father's concubines, xv-xvi. Achitophel counsels immediate pursuit, but Absalom follows the advice of Chusai, David's adherent, to delay, and thus gives the fugitive king time to cross the Jordan, xvii. Battle of Mahanaim; Absalom is defeated and slain by Joab against the king's order, xviii. David's intense grief, from which he is aroused by Joab's remonstrance. At the passage of the Jordan he pardons Semei, receives Miphiboseth back into his good graces, and invites to court Berzellai, who had supplied provisions to the army, xix, 1-39. Jealousies between Israel and Juda lead to the revolt of Seba; Amasa is commissioned to raise a levy, but, as the troops are collected too slowly, Joab and Abisai are sent with the bodyguard in pursuit of the rebels; Joab treacherously slays Amasa. Summary of officers, xix, 40-xx. (5) Appendix The two sons of Respha, Saul's concubine, and the five sons of Merob, Saul's daughter, are put to death by the Gabaonites, xxi, 1-14. Various exploits against the Philistines, xxi, 15-22. David's psalm of thanksgiving (Ps. xvii), xxii. His "last words", xxiii, 1-7. Enumeration of David's valiant men, xxiii, 8-39. The numbering of the people and the pestilence following it, xxiv. UNITY AND OBJECT I-II Books of Kings never formed one work with III-IV, as was believed by the older commentators and is still maintained by some modern writers, although the consecutive numbering of the books in the Septuagint and the account of David's last days and death at the beginning of III Kings seem to lend colour to such a supposition. The difference of plan and method pursued in the two pairs of books shows that they originally formed two distinct works. The author of III-IV gives a more or less brief sketch of each reign, and then refers his readers for further information to the source whence he has drawn his data; while the author of I-II furnishes such full and minute details, even when they are of little importance, that his work looks more like a series of biographies than a history, and, with the exception of II, i, 18, where he refers to the "Book of the Just", he never mentions his sources. Moreover, the writer of III-IV supplies abundant chronological data. Besides giving the length of each reign, he usually notes the age of the king at his accession and, after the division, the year of the reign of the contemporary ruler of the other kingdom; he also frequently dates particular events. In the first two books, on the contrary, chronological data are so scant that it is impossible to determine the length of the period covered by them. The position taken by the author of III-IV, with regard to the facts he relates, is also quite different from that of the author of the other two. The former praises or blames the acts of the various rulers, especially with respect to forbidding or allowing sacrifices outside the sanctuary, while the latter rarely expresses a judgment and repeatedly records sacrifices contrary to the prescriptions of the Pentateuch without a word of censure or comment. Lastly, there is a marked difference in style between the two sets of books; the last two show decided Aramaic influence, whereas the first two belong to the best period of Hebrew literature. At the most, it might be said that the first two chapters of the third book originally were part of the Book of Samuel, and were later detached by the author of the Book of Kings to serve as an introduction to the history of Solomon; but even this is doubtful. These chapters are not required by the object which the author of the Book of Samuel had in view, and the work is a complete whole without them. Besides, the summary, II, xx, 23-26, sufficiently marks the conclusion of the history of David. In any case these two chapters are so closely connected with the following that they must have belonged to the Book of Kings from its very beginning. The general subject of I-II Kings is the foundation and development of the Kingdom of Israel, the history of Samuel being merely a preliminary section intended to explain the circumstances which brought about the establishment of the royal form of government. On closer examination of the contents, however, it is seen that the author is guided by a leading idea in the choice of his matter, and that his main object is not to give a history of the first two kings of Israel, but to relate the providential foundation of a permanent royal dynasty in the family of David. This strikingly appears in the account of Saul's reign, which may be summarized in the words: elected, found wanting, and rejected in favour of David. The detailed history of the struggle between David and Saul and his house is plainly intended to show how David, the chosen of the Lord, was providentially preserved amid many imminent dangers and how he ultimately triumphed, while Saul perished with his house. The early events of David's rule over united Israel are told in few words, even such an important fact as the capture of Jerusalem being little insisted on, but his zeal for God's worship and its reward in the solemn promise that his throne would last forever (II, vii, 11-16) are related in full detail. The remaining chapters tell how, in pursuance of this promise, God helps him to extend and consolidate his kingdom, and does not abandon him even after his great crime, though he punishes him in his tenderest feelings. The conclusion shows him in peaceful possession of the throne after two dangerous rebellions. The whole story is thus built around a central idea and reaches its climax in the Messianic promise, II, vii, 11 sqq. Besides this main object a secondary one may be observed, which is to convey to king and people the lesson that to obtain God's protection they must observe His commands. AUTHOR AND DATE The Talmud attributes to Samuel the whole work bearing his name; this strange opinion was later adopted by St. Gregory the Great, who naïvely persuaded himself that Samuel wrote the events which occurred after his death by prophetic revelation. Rabbinical tradition and most of the older Christian writers ascribe to this prophet the part referring to his time (I, i-xxiv), the rest to the Prophets Gad and Nathan. This view is evidently based on I Par., xxix, 29, "Now the acts of king David first and last are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer." But the wording of the text indicates that there is question of three distinct works. Besides, the unity of plan and the close connection between the different parts exclude composite authorship; we must at least admit a redactor who combined the three narratives. This redactor, according to Hummelauer, is the prophet Nathan; the work, however, can hardly be placed so early. Others attribute it to Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechias, or Esdras. None of these opinions rests on any solid ground, and we can only say that the author is unknown. The same diversity of opinion exists as to the date of composition. Hummelauer assigns it to the last days of David. Vigouroux, Cornely, Lesêtre, and Thenius place it under Roboam; Kaulen, under Abiam the son of Roboam; Haevernick, not long after David, Ewald, some thirty years after Solomon; Clair, between the death of David and the destruction of the Kingdom of Juda. According to recent critics it belongs to the seventh century, but received retouches as late as the fifth or even the fourth century. No sufficient data are at hand to fix a precise date. We can, however, assign cedrtain limits of time within which the work must have been composed. The explanation concerning the dress of the king's daughters in David's time (II, xiii, 18) supposes that a considerable period had elapsed in the interval, and points to a date later than Solomon, during whose reign a change in the style of dress was most likely introduced by his foreign wives. How much later is indicated by the remark: "For which reason Siceleg belongeth to the kings of Juda unto this day." (I, xxvii, 6). The expression kings of Juda implies that at the time of writing the Kingdom of Israel had been divided, and that at least two or three kings had reigned over Juda alone. The earliest date cannot, therefore, be placed berfore the reign of Abiam. The latest date, on the other hand, must be assigned to a time prior to Josias's reform (621 b.c.). As has been remarked, the author repeatedly records without censure or comment violations of the Pentateuchal law regarding sacrifices. Now it is not likely that he would have acted thus if he had written after these practices had been abolished and their unlawfulness impressed on the people, since at this time his readers would have taken scandal at the violation of the Law by such a person as Samuel, and at the toleration of unlawful rites by a king like David. The force of this reason will be seen if we consider how the author of II-IV Kings, who wrote after Josias's reform, censures every departure from the Law in this respect or, as in III, iii, 2, explains it. The purity of language speaks for an early rather than a late date within the above limits. The appendix, however, may possibly be due to a somewhat later hand. Moreover, additions by a subsequent inspired revisor may be admitted without difficulty. SOURCES It is now universally recognized that the author of I-II Kings made use of written documents in composing his work. One such document, "The Book of the Just", is mentioned in connection with David's lament over Saul and Jonathan (II, i, 18). The canticle of Anna (I, ii, 1-10), David's hymn of thanksgiving (II, xxii, 2-51; cf. Ps. xvii), and his "last words" were very probably also drawn from a written source. But besides these minor sources, the writer must have had at hand, at least for the history of David, a document containing much of the historical matter which he narrates. This we infer from the passages common to I-II Kings and the First Book of Paralipomenon (Chronicles), which are shown in the following list:- I K., xxxi II K., iii, 2-5 v, 1-10 v, 11-25 vi, 1-11 vi, 12-23 " "" vii I Par., x, 1-12 iii, 1-4 xi, 1-9 xiv, 1-16 xiii, 1-14 xv, 25-29 xvi, 1-3, 43 xvii I K., viii x,1-xi, 1 xii, 26-31 xxi, 18-22 xxiii, 8-39 xxiv I Par., xviii xix, 1-xx. 1 xx, 1-3 xx, 4-8 xi, 10-46 xxi Although these passages often agree word for word, the differences are such that the author of Paralipomenon, the later writer, cannot be said to have copied from I-II Kings, and we must conclude that both authors made use of the same document. This seems to have been an official record of important public events and of matters pertaining to the administration, such as was probably kept by the court "recorder" (II Kings, viii, 16; xx, 24), and is very likely the same as the "Chronicles of King David" (I Par., xxvii, 24). To this document we may add three others mentioned in I Par. (xxix, 29) as sources of information for the history of David, namely, the "Book of Samuel", the "Book of Gad", and the "Book of Nathan". These were works of the three Prophets, as we gather from II Par., ix, 29; xii, 15; xx, 34, etc.; and our author would hardly neglect writings recommended by such names. Samuel very probably furnished the matter for his own history and for part of Saul's; Gad, David's companion in exile, the details of that part of David's life, as well as of his early days as king; and Nathan, information concerning the latter part, or even the whole, of his reign. Thus between them they would have fairly covered the period treated of, if, indeed, their narratives did not partially overlap. Besides these four documents other sources may occasionally have been used. A comparison of the passages of I-II Kings and I Par. given in the list above shows further that both writers frequently transferred their source to their own pages with but few changes; for, since one did not copy from the other, the agreement between them cannot be explained except on the supposition that they more or less reproduce the same document. We have therefore reason to believe that our author followed the same course in other cases, but to what extent we have no means of determining. THE CRITICAL THEORY According to recent critics, I-II Kings is nothing but a compilation of different narratives so unskillfully combined that they may be separated with comparative ease. In spite of this comparative ease in distinguishing the different elements, the critics are not agreed as to the number of sources, nor as to the particular souce to which certain passages are to be ascribed. At present the Wellhausen-Budde theory is accepted, at least in its main outlines, by nearly the whole critical school. According to this theory, II, ix-xx, forms one document, which is practically contemporary with the events described; the rest (excluding the appendix) is chiefly made up of two writings, an older one, J, of the ninth century, and a later one, E, of the end of the eighth or the beginning of the seventh century. They are designated J and E, because they are either due to the authors of the Jahwist and Elohist documents of the Hexateuch, or to writers belonging to the same schools. Both J and E underwent modifications by a revisor, J² and E² respectively, and after being welded together by a redactor, RJE, were edited by a writer of the Deuteronomic school, RD. After this redaction some further additions were made, among them the appendix. The different elements are thus divided by Budde:- J.-I, ix, 1-x, 7, 9-16; xi, 1-11, 15; xiii, 1-7a, 15b-18; xiv, 1-46, 52; xvi, 14-23; xviii, 5-6, 11, 20-30; xx, 1-10, 18-39, 42b; xxii, 1-4, 6-18, 20-23; xxiii, 1-14a; xxvi; xxvii; xxix-xxxi. II, i, 1-4, 11-12, 17-27; ii, 1-9, 10b, 12-32; iii; iv; v, 1-3, 6-10, 17-25; vi; ix-xi; xii, 1-9, 13-30, xiii-xx, 22. J².-I, x, 8; xiii, 7b- 15a, 19-22. E.-I, iv, 1b-vii, 1; xv, 2-34; xvii, 1-11, 14-58; xviii, 1-4, 13-29; xix, 1, 4-6, 8-17; xxi, 1- 9; xxi, 19; xxii, 19-xxiv, 19; xxv; xxviii. II, i, 6-10, 13-16; vii. E².-I, i, 1-28; ii, 11- 22a, 23-26; iii, 1-iv, 1a; vii, 2-viii, 22; x, 17-24; xii. RJE.-I, x, 25-27; xi, 12-14; xv, 1; xviii, 21b; xix, 2-3, 7; xx, 11-17, 40-42a; xxii, 10b; xxiii, 14b-18; xxiv, 16, 20-22a. II, i, 5. RD.-1, iv, 18 (last clause); vii, 2; xiii, 1; xiv, 47-51; xxviii, 3. II, ii, 10a, 11; v, 4-5; viii; xii, 10-12. Additions of a later editor.-I, iv, 15, 22; vi, 11b, 15, 17-29; xi, 8b; xv, 4; xxiv, 14; xxx, 5. II, iii, 30; v, 6b, 7b, 8b; xv, 24; xx, 25- 26. Latest additions.-I, ii, 1-10, 22b; xvi, 1-13; xvii, 12-13; xix, 18-24; xx, 10-15; xxii, 5. II, xiv, 26; xxi-xxiv. This minute division, by which even short clauses are to a nicety apportioned to their proper sources, is based on the following grounds. (1) There are duplicate narratives giving a different or even a contradictory presentation of the same event. There are two accounts of Saul's election (I, viii, 1-xi), of his rejection (xiii, 1-14 and xv), of his death (I, xxxi, 1 sqq., and II, i, 4 sqq.), of his attempt to pierce David (I, xxiii, 10-11, and xix, 9-10d). There are also two accounts of David's introduction to Saul (I, xvi, 14 sqq. and xvii, 55-58), of his flight from court (xix, 10 sqq., and xxi, 10), of his taking refuge with Achis (xxi, 10 sqq., and xxvii, 1 sqq.), of his sparing Saul's life (xxiv, and xxvi). Lastly, there are two accounts of the origin of the proverb: "Is Saul too among the prophets?" (x, 12; xix, 24). Some of these double narratives are not only different, but contradictory. In one account of Saul's election the people demand a king, because they are dissatisfied with the sons of Samuel; the prophet manifests great displeasure and tries to turn them from their purpose; he yields, however, and Saul is chosen by lot. In the other, Samuel shows no aversion to the kingdom; he privately anoints Saul at God's command that he may deliver Israel from the Philistines; Saul is proclaimed king only after, and in reward of his victory over the Ammonite king, Naas. According to one version of Saul's death, he killed himself by falling on his sword; according to the other, he was slain at his own request by an Amalecite. Again, in xvi, David, then arrived at full manhood and experienced in warfare, is called to court to play before Saul and is made his armour-bearer, and yet in the very next chapter he appears as a shepherd lad unused to arms and unknown both to Saul and to Abner. Moreover, there are statements at variance with one another. In I, vii, 33, it is stated that "the Philistines . . . did not come any more into the borders of Israel . . . all the days of Samuel"; while in ix, 16, Saul is elected king to deliver Israel from them, and in xiii a Philistine invasion is described. In I, vii, 15, Samuel is said to have judged Israel all the days of his life, though in his old age he delegated his powers to his sons (viii, 1), and after the election of Saul solemnly laid down his office (xii). Finally, in I, xv, 35, Samuel is said never to have seen Saul again, and yet in xix, 24, Saul appears before him. All this shows that two narratives, often differing in their presentation of the facts, have been combined, the differences in some cases being left unharmonized. (2) Certain passages present religious conceptions belonging to a later age, and must therefore be ascribed to a later writer, who viewed the events of past times in the light of the religious ideas of his own. A difference of literary style can also be detected in the different parts of the work. If all this were true, the theory of the critics would have to be admitted. In that case much of I-II Kings would have but little historical value. The argument from the religious conceptions assumes the truth of Wellhausen's theory on the evolution of the religion of Israel; while that from literary style is reduced to a list of words and expressions most of which must have been part of the current speech, and for this reason could not have been the exclusive property of any writer. The whole theory, therefore, rests on the argument from double narratives and contradictions. As this seems very plausible, and presents some real difficulties, it demands an examination. DOUBLETS AND CONTRADICTIONS Some of the narratives said to be doublets, while having a general resemblance, differ in every detail. This is the case with the two accounts of Saul's disobedience and rejection, with the two narratives of David's sparing Saul's life, and of his seeking refuge with Achis. Such narratives cannot be identified, unless the improbability of the events occurring as related be shown. But is it improbable that Saul should on two different occasions have disregarded Samuel's directions and that the latter should repeat with greater emphasis the announcement of his rejection? Or that in the game of hide-and-seek among the mountains David should have twice succeeded in getting near the person of Saul and should on both occasions have refrained from harming him? Or that under changed conditions he should have entered into negotiations with Achis and become his vassal? Even where the circumstances are the same, we cannot at once pronounce the narratives to be only different accounts of the same occurrence. It is not at all strange that Saul in his insane moods should twice have attempted to spear David, or that the loyal Ziphites should twice have betrayed to Saul David's whereabouts. The two accounts of Saul among the prophets at first sight seem to be real doublets, not so much because the two narratives are alike, for they differ considerably, as because both incidents seem to be given as the origin of the proverb: "Is Saul too among the prophets?" The first, however, is alone said to have given rise to the proverb. The expression used in the other case-"Wherefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets?"-does not necessarily imply that the proverb did not exist before, but may be understood to say that it then became popular. The translation of the Vulgate, "Unde et exivit proverbium", is misleading. There is no double mention of David's flight from court. When in xxi, 10, he is said to have fled from the face of Saul, nothing more is affirmed than that he fled to avoid being taken by Saul, the meaning of the expression "to flee from the face of" being to flee for fear of some one. The double narrative of Saul's election is obtained by tearing asunder parts which complement and explain one another. Many a true story thus handled will yield the same results. The story as it stands is natural and well connected. The people, disgusted at the conduct of the sons of Samuel, and feeling that a strong central government would be an advantage for the defence of the country, request a king. Samuel receives the request with displeasure, but yields at God's command and appoints the time and place for the election. In the meanwhile he anoints Saul, who is later designated by lot and acclaimed king. All, however, did not recognize him. Influential persons belonging to the larger tribes were very likely piqued that an unknown man of the smallest tribe should have been chosen. Under the circumstances Saul wisely delayed assuming royal power till a favourable opportunity presented itself, which came a month later, when Naas besieged Jabes. It is objected, indeed, that, since the Jabesites did not send a message to Saul in their pressing danger, chap. xi, 4 sq., must have belonged to an account in which Saul had not yet been proclaimed king, whence a double narrative is clearly indicated. But even if the Jabesites had sent no message, the fact would have no significance, since Saul had not received universal recognition; nothing, however, warrants us to read such a meaning into the text. At all events, Saul on hearing the news immediately exercised royal power by threatening with severe punishment anyone who would not follow him. Difficulties, it is true, exist as to some particulars, but difficulties are found also in the theory of a double account. The two accounts of Saul's death are really contradictory; but only one is the historian's; the other is the story told by the Amalecite who brought to David the news of Saul's death, and nothing indicates that the writer intends to relate it as true. We need have little hesitation in pronouncing it a fabrication of the Amalecite. Lying to promote one's interests is not unusual, and the hope of winning David's favour was a sufficient inducement for the man to invent his story. With regard to the apparent contradiction between xvi, 14-23, and xvii, it should be remarked that the Vatican (B) and a few other MSS. of the Septuagint omit xvii, 12-31 and xvii, 55-xviii, 5. This form of the text is held to be the more original, not only by some conservative writers, but by such critics as Cornill, Stade, W. R. Smith, and H. P. Smith. But though this text, if it were certain, would lessen the difficulty, it would not entirely remove it, as David still appears as a boy unused to arms. The apparent contradiction disappears if we take xvi, 14-23, to be out of its chronological place, a common enough occurrence in the historical books both of the Old and of the New Testament. The reason of the inversion seems to be in the desire of the author to bring out the contrast between David, upon whom the spirit of the Lord came from the day of his anointing, and Saul, who was thenceforth deserted by the spirit of the Lord, and troubled by an evil spirit. Or it may be due to the fact that with xvii the author begins to follow a new source. This supposition would explain the repetition of some details concerning David's family, if xvii, 17-21, is original. According to the real sequence of events, David after his victory over Goliath returned home, and later, having been recommended by one who was aware of his musical skill, he was called to court and permanently attached to the person of Saul. This explanation might seem inadmissible, because it is said (xviii, 2) that "Saul took him that day, and would not let him return to his father's house." But as "on that day" is often used in a loose way, it need not be taken to refer to the day on which David slew Goliath, and room will thus be left for the incident related in xvi, 14-23. It is not true, therefore, that it is impossible to reconcile the two accounts, as is asserted. The so-called contradictory statements may also be satisfactorily explained. As vii is a summary of Samuel's administration, the words "the Philistines . . . did not come any more into the borders of Israel" must be taken to refer only to Samuel's term of office, and not to his whole lifetime; they do not, therefore, stand in contradiction with xiii, where an incursion during the reign of Saul is described. Besides, it is not said that there were no further wars with the Philistines; the following clause: "And the hand of the Lord was against the Philistines, all the days of Samuel", rather supposes the contrary. There were wars, indeed, but the Philistines were always defeated and never succeeded in gaining a foothold in the country. Still they remained dangerous neighbours, who might attack Israel at any moment. Hence it could well be said of Saul, "He shall save my people out of the hands of the Philistines" (ix, 16), which expression does not necessarily connote that they were under the power of the Philistines. Ch. xiii, 19-21, which seems to indicate that the Philistines were occupying the country at the time of Saul's election, is generally acknowledged to be misplaced. Further, when Samuel delegated his powers to his sons, he still retained his office, and when he did resign it, after the election of Saul, he continued to advise and reprove both king and people (cf. I, xii, 23); he can therefore be truly said to have judged Israel all the days of his life. The last contradiction, which Budde declares to be inexplicable, rests on a mere quibble about the verb "to see". The context shows clearly enought that when the writer states that "Samuel saw Saul no more till the day of his death" (xv, 35), he means to say that Samuel had no further dealings with Saul, and not that he never beheld him again with his eyes. Really, is it likely that a redactor who, we are told, often harmonizes his sources, and who plainly intends to present a coherent story, and not merely a collection of old documents, would allow glaring contradictions to stand? There is no sufficient reason, then, why we should not grant a historical character to the section I, i-II, viii, as well as to the rest of the work. Those internal marks-namely, lifelike touches, minuteness of detail, bright and flowing style-which move the critics to consider the latter part as of early origin and of undoubted historical value, are equally found in the first. THE HEBREW TEXT, THE SEPTUAGINT, AND THE VULGATE The Hebrew text has come down to us in a rather unsatisfactory condition, by reason of the numerous errors due to transcribers. The numbers especially have suffered, probably because in the oldest manuscripts they were not written out in full. In I, vi, 19, seventy men become "seventy men, and fifty thousand of the common people." In I, xiii, 5, the Philistines are given the impossible number of thirty thousand chariots. Saul is only a year old when he begins to reign, and reigns but two years (I, xiii, 1). Absalom is made to wait forty years to accomplish the vow he made while in Gessur (II, xv, 7). In I, viii, 16, oxen are metamorphosed into "goodliest young men", while in II, x, 18, forty thousand footmen are changed into horsemen. Michol, who in II, vi, 23, is said to have had no children, in II, xxi, 8, is credited with the five sons of her sister Merob (cf. I, xviii, 19; xxv, 44; II, iii, 15). In II, xxi, 19, Goliath is again slain by Elchanan, and, strange to say, though I Par., xx, 5, tells us that the man killed by Elchanan was the brother of the giant, some critics here also see a contradiction. Badan in I, xii, 11, should be changed to Abdon or Barak, and Samuel, in the same verse, to Samson, etc. Many of these mistakes can readily be corrected by a comparison with Paralipomenon, the Septuagint, and other ancient versions. Others antedate all translations, and are therefore found in the versions as well as in the Massoretic (Hebrew) text. In spite of the work of correction done by modern commentators and textual critics, a perfectly satisfactory critical text is still a desideratum. The Septuagint differs considerably from the Massoretic text in many instances; in others the case is not so clear. The Vulgate was translated from a Hebrew text closely resembling the Massoretic; but the original text has been interpolated by additions and duplicate translations, which have crept in from the Itala. Additions occur: I, iv, 1; v, 6, 9: viii, 18; x, 1; xi, 1; xiii, 15; siv, 22, 41; xv, 3, 12; xvii, 36; xxi, 11; xxx, 15; II, i, 26; v, 23; x, 19; xiii, 21, 27; xiv, 30; duplicate translations, I, ix, 15; xv, 32; xx, 15; xxiii, 13, 14; II, i, 18; iv, 5; vi, 12; xv, 18, 20. Catholic: Gigot, Special Introd. (New York, 1901), 251-65; Cornely, Introductio, (Paris, 1897), i, 240-76; Hummelbauer, Comm. in Libros Samuelis (Paris, 1886); Fillion in Vig., Dict. de la Bible, s. v. Rois (les quatre livres des); Vigoroux, Manuel Bibl., 10th ed., II (Paris, 1899), 80 sqq.; Clair, Livres des Rois (Paris, 1884); Dhorme, Les Livres de Samuel (Paris, 1910); Kaulen, Einleitung (3rd ed., Freiburg im Br., 1890), 223-30; SchÄfers, I Sam., i-xv literarkritisch untersucht in Bibl. Zeitschr., V (1907), 1, 126, 235, 359; VI, 117; Peters, Beiträge zur Text- und Literaturkritik der B252;cher Samuels (Vienna, 1904); Wiesmann, Die Einführung des Königtums in Israel in Zeitsch. für Kathol. Theologie, XXXIV (1910), 118-153; Idem, Bemerkungen zum I Buche Samuels, ibid., XXXII (1908), 187, 597; XXXIII, 129, 385, 796. Non-Catholic: Stenning in Hast., Dict of the Bible, s. v. Samuel, I and II; Driver, Literat. of the O. T., 8th ed. (Edinburgh, 1909), 172-85; Idem, Notes on Heb. Text of the B. of Samuel (Oxford, 1890); H. P. Smith, Comm. on the B. of Samuel (New York, 1899); Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs und der Histor. Bücher des A. T. (Berlin, 1899); Idem, Text der Bücher Samuels (Göttingen, 1871); Budde, Die Bücher Richter und Samuel (Giessen, 1890); Idem, The Books of Samuel in Haupt, Sacred Books of the O. T. (Baltimore, 1894); Idem, Die Bücher Samuel in Marti, Kurzer Hand Comm. zum A. T., (1902); Cornill in Zeitschr. für kirchl. Wissensch. und kirchl. Leben (1885), 113 sqq.; Idem in Königsberg. Studien (1887); 25 sqq.; Idem in Zeitsch. für A. T. Wissensch., (1890), 96 sqq.; Thenius, Die Bücher Samuels, ed. LÖhr (Leipzig, 1898); Klostermann, Die Bücher Samuels und der Könige (Munich, 1887). F. BECHTEL Third and Fourth Books of Kings Third and Fourth Books of Kings The historical book called in the Hebrew Melakhim, i.e. Kings, is in the Vulgate, in imitation of the Septuagint, styled the Third and Fourth Book of Kings. This designation is justified, inasmuch as the historical narration contained in I and II Kings is herein continued, and, especially, because the history of David's life, begun in I and II, is here concluded. It is, on the other hand, an independent work, distinct from the Books of Samuel (i.e. I and II Kings) in its origin and its style, as well as by reason of the purpose it has in view. Its division into two books--at an awkward place, just in the middle of the history of Ochozias--did not exist in early times, and has only been introduced later into the Hebrew editions from the Septuagint and the Vulgate. A division into three parts would be more in keeping with the contents. The first part (III Kings, i- xi), beginning with David's enactments concerning the succession to the throne and his last instructions, comprises the history of Solomon: his God-given wisdom, the building of the temple and royal palace, the splendour of his reign, his great fall on account of which God announced to him the breaking up of his realm. The second part (III Kings, xii-IV Kings, xvii) gives an historical survey of the kindred Kingdoms of Juda and Israel: Jeroboam's falling away from God and worship of the golden calf, the continuous wars between the succeeding kings of Israel and Juda up to Achab, the endeavours on the part of Elias to bring back to God the people misled by Achab, the destructive alliances between the house of Achab and the house of David, the miracles, prophecies, and activity of Eliseus, the destruction of the race of Achab by Jehu, Athalia's abortive attempt to destroy the house of David, the further line of contemporaneous kings of Juda and Isreal until the end of the last-named kingdom, with an epilogue setting forth the causes of the fall of the latter. The third part (IV Kings, xviii-xxv) treats of the history of the Kingdom of Juda after the reign of Ezechias: his miraculous deliverance from the power of the Assyrians, his boastful conniving with the Babylonians, which gave rise to the Babylonian Captivity and Exile, the historical account of the reign of Manasses, whose sins evoked the pronouncement of the ruin of Juda, of Josias, who restored the temple, renewed the covenant with God, and endeavoured to stamp out idolatry, of the last kings up to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, with a short postscript concerning the Judeans who had remained behind, and the delivery of King Joachim from his imprisonment. The Books of Kings were not completed in their present form before the middle of the Exile. Indeed IV Kings, xxv, 27-30, relates that Joachim was released from bondage (562), and admitted to the court of Babylon for "all the days of his life". According to the Babylonian Talmud (Baba bathra, fol. 15, 1), the Prophet Jeremias is the author. Not a few among both older and more recent exegetes consider this probable. It is indeed remarkable that Jeremias's activity is not alluded to--his name not even being mentioned--although he stood in close relation to the events of the last few years, while everything other prophets (e.g. Elias, Eliseus, Isaias) did for kings and people is carefully noted. In case Jeremias was the author, we have to accept the explanation that he did not consider it suitable to relate here what he had set forth at length in his prophecy. Furthermore, Jer., lii, the narrative of the events in which Jeremias's predictions were fulfilled, is taken almost verbatim from IV Kings, xxiv, 18-xxv, 30. The compiler of the Prophecy of Jeremias felt justified in doing this, inasmuch as, in his opinion, the Books of Kings were by the same author. There is an undoubted resemblance in language and style between this historical book and the Prophecy of Jeremias. The same expressions occur in both writings (compare, for instance, III Kings, ii, 4, with Jer., xxxiii, 17; III Kings, ix, 8 with Jer., xviii, 16, and xix, 8, also Lam., ii, 15; IV Kings, xxi, 12, with Jer., xix, 3; IV Kings, xxi, 13, 14, with Jer., xxx, 16, and xxii, 17, also Lam., ii, 8). If Jeremias be indeed the author, it must be accepted as probable that he wrote the book not long before, or shortly after, the fall of Jerusalem (587 b.c.); the last verses (xxv, 27-30) have possibly been added by a different hand. The style, especially in the second chapter, is entirely different from that of the Books of Samuel (I and II Kings). The well-developed and comprehensive presentation of those books differs noticeably from the dry and chronicle-like reports about most of the kings. Besides, the Books of Samuel never refer to those lost books which served as sources and which contained fuller particulars, while the Books of Kings are full of such references. In the latter books the chronology is very clearly set down; for instance, as long as the two kingdoms exist simultaneously, in considering the history of one king, the year in which the contemporary king of the other kingdom acceded to the throne and the length of his reign are both indicated. Such notices are entirely absent from the Books of Samuel. From them it is even impossible to discover how long Samuel and Saul governed. Moreover, the historian of III and IV Kings himself passes judgment on every king of Israel and of Juda as to whether he did right or wrong in the eyes of God; whereas the Books of Samuel simply give the judgments of other historians or leave it to the reader to judge for himself. The Books of Kings cover a period of about four centuries, from the time of the last years of David until the fall of Jerusalem. They do not give the complete history of Israel during this period; such was not the purpose of the writer. He omits many important events or barely alludes to them. For the political history of the two kingdoms, the military exploits of the kings, their public achievements, he constantly refers to three other writings which, at that time, were still in existence. By these references he wishes to indicate that he does not intend to relate everything which may be found in those sources. Whoever wanted information concerning the wars, the treaties, and public acts was to consult the writings referred to. In the Book of Kings, as is shown by its contents, another matter predominates, namely, the relation of each king to revealed religion. For this reason, the narrator judges the conduct of each king, treats more extensively the history of those kings who fostered or brought religion to a flourishing state (such as Solomon, Ezechias, Josias), or who had, on the contrary, wrought it great harm (Jeroboam I, Achab, and Joram); and therefore he relates particularly what the prophets did to bring back the kings and people to the observance of the laws of religion and to spur them on. The object the writer had in view he indicates very clearly in the epilogue which follows the story of the fall of Israel (IV Kings, xvii, 7 sqq.). With emphasis he points out the cause: "They worshipped strange gods . . . and they hearkened not [to the warnings of the prophets] . . . and they rejected the covenant that he [God] made with their fathers . . . And the Lord was very angry with Israel, and removed them from his sight, and there remained only the tribe of Juda. But neither did Juda itself keep the commandments of the Lord their God; but they walked in the errors of Israel . . . And the Lord cast off all the seed of Israel." III Kings, ii, 3, 4; ix, 3-9; xi, 11, 33-39; xiv, 7-11; xvi, 12 sqq.; IV Kings, x, 30-33; xiii, 3; xxi, 11-16; xxii, 15-17; xxiv, 3-20, bring out the same idea. In this manner the writer teaches that the unlawful cult offered in the high places and the idolatry practised both by kings and people in spite of the admonitions of the prophets were the cause of the downfall of Israel and of Juda. Still this is not the entire purpose of the work. The repeated calling to mind of the promises of the God Who had pledged a permanent reign to David, the acknowledgment of the mercy of the God Who, on account of David, Ezechias, and Josias, had suspended the judgment pronounced upon Juda--all this served to revive the hope and confidence of the remnant of the people. From this they were to learn that God, just in His wrath, was also merciful in His promises to David and would be faithful to His promise of sending the Messias, whose kingdom should endure. Not unappropriately this whole work may be called an historical elucidation and explanation of Nathan's oracle (II Kings, vii, 12-16). The writings upon which the Books of Kings are based and to which they refer more than thirty times are: the "book of the words of the days of Solomon" (III Kings, xi, 41), the "book of the words of the days [A. V. book of the chronicles] of the kings of Israel" (xiv, 19; etc.), and the "book of the words of the days of the kings of Juda" (xiv, 29; etc.). In the opinion of many, these "chronicles" are the official annals kept by the chancellors of the different kings. However, it is by no means certain that the office designated by the Hebrew word mazkir signifies chancellor (Vulg. a commentariis); still less certain is it that it was part of the duty of the chancellor, who belonged to the king's household, to keep these annals. It is true that David (II Kings, viii, 16), Solomon (III Kings, iv, 3), Ezechias (IV Kings, xviii, 18), and Josias (II Par., xxxiv, 8) counted among their officials a mazkir, but whether the other kings of Juda and of Israel employed such an officer we find nowhere indicated. Even if it were historically certain that socalled year-books were kept in the two kingdoms by the chancellors, and had been preserved in Israel in spite of so many revolutions and regicides, there remains still the question whether these are really the "chronicles" which serve as a basis for the Books of Kings. The chronicles of other peoples, as far as they have been preserved in cuneiform characters and otherwise, contain exclusively that which contributes to the glory of the kings, their deeds of arms, the edifices they built, etc. Our historical work, however, also relates the sins, prevarications, and other atrocities of the kings, which were not likely to be recorded in the year-books by court officials during the lifetime of their kings. According to IV Kings, xxi, 17, "The acts of Manasses . . . and his sin which he sinned, are they not written in the book of the words of the days [A. V. book of the chronicles--II Kings, xxi, 17] of the kings of Juda?" We may endeavour to determine the nature of these sources in another way. By comparing the accounts in the Books of Kings and those in II Par., one is immediately struck by two things: With frequent verbal similarity, both works carefully indicate the sources which have been consulted. The history of Solomon's reign, III Kings, i-xi, is told in II Par., i-ix, in almost the same manner, and while III Kings, xi, 41, refers to the "book of the words of the days of Solomon", II Par., ix, 29, refers in the same formula ("The rest of", etc.) to "the words of Nathan the prophet, and the books of Abias the Silonite, and the vision of Addo the seer". The history of Roboam the author of the Books of Kings takes from the "book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah" (A. V. I Kings, xiv, 29). The writer of II Par., x-xii, gives an account of the same which in contents and form is almost identical, and refers to "the books of Semeias the prophet, and of Addo the seer" (II Par., xii, 15). The same holds for the history of the following kings of Juda. After an account, often in almost the same words, now elaborate and then again more concise, we find in the Book of Kings the "book of the chronicles" and in II Par. the "prophetic writings" given as sources. It must be added that, while in the life story of four of the seven kings in II Par., reference to the source is omitted, these are also absent in the Books of Kings. Is it then not probable that it is one and the same source whence both writers have gathered their information? The "book of the chronicles" quoted in III and IV Kings the writer of II Par. designates by the then usual appellation, "the book of the kings of Juda and Israel". The prophetic writings referred to by this writer are divisions of the last-named book. This the writer states explicitly (II Par., xx, 34) of "the words [or the writings] of Jehu the son of Hanami" (his source for the history of Josaphat): they are "digested into the books of the kings of Israel [and Juda]"; also (II Par., xxxii, 32--Vulg.) of "the vision of Isaias, son of Amos": it is embodied in "the book of the kings of Juda and Israel". Consequently, the source utilized by both writers is nothing else but the collection of the writings left behind by the successive prophets. That the author of the Book of Kings has thoroughly consulted his sources, is constantly evident. Thus he is able to describe the labours and miracles of Elias and Eliseus with such minuteness and in so fresh and vivid a manner as to make it plain that the original narrator was an eyewitness. This is why he consults the sources and refers the reader to them in his account of the life of almost every king; not a few expressions have been taken over verbally (cf. III Kings, viii, 8; ix, 21; xii, 19; IV Kings, xiv, 7, etc.). The authenticity of his history is further strengthened by its agreement with the accounts of II Par. The difficulties which appear at the superficial perusal of these Sacred Writings vanish after an attentive study, what seemed contradictory proving to be an amplification or else entirely new matter. In many places the historical reliability of the Books of Kings is confirmed by what the prophetic writings of Isaias, Jeremias, Osee, Amos, Micheas, and Sophonias report concerning the same events, either by direct mention or by allusion. Even profane historians of antiquity, Berosus, Manetho, and Menander, are quoted by Flavius Josephus and Eusebius as witnesses to the reliability of our book of sacred history. Especially notable in this respect are the inscriptions concerning the Oriental races discovered during the last century. Neteler, Das 3 und 4 B. der Könige der Vulg. und des Urtextes übersetzt und erklärt (Münster, 1899); Holzhey, Das B. der Könige (Leipzig, 1899); Crampon, Les livres des Rois (Paris, 1899); Benziger, Die B. der Könige (1899); Kittel, Die B. der Könige (Göttingen, 1900); Challoner and Kent, Kings III and IV (London, 1904); Crockett, Books of the Kings of Judah and Israel. Harmony of the B. of Sam., Kings and Chron. in the version of 1884 (London, 1906); Rubie, The first Book of Kings (London, 1907); Barnes, I and II Kings (London, 1908); Maclaren The Books of Kings (London, 1907-08); Burkitt, Fragments of the B. of Kings according to the translation of Aquila (Cambridge, 1897); Lagrange, L'Inscription de Mésa, etc., in Revue Biblique (1901), 522-45; Prasek, Sennacharib's Second Expedition in the West and the Siege of Jerusalem in Expository Times, XII, 225, 405; XIII, 326; Steffens, The St;ructure and Purpose of the B. of Kings in The Bible Student, VIII, 153-60; DÖller, Geographische und ethnographische Studien zem III und IV Könige (Vienna, 1904); Burnham, The Mission and Work of Elijah in Biblical World, XXIV, 180-87; Schulz, Die Quellen z. Gesch. des Elias (Braunsberg, 1906); Dodds, Elisha, the Man of God (Chicago, 1904); da Hummelauer, Solomons ehernes Meer in Bibl. Zeitsch., VI, 133- 54; Vincent, La description du Temple de Salomon, I Rois, vi, in Revue Biblique (1907), 515-42; Breme, Ezechias und Senacherib (Freiburg im Br., 1906); Nagl, Die nachdavidische Königsgeschickhte Israels ethnographisch und geographisch beleuchtet (Vienna, 1905); Toy, The Queen of Sheba in Journal of Am. FolkLore, XX, 207-12; Caldecott, Solomon's Temple. Its history and its structure (London, 1907). JOS. SCHETS Chronology of the Kings Chronology of the Kings First, we append a table in which the data of the Bible are put together. For the kings of Juda, s. signifies son, b., brother, of the preceeding. KINGS OF JUDA KINGS OF ISRAEL King Age LengthofReign YearofAscension BibleReference King LengthofReign YearofAscension BibleReference years yrs. mos. d. yrs. mos. d. David 30 40 6 IIKings, v,4-5; IPar., xxix,27 Jeroboam I 22 IIIKings, xiv,20 Solomon,s. 40 III Kings, xi, 42; II Par., ix, 30 Nadab 2 2 Asa III Kings, xv, 25 Roboam, s. 41 17 III Kings, xiv, 21; II Par., xii, 13 Baasa 24 3" III Kings, xv, 33 Abiam, s. 3 18 Jeroboam I III Kings, xv, 1-2; II Par., xiii, 1-2 Ela 2 26" III Kings, xvi, 8 Asa, s. 41 20 Jeroboam I III Kings, xv, 9-10; II Par., xvi, 13 Zambri 7 27" III Kings, xvi, 10, 15 Josaphat,s. 35 25 4 Achab III Kings, xxii, 41-42; II Par., xx, 31 Amri 12 31" III Kings, xvi, 23 Joram 32 8 5 Joram of Israel IV Kings, viii, 16-17 II Par., xxi, 5 Achab 22 38" III Kings, xvi, 29 Ochozias, s. 11 " " IV Kings, ix, 29; Ochozias 2 17 Josaphat III Kings, xxii, 52 " 22(42) 1 12 " " IV Kings, viii, 25-26 II Par., xxii, 2 Joram 12 18" IV Kings, iii, 1 Athalia 6 After" " IV Kings, xi, 3; II Par., xxii, 12 " 2 Joram of Juda IV Kings, i, 17 Joass.ofOchozias 7 40 7Jehu IVKings,xi,21;xii,1; II Par., xxiv, 1 Jehu 28 AfterOchoziasofJuda IVKings,ix,27;x,36 Amasias, s. 25 29 2 Joas of Israel to 15afterJoasofIsrael IV Kings, xiv, 1-2; IV Kings, xiv, 17; II Par., xxv, 1 II Par., xxv, 5 Joachaz 17 23 Joas of Juda IV Kings, xiii, 1 Azarias, s. 16 52 27 Jeroboam II IV Kings, xv, 1-2; II Par., xxvi, 3 Joas 16 37"" IV Kings, xiii, 10 Joatham, s. 25 16 2 Phacee IV Kings xv, 32-33; IIPar.,xxvii,1,8 JeroboamII 41 15 Amasias IV Kings, xiv, 23 Achaz, s. 25(20) 16 17 " IV Kings, xvi, 1-2; II Par., xxviii, 1 Zacharias 6 38 Azarias IV Kings, xv, 8 Ezechias, s. 25 29 3 Osee IV Kings, xviii, 1-2; II Par., xxix, 1 Sellum 1 39" IV Kings, xv, 13 Manasses 12 55 IV Kings, xxi, 1; II Par., xxxiii, 1 Menahem 10 39" IV Kings, xv, 17 Amon, s. 22 2 IV Kings, xxi, 19; II Par., xxxiii, 21 Phaceia 2 52" IV Kings, xv, 23 Josias 8 31 IV Kings, xxii, 1; II Par., xxxiv, 1 Phacee 20 52 Azarias IV King s, xv, 27 Joachaz, s. 23 3 IV Kings, xxiii, 31; II Par., xxxvi, 2 Osee 20 Joatham IV Kings, xv, 30 Joachim, b. 25 11 IV Kings, xxiii, 36; II Par., xxxvi, 5 " 9 12 Achaz until IV Kings, xvii, 1 Joachin, s. 18 (8) 3 10 IV Kings, xxiv, 8; II Par., xxxvi, 9 6Ezechias=9Osee IVKings,xvii,6;xviii,10 Sedecias,s.ofJosias 21 11 IV Kings, xxiv, 18; IIPar.,xxxvi,11 ___________________________________________________________ Since the deciphering of the AssyroBabylonian inscriptions, the chronology of the period of Kings before 730 b.c. has become untenable. We give here the points of chronological contact between the AssyroBabylonian history and Sacred Scripture, as also those of Egyptian history. A. From Assyrian Inscriptions.-- (1) 854 b.c.. Salmanasar II, in the summer of his sixth year, vanquishes Benadad of Syria (III Kings, xx, 1), the predecessor of Hazael, with other kings, among them Achab of Israel, in the battle of Karkar. (2) 842 b.c. Salmanasar II, in his eighteenth year, receives tribute from Jehu. (3) 738 b.c. Theglathphalasar III (Phul, IV Kings, xv, 19) receives, in his eighth year, tribute from Manahem. (4) 733-2 b.c. War between Theglathphalasar and Rasin of Syria; siege of Damascus. "Joachaz of Juda", i.e. Achz, brings presents from Theglathphalasar. Conquest of Israelitish territory by Theglathphalasar. (5) 731-0 (?) b.c. "Pakacha", i.e. Phacee (Hebr. Pekach), is killed, and "Ausi", i.e. Osee, is set over Israel by Theglathphalasar. (6) 722-1 b.c. Samaria is taken possession of, in the early part of Sargon's reign, by the Assyrians. B. From Scripture.-- (1) Towards the end of Solomon's reign, Jeroboam I fled into Egypt to Sesac. In the fifth year of the reign of Roboam, Jerusalem was plundered by the same Sesac (III Kings, xi, 40; xiv, 25). Sesac I probably reigned about 940-19 b.c. (2) In, or shortly before, the fifteenth year of Asa's riign, "Zara the Ethiopian" (Hebr. Zerach) declared war against Asa (II Par. [A. V. II Chron.), xiv, 9; cf. xv, 10 sqq.]. Some commentators think that Zara was a king of Egypt, namely, Osorkon I or II. The first was the successor of Sesac I. The second cannot be placed chronologically. (3) Benadad II (III Kings, xx, 1), the contemporary of Salmanasar II, was contemporary with Achab and Joram of Israel. Joram died during the reign of Benadad's successor, Hazael. According to Assyrian sources. Benadad was, in 846, still King of Syria. (4) Hazael, who, according to Assyrian inscriptions, was already ruling in 842, was contemporary with Jehu, Joas of Juda, and Joachaz of Israel (IV Kings, xiii, 22). In 803, Rammannirari III conquered Damascus under the Syrian King Mari, who was possibly the Biblical Benadad (III), contemporary of Joas of Israel (ibid., v, 25). (5) Manahem honours Phul, King of the Assyrians, with presents (IV Kings, xv, 19-20). That Phul is identical with Theglathphalasar III is apparent enough from the fact that, in the year 729, according to Assyrian inscriptions, Tukultiapalisarra, and Babylonian inscriptions Pulu, becomes King of Babylon, and that this same king, according to the same sources, died in 727. (6) Phacee and Rasin, King of Syria, besiege Achaz at Jerusalem (IV Kings, xvi, 5). Achaz calls Theglathphalasar to his assistance (ibid., v. 8). (7) Damascus is taken by Theglathphalasar, and Rasin is killed (IV Kings, xvi, 9). Achaz visits Theglathphalasar at Damascus (ibid., v, 10). (8) Theglathphalasar, during the reign of Phacee, takes possession of Israel's territory. Phacee is conspired against and slain by Osee, and the latter becomes king (IV Kings, xv, 29, 30). (9) Salmanasar beleaguers Samaria, which, in the third year of the siege, the sixth of Ezechias, and the ninth of Osee, is taken by the Assyrians (IV Kings, xvii, 5, 6; xviii, 10, 11). Salmanasar reigned from January, 726, to January, 721. Sua (or Seve), mentioned in IV Kings, xvii, 4, as "king of Egypt", is not identified with certainty. Some think him to be Sabaka, whose chronology, as also that of Theraca (IV Kings, xix, 9), has not been determined. Under Sargon of Assyria is mentioned, in the year 707, one Sib'u, or Sib'e, as "prince [ turtan, or sultan] of Musri". (10) Ezechias received, in or shortly after his fourteenth year, an embassy from MerodachBaladan (D. V. Berodach Baladan), who was King of Babylon from 721 to 710, and again, for 9 months, in 703. See IV Kings, xx, 1, 6, 12. (11) Sennacherib of Assyria besieged Ezechias at Jerusalem. The date given for this event, "in the fourteenth year of King Ezechias" (IV Kings, xviii, 13; and Is., xxxvi, 1) is either misplaced or incorrect. The event took place, according to IV Kings, xx, 6, after the recovery of Ezechias in his fourteenth year (i.e. fifteen years before his death), and after the arrival of the Babylonian embassy. (12) Death of Josias in a combat with Nechao, King of Egypt (IV Kings, xxiii, 29). Nechao (Necho II) ascended the throne in 610. (13) Battle near Carchemish (Charcamis, Karchemis) between Nechao and Nabuchodonosor of Babylon in the fourth year of Joakim (Jer., xlvi, 2; cf. xxv, 1; and IV Kings, xxiv, 1). According to the account of Berosus in Flavius Josephus, Nabuchodonosor, after having slaughtered the Egyptian army near Carchemish, marched on to Syria and Palestine in order to invade Egypt. Arrived at the confines of this country, he received the news of the death of his father, Nabopolassar. Returning to Babel to assume his administration, he confided the Jewish, Phoenician, and Syrian prisoners of war to the chiefs of his army. In consequence of this Juda also rose in revolt against him (cf. II Par., xxxvi, 6; and Dan., i, 1). Nabopolassar died in the beginning of the summer of 605 b.c. The fourth year of Joakim is in Jer., xxv, 1, designated as the first year of Nabuchodonosor, and, according to v. 3 of the same, was the twenth-third after the thirteenth year of Josias. (14) Nabuchodonosor takes Joachin (Jechonias) as a prisoner to Babylon, according to Jer., lii, 28, in the seventh, according to IV Kings, xxiv, 12, in the eighth year of his reign. Chapter lii, 28-34, in Jeremias, follows the Babylonian manner of dating (postdating), whereas the other texts count the initial year of any reign as the first. According to Babylonian dating, the first year of Nabuchodonosor was 604, but, according to Israelitish dating, it was 605. Jer., lii, 31, "In the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Joachin, king of Juda, in the twelfth month, the five and twentieth day of the month, Evilmerodach king of Babylon, in the first year of his reign (i.e. 562 b.c.), lifted up the head of Joachin, king of Juda, and brought him forth out of prison" (incorporated in IV Kings, xxv, 27), evidently follows the Babylonian dating. All these datings point to 598 as the year when Joachin was carried away. (15) In his eighth year, or the beginning of his ninth year, Sedecias revolted against Nabuchodonosor and called to his assistance Egypt, namely, the newly elevated Pharao Hophra (D. V. Ephree), who ascended the throne in 589 (probably the first half of the year)--IV Kings, xxiv, 20 (cf. xxv, 1); Jer., xxxvii, 4 (A. V. xxxvii, 5); xliv, 30; Ezech., xvii, 15. (16) The siege of Jerusalem began in the tenth month of the ninth year of Sedecias (IV Kings, xxv, 1; Jer., xxxiv, 1; lii, 4). According to Jer., xxxii, 1, the tenth year of Sedecias coincides with the eighteenth of Nabuchodonosor. Jerusalem was taken in the eleventh year of Sedecias, the nineteenth year of Nabuchodonosor, in the fourth month (IV Kings, xxv, 8; Jer., lii, 12). According to Babylonian chronology, this was the eighteenth year of Nabuchodonosor (Jer., lii, 29). (17) The fourth month of the eleventh year of Sedecias falls in the nineteenth year (Israelitish chronology) of Nabuchodonosor. From this it appears that the fourth month (Thammuz) of the first year of Sedecias falls in the ninth year of Nabuchodonosor. As Joachin's abduction took place in the eighth year of Nabuchodonosor, it is very probable that Sedecias became king in this, the eighth year. The celebrated seventeenthcentury Jesuit Petavius composed in a very ingenious manner two chronological tables which, as brought by him into relation with the preChristian chronology have, with few alterations, been in vogue for a long time. These tables are here combined and presented as one. Juda Year Israel Year Remarks Juda Year Israel Year Remarks David Solomon (Building of the Temple) Roboam Abiam Asa Josaphat Joram " Ochozias Athalia Joas B.C. 1055 1015 1012 975 958 955 914 892 889 885 884 878 JeroboamI Nadab Bassa Ela Zambri Amri Achab Ochozias Joram " Jehu Joachaz Joas B.C. 975 954 953 930 929 929 917 897 896 891 884 856 840 27 Asa--cf.III Kings, xvi,1518 3 years together with Josaphat His true reign After his father's death Amasias Azarias Joatham Achaz Ezechias Manasses Amon Josias Joachaz Joakim Joachin Sedecias " (end) B.C. 838 809 757 741 727 698 643 641 610 610 599 599 588 Jeroboam II (Interreg- num) Zacharias Sellum Manahem Phaceia Phacee Osee " "(end) B.C. 824 783 772 772 771 761 759 738 730 721 15 after Joas of Is- rael 20 Joatham 12 Achaz Taking of Samaria Capture of Jerusa- lem ___________________________________________________________ The table below gives the chronology of the kings of Juda and of Israel, as nearly as possible in accordance with the figures of the Bible, in conjunction with the data of profane history. In this connection it must be noted that: (1) The years b.c. are figured from Nisan to Nisan, which month usually began with the new moon about the vernal equinox; (2) the years during;which the kings reigned are understood to be enumerated in accordance with their accession to the throne, and not according to the beginning of the year (religious or civil). The number of inaccuracies has by this means been reduced to a minimum, and we are justified in this hypothesis because nothing is known with any degree of certainty concerning the system of chronology covering the years of thte kings of Juda and of Israel. From the present uncertainty as to the dates of accession it follows that the precise year b.c. in which any king began his reign cannot, in most cases, be determined. The inexactness is increased by the fact that the duration of any one reign is given in round numbers of years, so that, in the absence of any determining data, it is impossible to know whether the time is too long or too short by a fraction of a year. We have, therefore, to consider the dates b.c. here given as--within a year, earlier or later--more or less inaccurate. Dates marked with an asterisk (*) may, however, be regarded as reasonably exact. The inaccuracies in the chronology of the Bible are attributable to various causes. In many cases they are due to wouldbe "corrections" on the part of the copyists, who did not understand certain passages or sought to bring certain dates into agreement with an error of long standing. Thus the discrepancy of twenty years excess in the reign of Azarias has also been carried through the synchronisms of the Israelitish kings, Zacharias, etc. The synchronistic comparisons between Joatham, Achaz, and Ezechias, on the one hand, and Phacee and Osee, on the other, form a very inaccurate combination, brought into the Bible by the speculations of successive copyists and commentators. The statement, tolerably accurate chronologically, concerning the beginning of Osee's reign, "in the twentieth year of Joatham" (IV Kings, xv, 30), who, be it noted, only reigned sixteen years (v. 33), seems to have originated with some one who did not wish to mention the godless Achaz. The twenty years of the reign of Phacee, in whose second year Joatham became king, stand in relation to the twentieth year of Joatham like cause and effect. The synchronisms of Ezechias with Osee got into the Bible through the undoubtedly genuine "twelfth year of Achaz", during which Osee became an independent king, by means of the following arithmetical calculation:-- Phacee became king in the 52nd year of Azarias. Achaz" " ""17th "" Phacee. Osee" "" "12th ""Achaz Total81 years to Osee. Azarias reigned 52 years Joatham" 16" Achaz "16" Total 84 years to Ezechias. Subtract 81 years to Osee There remain3 years of Osee till Ezechias became king. That the reverse is not the case, that is, that the twelfth year of Achaz is not the result of a calculation, is shown by the fact that the other possible calculations would produce the fourth, and not the twelfth, year of Achaz. The other reckonings are as follows:-- 52 years of Azarias 52 years of Azarias. 20 ""Phacee 16 ""Joatham. Total 72" toOsee 68" toAchaz. Less68" toAchaz There remain4" of Achaz when Osee becomes king. The year 68 of Azarias=17 Phacee=16 Joatham=0 Achaz. 4 4 4 4 The year 72 of Azarias=21 Phacee=20 Joatham=4 Achaz=1 Osee. From this it appears that not the "twelfth year of Achaz", but the "twentieth year of Joatham", is Juda Year Israel Year Remarks Juda Year Israel Year Remarks David Solomon (Building of the Temple) Roboam Abiam Asa Josaphat--co- reign " king Joram Ochozias--co- reign " king Athalia Joas B.C. 1012 972 969 9332 915 9132 874 871* 849* 843 842 8421 8365 Jeroboam I Nadab Bassa Ela Zambri Amri " Achab Ochozias Joram Jehu Joachaz B.C. 9332 9121 9110 8887 8876 8876 882 875* 854* 853* 842* 8143 III Kings, xvi, 15, 18 III Kings, xvi, 23. After the death of Thebni (v. 22) 39 Asa. Cf. II Par., xvi, 12 4 Achab Shortly before Nisan, 853. As late as the summer of 854, Achab fought with Benadad against Salmanasar 18 Josaphat, IV Kings, viii, 16, be- ing supposed to read: "In the twentieth year of Josaphat" (from 874 on) 11 Joram of Israel. Cf. II Par., xxi, 18 and 19, with xxii, 4 12 Joram of Israel Amasias Azarias Joatham--regent "king Achaz Ezechias Manasses Amon Josias Joachaz Joakim Joachin Sedecias End of Sedecias B.C. 796 7687 75049 7365 7343 7187 6898 643 641 610* 609* 598* 598 587 Joas--co- reign "king Jeroboam II Zacharias Sellum Manahem Phaceia Phacee Osee " Endof Osee B.C. 799 797 782 750 7498 7498 7387 7376 730 723 7221 37JoasofJuda.Cf. IVKings, xxii,I. with v. 10, ibid. After his father's death Reigned 33, not 41, years. 15 years after the death of Joas of Israel. "Seven and twentieth year of Jeroboam" is erroneous Reigned 32, not 52, years. 18, not 38, of Aza- rias. 16 before Achaz. 19 Azarias. 19 Azarias. 30 Azarias. 32 Azarias. His third year as king is mentioned in II Par., xxvii,5 4, not 17, Phacee As vassal of Assyria after the death of Phacee, who only ruled 7 years. Independent. 12 Achaz. Capture of Samaria "Third year of Osee" is incorrect. Reigned 45, not 55, years. Capture of Jerusa- lem ___________________________________________________________ reckoned. The calculation was correct in regard to Osee's beginning as vassal of Assyria. But some one else confused this with the declaration of independence of Osee in the twelfth year of Achaz, and thus arrived at the "third year of Osee" before the beginning of Ezechias, whence resulted further synchronistic statements between Osee and Ezechias. That these synchronisms are not historical, but must have been introduced into the Bible by a "speculator", is proved by what follows:-- (1) That which is added, II Par., xxx, 5-9, 11, 25; and xxxi, 1, about the first year of Ezechias, was not possible while a king ruled in the kingdom of the Ten Tribes. (2) If Ezechias became king six or seven years before the capture of Samaria, consequently in 728-7, then his reign of twenty-nine years must have ended in 69908, and his recovery must have taken place fifteen years before, about 713. On this occasion the promise is made to Ezechias that he and his city Jerusalem shall be delivered "out of the hand of the king of the Assyrians" (IV Kings, xx, 6). This king was Sennacherib, who ascended the throne only in 705, while this event, according to Assyrian sources, took place not earlier than 701. There is no ground for assuming that strained relations existed between Ezechias and Sargon (722-705), who, nevertheless, just about 713, was engaged with the Philistines, and in 711 conquered Azotus (cf. Is., xx, 1). The cause of serious animosity between Ezechias and Assyria was evidently the embassy of Merodach-Baladin, who had no relations whatever with the King of Juda, and who did not send to him a magnificent embassy to congratulate him on his recovery without some ulterior motive. We cannot but regard this as an expression of the unfriendly attitude towards the Assyrians which was favoured by Ezechias. This is the light in which we can understand the war of the Assyrian against Juda. But cause and effect must be connected according to time. As to the year 713 or shortly afterwards (for the delivery of Ezechias), there can, then, be no discussion. The year 703 is probably correct; Merodach-Baladan had then regained the throne of Babylon, and Sennacherib already ruled in Assyria. Thus the recovery of Ezechias would have taken place in about 704. While this would be his fourteenth year, 718-7 would then be his first, which calculation also agrees with other data. Cf. Winckler, "Alttest. Unters.", 135. (3) If Ezechias became king in 728-7, then Achaz could not have reigned more than seven or eight years, and in this case the father would at most have been only seven years older than the son (cf. what follows). For a joint reign of Ezechias and Achaz is out of the question, and the supposition that Ezechias was not his son is, in view of IV Kings, xviii, 1, and II Par., xxviii, 27, without sufficient basis. Neither can another interpretation of the word son, accepted a number of times in the Books of Kings by Herzog, be considered a fortunate hypothesis. By the anticipation of the twenty-nine years' reign of Ezechias there resulted a shortage of ten years which has probably been made up by lengthening the reign of Manasses by ten years. The year 730 as the beginning of Osee's reign is, according to Biblical statistics, reasonably certain. For in his sixth or seventh year, and in the twelfth year of Achaz, he rose against Salmanasar (IV Kings, xviii, 9; cf. xvii, 4), and in his sixth year Samaria was taken. The year 722-1 being the ninth, 730 is consequently the first. The Assyrian account of the death of Phacee and the nomination of Oseeis usually placed by Assyriologists at about 734-732, since Theglathphalasar was not in Palestine again after 732. This reason is, however, not convincing. The course of events after 735-4 is probably as follows. The antiAssyrian party in Palestine, of which Rasin of Damascus was the head and moving spirit, organized an uprising and endeavoured to draw the other nations into it. Hence the alliance between Rasin and Phacee against Juda, which declined to participate in the uprising, and their endeavour, on the death of Joatham, to keep his son Achaz from the throne. Achaz appealed to Theglathphalasar for assistance. The latter immediately made for his object, namely, the subjection of Syria and the conquest of Damascus, without neglecting to occupy also the surrounding districts which belonged to Israel. Cf. IV Kings, xvi, 7-9; and xv, 29. After the fall of Damascus in the summer of 732, Tyre and Israel must have been conquered, but, when winter approached, Theglathphalasar turned all further operations over to his rabsak (whom he, according to his own inscriptions, dispatched against Tyre), and retired to Ninive. The territory of Israel was taken possession of, perhaps partly while the monarch was still in command; but before Samaria could be taken, Osee, supported by the Assyrian party, had executed his stroke and caused Phacee to fall. Various circumstances assign the subjection of Tryre, Israel, and Ascalon to 731-30, and the appointment of Osee as Assyrian vassal king over Israel need not be placed before 730. (Cf. Winckler, op. cit., 132 sqq). The chronology of the kings of Juda, as approximately determined above, has still to be compared with their ages at the commencement of their respective reigns--given in Holy Scripture for most of them. If we assume that, in the coregencies which we have considered, the age at the beginning of the coadministration is indicated, we arrive at about the following dates of birth:-- David 1042 Roboam (grandson)973 Josaphat (great-gs.)909 Joram, s. 881 Ochozias, s. 864 Joas, s. 843 Amasias, s. 821 Azarias, s. 783 Joatham, s. 774 Achas, s. (753 or) 758 Ezechias, s. 742 Manasses, s. 700 Amon, s. 665 Josias, s. 649 Joachaz, s. 633 Joakim, b. 634 Joachin, s. (606 or) 616 Sedecias, s. of Josias619 The variants 42, 20, and 8, in connection with Ochozias, Achaz, and Joachin, must be considered as erroneous. The year 774 in connection with Joatham is impossible, because his father was born in 783. In order to avoid other difficulties, we shall, in connection with Joatham, write 15 instead of 25 (years old when he began to reign). The year of his birth thus becomes 764. By this Achaz, who is supposed to have been born in 758 (or 753), reaches into the same period, however. Let us here, also, write 15 instead of 25. Now Achaz is born in 748. But, in this case, Ezechias cannot have been born in 742. If we again change the 25 years, in the case of Ezechias, to 15, then the year of his birth becomes 732. (If we suppose the reign of Ezechias to begin in 728-7, there is no way of accounting for Ezechias as the son of Achaz.) The confusion in the duration of the various reigns of the period was responsible for the increase in the different lifetimes. The change from the singular `eser (ten) to the plural `esrim (twenty) was but a step. More errors need not be supposed in the enumerative statement of the various ages. In the above list only the following changes have to be made: Joatham 764; Achaz, 748; Ezechias, 732. A reasonably complete bibliography is found in Herzog, Die Chronologie der beiden Königsbücher (Münster, 1909). We mention the most noted works among a very rich literature: Eusebius, Chronicon in P.G., XI; and ed. Schoene, ii (Berlin, 1875); Georgios Synkellos, Chronographia (ed. Dindorf, Bonn, 1829); Bede, ed. Roncalli, Vetustiora latinorum scriptorum chronica (Padua, 1787); Menochius, Biblia Sacra, II (Vienna, 1755); GÉnebrard. Chronographia Libri IV (Paris, 1600); A Lapide, Commentaria in III et IV Regum (Antwerp, 1616--); Petavius, Opus de doctrina temporum (Paris, 1627); Idem, Rationarium temporum, ed. Haak (Leyden, 1724); Scaliger, De emendatione temporum (Jena, 1629); Usher, Chronol. Sacra (Oxford, 1660); Des Vignoles, Chronologie de l'histoire sainte (Berlin, 1738); Bengel, Ordo Temporum (Stuttgart, 1741); Calmet, Comment. Litter. in omnes libros vet. et nov. test., II (Venice, 1769); Maistre de Sacy, Erklärung der hl. Schrift. VII (Augsburg, 1790); Jahn, Einl. in die Bücher des A. T. (Vienna, 1802); Ideler, Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie (Berlin, 1825); Haneberg, Einleitung ins A. T. (Ratisbon, 1845f); Seyffarth, Chronologia Sacra (Leipzig, 1846); Bosanquet, Chronolog. of the reigns of Tiglat-Pilesar, Sargon, Shalmanezer and Senacherib (London, 1855); Oppert, Les inscriptions Assylriennes des Sargonides et les fastes de Ninive (Versailles, 1862); Idem, La Chronologie biblique fixée par les éclipse des inscriptions cunéiformes (Paris, 1868); Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und das A. T. (Giessen, 1872); Bunsen, The Chronology of the Bible connected with eontemporaneous events in the history of Babylonians, Assyrians, and Egyptians (London, 1874); Branders, Abhandlungen zur Geschichte Orients in Altertum (1874); Gutschmid, Beiträge zur Geschichte des alten Orients (Leipzig, 1876); MaspÉro, Histoire ancienne de l'Orient; Duncker, Gesch. des Altertums (Leipzig, 1878); Raska, Chronologie der Bibel (Vienna, 1878); SchÄfer, Die biblische Chronologie vom Auszug aus Aegypten, etc. (Münster, 1879); Neteler, Zusammenhang der altt. Zeitrechnung mit der Profangeschichte (Münster, 1879); Floigl, Die Chronologie der Bibel, des Manetho und Berosus (Leipzig, 1880); Brunnengo, Chronologia biblico-assira (Prato, 1886); Vigoroux, La Bible et les découvertes modernes; Lederer, Die biblische Zeitrechnung (Speyer, 1889); Alker, Die Chronologie der Bücher der Könige und Paralipomenon (Leobschütz, 1889); Winckler, Alttestamentl. Untersuchungen (Leipzig, 1892); Kaulen, Einleitung in die Hl. Schrift (4th ed., Freiburg im Br., 1899); Fotheringham, The Chronology of the O. T. (London, 1900); Oettli, Geschichte Israels bis auf Alexander (Calw, 1905); Kreczmar, Chronologische Untersuchungen (Prague, 1905); Bosse, Die chronologischen Systems in A. T. und bei Josephus in Mitt. der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft; Sloet, De regeeringsjaren der koningen van Juda en Israel in De Katholiek (Leyden and Utrecht, 1893); Idem in Schets, Inleiding op het Derde en Vierde Boek der Koningen in Biblia Sacra V. T. (BoisleDuc). D.A.W.H. SLOET Kingston Kingston (KINGSTONIENSIS or REGIOPOLITANA) The Archdiocese of Kingston comprises the territory from the eastern line of Dundas County to the western boundary of Hastings County in the Province of Ontario, Canada, and includes the Counties of Addington, Dundas, Frontenac, Grenville, Hastings, Lanark, Leeds, Lennox, and Prince Edward. The territory of the present archdiocese was a portion of the old Diocese of Quebec. In 1817 the Diocese of Quebec was erected into an archdiocese, the western portion, Upper Canada, now the Province of Ontario, being made a vicariate, and the Rev. Alexander Macdonell, Pastor at St. Raphael, Glengarry, since 1804, was nominated first Vicar Apostolic of the district. His consecration took place on 31 December, 1820, in the Ursuline chapel at Quebec. The bishop continued to reside for some years at St. Raphael which thus became the first episcopal see in the new province and the second established in all Canada. It was to Glengarry that the bishop brought, in 1803 and 1804, the members of the famous Highland Catholic regiment of Glengarry Fencibles, disbanded in Scotland in 1802. In 1804, to minister to the scattered Catholic settlers and Indians in the vast Province of Upper Canada, there were but two priests, the Rev. Alexander Macdonell (afterwards bishop) and an assistant. About 1816 the number of priests had increased to six, two at St. Raphael, one at Perth, one at Kingston, and two at Sandwich. The vicariate was created a diocese by Pope Leo XII in a Brief dated 27 January, 1826, and Kingston was named the see. It was the first diocese established in a British colony since the so-called Reformation. In this year Bishop Macdonell applied for a coadjutor, and the Rev. Thomas Weld, an English priest, was consecrated Bishop of Amycla and coadjutor of Upper Canada on 6 August, 1826. The state of his health did not permit Bishop Weld to come to Canada. He remained some years in England, and, going to Rome, he was made Cardinal by Pius VIII in 1830. The beginning of a diocesan seminary was made at St. Raphael, where Bishop Macdonell established the College of Iona, under the direction of Rev. William P. Macdonald, afterwards vicar-general for twenty years. He was also the editor of "The Catholic," the first Catholic journal published in the English language in Canada. It was a vigorous polemical weekly, and was issued at Kingston in 1830-31, and at Hamilton from 1841 to 1844. The bishop had resided at York, now Toronto, for some years, and came to Kingston in 1836. One of his earliest acts was to obtain from the Legislature an Act of Incorporation for the Regiopolis College at Kingston. The cornerstone of the college was laid on 11 June, 1838. This building is now used as a hospital by the Sisters of the Hôtel Dieu. The college became a famous seat of learning, and continued its usefulness till 1869, when it was temporarily closed. On another site in the city, Regiopolis College was reestablished by the late Archbishop Cleary, and is now in a flourishing condition under the presidency of the archbishop, the Most Reverend Dr. Gauthier. A new coadjutor was appointed in 1833 in the person of the Rev. Remigius Gaulin, who became the second Bishop of Kingston on the death of Bishop Macdonell in 1840. At this date (1840) there were 48 churches in the diocese. The western region was erected into the Diocese of Toronto in 1841, and the eastern territory, the Diocese of Ottawa (Bytown), was formed in 1848. Bishop Gaulin died on 8 May, 1857, and the Right Rev. Patrick Phelan, who had been his administrator since 1852, was placed in charge of the diocese. Bishop Phelan's episcopate lasted but one month, as he died on 6 June following, and the Rt. Rev. Edward J. Horan succeeded him. Under Bishop Horan the diocese was enriched with many valuable charitable and educational institutions, but sickness and growing infirmities compelled him to resign his see shortly before his death (15 Feb., 1875), to make way for the Rt. Rev. John O'Brien, whose episcopate lasted till 1 Aug., 1879. The rapidly increasing numbers of Catholic inhabitants necessitated another division of the diocese, and in 1874 the Vicariate Apostolic of Northern Canada was erected, to become, in its turn, the Diocese of Peterborough, in 1882. The Right Rev. J.V. Cleary, at one time president of St. John's College, Waterford, Ireland, had been consecrated in Rome, 21 Nov., 1880, to succeed Bishop O'Brien, and when the diocese was made an archdiocese by a Brief dated 28 July, 1889, he became the first archbishop. With the formation of the archdiocese the Counties of Glengarry, Stormont, and Cornwall were separated from the Diocese of Kingston, erected into the separate Diocese of Alexandria, which, with the Diocese of Peterborough, became suffragan of Kingston. In the incumbency of the present archbishop, the Most Rev. Charles H. Gauthier, the suffragan Diocese of Sault Ste. Marie has been added (16 Sept., 1904). The capital city of the archdiocese is Kingston. A gathering ground of old for the neighboring Indian tribes, it was made the seat of Government in 1841 on the union of the two Canadas, and remained such for four years. The Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception is located there, as is Regiopolis College, also two schools for girls, with an attendance of 314, a school for boys, with 250 pupils, a mother-house of the Sisters of Charity of Providence, with 140 sisters, which cares for 300 old and infirm, as well as an annexed orphanage. The Hôtel Dieu and Orphan Asylum, in charge of the Hospital Sisters of St. Joseph, has charge of 45 orphan girls, and there is a convent of the Sisters of Notre Dame with 139 pupils. Schools are also maintained by the Sisters of Charity of Providence at Belleville, 400 pupils; Brockville, 250 pupils; Chesterville, 70 pupils; Perth, 230 pupils; Prescott, 300 pupils; and Trenton, 180 pupils. These sisters have also established hospitals at Brockville and Smith's Falls. The Sisters of Notre Dame are in charge of schools at Brockville, 170 pupils, and Westport, 147 pupils. The Archdiocese of Kingston now has 38 churches with resident priests, and 22 missions with churches; 61 priests, 54 secular and 7 of the Fathers of the Congregation of Mary; 1 college for boys, with 100 students; 3 academies for young ladies, with 295 pupils; 46 parochial schools, with 6500 pupils; 2 orphan asylums, with 85 orphans; 3 hospitals. The Catholic population of the archdiocese approximates 43,000. (See MACDONELL, ALEXANDER.) Le Canada ecclesiastique (1909); WILTZIUS, Official Cath. Direct. (1909); Ann. Pont. Cath. (1908); Gerarchia Catt. (1908); The Canadian Catholic Directory (1909); MACDONELL, Reminiscences; O'SULLIVAN, Essays on the Church in Canada. STANLEY J. QUINN Kinloss Kinloss (Gaelic ceann-loch, "head of the loch"). Cistercian abbey on the coast of Morayshire, Scotland, founded in 1150 or 1151 (authorities differ) by King David I, in gratitude, according to the popular legend, for having been guided into safety by a white dove when he had lost his way hunting in the adjacent forest. The monastery was colonized from Melrose and the greater part of the church and buildings were erected before 1200. Pope Alexander III confirmed the royal foundation to the second abbot, Reinerius, in 1174; and by 1229 the abbey was in a position to send out a colony to the newly-founded monastery of Culross in Perthshire. Kinloss was richly endowed by David's successors, and also by private benefactors, among its possessions being the valuable salmonfishings on the River Findhorn, granted by Robert Bruce and confirmed by James I and James IV. The abbots were mitred, with a seat in Parliament, and the house had a special prominence and importance as the only abbey in the extensive province of Moray. In the autumn of 1303 King Edward I, while on his progress through the north of Scotland, stayed at Kinloss for three weeks with a large retinue, and received the fealty of Abbot Thomas. Abbot Chrystal (1504-1535) did much for the material welfare of the house providing furniture for the church and books for the library; but the most illustrious of the twenty-four abbots who ruled the monastery was his successor Robert Reid, who held the priory of Beauly in commendam, together with the Abbacy of Kinloss. This wise, learned, and excellent prelate was sent as the king's commissioner to Henry VIII to treat for peace, and again to France in connection with the marriage of James V. He erected a new library and other buildings at his abbey, and carefully administered the property of the house. He became Bishop of Orkney in 1541, and his nephew Walter succeeded him as abbot. Walter conformed to Protestantism, and alienated most of the lands, which were erected into a temporal lordship in 1601 in favour of Edward Bruce, created Lord Bruce of Kinloss, a title still enjoyed by his descendant the Earl of Elgin, although the lands of Kinloss were sold in 1843 to Brodie of Lethen, which family now owns them. Only a few fragments remain of the abbey buildings, including the west cloister wall, two fine Norman arches, and a two-storied building with groined roof, traditionally called the "prior's chambers". The church has entirely disappeared. FERRERIUS, Hist. Abbat. Kynloss., ed. BANNATYNE CLUB (1839); STUART, Records of the Monastery of Kinloss (Edinburgh, Soc. of Antiguaries, 1872); SHAW, Hist. of the Province of Moray, ed. GORDON (Glasgow, 1882), III, 160-182; ROBERTON, Scottish Abbeys and Cathedrals (Aberdeen, 1891), 93, 97; RAMPINI, Hist. of Moray and Nairn (Edinburgh, 1897) 116-118; WALCOTT, Ancient Ch. of Scotland (London, 1874), 176-179. D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR Eusebius Kino Eusebius Kino A famous Jesuit missionary of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; b. 10 August, 1644, in Welschtirol (Anauniensis); d. 15 March, 1711. Kühn (his German name; Kino representing the Italian and Spanish form) entered the Upper German Province of the Society of Jesus on 20 November, 1665. He was professor of mathematics for some years at Ingolstadt, and went to Mexico in 1680. There he founded the mission of Lower California (Clavigero, "Historia della California", Venice, 1787, I, 163 sqq.), the mission first beginning to develop when Father Kino, who had been working since 1687 in Sonora, crossed the Rio Colorado on a bold voyage of exploration, and discovered the overland route to California, which he thus demonstrated to be a peninsula. We owe our first exact information about this vast and at that time almost unknown country to the reports and cartographical sketches of Father Kino, who thoroughly explored the country several times, covering, according to Clavigero, more than 20,000 miles. On his apostolic activity in Sonora, Shea writes ("The Catholic Church in Colonial Days", New York, 1886, p. 526 sq.): "He entered Upper Pimeria, 13 March, 1687, and established his first mission at Nuestra Señora de los Dolores, having gained a chief named Coxi as his first convert. From this point he extended his influence in all directions, evincing wonderful ability in gaining the Indians, and in presenting the truths of Christianity in a way to meet their comprehension and reach their hearts." Venegas (Noticia de la California, Madrid, 1757, II, 88) and Alegre (Hist. de la Comp. de Jesús en Nueva España, II, 54 sq., 155 sq.) speak in terms of the greatest admiration of this extraordinary man. According to a manuscript account of Father P. A. Benz, S. J., Father Kino was shot by rebel Indians on 15 March, 1711. "No life", writes Shea regretfully (loc. cit.), "has been written of this Father, who stands with the Venerable Anthony Margil as the greatest missionaries who laboured in this country." Manuscript sources extant of Father Kino among others: Diario del viaje hecho por las orillas del río Grande; Descripción de la Pimeria alta, Paso por tierra á la California, descubierto y demarcado por el P. Eus. Fr. Kino 1689-1701; Mapa del paso por tierra á la California, 1706. The map (Tabula Californæ anno 1702, ex autopica observatione delineata R. P. Chinoe, S. J) is printed in the Neuer Welt-Bott, pt. II, pp. 74-5;g Lettres édifiantes et curieuses, V (Paris, 1708); Scherer, Atlas novus, II, 98; The Journal de Trévoux says of the map (1704, p. 1238; cf. 1703, p. 676; 1705, p. 745): "Father Kino a German Jesuit and very clever in mathematics has made a very exact map of this whole journey". See also Viajes á la nación Pima en California en 1694 por los PP. Jesuitas Kino y Kappus; the Historia de Sonora, cited by Alegre. Printed sources: Several accounts and letters in the Docum. para la hist. de México, III, I, pp. 804 sqq; Scherer, op. cit. II, 101 sqq.g Extracts from letters in the Neuer Welt-Bott, pt. I, pp. 106, 109. Cf. Sommervogel, Bibl. des écrivains de la Comp. de Jésus (Brussels). For further details of Kino's life, see: Platzweg, Lebensbilder deutscher Jesuiten (Paderborn, 1882), 171 sqq.; Baegert, Nachrichten aus Californien (Mannheim, 1771), 198 and passim; Pfefferkorn, Sonora (Cologne, 1794), I, 3 sqq.; II, 319 sqq.; Gleeson, The Catholic Church in California, II, 94; vom Rath, Arizona (Heidelberg, 1885), 306 sqq.; Notes upon the first discovery of California (Washington, 1878); Woodstock Letters, X, 29 sqq.; 158 sqq. On the first discovery of the Casa Grande by Father Kino see (e.g.) Schoolcraft, Hist. Cond. and Pros. of American Indians, III (1853), 301. A. HUONDER Kiowa Indians Kiowa Indians (Pronounced Kai-o-wa, Latin spelling. Spanish form: Caygua; Comanche form: Kaiwa, from Kai-i-gwu, the name used by themselves, of uncertain etymology.) An important Plains tribe, constituting a distinct linguistic stock, the Kiowan, now located in western Oklahoma, but formerly residing in the mountains about the head of the Missouri River, in western Montana, in close alliance with the Crows. From this position they gradually drifted southward along the Plains, and after having been driven from the Black Hills region by the Sioux about 1800, made their principal headquarters upon the upper Arkansas. About the year 1790, they made peace with the Comanche, who whom they have ever since been closely confederated, and in company of whom they made constant raids far down into Texas and old Mexico, even as far as Zacatecas, until finally confined upon a reservation in 1869. In this southern movement they were accompanied by a small detached tribe of Athapascan stock, commonly known as Kiowa-Apache, who, in everything but language, are a component part of the Kiowa tribe. The Kiowa made their first treaty with the Government in 1837. In 1867 they joined with the Camanche, Cheyenne, and Arapaho in the noted Medicine Lodge treaty, in which they agreed to go upon a reservation, but it was not until the decisive battle of the Washita, under General Custer, 27 November, 1868, that they fulfilled their promise. Among their noted chiefs of this period were Setangya, or Satank, "Sitting Bear", Settainti or Satanta, "White Bear", the "orator of the plains", and "Gui-pägo", Lone Wolf. In the later troubles Setangya was shot to pieces while resisting military arrest, Settainti committed suicide in prison, and Lone Wolf, with a number of others, was deported to Florida for a period of three years. In 1873 the first educational work in the tribe was undertaken by the Quaker teacher, Thomas C. Battey, but he was compelled to desist a few months later, in consequence of the general outbreak of the confederated southern Plains tribes (1874-1875), in which Lone Wolf headed the hostile Kiowa. Since then there has been no serious disturbance. Since an agreement negotiated in 1892, but held up and finally modified before its final ratification in 1900, the reservation of the associated tribes was thrown open to white settlement, each Indian receiving an allotment of 160 acres, besides his share of the selling proceeds, and they are now American citizens. Before their subjection to reservation restrictions the Kiowa were a typical equestrian Plains tribe, living in buffaloskin tipis, wearing buckskin, with paint and feathers, depending almost entirely upon the buffalo for subsistence, without agriculture, pottery, basketry, or fixed abode, constantly raiding in every direction, and with a reputation even among Indians for turbulent ferocity. Their weapons were the bow, lance, and shield, which latter was made of toughened buffalo hide. There was no single head chief. Instead of a clan system (see Indians) they had a division into six (formerly seven) bands, including the Kiowa-Apache. On occasion of tribal gatherings, as at their great annual Sun Dance, each of these bands occupied an appointed place in the camp circle. They also had a military organization of six orders, each with its own dance and regulations, together with a heraldic system based upon the shield and tipi. Their principal deities were the Sun, the Buffalo, the Peyote plant, and the tribal palladium, the sacred Taime image, exposed to view only at the Sun Dance. Polygamy existed, marriage was simple, and divorce as easy. The dead were buried in the ground or in rock caves. The property of the deceased, including dogs and horses, were destroyed near the grave. The relatives, particularly the women, cut off their hair, gashed themselves with knives, chopped off portions of their fingers, wailed day and nights for weeks, changed their names, and even dropped from the language for a time any word that might suggest the name of the dead. The same custom was noted by the Jesuit Dobritzhoffer among the Abipone of Argentina one hundred and fifty years ago. They named years by consecutive Sun Dances, and preserved a chronological pictograph record going back to 1833. They are now nearly all in houses, wearing citizen's dress, largely Christianized and making some effort at farming, but depending more upon the income from their rented lands and treaty funds. With the exception of some songs and a vocabulary by Mooney, very little has been published of their language, which is strongly nasal and explosive, but sonorous, and comparatively simple in grammar. From perhaps 1800 souls in 1800, they number now about 1270, besides about 160 Kiowa-Apache. After Battey, the first missionary work in the tribe was begun in 1887 by the Methodists, followed by the Presbyterians, Baptists, and Catholics. The Methodists have since withdrawn, and the Presbyterian work is limited to the Apache. The Catholic mission of St. Patrick, at Anadarko, the agency centre, was begun in 1891 through the assistance of Mother Catherine Drexel, and is now in flourishing condition under the Benedictine Fathers assisted by Franciscan Sisters, with over 400 communicants in the associated tribes. Mooney, Ghost Dance, in 14th Rep. Bur. Am. Ethnology (Washington, 1896); Idem, Calendar Hist. of Kiowa Indians in 17th Rep. Bur. Am. Ethnology (Washington, 1898); Annual Reports of Comr. of Indian Affairs (Washington); Annual Rept. Director Bur. Cath. Ind. Missions (Washington). JAMES MOONEY Athanasius Kircher Athanasius Kircher Celebrated for the versatility of his knowledge and particularly distinguished for his knowledge of the natural sciences, b. 2 May, 1601, at Geisa, a small town on the northern bank of the Upper Rhone (Buchonia); d. at Rome, 28 Nov., 1680. From his birthplace he was accustomed to add the Latin epithet Bucho, or Buchonius, to his name, although later he preferred calling himself Fuldensis after Fulda, the capital of his native country. The name Athanasius was given him in honour of the saint on whose feast he was born. John Kircher, the father of Athanasius, had studied philosophy and theology at Mainz, without, however, embracing the priestly calling. As soon as he had obtained the doctor's degree in the latter faculty, he went to lecture on theology in the Benedictine house at Seligenstadt. Athanasius studied humanities at the Jesuit College in Fulda, and on 2 Oct., 1618, entered the Society of Jesus at Paderborn. At the end of his novitiate he repaired to Cologne for his philosophical studies. The journey thither was, on account of the confusion caused by the Thirty Years' War, attended with great danger. Together with his study of speculative philosophy the talented young student devoted himself especially to the natural sciences and the classical languages, for which reason he was shortly afterwards called to teach these branches at the Jesuit colleges in Coblenz and Heiligenstadt. In Mainz, where Kircher (1625) began his theological studies, he attracted the notice of the elector through his ability and his skill as an experimentalist. In 1628 he was ordained priest, and hardly had he finished his last year of probation at Speyer when the chair of ethics and mathematics was given to him the University of Würzburg, while at the same time he had to give instructions in the Syrian and Hebrew languages. However, the disorders consequent on the wars obliged him to go first to Lyons in France (1631) and later to Avignon. The discovery of some hieroglyphic characters in the library at Speyer led Kircher to make his first attempt to solve the problem of hieroglyphical writing, which still baffled all scholars. At Aix he made the acquaintance of the well-known French senator, Sicolas Peiresc, whose magnificent collections aroused in Kircher the highest interest. Recognizing in Kircher the right man to solve the old Egyptian riddle, Peiresc applied direct to Rome and to the General of the Jesuits to have Kircher's call to Vienna by the emperor set aside and to procure a summons for the scholar to the Eternal City. This generous intention was favoured by Providence, inasmuch as Kircher on his way to Vienna was shipwrecked near Cività Vecchia, and arrived in Rome before the knowledge of his call thither had reached him. Until his death (28 Nov., 1680), Rome was now to be the principal scene of Kircher's many-sided activity, which soon developed in such an astonishing way that pope, emperor, princes, and prelates vied with one another in furthering and supporting the investigations of the learned scholar. After six years of successful teaching in the Roman College, where he lectured on physics, mathematics, and Oriental languages, he was released from these duties that he might have freedom in his studies and might devote himself to formal scientific research, especially in Southern Italy and Sicily. He took advantage of a trip to Malta to explore thoroughly the various volcanoes which exist between Naples and that island. He studied especially in 1638 the Strait of Messina, where, besides the noise of the surge, a dull subterranean rumble attracted his attention. At Trapani and Palermo his interest was aroused by the remains of antediluvian elephants. But before all else he tried to discover the subterranean power of the volcanoes of Etna and Stromboli, then in eruption; public attention had been called to such mysterious phenomena by the frightful eruption of Vesuvius in 1630. When Kircher left Messina in 1638 to return to Naples, a terrible earthquake occurred which destroyed the city of Euphemia. Like Pliny before him (A.D. 79), Kircher wished to study at close range this powerful convulsion of nature. On reaching Naples he at once climbed Vesuvius, and had himself lowered by means of a rope into the crater of the volcanic mountain and with the help of his pantometer ascertained exactly the different dimensions of the crater and its inner structure. As the firstfruits of his travels he published, for the Knights of Malta, "Specula Melitensis Encyclica sive syntagma novum instrumentorum physico-mathematicorum" (Messina, 1638). It was forty years later that the fully matured results of theses investigations appeared in Kircher's great work, the "Mundus Subterraneus", in two volumes (Amsterdam, 1678), which enjoyed the greatest repute in his time; not only did it give an incentive to the more searching investigation of subterranean forces, but it contributed much to their final explanation. When again in Rome, Kircher began collecting all kinds of antiquities and ethnologically important remains, thus laying the foundation of the well-known museum which, as the "Museum Kircherianum", still attracts today so many visitors to the Roman College. Epoch-making also were Kircher's labours in the domain of deciphering hieroglyphics, and, on the excavation of the so-called Pamphylian obelisk, he succeeded in supplying correctly the portions which had been concealed from him. It must be remembered that in those days little or no attention was paid to this subject, and that it was therefore in itself a great service to have taken the initiative in this branch of investigation, however lacking his efforts may have been in the fundamental principles of the science as it is known today. Kircher also gave an impetus to the intimate study of the relations between the different languages: Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldaic, Syrian, Samaritan, Arabic, Armenian, Coptic, Persian, Ethiopian, Italian, German, Spanish, French, Portuguese. Thus in the most varied branches of science Kircher played the rôle of pioneer. Even medicine received his attention, as is shown for example by his treatise, "Scrutinium physico-medicum contagiosæ luis, quæ pestis dicitur" (Rome, 1658). He also tried to form a universal language ("Polygraphia seu artificium lingarum, quo cum omnibus totius mundi populis poterit quis correspondere", Rome, 1663). His scientific activities brought him into scientific correspondence with scholars labouring in the most different fields, as the numerous volumes of his extant letters show. It is to his inventive mind that we owe one of the earliest of our counting machines: the speaking-tube and æolian harp were perfected by him. He was also the inventor of the magic lantern which has since been brought to such perfection and is today almost indispensable. That the most varied judgments should be formed and expressed on a man of such encyclopædic knowledge was only to be expected. He tried to find a grain of truth even in the false sciences of alchemy, astrology, and horoscopy, which were still in his time much in vogue, nor is it surprising that in the province of astronomy he did not at this early date defend the Copernican System. With all his learning and vast amount of adulation which he received on all sides, Kircher retained throughout his life a deep humility and a childlike piety. In 1629 he had intimated to his general his desire to devote his life exclusively to the spreading of the Faith in China, but this wish remained unfulfilled, and, to console himself for this disappointment, he erected during his last years a sanctuary (della Mentorella) in honour of the Mother of God on the crest of the Sabine Hill near Rome, whither, during his lifetime as now, thousands made pilgrimages and found help and consolation. In this sanctuary Kircher's heart was buried, and at the beginning of the twentieth century this place of pilgrimage was distinguished by a gigantic statue of our Divine Redeemer on the neighbouring crest of Guadagnole. To give an approximate idea of Kircher's literary activity it is only necessary to remark that during his sojourn in Rome no less than forty-four folio volumes came from his pen. A full list of his writings is to be found in Sommervogel, "Bibl. Scriptorum S.J.". Besides the works already named, it is sufficient to mention here: "Magnes sive de arte magnetica" (Rome, 1640; Cologne, 1643, 1654); "Lingua ægyptiaca restituta" (Rome, 1643); "Ars magna lucis et umbræ" (Rome, 1644); "Musurgia universalis sive ars consoni et dissoni" (Rome, 1650); "Itinerarium extaticum s. opificium coeleste" (Rome, 1656); "Iter extaticum secundum, mundi subterranei prodromus" (Rome, 1657); "Obeliscus Pamphylius" (Rome, 1650). P. Athan. Kircheri vita a semetipsa conscripta (manuscripts at Vienna and Munich), ed. LAUGENMANTEL (1684); PFAFF, Vita A. Kircheri (Fulda, 1631); BEHLAU, P. A. Kircher, eine Lebensskizze (Heiligenstadt, 1874); BRISCHAR, P. A. Kircher. Ein Lebensbild (Würzburg, 1877); Biog. universelle ancienne et moderne, XXII, 440-7; Allgem. deutsche Biog., XVI (1882). ADOLF MÜLLER Kirkwall Kirkwall A parish, also a royal and parliamentary burgh and chief or county town of Orkney, in the north of Scotland (the name is Scandinavian, "Kirkjuvagr", i.e. "church-bay"). The original church was dedicated to St. Olaf (killed in 1033), and the landward part of the parish is still called St. Ola. The importance of Kirkwall is due, first, to its having long been the residence of the Norse earls of Orkney, who, while nominally under the Kings of Norway, were practically independent; and, second, from its having become the seat of the bishops of Orkney. Magnus, Earl of Orkney, was treacherously killed by his cousin Haco about 1115; and his nephew Ronald undertook, if he recovered possession of the islands from Paul, Haco's son, to build a stone minster at Kirkwall in memory of his uncle Magnus, whose sanctity was said to be attested by miracles soon after his death. Ronald eventually became sole ruler of Orkney, and St. Magnus' church was begun in 1137, and was constituted the cathedral of the See of Orkney, which had been founded in 1102 (as a suffragan of Trondhjem, in Norway), the bishop's seat having been originally at Birsa. The cathedral was not completed by the founder, but additions were made by successive bishops of Orkney, this fact accounting for the great variety of architecture which it presents. It is one of the two ancient Scottish cathedrals (the other being Glasgow) which have been preserved entire to the present day; and, though not of any great size, remains, both within and without, one of the most striking and impressive churches in the kingdom. Its total length (outside) is 234 feet, width of transepts 101 feet, height of tower 133 feet. The tall steeple surmounting the tower was struck by lightning in 1671. The three bells in the tower are all of pre-Reformation date, though one was recast in 1682. The cathedral escaped destruction in the sixteenth century, owing to the zealous efforts of the bishop; but it fell into decay in succeeding centuries, there being no funds to keep it in repair, until in 1805 and 1845 a certain amount of restoration was done by private benefactors and by the Government. Many ancient tombs of former earls and bishops remain in the cathedral, the choir of which is now used as a Presbyterian place of worship. Only a fragment of the episcopal palace--a tower built by Bishop Reid in 1540--now remains, and the earl's castle has entirely disappeared. Orkneyinga Saga, ed. DASENT (Rolls Series, 1894), 61-96, 239-301; DRYDEN, Description of Church of St. Magnus at Kirkwall (Kirkwall, 1878); MACKINTOSH, Glimpses of Kirkwall and its people in the olden time (Kirkwall, 1887); Curious incidents from the ancient records of Kirkwall (Kirkwall, 1891); BILLINGS, Baronial and Eccles. Antiq. of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1848-52). D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR Kisfaludy Kisfaludy Sándor Kisfaludy Born at Suemeg, Hungary, 27 Sept., 1772; died at Suemeg, 28 October, 1844. He went to school at Raab and later studied philosophy and law at Presburg. In 1792 he gave up the study of law, and having joined the army, was appointed to the Hungarian lifeguards in Vienna. During his sojourn there he was especially attracted to the Hungarian writers living in Vienna at that time. In 1793 he was transferred to Italy, and stationed at Milan. After the surrender of that city to Napoleon in 1796, Kisfaludy was sent a prisoner of war to France, and confined in Provence, but was given his freedom the same year, went to Klagenfurt, and from there was transferred to the Wallis regiment and sent to Wuertemberg. He took part in the Rhine campaign in 1799, but sent in his resignation the same year. He married his early love, Rosa Szegedy, in 1800. In 1802 Kisfaludy participated in the insurrection of the Hungarian nobles, as orderly officer to the Palatine, by whose command he later wrote an account of the uprising. He became a member of the Hungarian Academy in 1830, and was chosen an honorary member in 1835. He lost his wife in 1832 but later married again, shortly after which his second wife also died. The last years of his life were spent in his native town. Kisfaludy is particularly prominent as a lyric poet. His love-songs, which appeared under the name of "Liebeslieder Himfy's," the first part in 1801, the second in 1807, assured him an immense popularity among his associates. The songs revealed the influence of Rosa Szegedy's love, both before and after their marriage. The metrical rendering of his verses is that of the sonnet; they undeniably show the influence of his stay in Provence, and the impress of Petrarch's songs, and yet they are in no wise servile imitations of the latter. His "Maerchen aus der Ungarischen Vorzeit" is the best of his later works; he also tried the field of drama, but with little success. (2) Károly Kisfaludy Author, brother of the above; b. at Tét, 5 Feb., 1788; d. at Pesth, 21 Nov., 1830. He was the originator of the romantic tendency in the national Hungarian literature and comedy, also pioneer in the field of Hungarian novelwriting. His birth having cost his mother her life, he was brought up by his sister. He pursued his studies at Raab, but did not finish them as he, as well as his brother, chose a military career, taking part in the wars with Italy. He resigned his commission in 1811, causing a breach with his father, which, in spite of repeated attempts at reconciliation, was never healed; nevertheless he was not disinherited. Even during his military career, Kisfaludy assiduously cultivated literature, and henceforth he devoted himself to it. When he could no longer expect any pecuniary assistance from home, he earned his living as an artist in Vienna and Italy and, later, on his return to Hungary. At the same time his literary energy was not dormant. Besides poetry, he wrote plays and dramas. In 1818-19 he experienced not a little dramatic success. About this time he published his first work in the field of Hungarian comedy which likewise met with popular favour. He made up for his lack of early education by deep study; he became still more careful of his language, more modern, his productions little by little bearing evidence of this culture. His style was rather romantic than classical, and not infrequently approached modern realism. His influence especially on the public, became ever greater so that in a certain sense he was the centre of the Hungarian literary life in Pesth. In 1821 he published the first volume of his annual "Aurora," the leading literary review of his time, which numbered the most prominent writers among its contributors. After Kolesey, he was the first to cultivate the ballad, he also wrote elegies, Italian verse, and national songs. Of his prose works, his humorous ones are better than the more serious, as his comedies are better than his dramas; the Hungarian novel also owes its ascendancy to him. An early death snatched him away in the midst of his literary activity. The Kisfaludy Society, so named in honour of him, was established in 1836, and is devoted to the cultivation of good literature. The Hungarian national theatre also honours him by giving yearly one of his plays. He survives not alone in his books, but much more in his personal influence over the writers of his day, whose leader and model he was, in this way proving himself of immortal service as the regenerator of Hungarian literature. Many editions of his works were issued by Franz Toldy, and one in six volumes by Banoczi (Budapest, 1893). TOLDY, Lives of Hungarian Poets (Pesth, 1870), in Hungarian; SZINNYEY, Lives and Works of Hungarian Writers (Budapest, 1899), IV, 400-27, in Hungarian. A. ALDASY Kiss Kiss Four times in the Epistles of St. Paul we meet the injunction, used as a sort of formula of farewell, "Salute one another in a holy kiss" (en philemati hagio), for which St. Peter (1 Pet., v, 14) substitutes "in a kiss of love" (en philemati agapes). It has been suggested by F. C. Conybeare (The Expositor, 3rd Ser., ix, 461, 1894) on the ground of two passages in Philo's "Quæstiones in Exodum" (ii, 78 and 118) that this was an imitation of a practice of the Jewish synagogues. The evidence adduced, however, is very slight. In any case it seems probable that in these very early days the custom of Christians so saluting each other was not necessarily confined to the time of the liturgy. Such salutations were no doubt used somewhat promiscuously even between those of opposite sexes in token of fraternal solicitude and charity (pietatis et caritatis pignus, as St. Ambrose, "Hexaem.", VI, ix, 68, points out), and the modesty and reserve which so many of the pre-Nicene Fathers inculcate when speaking of this matter must be held to have reference to other occasions than the kiss of peace in the liturgy. This is also implied by Tertullian, who speaks of the pagan husband's reluctance that his Christian wife should "meet one of the brethren with a kiss" (alicui fratrum ad osculum convenire, "Ad Uxor.", ii, 4). Not improbably St. Paul's injunction was so interpreted that any synaxis of the faithful where there was reading of the Scriptures terminated in a salute of this kind, and it is even possible that the appearance of the kiss in certain liturgies at the Mass of Catechumens is due to the same cause. In any case we have definite evidence that a kiss was on some occasions bestowed outside the actual liturgy. After baptism the newly initiated, whether infants or adults, were embraced first by the baptizer and then by the faithful who were present (see Cyprian, "Ad Fidum Epis.", Ep. lix, 4, and Chrysostom, Hom. l, "De Util. leg. Scrip."). The use of the formula Pax tecum in some of the later rituals of baptism is probably a survival of this practice. Again a kiss was and still is given to the newly ordained by the bishop who ordains them. Similarly after the consecration of a bishop and, at a later date, after the coronation of a king, the personage so exalted, after he was enthroned, was saluted with a kiss, while a kiss, no doubt suggested by the Scriptural example of the prodigal son, was enjoined in many of the rituals for the absolution of a penitent. Of the kiss solemnly exchanged between those newly betrothed something will be said under MARRIAGE (q.v.), but we may note here the custom for Christians to bestow a last kiss, which then had a quasi-liturgical character, upon the dying or the dead. The prohibition against kissing the dead which was issued by the Council of Auxerre, A. It 578, almost certainly had some relation to the abuse at that time prevalent of placing the Blessed Sacrament in the mouth of the dead or burying It with them. It may be added that throughout the Middle Ages an almost religious solemnity attached to the public exchange of a kiss as a token of amity. Remarkable examples of this may be found in the history of the quarrels of Henry II with St. Thomas of Canterbury, and of Richard Coeur de Lion with St. Hugh of Lincoln. In the latter case the bishop is recorded to have taken hold of Richard by his mantle and to have positively shaken him until the king, overcome by such persistence, recovered his good humour and bestowed on the saint the salute which was his due. KISS OF PEACE It is not easy to determine the precise link between the "holy kiss" and the liturgical "kiss of peace", known in Greek from an early date as eirene (i.e. pax, or peace). This latter may be quite primitive, for it meets us first in the description of the liturgy given by St. Justin Martyr (Apol., I, 65), who writes: "When we have completed the prayers we salute one another with a kiss [ allelous philemati aspazometha pausamenoi ton euchon], whereupon there is brought to the president bread and a cup of wine." This passage clearly shows that in the middle of the second century the usage already obtained -- a usage now claimed as distinctive of the liturgies other than Roman -- of exchanging the kiss of peace at the beginning of what we call the Offertory. The language of many Oriental Fathers and of certain conciliary canons further confirms this conclusion as to the primitive position of the Pax. Thus St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. Myst., v, 3) speaking of the time between the washing of the celebrant's hands and the Sursum Corda which introduces the Anaphora, or Preface, says, "Then the deacon cries out aloud: 'Embrace ye one another and let us salute each other. . . . This kiss is the sign that our souls are united and that we banish all remembrance of injury'." Many other Fathers (e.g. Origen, Pseudo-Dionysius, and also St. John Chrysostom, "De Comp. Cordis", 1, 3) speak in a similar tone and use language which implies that the Pax preceded the oblation of the elements. Even the so-called "Canons of Hippolytus", referred by some to Rome in the third century, though Funk ascribes them to a much later date, imply that the kiss was given at the Offertory. The same was undoubtedly the case in the Mozarabic and the Gallican liturgies. In Rome, however, the kiss of peace was more closely united to the Communion, and it must have followed shortly after the Pater Noster as it does at present. Thus Pope Innocent I in his letter to Decentius (a.d. 416) blames the practice of those who give the Pax before the Consecration and urges that it was meant as a token that "the people give their assent to all things already performed in the mysteries". Another clear testimony of about the same date occurs in a sermon attributed to St. Augustine, but probably written by St. Cæsarius of Arles (P. L. XXXVIII, 1101): "After this [the Lord's prayer], Pax vobiscum is said, and the faithful salute each other with the kiss which is the sign of peace." The Roman Ordines, the Stowe Missal which represents Irish usage at an early date, and a chorus of liturgical writers from the eighth century onwards attest that wherever Roman influence prevailed the Pax invariably followed the great consecratory prayer and the Pater. lt is easy to understand that the usage which placed the kiss of peace before the Offertory Was prompted by the remembrance of those words of our Lord (Mat., v, 23-24): "If therefore thou offer thy gift at the altar, and there thou remember that thy brother hath anything against thee; leave there thy offering before the altar, and go first to be reconciled to thy brother: and then coming thou shalt offer thy gift." It seems to be pretty generally held that this position before the Offertory was the primitive position of the liturgical kiss of peace even at Rome. Dom Cabrol and others incline to the view that the kiss formed the natural sequel to the commemoration of the living and of the dead, and that all these three elements, which originally found a place at the Offertory, were deliberately transferred elsewhere in the course of some early revision of the Roman Liturgy, the commemoration of the living and of the dead being inserted separately in the great consecratory prayer, or Canon of the Mass, while the Pax was made to follow the Pater Noster, having been attracted to that position by the words "Forgive us our trespasses", etc. (Cabrol, "Origines Liturgiques", Paris, 1906, pp. 360-361). However, the rival theory, that there were originally two occasions when the kiss of peace was given, one before the Offertory and the other before the Communion, does not lack probability; for St. John Chrysostom, the Prayer Book of Serapion, and Anastasius Sinaita seem all to know of some such rite before Communion, and the practice of kissing the bishop's hand before receiving the Blessed Sacrament (see Card. Rampolla, "S. Melania giuniore", note 41) may possibly be connected with it. According to this second theory of the double kiss of peace, both the Roman and the Oriental liturgies omitted one of these salutations, the Oriental retaining that at the Offertory, the Roman that at the Communion. In any case it is certain that in the early Middle Ages the kiss of peace was most intimately associated in idea with the reception of Communion (see Pseudo-Egbert, "Confessionale", xxxv, in Wasserschleben, "Bussordnungen", p. 315), and it seems probable that the omission of the Pax in Masses for the Dead was due to the fact that Communion was not distributed to the faithful at such Masses. From a very early date, also, the abuses to which this form of salutation might lead were very carefully guarded against. Both in the East and the West women and men were separated in the assemblies of the faithful, and the kiss of peace was given only by women to women and by men to men. Then in about the twelfth or thirteenth century the use of the instrumentum pacis, or osculatorium, known in English as the "pax-board" or "pax-brede", was gradually introduced. This was a little plaque of metal, ivory, or wood, generally decorated with some pious carving and provided with a handle, which was first brought to the altar for the celebrant to kiss at the proper place in the Mass and then brought to each of the congregation in turn at the altar rails. But even this practice in course of time died out, and at the present day the Pax is only given at High Mass, and is hardly anywhere communicated to the congregation. The celebrant kisses the corporal spread upon the altar (he used formerly in many local rites to kiss the sacred Host Itself) and then, placing his hands upon the arms of the deacon, he presents his left cheek to the deacon's left cheek but without actually touching it. At the same time he pronounces the words Pax tecum (Peace be with thee); to which the deacon replies, Et cum spiritu tuo (And with thy spirit). The deacon then conveys the salute to the sub-deacon, and the subdeacon to the canons or clergy in the stalls. The Western Church, however, has not been the only one to discover that the ceremony of the Pax could not be decorously maintained when manners had grown less austere. Among the Greeks hardly a trace of the original salute is preserved. Just before the Creed, which itself precedes the Anaphora, the celebrant says, "Peace be to all", and then he kisses the gifts (veiled), while at the same time the deacon kisses his own orarion, or stole. In the Syrian rites, the deacon touches the priest's hands, then moves his own hands down his face and gives them to be touched by someone else. In this way the salute is passed on. Dean Stanley declares that in the Coptic Rite the kiss is still passed among the people from lip to lip, but the truth seems to be that each one merely bows to his neighbour and touches his hand (see Brightman, "Liturgies Eastern and Western", 1896, p. 585). KISSING THE ALTAR It is clear that from the earliest times a kiss was not only a token of love, but also under certain circumstances a symbol of profound respect. For example, the son of Sirach (Ecclus., xxix, 5) describes how would-be borrowers, when they wish to ingratiate themselves "kiss the hands of the lender, and in promises they humble their voice". It is in accordance with this symbolism, so universally understood and practised, that the Church enjoins the kissing of many holy objects, e.g. relics, the book of the Gospels, the cross, blessed palms, candles, the hands of the clergy and nearly all the utensils and vestments connected with the liturgy. In particular the altar is repeatedly kissed by the celebrant in the course of the Mass, and this practice is of very ancient date. The earliest of the Ordines Romani mentions it twice, but only twice: first, when the bishop ascends to the altar at the beginning, and secondly, at the Offertory, when he comes again to the altar from his throne. Innocent III speaks of the altar being kissed three times, but in the days of Durandus nine such salutations were in use, as at present. By a symbolism prevalent from a very early period the altar was regarded as typical of Christ, the God-Man, abiding permanently with His Church in the Sacrifice of the Mass, and this conception is preserved, for example, in the address now made to the candidate in the ordination of a subdeacon. The appropriateness of kissing the altar before the salutation Dominus vobiscum need not be insisted upon: it clearly implies that the greeting comes, not from the priest only, but from Christ, the head and corner-stone, to the faithful who are the members of His Church. On the other hand the prayer said by the priest, on first ascending to the altar, indicates that this kiss has also special reference to the relics therein enshrined. KISSING OF THE FEET The veneration shown in the kissing of a person's hand or the hem of his garment is accentuated in the kissing of the feet. This is probably implied by the phrase of Isaias (xlix, 23): "Kings...shall lick up the dust of Thy feet." Under the influence, no doubt, of the ceremonial of king-worship, as manifested in the cultus of the Roman emperors, this particular mark of veneration came to prevail at an early date among the usages of the papal court (see Lattey, "Ancient King-Worship", Lond., 1909 C. T. S. pamhlet). We read of it in the first "Ordo Romanus" belonging to the seventh century, but even earlier than this the "Liber Pontificalis" attests that the Emperor Justin paid this mark of respect to Pope John I (523-26), as later on Justinian II also did to Pope Constantine. At the election of Leo IV (847) the custom of so kissing the pope's foot was spoken of as an ancient one. It is not, therefore, wonderful that a practice supported by so early a tradition should still be observed. It is observed liturgically in a solemn papal Mass by the Latin and Greek subdeacons, and quasi-liturgically in the "adoration" of the pope by the cardinals after his election. It is also the normal salutation which papal etiquette prescribes for those of the faithful who are presented to the pope in a private audience. In his "De altaris mysterio" (VI, 6) Innocent III explains that this ceremony indicates "the very great reverence due to the Supreme Pontiff as the Vicar of Him whose feet" were kissed by the woman who was a sinner. CABROL in Dict. d'Archéologie Chrétienne, II (Paris, 1907), 117-130; KRIEG in KRAUS, Real. Encyclop. d. christ. Alt., I, (Freiburg, 1880), 542-544; THALHOFER, Liturgik, I (Freiburg, 1883), 648-65; SCHULTZE in Realencyclop. f. prot. Theol., VI (Leipzig, 1899), 274-75; VENABLES in Dict. Christ. Ant., II (London, 1880). 902-06; SCUDAMORE, Notitia Eucharistiea (London, 1876). 496, 504; BINTERIM, Denkwürdigkeiten, IV, Part iii, pp. 485 sq.; THALHOFER in Kirchenlex., s. v. Kuss; CABROL, Les Origines liturgiques (Paris, 1906), 336-37; 360-61; ROHAULT DE FLEURY, La Messe, VI (Paris. 1883), 134. HERBERT THURSTON. Julian Klaczko Julian Klaczko Polish author, b. at Vilna, 6 November, 1825, of Jewish parents; d. at Cracow, 26 November, 1906. After taking the doctor's degree in 1847 at the University of Königsberg, he went to Heidelberg to continue his studies under Gervinus, who appointed him a collaborator on the "Deutsche Zeitung", a periodical for Russian and Polish affairs. In 1848 he spent some time in the Grand Duchy of Posen and published at Berlin his first political pamphlet, "Die deutschen Hegemonen", an open letter to Gervinus againt the incorporation of Posen in the German Confederation. About this time he resolved to become a Christian, but deferred his baptism for a time owing to parental opposition. His father having met with financial reverses, Klaczko was left without means, and in 1850 went to Paris, where he supported himself by his literary labours. His articles written in French and published chiefly in the "Revue de Paris", were so brilliant as to win speedy fame for the young author. The death of his father, meanwhile, left him free to enter the Church, and he was accordingly baptized. From 1857 to 1860, with the collaboration of Valerian Kalinka, he published a monthly, "Wiadomosci Polskie" (Polish News), the general tone of which was opposed to revolutionary impulses and sudden uprisings. Viewed from a political, as well as from a literary and aesthetic standpoint, Klaczko's articles were the most effective and most brilliant that had ever appeared in the Polish language. The periodical was put under the ban in Russian Poland and Galicia, and in 1860 also in Prussia, after which it had to be discontinued on account of a lack of subscribers. In 1862 there appeared in the"Revue Des Deux Mondes" Klaczko's "Le poete anonyme", the first adequate appreciation of Sigmund Krasinski, and so excellently done that it became the basis of all later account of the poet. This paper assured Klaczko's literary reputation arnorg the French. Soon afterwards occurred the unfortunate uprising of 1863. While any Polish organization or activity outside of Poland itself was now impossible, Klaczko did not forget the cause of his country. From official diplomatic sources he compiled information on all the details of the Danish and Polish questions, and in 1866 published his "Etudes de diplomatie", a sharp but veiled criticism of the policy of the Powers, to the disadvantage of all save Russia and Prussia. The "Etudes" caused a great sensation, which was increased by the author's subsequent work "Les preliminaires de Sadowa", in which he shows how Austria was drawn into war with Prussia (1886). Klaczko's writings bore such strong testimony to his political talents that he was appointed by Count Benst on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, holding in addition a seat in the Galician Diet at Lemberg, and in the Diet which was out of harmony with Austria's policy of neutrality during the war of 1870 he signed his public offices and returned to Paris penniless, to devote himself with renewed vigour to the artistic and literary pursuits of his youth. After several years of work he published "Causeries florentines", a study of Dante in the form of a dialogue, containing in one volume the substance of all that scholars and critics had said on the subject. Even before this he had produced, in 1875, his "Deux chanceliers", a brilliant portrayal of the characters and policies of Princes Bismarck and Gortschakoff. Finally, he planned an extensive work under the title of "La papaute et la renaissance", to show the effects produced on the papacy by the worldly spirit of some pontiffs, without in the least derogating from the greatness of any epoch. Of the three volumes "Julius II", "Leo X", and "Clement VII and the Sack of Rome", only the first was completed, and by the time of its publication Klaczko was already in the state of paralysis in which he spent the last eight years of his life. Mass was celebrated in his little drawing-room twice a week until his death. Klaczko was by far the most powerful intellect and the most brilliant writer of Poland during the latter half of the nineteenth century. S. TARNOWSKI Heinrich Klee Heinrich Klee German theologian and exegete, b. at Münstermaifeld, in the Rhine province, 20 April, 1800; d. at Munich, 28 July, 1840. At the age of seventeen he entered the seminary at Mainz, where he distinguished himself by his piety, his talent and that unremitting application to study which characterized him throughout his later life. In 1824, a year after his ordination, he was appointed to the professorship of exegesis and ecclesiastical history in the same seminary, and in the following year also to that of philosophy. In the meantime he obtained the Doctorate of Theology from the University of Würzburg after presenting the thesis "Tentamen theologico-historicum de chiliasmo primorum saecolurum". In 1829 the government of Baden tendered him the chair of exegesis at Freiburg, vacated by Hug, and at the same time the Prussian authorities offered him a professorship either at Breslau or Bonn. He chose Bonn; but his position there was a difficult one. Hermes and Hermesianism reigned supreme, and the presence of Klee, an exponent of sound Catholic principles, was viewed with unconcealed disfavour by his Rationalistic colleagues. His tact and genial manners, his attractive lectures and learned works, however, gradually won him influence. After ten years' stay at Bonn, during which he taught dogmatic and moral theology, the history of dogma and exegesis, Klee was induced by the conflict between the Archbishop von Droste-Vichering of Cologne and the Hermesian professors to accept the call to the University of Munich as successor to Möhler in the chair of dogmatic theology and exegesis, but a premature death carried him off within a year. Klee's intense devotion to work enabled him to publish a number of works within a comparatively short period. "Die Beicht", a work which shows his close acquaintance with the Fathers appeared at Frankfort in 1827. Then followed in rapid succession; "Commentar über das Evangelium nach Johannes" (Mainz 1829); Commentar über den Romerbrief" (Mainz 1830); "Enclcylopädie des Theologie" (Mainz 1832; "Auslegung des Briefes an de Hebräer" (Mainz 1883); "Die Ehe, dogmatisch-arch-älogische Abhandlung" (Mainz 1833; 2nd Ed., 1835). His most important work is the "Katholische Dogmatik" in three volumes which went through four editions (Mainz 1834-5, 1840, 1844 and 1861), and next to it the "Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte" in two volumes (Mainz, 1837-8). A posthumous work, "Grundris der Ethik" was edited by Himioben (Mainz, 1843; 2nd ed. 1847). Although Klee was animated by a thoroughly Catholic spirit, and by his "Katholische Digmatik" helped to promote sounder Catholic ideas among the German clergy, then largely effected with Liberalism, some of his views as for instance on the origin of the human soul and on the fate of children who die without baptism, are open to criticism. SAUBEN in KLEE, Katholische Dogmatik, (3rd and 4th ed.); HURTER, Nomenclater, III, 773; HEINRICH, in Kirchlex., s.v. F. BECHTEL Melchior Klesl Melchior Klesl A cardinal and Austrian statesman, b. at Vienna, 19 February, 1552; d. at Wiener-Neustadt, 18 September, 1630. While France was governed by Cardinal Richelieu, Austria also had her cardinal minister of State; but whereas the former had but one journée des dupes, the latter lamented his downfall for years. Klesl's parents were Protestants, and his father was a baker. He studied philosophy at the University of Vienna, and was with his parents brought into the fold of the Church by the court chaplain, Father Georg Scherer, S.J. He received minor orders in 1577, when he was assigned a canonry, and, even while in minor orders, he preached and held conferences at Korneuburg and in the vicinity, making many conversions. In 1579 he became doctor of philosophy and provost of St. Stephen's at Vienna, which dignity carried with it the chancellorship of the university, and was finally ordained to the priesthood. As early as the following year he was appointed councillor of the Bishop of Passau for Lower Austria. Rudolf II, impressed by the vigour and success of his campaign against Protestantism, entrusted him with the work of the counter-Reformation, which became his life work. He brought back into the fold the cities of Baden, Krems, and Stein, though not without great difficulty, nor indeed without actual risk of his life. In 1585 he was made imperial councillor by Rudolf II, who three years later appointed him court chaplain and administrator of the Diocese of Wiener-Neustadt. It took him but a very short time to restore the Catholic rule in this thoroughly disorganized bishopric. He was compelled in doing so to be constantly on his guard against the monastic council, which, in a memorial on the subject, he calls, "the cause of all evil, the champion of godless prelates and priests against their bishop, a parasite". In 1598 Klesl was named Bishop of the Diocese of Vienna, which was spiritually and materially in a state of degradation. He was not consecrated until 1614, and received the purple from Paul V in 1616. In 1611 Matthias placed Klesl at the head of his privy council. As such he held full sway in the Govermnent. He himself admits that he "spoke, wrote, and negotiated" for the emperor. It was the question of the succession to the throne which caused his downfall. Klesl had every reason to fear that his influence would wane, if Archduke Ferdinand were once formally declared to be the heir apparent. For this reason he delayed the settlement of this question. When the Bohemians, having thrown their governor out of the window of the palace at Prague for the second time, broke out into open rebellion, and Klesl could not be induced to take energetic measures against them, the Archdukes Max of Tyrol and Ferdinand of Steiermark caused the cardinal (20 July, 1618) to be seized in an antechamber of undecided emperor, and had him conveyed to the fortress of Ambra. A few days later he was brought to the castle of Innsbruck, whence he was transferred after a year to the monastery of Georgenberg. In November, 1622, the Castle of Sant' Angelo in Rome became his place of confinement. He was granted his freedom by the emperor in June of the following year, but was to remain in Rome. He lived to enjoy the satisfaction of seeing himself solemnly brought back to Vienna on 25 January, 1628, and reinstated as bishop. He decreed that the Feast of the Immaculate Conception on 8 December be henceforth observed in his dioceses "in the same manner as Sundays and other prescribed holy days", and in spite of the nuncio's protestation, he strove to maintain the peculiarly Viennese custom whereby Holy Communion was distributed on Good Friday. His heart reposes before the high altar of the cathedral of Wiener-Neustadt, while his body rests in the cathedral of St. Stephen's. C. WOLFSGRUBER Josef Wilhelm Karl Kleutgen Josef Wilhelm Karl Kleutgen German theologian and philosopher, b. at Dortmund, Westphalia, 9 April, 1811; d. at St. Anton near Kaltern, Tyrol, 13 Jan., 1883. He began his studies with the intention of becoming a priest, but owing to the Protestant atmosphere of the school which he attended, his zeal for religion gradually cooled. From 28 April, 1830, to 8 Jan., 1831, he studied philology at the University of Munich. He was intensely interested in Plato's philosophy and the Greek tragic poets. Though he clung to the Faith, it censed to be the ruling principle of his life, and he fell into a deep melancholy. In this state he was about to enter upon a secular career, when he suddenly received what he always regarded as a special illumination from heaven. Still he was not at rest. During the preceding years he had imbibed certain ideas from Lessing's and Herder's writings, which he could not reconcile with the Christian Faith. After several weeks of internal conflict he betook himself to prayer, and to his astonishment many of his difficulties vanished at once; the remainder disappeared gradually. At Easter, 1832 he entered the theological academy of Munster, and after two terms went to the seminary at Paderborn, where he was ordained subdeacon on 22 Feb., 1834. On 28 April he entered the Society of Jesus at Brig, Switzerland, and, to avold any trouble with the German Government in the matter of military service, he became a naturalized citizen in one of the Swiss cantons, and changed his name to "Peters". After his ordination to the priesthood in1837 he was professor of ethics in Fribourg, Switzerland, for two years; he then taught rhetoric in Brig from 1840 till 1843. In 1843 he was appointed professor of sacred eloquence in the German College, Rome. During his residence in Rome and the vicinity (1843-74), besides pastoral work and the composition of his principal writings, he was substitute to the secretary of the general of the Jesuits (1843-56), secretary (1856-62), consultor of the Congregation of the Index, and collaborator in the preparation of the Constitution "De fide Catholica" of the Vatican Council. He composed the first draft of the Encyclical "Æterni Patris" of Pope Leo XIII on Scholasticism (1879). He played a leading part in the revival of Scholastic philosophy arid theology, and so thorough was his mastery of the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas that he was called Thomas redivivus (Thomas returned to life). With the object of combating the doctrines of Hermes, Hirscher, and Gunther, he composed his "Theologie der Vorzeit" and "Philosophie der Verzeit", works which upon their appearance were pronounced in many quarters to be epoch-making. When he died, Leo XIII said of him: "Erat princeps philosophorum" (he was the prince of philosophers). Some years before the Vatican Council Kleutgen was confessor extraordinary to the Benedictine Convent of St. Ambrose in Rome. The nuns of this convent honoured as a saint one of their sisters who had died fifty years before. This was reported to the Holy Office and everyone concerned was severely punished; Kleutgen and the ordinary confessor (both men of exceptionally holy lives) were suspended, because of lack of prudence in directing the nuns, for awhile even from saying Mass. Kleutgen consequently left Rome and went to the secluded shrine of Our Lady in Galoro, where he wrote the greater part of his "Theologie der Vorzeit" and "Philosophie der Vorzeit". After the opening of the council, at the urgent request of several bishops, especially Archbishop Stein, Apostolic Vicar of Calcutta, his superior general recalled him to Rome to place his talents and learning at the disposal of the council, and Pius IX removed all ecclesiastical censures as soon as he became acquainted with the work which Kleutgen had written. In 1879 some Old Catholics spread the report that Kleutgen had been condemned by the Roman Inquisition to an imprisonment of six years on account of complicity in the poisoning of a Princess von Hohenlohe; but, on 7 March, Juvenal Pelami, Notary of the Inquisition, testified that Kleutgen had never been summoned before the Inquisition upon such a charge, and consequently had not been punished by it. Possessed of high gifts and vast erudition, and, in consequence, very much in the public eye, Kleutgen was also a model religious and a man of austerely simple life. He was very fond of the poor, and they in turn almost worshipped him. When he preached, his plain, straightforward, simple language had an appeal even for the intelligence of the most illiterate; and when in conversation with the learned, who often came to consult him, his flow of speech was as free, copious, and unembarrassed as though he were reading from a book. Kleutgen's principal works are: "Die alten und die neuen Schulen" (Mainz, 1846, Münster, 1869); "Ueber den Glauben an das Wunderbare" (Münster, 1846); "Ars dicendi" (Rome, 1847; Turin, 1903); "Die Theologie der Vorzeit" (3 vols., Münster, 1853-60, 5 vols., 1867-74), "Leben frommer Diener und Dienerinnen Gottes" (Münster, 1869); "Die Philosophie der Vorzeit" (2 vols., Münster, 1860-3; Innsbruck, 1878), translated into French and Italian; "Die Verurteilung des Ontologismus" (Münster, 1868); transIated into French and Italian; "Zu meiner Rechtfertigung" (Münster, 1868); "Vom intellectus agens und den angeborenen Ideen"; "Zur Lehre vom Glauben" (Münster, 1875); "Die Ideale und ihre wahre Verwirklichung" (Frankfurt, 1868); "Ueber die Wunsche, Befurehtungen und Hoffnungen in Betreff der bevorstehenden Kirehenversammlung" (Münster, 1869); "Briefe aus Rom" (Münster, 1869), "Predigten" (Regenbburg, 1872; 2 vols., 1880-5); "Die oberste Lehrgewalt des römischen Bischofs" (Trier, 1870), "De ipso Deo" (Ratisbon, 1881); "Das evangelium des heiligen Matthäus" (Freiburg, 1882). LANGHORST in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach (1883); LIESEN in Der Katholik, I (1883); GRANDERATH, Gesch. des vatikantschen Konzils, II (Freiburg, 1903); DUHR, Jesuiten-Fabeln (Freiburg, 1891); SACHS in Buchberger's Kirchliches Handlex, (Munich, 1908), s. v.; SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la C. de at (Paris, 1803). JOHN J. TOOHEY Klinkowstrom Klinkowström Friedrich August von Klinkowström Artist, author and teacher; b. at Ludwigsburg in Swedish Pomerania on 31 August, 1778; d. at Vienna, 4 April, 1835. This famous convert came from an old Pomeranian noble family. At the age of sixteen, in deference to the wishes of his father, a lieutenant-colonel in the Swedish army, Friedrich adopted the military calling, but only remained in the service from 1793 to 1802. After this he was allowed to follow his own inclination and become a painter. To perfect himself in his studies, he went to the famous Dresden Gallery. His early pictures as well as the whole earnest bend of his mind showed a strong leaning towards the Catholic Church. After four years of successful study he was called home and obliged to remain there quietly for two years, owing to the gloomy political condition of the country after the battle of Jena. Then a great longing seized him for Rome, the home of all art. He journeyed first through Paris where the victorious Napoleon had amassed the ripest art treasures from all lands. His stay in Paris lasted nearly two years, and terminated happily with his engagement. Finally in 1810 he started for Rome. But the quickly formed friendship with Thorwaldsen, Rauch, Overbeck, and other artists, unfortunately only lasted a year, as Klinkowström was obliged to look about for an assured position. This led him to Vienna to take a place as instructor, and his marriage followed in 1812. But the grave political situation after the battle of Leipzig led the quiet artist once again to join the army. He displayed great activity in forming the volunteer corps in Leipzig, Dresden, and Aachen. After the Treaty of Paris he returned to Vienna, where he found that during his absence his wife had been received into the Catholic Church by Father Klemens Hofbauer. When he was told of this, he exclaimed: "So Louise has become a Catholic before me". A few months after this he followed the example of his "dear Louise". Then there came three quiet years of painting and literary work. He devoted himself particularly to children's books for which he provided designs and illustrations gradually working up to his true calling, the instruction of youth. There had been a plan under discussion for some time in Vienna to found a school for the sons of the higher nobility. But the difficulty was to find the right man, one qualified to undertake the work and carry it out within the provisions of the Austrian School Laws. Such a one was found in Klinkowström. The new foundation was opened in 1818, and enjoyed the personal favour of the emperor, the fact that the empress also showed an active interest in it naturally lent additional prestige to the school. The founder devoted himself unsparingly to its direction, maintenance, and advancement, and his efforts were eminently successful. Contemporaneous opinion is unanimous in declaring that for excellence and importance Klinkowström's school took precedence of all other educational institutions of the day. His untiring zeal used up all his strength, so that owing to ill-health and increasing suffering, he was obliged in 1834, after sixteen years of personal guidance, to give over the schools to other hands. He died six months after this, his wife having died before him, in 1821. Both of his oldest and youngest sons, Joseph and Max, entered the Jesuit Order, and became renouned preachers. The third son, Klemens the head of the house in Austria, has acquired as Imperial and Royal Archivist a literary fame, while to the fourth son, Alphons we are indebted for an excellent biography of his father. The only daughter joined the Order of Salesians after her father's death. Joseph von Klinkowström Eldest son of the preceding, b. 30 August, 1813; d. 30 March, 1876. He received his early education at his father's school, and in 1831 entered the Jesuit novitiate at Graz. After completing his novitiate and the study of rhetoric and philosophy, he taught for three years in the lower forms of the gymnasium. He made his theology in Rome, where he was ordained priest in 1846. On his return to Graz he taught rhetoric, and subsequently, during the confusion caused by the revolution of 1848, held the position of tutor in a noble Westphalian family. When, two years later, the great popular missionary movement began in Germany, Father Klinkowström was allotted to the German missionaries, proved himself to be unusually efficient. He continued his efforts in Austria in 1852, and his sermons caused so great a sensation in Vienna that the emperor expressed a desire to see him. The result of the interview was the establishment of a Jesuit community in Vienna. Here from 1859 to 1872, in which year his strength began to fail, Klinkowström continued his preaching activity, his great gift of eloquence and his deep religious fervour making a great impression, especially on educated laymen. Max von Klinkowström Youngest son of Friedrich, b. 21 October, 1819; d. 28 March, 1896. Until his ordination Father Max was educated on the same general lines as his brother Joseph. From that time, however, the young scholastic led a more active life. Even while making his theology in lnnsbruck he took part, under the direction of the celebrated Francis X. Weninger, in the popular missions in Tyrol and Vorarlberg. During the revolutionary year of 1848 he was appointed curate-in-charge at Kirchberg, to him an unwelcome change. This was followed by a still sadder experience, when he was chosen to accompany a band of Catholic emigrants to Australia. This expedition resulted for him only in suffering and privations. After two years of this labour he was allowed to resume his chosen work of popular missions. He was a regular and highly esteemed preacher on Sundays and holy days, now at Vienna and Prague and now at Innsbruck and Presburg, from 1857 to 1887, save for two short interruptions in 1859, when he served as chaplain in Northern Italy, and in 1871, when he escorted a band of pilgrims to the Golden Jubilee of Pius IX. His last office, which he occupied from 1887 to 1891, was that of superior and preacher at the cathedral of Laibach. Then, after a slight apopletic stroke, his health failed, and he spent the remainder of his life at Kalksburg near Vienna. VON KLINKOWSTROM, Friedrich August von Klinkounström und seine Nachkommen (Vienna, 1877); Historisch-politische Blatter, lxxxi, 48 sqq; ROSENTHAL, Konvertitenbilder. BULOW, 100 Lebensbilder aus der oster .-ungarr. Provinz der Gesellschaft Jesu (Vienna, 1902). N. SCHEID Onno Klopp Onno Klopp Historian, b. on 9 October, 1822, at Leer (East Friesland); d. at Vienna, 9 August 1903. After finishing his studies at the gymnasiums of Leer and Emden, he devoted himself, from 1841 to 1845 to the study of philology and theology at Bonn, Berlin, and Göttingen, receiving the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Jena in 1845. He was then appointed to teach at the gymnasium in Osnabrück, retaining this post until 1858. Meanwhile he devoted himself diligently to the composition of works on pedagogy, publishing first, "Die Reform der Gymnasien in betreff des Sprachunterrichts" (Leipzig, 1848), in which he pleaded for modern languages, maintaining that lingual studies should begin with living, not dead languages. He also wrote some books for the young founded on German legends and history, such as "Gudrun. Der deuchen Jugend erzählt" (Leipzig, 1850); "Geschichten, charaktersstische Züge und Sagen der deutschen Volkstämme aus der Zeit der Völkerwanderung bis zum Vertrag von Verdun" (2 parts, Leipzig, 1851); "Leben und Taten des Admirals de Ruiter" (Hanover, 1852, 1858, 1905); "Geschichte und Charakterzüge der deutschen Kaiserzeit von 843-1125" (Leipzig, 1852, 1905); "Deutsche Geschichtsbibliothek oder Darstellungen aus der Weltgeschichte für Leser aller Stände" (4 vols. Hanover, 1853-56), with the collaboration of various scholars. The Revolution of 1848 incited him to scientific historical researches, by means of which he tried to explain the existing phenomena by tracing the evolution of historic conditions. His pamphlet entitled "Die Grundrechte des deutschen Volkes" (Osnabrück, 1849) bears evidence of this. His most important work at this time was, his "Geschichte von Ostfriesland" (3 vols., Hanover, 1854-58). The East Friesland Estates furnished him with funds for the publication of this work, but, on the appearance of the third volume, they could not refrain from calling attention to the fact that it showed a hostile attitude towards King Frederick II of Prussia. Klopp considered himself unjustly blamed, and declined to receive the subvention for this volume. His action caused a great sensation, and King George V of Hanover, who had awarded him a gold medal for the second volume, paid the subvention from his private purse and offered to take him into his service. However, no suitable position was vacant at the time, and Klopp retired from public office to devote himself entirely to his historical studies. At the same time he took a great interest in the problems of the day, and soon became one of the most important leaders of the greater German party in Northern Germany, the Austrian Ambassador in Hanover aiding him in his efforts. In 1865 the King of Hanover created a commission for the care of the state archives and made Klopp reporter with the title of archivist. He went over the state archives, instituting important innovations in the manner of preserving them, which have been also adopted in the Prussian archives. During the war of 1866 he spent his time at headquarters near the king, in whose services he made two dangerous journeys to Frankfurt and Bavaria. After the capitulation of Langensalza he went to Vienna, where he drew up a petition for peace for his sovereign to King William of Prussia. He now settled permanently in Vienna, and to the end remained a faithful subject as well as a devoted admirer of George of Hanover, as shown by his book, "King George V. Every inch a King" (Hanover, 1878). In 1873 he became a convert to Catholicism. In consequence of his historical investigations he had been for years convinced of the truth of the Catholic Church, giving expression to this view in his three works, "Studien über Katholizimus, Protestantismus und Gewissensfreiheit" (Schaffhausen, 1857), "Wird Deutschland wieder Katholisch werden?" (Schaffhausen, 1859), and "Der evangelische Oberkirehenrat in Berlin und das Konzil" (Freiburg, 1869). His numerous historical writings can be divided into three groups. The first deal with German and Prussian history, the most important works being the following: "Das Restitutionsedikt im nordwestlichen Deutschland" (Göttingen, 1860); "Der Konig Friedrich II. von Preussen und die deutsche Nation" (Schaffhausen, 1860-7); "Tilly im dreissigjährigen Kriege" (2 vols., Stuttgart, 1861), enlarged edition under the title: "Der dreissigjährigen Krieg bis zum Tode Gustav Adolfs" (Paderborn, 1891); "Die preussische Politik des Friederieianismus nach Friedrich II." (Schaffhausen, 1867); "Rückblick auf die preussische Annexion des Konigreichs Hannover" (Munich, 1868). The work on Tilly found great favour among Catholics, and the Emperor of Austria, as well as the Kings of Bavaria, Belgium, and Hanover, almost simultaneously sent him their gold medals for science and art. On the other hand, his works on Frederich II evoked sharp criticism from Pressian circles, and brought forth many replies, most of which he answered convincingly, as in his "Kleindeutsche Geschichtsbaumeister" (Freiburg, 1863). The second group of writings are on the philosopher Leibniz. In 1861 Klopp made a proposition to the King of Hanover to publish Leibniz's works. For this purpose he thoroughly examined his entire literary remains, and subsequently published: "Die Werke von Leibniz gemass seinem handschriftlichen Nachlass in der Bibliothek zu Hannover. Erste Reihe: Historischpolitische und staatswissenschaftliche Schriften" (11 vols., Hanover, 1864-84). The completion of this work, however, was made impossible, as Bismarck forbade him the use of the Hanoverian library. The French Academy of Sciences in a letter to Klopp lamented this Interdiction on behalf of science Later Klopp gave himself up to the exhaustive study of the history of the Stuarts. He had taken up this study with great zeal when he was in England in 1859, and in 1870 instituted further investigations of the English archives. The most important work that we have to thank him for on this subject, and one which is perhaps his masterpiece, is: "Der Fall des Hauses Stuart und die Succession des Hauses Hannover im Gross-Britannien und Irland im Zusammenhang der europäischen Angelegenheiten von 1660-1714" (14 vols., Vienna, 1875-88). The interest he took in the history of Austria, his second home, is shown in his works: "Das Jahr 1683 und der folgende grosse Turkenkrieg bis zum Frieden von Carlowitz, 1699" (Graz, 1882), and "Corrispondenza epistolare tra Leopoldo I imperatore ed il P. Marco d'Aviano Cappucino" (Graz, 1886), which was dedicated to Pope Leo XIII on the jubilee to celebrate his fiftieth year as a priest. We are indebted to Klopp above all for the new lines of historical research which he pointed out to Catholics, his works proving incontrovertibly in defiance of all attacks that the study of original documents based on these lines and carried on with an incorruptible love of truth, will expose the errors of existing history. Compare the biography written by his son in Biographisches Jahrbuch, VIII (Berlin, 1905), 117-23. PATRICIUS SCHLAGER Joseph Knabl Joseph Knabl A master of religious plastic art, b. at Fliess, Tyrol, in 1819; d. at Munich in 1881. He was the son of poor parents, and was first apprenticed to Renn, a wood-carver at Imst, after which he studied ancient German wood-carving at Munich under Entres. Later he worked in the studio of Sickinger, and became, in 1859, a professor at the polytechnical school of the "Verein fur Hebung des Gewerbes". In 1859 he entered the art institute of Mayer. The chair of ecclesiastical sculpture at the Academy of Munich was entrusted to him (1863) in recognition of his principal work, the "Coronation of The Virgin" in the Frauenkirche. The figure of Mary, which is more than life size, stands at the middle of the high-altar, with six angels doing her reverence. The crown is laid on her head by the Heavenly Father and His Divine Son, between whom hovers the Holy Ghost; forms of saints and angels appear in the beautiful framework. The composition and execution, the harmonious grouping and draping of the figures, show a masterly technique. Knabl also studied antique art as well as nature. His manner was original. From the Middle Ages he seems to have derived only religious inspiration; the above-mentioned work breathes genuine piety. His other works chiefly in wood, are characterized by a strong and deeply religious feeling, not at all sentimental, the softness and delicacy of his colouring are perhaps in many cases excessive. Knabl is one of the Romantics, and frequently recalls Overbeck and Fuhrich. Like these he is a lover of the German Middle Ages and of what appeals to the German people, into whose life and character his travels through Tyrol, Swabia, and the Rhine country gave him a deep insight. His work at the Mayer Institute, where he not only produced numerous drawings and sketches, but also trained capable scholars, was of very important practical benefit for the diffusion of a cultivated taste in religious art. Most of his works are in Bavaria (Munich, Haidhausen, Passau, Eichstadt, Velden), but there are also some in Stuttgart, Mergentheim, and in other places. The subjects are: "Christ and the Apostles", "Christ on the Cross", several single statues of the Madonna (one for Lord Acton), the Madonna in a group, St. Anne (much admired at the Munich Exposition of 1858 on account of its artistic draping). A group of St. Afra (Augsburg) was the first of the artist's works to attract attention. He left a son, Karl (d. 15 June, 1904), who studied painting in the school of Piloty and became a successful landscape artist. REGNET, Gesch. der Munchener Kunst (Leipzig, 1871); PECHT, Gesch. der Munchener des 19. Jahrh. (Munich, 1888). G. GIETMANN Sebastian Kneipp Sebastian Kneipp Bavarian priest and hydrotherapist, b. at Stephansreid, Bavaria, 17 May, 1821; d. at Wörishofen, 17 June, 1897. The child of poor parents, he became a weaver like his father, but, during his time as a journeyman, constantly cherished the hope of becoming a priest and spent all his spare time in study. With the aid of a friendly priest he was enabled to enter the gymnasium. Five years of severe study and privation brought with it a breakdown in health and young Kneipp developed consumption. His attention was called to the value of hydrotherapy and he began some experiments on himself. While at Dillingen during the winter of 1849, he used to bathe for a few minutes two or three times a week in the Danube, and then hurry home to his room. He says: "I never derived any harm from these cold exercises but also, as I deemed, small benefit." His health was somewhat improved the next year, and he entered the Georgianum, a seminary for theological students at Munich, when he was nearly thirty. Here he continued his hydrotherapeutic exercises and induced a fellow student to practice them. He soon found that the old suggestions as to the use of water were entirely too violent. He was ordained priest in 1852 and became chaplain successively in Biberach, Boos, and St. George in Augsburg. In 1855 he was made confessor to the nuns at the convent of Wörishofen and assistant in the parish; in 1880 he became the parish priest. While still a curate he practiced hydrotherapy for the benefit of the poor, and his success in curing their ailments attracted wide attention. People from neighbouring parishes began to flock to him; the rich as well as the poor came to be treated, and his fame spread throughout Germany. His little book, "My Water Cure", went through many editions and was translated into many languages, while people from all over Europe began to flock to him. Many of them were greatly benefited. Pfarrer Kneipp's system consisted of the regulation of the daily life, through simplicity of diet, and the plentiful use of cold water internally and externally. Many of the recommendations of cold water popularly attributed to him are exaggerations. He says most emphatically: "I warn all against too frequent application of cold water. Three times I concluded to remodel my system and relax the treatment from severity to mildness and thence to greater mildness still." His general rules were early to bed and early to rise, with a walk in the dewy grass in the bare feet, simple meals, no stimulants, not too much meat, and an abundance of cereals. To him we owe the idea of a cereal drink to replace tea and coffee. Kneipp Societies were formed in Germany and in the United States for the better execution of his regulations. Since his death they have dwindled, and his methods are being lost sight of, showing that it was the personality of the man rather than his system which gave him fame. He discovered nothing new, but systematized what was known before and had been allowed to lapse. Many well-known Europeans became his personal friends, and many prominent, and even royal, personages took up his method of treatment and were benefited. His "So sollt ihr leben" (1889) has been translated into many languages. Leo XIII made him a monsignor. KNEIPP, Meine Wasserkur (1886-, tr. Edinburgh, 1891), contains a sketch of his life. JAMES J. WALSH Ven. William Knight Ven. William Knight Put to death for the Faith at York, on 29 November, 1596; with him also suffered Venerables George Errington of Herst, William Gibson of Ripon, and William Abbot of Howden, in Yorkshire. William Knight was the son of Leonard Knight and lived at South Duffield, Hemington. On coming of age he claimed some property, left to him by his father, from his uncle, a Protestant, who denounced him to the authorities for being a Catholic; he was at once seized and committed to the custody of Colyer, a pursuivant, who treated him with indignity and severity. He was sent in October, 1593, to York Castle, where William Gibson and George Errington were already confined, the latter having been arrested some years previously for participation in a rising in the North. A certain Protestant clergyman chanced to be among their fellow prisoners. To gain his freedom he had recourse to an act of treachery: feigning a desire to become a Catholic, he won the confidence of Knight and his two companions, who explained the Faith to him. With the connivance of the authorities, he was directed to one Henry Abbot, then at liberty, who endeavoured to procure a priest to reconcile him to the Church. Thereupon Abbot was arrested and, together with Knight and his two comrades, accused of persuading the clergyman to embrace Catholicism -- an act of treason under the penal laws. They were found guilty, sentenced to be hanged, drawn, and quartered, and suffered their martyrdom with joy and fortitude at York, on 29 November, 1596. A.A. MACERLEAN Henry Knighton Henry Knighton (CNITTHON) A fourteenth-century chronicler. Nothing is known of his career except that he was a canon of St. Mary's, Leicester, and that he was present when Edward III visited Leicester Abbey in 1363. His chronicle was first published by Twysden in "Historiae Anglicanae scriptores decem" (1652); a critical edition by Lumby in the Rolls Series contains an exhaustive study of the only two manuscripts which have survived. Both are now in the British Museum. This work consists of five books and covers the history of England from the accession of Edgar in 959 to the year 1366, in which it abruptly ends. The sudden conclusion suggests that the writer died in or about that year, though from an earlier passage in the work we know that he was threatened with blindness, so that he may have been forced to desist through loss of sight. A later writer from the same community continues the story (book V) from 1377 to 1395. The first three books are of no historical value, as they consist of admitted transcripts from Higden, whom Knighton supplements with unacknowledged extracts from Walter of Hemingburgh. He ensured the preservation of his own name by arranging that the initial letters of the chapters in books I and II should spell Henricus Cnitthon. The really important part of his work is the fourth book, which was written from his own knowledge, and which contains facts, particularly with regard to domestic history, not to be found in any other chronicler. A feature of special value is the economic particulars in which the work abounds. He carefully records the rate of wages, the prices of grain, wine, and cattle. He throws much light on the effects of the Black Death on the labour market, and on the inroads made on the feudal system by the liberation of the adscripti gleboe. He also details the evil effects of the pestilence which caused a dearth of priests that was supplied by the ordination of candidates ill-prepared and but little suited for the sacred ministry. Chronicon Henrici Knighton vel Cnitthon Monachi Leycestrensis, ed. LUMBY in Rolls Series (London, 1889); LUARD in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v. EDWIN BURTON Knights of Columbus Knights of Columbus A fraternal and beneficent society of Catholic men, founded in New Haven, Connecticut, 2 February, 1882, and incorporated under the laws of Connecticut, 29 March, 1882. The organizers and incorporators were the Reverend M.J. McGivney, the Reverend P.P. Lawlor, James T. Mullen, Cornelius T. Driscoll, Dr. M.C. O'Connor, Daniel Colwell, William M. Geary, John T. Kerrigan, Bartholomew Healey, and Michael Curran. The purpose of the society is to develop a practical Catholicity among its members, to promote Catholic education and charity, and, through its insurance department, to furnish at least temporary financial aid to the families of deceased members. On 15 May, 1882, the organizers, as a Supreme Committee, instituted the first subordinate council, San Salvador, No. 1, New Haven. From this time on, subordinate councils were organized in the different cities and towns throughout the State of Connecticut, but it was not until 15 April, 1885, when a subordinate council was established at Westerly, Rhode Island, that the order was extended beyond the borders of the parent state. The Supreme Committee then enacted a law providing that a Supreme Council should be established, composed of the Supreme Committee and delegates from the subordinate councils, each council being entitled to one delegate for each fifty members. The number of delegates under this arrangement proving too large, the Supreme Council, on 14 May, 1886, resolved itself into a Board of Government, composed of the Board of Directors, formerly the Supreme Committee, and the Grand Knight and a Past Grand Knight of each subordinate council of the society. Owing to the rapid growth of the society, the Board of Government, in 1892, provided for the organization of State Councils, composed of two delegates from each subordinate council in the state. On 29 April, 1893, the Board of Government was succeeded by the National Council, composed of the State Deputy and last Past State Deputy of each State Council, and by one delegate from every thousand members of the insurance class. In October, 1893, associate members were first admitted to the order. The establishment of the associate class was intended for those advanced in years, or unable to pass a physical examination, but has gradually been extended to comprehend all eligible men not desiring the insurance feature. On 22 February, 1900, the first instance of the fourth degree took place in New York City, when more than twelve hundred candidates from all parts of the United States received this degree. The order is now established in every state and territory of the United States, in every province of Canada, in Newfoundland, the Philippine Islands, Mexico, Cuba, Panama. Councils are to be established in Puerto Rico and in South America. The membership, divided into two classes, insurance and associate, included, on 1 March, 1910, 74,909 insurance members, and 160,703 associate members, a total of 235,612. Insurance policies are issued for $1000, $2000, and $3000, to desirable risks between the ages of 18 and 60. The rate of each member increases every five years until the age of 60 is attained, after which he pays a level premium based upon his age at initiation. The society has paid to the beneficiaries of deceased members $4,438,728.74. The Knights of Columbus have done notable work in promoting Catholic education and charity, providing education and homes for Catholic orphans, endowing scholarships in Catholic colleges, providing lectures on Catholic doctrine, endowing hospital beds, providing sanitoria for its sick members, maintaining employment bureaux, and, in general, performing the work of the apostolate of the laity. In 1904 the order presented to the Catholic University at Washington $50,000 for a chair of American History, besides several thousand dollars for library purposes, and is at present engaged in raising $500,000 to endow 50 scholarships in the University. The work of lectures to non-Catholics on questions of Catholic teaching and belief has always appealed to the spirit of the order, and of late years has been taken up with no little success. Splendid results have attended the lectures so far delivered. They have led to a better understanding of the Catholic faith on the part of non-Catholics, and a more friendly attitude towards it; they have shown that bigotry is on the wane, and that the non-Catholic mind is open to conviction. The series of lectures delivered by the Right Reverend Bishop J.J. Keane of Cheyenne, Wyoming, in Denver, in 1909, inaugurated the work. At Cedar Rapids, Iowa, eighty-five per cent of the audience, at the lecture under the auspices of the Knights of Columbus, was non-Catholic. The work has been taken up successfully in Buffalo, Milwaukee, Houston, Los Angeles. It is a movement which does not aim at attacking any man's belief, but at building up charity among men "and", in the words of Bishop Keane, "bringing us all closer to God Almighty". In several cities the Knights have established Catholic libraries, and in many others have catalogued the Catholic books in the public libraries. The erection of a memorial to Christopher Columbus, in the City of Washington, by the United States Government, is due in a measure to the work of the Knights of Columbus. "Columbus Day" (12 October), which is observed at present in fifteen states of the Union (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island), was instituted largely through the efforts of the Knights, who are now striving to make it a national holiday. EDWARD HEARN Knights of the Cross Knights of the Cross (Ordo Militaris Crucigerorum cum Rubea Stella.) A religious order famous in the history of Bohemia, and accustomed from the beginning to the use of arms, a custom which was confirmed in 1292 by an ambassador of Pope Nicholas IV. The grand master is still invested with a sword at his induction into office, and the congregation has been recognized as a military order by Popes Clement X and Innocent XII, as well as by several emperors. There is much discussion as to the real beginnings of this order, some authorities, among others the Bollandists, tracing it back to Palestine, where the first members were supposed to have borne arms against the Saracens. On the other hand, however, is the contemporary custom of establishing a religious congregation at the time of the foundation of a hospital, as well as the fact that in no document is there any trace of the Palestinian Cruciferi having gone to Bohemia. Moreover, in a parchment Breviary of the order dated 1356 the account of foundation contains no allusion to such a lineage. The order is first found in Bohemia as a fraternity attached to a hospital at Prague under a community of Clarisses, established by Princess Agnes, daughter of Przemysl Ottokar I and Queen Constantia, in 1233. In 1235 the hospital was richly endowed by the queen with property formerly belonging to the German order, a gift confirmed by Pope Gregory IX (18 May, 1236), who stipulated that the revenues should be divided with the Clarisse monastery. After three years, during which the head of the congregation had gone to Rome as the accredited representative of Abbess Agnes, and the congregation had been formally constituted an order under the Rule of St. Augustine by Gregory IX (1238), the abbess (1239) resigned all jurisdiction over the hospital and its possessions into the hands of the Holy See. Twelve days later the pope formally assigned these to the recently confirmed Knights of the Cross, who were to hold them forever in fief to the Holy See, on condition of the yearly payment of a nominal sum. Blessed Agnes for the order a new hospital at the Prague Bridge, which was taken as the mother-house, and to the title of the order was added in latere (pede) pontis (Pragenis) [at the foot of the (Prague) bridge]. She also petitioned the Holy See for some mark to distinguish these knights from other Cruciferi, with whom they bore in common the red crusader. To this was added by Bishop Nicholas of Prague, on the authorization of the pope, a red six-pointed star (10 Oct., 1250), probably from the arms of the first general, Albrecht von Sternberg. The order, which by 1253 had extensive possessions in Bohemia, soon spread to neighbouring lands. The Breslau house in particular was the centre of many other foundations. It is Bohemia, in an especial manner, to which the knights have rendered incalculable services. Their success in hospital work is evidenced by the rapidity with which their houses multiplied, and the frequent testimony borne to it in documents of kings and emperors. Within two decades after their foundation the care of souls had become as important as their hospital work, so quickly had the majority of lay brothers been replaced by priests. Numberless churches were entrusted to them in all parts of Bohemia, particularly the West, where they formed a bulwark of the Faith during the ravages of heresy in that region; the Taborites murdered the pastor of St. Stephen s at Prague, and the Hussites destroyed the mother-house and brought the order almost to the point of dissolution, but it recovered sufficiently to the offer strenuous resistance to the advance of the Reformed teachings. In the war with Sweden the members of the order justified their claim to the title of knights during the siege of Eger, fighting side by side with the townspeople, and sharing with them their last crust. Their hospital at Prague was also the first refuge of other orders who came to work for souls in Bohemia, among others the Jesuits (1555) and Capuchins (1599). For almost a hundred and fifty years the archbishops of Prague held the post of grand master and were supported almost entirely by the revenues of the order. Only on the restoration of the possessions of the archdiocese at the end of the seventeenth century was the grand master again elected from among the members, and a general reform instituted. George Ignatius Paspichal (1694-99), the first grand master under the new regime, showed great zeal for the restoration of the primitive ideals, especially that of charity. Even to the present day the Prague monastery supports twelve pensioners and distributes the so-called "hospital portion" to forty poor. Many knights have won enviable reputations in the world of learning, among others Nicholas Kozarz Kozar owa (d. 1592), celebrated mathematician and astronomer: John Francis Be kowsk (d. 1725), who established at Prague an herbarium which is still in existence, and Zimmermann, the historian. At the present time, besides the mother-house at Prague, there are about 26 incorporated parishes, and 85 professed members, several of whom are engaged in gymnasia and the University of Prague. There are benefices at Hadrisk, Vienna, where the order has been established since the thirteenth century, Eger, Brüx, and Schaab. HÉLYOT, Histoire des ordres religieux (Paris, 1859); JANSEN in Kirchenlex; JACKSCHE, Gesh. des ritterl. Ordens der Kreuzherren mit dem roten Sterne (Vienna, 1882); Regula, statuta et constitutiones ordinis crucigerorum (Prague, 1880); VON BRENENBERG, Analekten zur Geschichte des Militär-Kreuzordens mit dem rothen Stern (Prague, 1787). F.M. RUDGE Ignatius Knoblecher Ignatius Knoblecher Catholic missionary in Central Africa, born 6 July, 1819, at St. Cantian in Lower Carniola; died 13 April, 1858, at Naples. He studied at the gymnasium of Rudolfswerth, at the lyceum and the theological seminary of Laibach, and at the college of Propaganda in Rome. On 9 March, 1845, he was ordained priest, and a year later was graduated at Propaganda as doctor of theology. When the Vicariate Apostolic for Central Africa was erected on 3 April, 1846, the Congregation of Propaganda selected Knoblecher as one of the missionaries for that country. Before leaving for Central Africa he spent eight months on the Lebanon and at other places in Syria to acquaint himself with the rites and customs of the Oriental Christians. Towards the end of September, 1847, he left Cairo in company of Maximilian Ryllo, S.J., the Pro- Vicar Apostolic of Central Africa, and four other missionaries, and arrived at Khartoum on 11 February, 1848. Here they erected a school for young negroes whom they had purchased in the slave-market and who subsequently assisted them on their missions. Through them Knoblecher became acquainted with the languages spoken in the interior of Africa, and was soon enabled to compile a sort of dictionary of these languages. When Father Ryllo died, on 17 June, 1845, Knoblecher succeeded him as pro-vicar Apostolic. From Khartoum Knoblecher made an expedition into the interior of Africa in the fall of 1849. He ascended the Bahr-el-Abiad (White Nile) and was the first white man to penetrate into the land of the Bari tribe as far as 4 degrees 10 minutes north latitude. In 1850 he went back to Austria to recruit missionaries and collect money for the African missions. He returned to Africa in 1852 with five new missionaries, erected a mission among the Bari tribe at Gondokoro, and in 1854 another among the Denka or Jangeh tribe at Angweyn (Heiligenkreuz). The missionaries were hampered in their apostolic labours by European merchants and slave-traders, to whose interest it was to keep the tribes of Central Africa in a state of savagery and heathenism. The deadly climate also cut short the lives of many missionaries, and Knoblecher himself died while making a journey to Europe to regain his health. Valuable accounts of his travels in Central Africa were published in "Jahresberichte des Marienvereins" (Vienna, 1852-58). His large ethnographical and ornithological collections are preserved in the cabinets of natural curiosities at Vienna and Laibach, and the studies which he prepared on the Denka and Bari languages are to be seen in the Imperial Library of Vienna. MITTERRUTZNER, Dr. Ignaz Knoblecher, apostolischer Provicar der Kath. Miss. In Central-Africa (Brixen, 1869). MICHAEL OTT Albert Knoll Albert (Joseph) Knoll Dogmatic theologian of the Order of Friars Minor Capuchins, born at Bruneck in northern Tyrol, 12 July, 1796; died at Bozen, 30 March, 1863. He was ordained to the priesthood in November, 1818, and five years later was appointed to teach dogmatic theology in the Capuchin convent at Meran. He held this position for twenty-four years. Having been elected to the office of definitor general in 1847, he went to Rome, but returned to Bozen, in 1853, when his term of office had expired. While at Rome he wrote his "Institutiones Theologi Dogmatic Generalis seu Fundamentalis" (Innsbruck, 1852). The following year he published at Turin the first volume of his "Institutiones Theologi Theoretic seu Dogmatico-Polemicæ", which was followed by five other volumes, the last one appearing in 1859. In this work the author observes the order of treatment usually followed by the text-books. His brief but accurate descriptions of both ancient and modern heresies, his frequent and happy quotations from the writings of the Fathers, the masterly way in which he handles such difficult subjects as grace, free-will, and original sin, place him among the foremost theologians of the nineteenth century. He wrote a compendium in two volumes of the "Institutiones Theologiæ Theoreticæ" which was published at Turin in 1868. The last edition of the larger work, corrected and amended by Father Gottfried of Graun, was published at Innsbruck in 1893. Knoll s "Exposito Regulæ Fratrum Minorum", a treatise on the obligations of the Franciscan rule, has been commended as a faithful interpretation of the spirit of St. Francis. HURTER, Nomenclator Literarius, III, 931-2. STEPHEN M. DONOVAN Knowledge Knowledge + I. Essentials of Knowledge + II. Kinds of Knowledge + III. The Problem of Knowledge Knowledge, being a primitive fact of consciousness, cannot, strictly speaking, be defined; but the direct and spontaneous consciousness of knowing may be made clearer by pointing out its essential and distinctive characteristics. It will be useful first to consider briefly the current uses of the verb "to know". To say that I know a certain man may mean simply that I have met him, and recognize him when I meet him again. This implies the permanence of a mental image enabling me to discern this man from all others. Sometimes, also, more than the mere familiarity with external features is implied. To know a man may mean to know his character, his inner and deeper qualities, and hence to expect him to act in a certain way under certain circumstances. The man who asserts that he knows an occurrence to be a fact means that he is so certain of it as to have no doubt concerning its reality. A pupil knows his lesson when he has mastered it and is able to recite it, and this, as the case may be, requires either mere retention in memory, or also, in addition to this retention, the intellectual work of understanding. A science is known when its principles, methods, and conclusions are understood, and the various facts and laws referring to it co-ordinated and explained. These various meanings may be reduced to two classes, one referring chiefly to sense-knowledge and to the recognition of particular experiences, the other referring chiefly to the understanding of general laws and principles. This distinction is expressed in many languages by the use of two different verbs--by gnônai and eidénai, in Greek; by cognoscere and scire, in Latin, and by their derivatives in the Romance languages; in German by kennen and wissen. I. ESSENTIALS OF KNOWLEDGE (1) Knowledge is essentially the consciousness of an object, i.e. of any thing, fact, or principle belonging to the physical, mental, or metaphysical order, that may in any manner be reached by cognitive faculties. An event, a material substance, a man, a geometrical theorem, a mental process, the immortality of the soul, the existence and nature of God, may be so many objects of knowledge. Thus knowledge implies the antithesis of a knowing subject and a known object. It always possesses an objective character and any process that may be conceived as merely subjective is not a cognitive process. Any attempt to reduce the object to a purely subjective experience could result only in destroying the fact itself of knowledge, which implies the object, or not-self, as clearly as it does the subject, or self. (2) Knowledge supposes a judgment, explicit or implicit. Apprehension, that is, the mental conception of a simple present object, is generally numbered among the cognitive processes, yet, of itself, it is not in the strict sense knowledge, but only its starting-point. Properly speaking, we know only when we compare, identify, discriminate, connect; and these processes, equivalent to judgments, are found implicitly even in ordinary sense-perception. A few judgments are reached immediately, but by far the greater number require patient investigation. The mind is not merely passive in knowing, not a mirror or sensitized plate, in which objects picture themselves; it is also active in looking for conditions and causes, and in building up science out of the materials which it receives from experience. Thus observation and thought are two essential factors in knowledge. (3) Truth and certitude are conditions of knowledge. A man may mistake error for truth and give his unreserved assent to a false statement. He may then be under the irresistible illusion that he knows, and subjectively the process is the same as that of knowledge; but an essential condition is lacking, namely, conformity of thought with reality, so that there we have only the appearance of knowledge. On the other hand, as long as any serious doubt remains in his mind, a man cannot say that he knows. "I think so" is far from meaning "I know it is so"; knowledge is not mere opinion or probable assent. The distinction between knowledge and belief is more difficult to draw, owing chiefly to the vague meaning of the latter term. Sometimes belief refers to assent without certitude, and denotes the attitude of the mind especially in regard to matters that are not governed by strict and uniform laws like those of the physical world, but depend on many complex factors and circumstances, as happens in human affairs. I know that water will freeze when it reaches a certain temperature; I believe that a man is fit for a certain office, or that the reforms endorsed by one political party will be more beneficial than those advocated by another. Sometimes, also, both belief and knowledge imply certitude, and denote states of mental assurance of the truth. But in belief the evidence is more obscure and indistinct than in knowledge, either because the grounds on which the assent rests are not so clear, or because the evidence is not personal, but based on the testimony of witnesses, or again because, in addition to the objective evidence which draws the assent, there are subjective conditions that predispose to it. Belief seems to depend on a great many influences, emotions, interests, surroundings, etc., besides the convincing reasons for which assent is given to truth. Faith is based on the testimony of someone else--God or man according as we speak of Divine or of human faith. If the authority on which it rests has all the required guarantees, faith gives the certitude of the fact, the knowledge that it is true; but, of itself, it does not give the intrinsic evidence why it is so. II. KINDS OF KNOWLEDGE (1) It is impossible that all the knowledge a man has acquired should be at once present in consciousness. The greater part, in fact all of it with the exception of the few thoughts actually present in the mind, is stored up in the form of latent dispositions which enable the mind to recall it when wanted. Hence we may distinguish actual from habitual knowledge. The latter extends to whatever is preserved in memory and is capable of being recalled at will. This capacity of being recalled may require several experiences; a science is not always known after it has been mastered once, for even then it may be forgotten. By habitual knowledge is meant knowledge in readiness to come back to consciousness, and it is clear that it may have different degrees of perfection. (2) The distinction between knowledge as recognition and knowledge as understanding has already been noted. In the same connection may be mentioned the distinction between particular knowledge, or knowledge of facts and individuals, and general knowledge, or knowledge of laws and classes. The former deals with the concrete, the latter with the abstract. (3) According to the process by which it is acquired, knowledge is intuitive and immediate or discursive and mediate. The former comes from the direct sense perception, or the direct mental intuition of the truth of a proposition, based as it were on its own merits. The latter consists in the recognition of the truth of a proposition by seeing its connection with another already known to be true. The self-evident proposition is of such a nature as to be immediately clear to the mind. No one who understands the terms can fail to know that two and two are four, or that the whole is greater than any one of its parts. But most human knowledge is acquired progressively. Inductive knowledge starts from self-evident facts, and rises to laws and causes. Deductive knowledge proceeds from general self-evident propositions in order to discover their particular application. In both cases the process may be long, difficult, and complex. One may have to be satisfied with negative conception and analogical evidence, and, as a result, knowledge will be less clear, less certain, and more liable to error. (See DEDUCTION; INDUCTION.) III. THE PROBLEM OF KNOWLEDGE. The question of knowledge belongs to various sciences, each of which takes a different point of view. Psychology considers knowledge as a mental fact whose elements, conditions, laws, and growth are to be determined. It endeavours to discover the behaviour of the mind in knowing, and the development of the cognitive process out of its elements. It supplies the other sciences with the data on which they must work. Among these data are found certain laws of thought which the mind must observe in order to avoid contradiction and to reach consistent knowledge. Formal logic also takes the subjective point of view; it deals with these laws of thought, and neglecting the objective side of knowledge (that is, its materials), studies only the formal elements necessary to consistency and valid proof. At the other extreme, science, physical or metaphysical, postulating the validity of knowlege, or at least leaving this problem out of consideration, studies only the different objects of knowledge, their nature and properties. As to the crucial questions, the validity of knowledge, its limitations, and the relations between the knowing subject and the known object, these belong to the province of epistemology. Knowledge is essentially objective. Such names as the "given" or the "content" of knowledge may be substituted for that of "object", but the plain fact remains that we know something external, which is not formed by, but offered to, the mind. This must not, however, cause us to overlook another fact equally evident. Different minds will frequently take different views of the same object. Moreover, even in the same mind, knowledge undergoes great changes in the course of time; judgments are constantly modified, enlarged or narrowed down, in accordance with newly discovered facts and ascertained truths. Sense-perception is influenced by past processes, associations, contrasts, etc. In rational knowledge a great diversity of assents is produced by personal dispositions, innate or acquired. In a word, knowledge clearly depends on the mind. Hence the assertion that it is made by the mind alone, that it is conditioned exclusively by the nature of the thinking subject, and that the object of knowledge is in no way outside of the knowing mind. To use Berkeley's words, to be is to be known (esse est percipi). The fact of the dependence of knowledge upon subjective conditions however, is far from sufficient to justify this conclusion. Men agree on many propositions, both of the empirical and of the rational order; they differ not so much on objects of knowledge as on objects of opinion, not so much on what they really know as on what they think they know. For two men with normal eyes, the vision of an object, as far as we can ascertain, is sensibly the same. For two men with normal minds, the proposition that the sum of the angles in a triangle equals two right angles has the same meaning, and, both for several minds and for the same mind at different times, the knowledge of that proposition is identical. Owing to associations and differences in mental attitudes, the fringe of consciousness will vary and somewhat modify the total mental state, but the focus of consciousness, knowledge itself, will be essentially the same. St. Thomas will not be accused of idealism, and yet he makes the nature of the mind an essential factor in the act of knowledge: Cognition is brought about by the presence of the known object in the knowing mind. But the object is in the knower after the fashion of the knower. Hence, for any knower, knowledge is after the fashion of his own nature (Summa theol., I, Q. xii, a. 4). What is this presence of the object in the subject? Not a physical presence; not even in the form of a picture, a duplicate, or a copy. It cannot be defined by any comparison with the physical world; it is sui generis, a cognitive likeness, a species intentionalis. When knowledge, either of concrete realities or of abstract propositions, is said to consist in the presence of an object in the mind, we cannot mean by this object something external in its absolute existence and isolated from the mind, for we cannot think outside of our own thought, and the mind cannot know what is not somehow present in the mind. But this is no sufficient ground for accepting extreme idealism and looking upon knowledge as purely subjective. If the object of an assent or experience cannot be absolute reality, it does not follow that to an assent or experience there is no corresponding reality; and the fact that an object is reached through the conception of it does not justify the conclusion that the mental conception is the whole of the object's reality. To say that knowledge is a conscious process is true, but it is only a part of the truth. And from this to infer, with Locke, that, since we can be conscious only of what takes place within ourselves, knowledge is only "conversant with ideas", is to take an exclusively psychological view of the fact which asserts itself primarily as establishing a relation between a mind and an external reality. Knowledge becomes conversant with ideas by a subsequent process, namely by the reflection of the mind upon its own activity. The subjectivist has his eyes wide open to the difficulty of explaining the transition from external reality to the mind, a difficulty which, after all, is but the mystery of consciousness itself. He keeps them obstinately closed to the utter impossibility of explaining the building up by the mind of an external reality out of mere conscious processes. Notwithstanding all theorizing to the contrary, the facts impose themselves that in knowing the mind is not merely active, but also passive; that it must conform, not simply to its own laws, but to external reality as well; that it does not create facts and laws, but discovers them; and that the right of truth to recognition persists even when it is actually ignored or violated. The mind, it is true, contributes its share to the knowing process, but, to use the metaphor of St. Augustine, the generation of knowledge requires another cause: "Whatever object we know is a co-factor in the generation of the knowledge of it. For knowledge is begotten both by the knowing subject and the known object" (De Trinitate, IX, xii). Hence it may be maintained that there are realities distinct from ideas without falling into the absurdity of maintaining that they are known in their absolute existence, that is apart from their relations to the knowing mind. Knowledge is essentially the vital union of both. It has been said above that knowledge requires experience and thought. The attempt to explain knowledge by experience alone proved a failure, and the favour which Associationism found at first was short-lived. Recent criticism of the sciences has accentuated the fact, which already occupied a central place in scholastic philosophy, that knowledge, even of the physical and mental worlds, implies factors transcending experience. Empiricism fails completely in its endeavour to explain and justify universal knowledge, the knowledge of uniform laws under which facts are brought to unity. Without rational additions, the perception of what is or has been can never give the knowledge of what will certainly and necessarily be. True as this is of the natural sciences, it is still more evident in abstract and rational sciences like mathematics. Hence we are led back to the old Aristotelean and Scholastic view, that all knowledge begins with concrete experience, but requires other factors, not given in experience, in order to reach its perfection. It needs reason interpreting the data of observation, abstracting the contents of experience from the conditions which individualize them in space and time, removing, as it were, the outer envelope of the concrete, and going to the core of reality. Thus knowledge is not, as in Kantian criticism, a synthesis of two elements, one external, the other depending only on the nature of the mind; not the filling up of empty shells--a priori mental forms or categories--with the unknown and unknowable reality. Even abstract knowledge reveals reality, although its object cannot exist outside of the mind without conditions of which the mind in the act of knowing divests it. Knowledge is necessarily proportioned or relative to the capacity of the mind and the manifestations of the object. Not all men have the same keenness of vision or hearing, or the same intellectual aptitudes. Nor is the same reality equally bright from all angles from which it may be viewed. Moreover, better eyes than human might perceive rays beyond the red and the violet of the spectrum; higher intellects might unravel many mysteries of nature, know more and better, with greater facility, certainty, and clearness. The fact that we do not know everything, and that all our knowledge is inadequate, does not invalidate the knowledge which we possess, any more than the horizon which bounds our view prevents us from perceiving more or less distinctly the various objects within its limits. Reality manifests itself to the mind in different ways and with varying degrees of clearness. Some objects are bright in themselves and are perceived immediately. Others are known indirectly by throwing on them light borrowed elsewhere, by showing by way of causality, similarity, analogy their connection with what we already know. This is essentially the condition of scientific progress, to find connections between various objects, to proceed from the known to the unknown. As we recede from the self-evident, the path may become more difficult, and the progress slower. But, with the Agnostic, to assign clearly defined boundaries to our cognitive powers is unjustifiable, for we pass gradually from one object to another without break, and there is no sharp limit between science and metaphysics. The same instruments, principles, and methods that are recognized in the various sciences will carry us higher and higher, even to the Absolute, the First Cause, the Source of all reality. Induction will lead us from the effect to the cause, from the imperfect to the perfect, from the contingent to the necessary, from the dependent to the self-existent, from the finite to the infinite. And this same process by which we know God's existence cannot fail to manifest something--however little--of His nature and perfections. That we know Him imperfectly, by way chiefly of negation and analogy, does not deprive this knowledge of all value. We can know God only so far as He manifests Himself through His works which dimly mirror His perfections, and so far as our finite mind will allow. Such knowledge will necessarily remain infinitely far from being comprehension, but it is only by a misleading confusion of terms that Spencer identifies the unknowable with the incomprehensible, and denies the possibility of any knowledge of the Absolute because we can have no absolute-knowledge. Seeing "through a glass" and "in a dark manner" is far from the vision "face to face" of which our limited mind is incapable without a special light from God Himself. Yet it is knowledge of Him who is the source both of the world's intelligibility and truth, and of the mind's intelligence. (See also AGNOSTICISM, CERTITUDE, EPISTEMOLOGY, FAITH.) C.A. DUBRAY Knowledge of Jesus Christ Knowledge of Jesus Christ "Knowledge of Jesus Christ," as used in this article, does not mean a summary of what we know about Jesus Christ, but a survey of the intellectual endowment of Christ. Jesus Christ possessing two natures, and therefore two intellects, the human and the Divine, the question as to the knowledge found in His Divine intellect is identical with the question concerning God's knowledge. The Arians, it is true, held that the Word Himself was ignorant of many things, for instance, of the day of judgment; in this they were consistent with their denial that the Word was consubstantial with the Omniscient God. The Agnoetae, too, attributed ignorance not merely to Christ's human soul, but to the Eternal Word. Suicer, s.v. Agnoetai, I, p. 65, says: "Hi docebant divinam Christi naturam . . .quaedam ignorasse, ut horam extremi judicii". But then, the Agnoetae were a sect of the Monophysites, and imagined a confusion of natures in Christ, after the Eutychian pattern, so as to attribute ignorance to that Divine nature into which His human nature (as they held) was absorbed. An honest profession of the Divinity of Christ necessitates the admission of omniscience in His Divine intellect. I. KINDS OF KNOWLEDGE IN CHRIST'S HUMAN INTELLECT The Man-God possessed, not merely a Divine, but also a human nature, and therefore a human intellect, and with the knowledge possessed by this intellect we are here mainly concerned. The integrity of His human nature implies intellectual cognition by acts of its human intellect. Jesus Christ might be wise by the wisdom of God; yet the humanity of Christ knows by its own mental act. If we except Hugh of St. Victor, all theologians teach that the soul of Christ is elevated to participation in the Divine wisdom by an infusion of Divine light. For the soul of Christ enjoyed from the very beginning the beatific vision; it was endowed with infused knowledge; and it acquired in the course of time experimental knowledge. (1) The Beatific Vision Petavius (De Incarnatione, I, xii, c. 4) maintains that there is no controversy among theologians, or even among Christians, as to the fact that the soul of Jesus Christ was endowed with the beatific vision (see Heaven) from the beginning of its existence. He knew God immediately in His essence, or, in other words, beheld Him face to face as the blessed in heaven. The great theologians freely grant that this doctrine is not stated in so many words in the books of Sacred Scripture, nor even in the writing of the early Fathers; but recent masters in theology do not hesitate to consider the contrary opinion as rash, though it was upheld by the pretended Catholic school of Günther. The basis for the privilege of the beatific vision enjoyed by the human soul of Christ is its Hypostatic Union with the Word. This union implies a plenitude of grace and of gifts in both intellect and will. Such a fullness does not exist without the beatific vision. Again, by virtue of the Hypostatic Union the human nature of Christ is assumed into a unity of Divine person; it does not appear how such a soul could at the same time remain, like ordinary human beings, destitute of the vision of God to which they hope to attain only after their stay on earth is over. Once more, by virtue of the Hypostatic Union, Jesus, even as man, was the natural son of God, not a merely adoptive child; now, it would not be right to debar a deserving son from seeing the face of his father, an incongruity that would have taken place in the case of Christ, if His soul had been bereft of the beatific vision. And all these reasons show that the human soul of Christ must have seen God face to face from the very first moment of its creation. Though Scripture does not state in explicit terms that Jesus was favoured with the beatific vision, still it contains passages that imply this privilege: Jesus speaks as an eyewitness of things Divine (John, iii, 11, sqq.; I, 18; I, 31 sq.); any knowledge of God inferior to immediate vision is imperfect and unworthy of Christ (I Cor., xiii, 9-12); Jesus repeatedly asserts that He knows the Father and is known by Him, that He knows what the Father knows. There is a difficulty in reconciling Christ's sufferings and surpassing great sorrow with the beatitude implied in His beatific vision. But if the Word could be united with the human nature of Christ without allowing Its glory to overflow into His sacred body, the happiness of the beatific vision too might be in the human soul of our Lord without overflowing into and absorbing His lower faculties, so that He might feel the pangs of sorrow and suffering. The same faculty may be simultaneously affected by sorrow and joy, resulting from the perception of different objects (cf. St. Thom., III, Q. xiii, a. 5, ad 3; St. Bonav., in III, dist. xvi, a. 2, q. 2); the martyrs have often testified to the ecstatic happiness with which God filled their souls, at the very time that their bodies were suffering the extremity of torment. (2) Christ's Infused Knowledge The existence of an infused science in the human soul of Jesus Christ may perhaps be less certain, from a theological point of view, than His continual and original fruition of the vision of God; still, it is almost universally admitted that God infused into Christ's human intellect a knowledge similar in kind to that of the angels. This is knowledge which is not acquired gradually by experience, but is poured into the soul in one flood. This doctrine rests on theological grounds: the Man-God must have possessed all perfections except such as would be incompatible with His beatific vision, as faith or hope; or with His sinlessness, as penance; or again, with His office of Redeemer, which would be incompatible with the consummation of His glory. Now, infused knowledge is not incompatible with Christ's beatific vision, not with His sinlessness, not again with His office of Redeemer. Besides, the soul of Christ is the first and most perfect of all created spirits, and cannot be deprived of a privilege granted to the angels. Moreover, a created intellect is simply perfect only when, besides the vision of things in God, it has a vision of things in themselves; God only sees all things comprehensively in Himself. The God-Man, besides seeing them in God, would also perceive and know them by His human intellect. Finally, Sacred Scripture favours the existence of such infused knowledge in the human intellect of Christ: St. Paul speaks of all the treasures of God's wisdom and science hidden in Christ (Col., ii, 3); Isaias speaks of the spirit of wisdom and counsel, of science and understanding, resting on Jesus (Is., xi, 2); St. John intimates that God has not given His Spirit by measure to His Divine envoy (John, iii, 34); St. Matthew represents Christ as our sovereign teacher (Matt., xxiii, 10). Beside the Divine and the angelic knowledge, most theologians admit in the human intellect of Jesus Christ a science infused per accidens, i.e., an extraordinary comprehension of things which might be learned in the ordinary way, similar to that granted to Adam and Eve (cf. St. Thom., III., Q. i, a. 2; QQ. viii-xii; Q. xv, a. 2). (3) Christ's Acquired Knowedge Jesus Christ had, no doubt, also an experimental knowledge acquired by the natural use of His faculties, through His senses and imagination, just as happens in the case of common human knowledge. To say that his human faculties were wholly inactive would resemble a profession of either Monothelitism or of Docetism. This knowledge naturally grew in Jesus in the process of time, according to the words of Luke, ii, 52: "And Jesus advanced in wisdom, and age, and grace with God and men". Understood in this way, the Evangelist speaks not merely of a successively greater manifestation of Christ's Divine and infused knowledge, nor merely of an increase in His knowledge as far as outward effects were concerned, but of a real advance in His acquired knowledge. Not that this kind of knowledge implies an enlarged object of His science; but it signified that He gradually came to know, after a merely human way, some of the things which he had known from the beginning by His Divine and infused knowledge. II. EXTENT OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF JESUS CHRIST It has already been stated that the knowledge in Christ's Divine nature is co-extensive with God's Omniscience. As to the experimental knowledge acquired by Christ, it must have been at least equal to the knowledge of the most gifted of men; it appears to us wholly unworthy of the dignity of Christ that His powers of observation and natural insight should have been less than those of other naturally perfect men. But the main difficulty arises from the question as to the extent of Christ's knowledge flowing from His beatific vision, and of His infused amount of knowledge. (1) The Council of Basle (Sess. XXII) condemned the proposition of a certain Augustinus de Roma: "Anima Christi videt Deum tam clare. Et intense quam clare et intense Deus videt seipsum" (The soul of Christ sees God as clearly and intimately as God perceives Himself). It is quite clear that, however perfect the human soul of Christ is, it always remains finite and limited; hence its knowledge cannot be unlimited and infinite. (2) Though the knowledge in the human soul of Christ was not infinite, it was most perfect and embraced the widest range, extending to the Divine ideas already realized, or still to be realized. Nescience of any of these matters would amount to positive ignorance in Christ, as the ignorance of law in a judge. For Christ is not merely our infallible teacher, but also the universal mediator, the supreme judge, the sovereign king of all creation. (3) Two important texts are urged against this perfection of Christ's knowledge: Luke, ii, 52 demands an advancement in knowledge in the case of Christ; this text has already been considered in the last paragraph. The other text is Mark, xiii, 32: "Of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father." After all that has been written on this question in recent years, we see no need to add anything to the traditional explanations: the Son has no knowledge of the judgment day which He may communicate; or, the Son has no knowledge of this event, which spring from His human nature as such, or again, the Son has no knowledge of the day and the hour, that has not been communicated to Him by the Father. (See Mangenot in Vigouroux, "Dict. de la Bible", II, Paris, 1899, 2268 sqq.) Since the time of the Nestorian controversies, Catholic tradition has been practically unanimous as to the doctrine concerning the knowledge of Christ (cf. Leporius, "Libellus Emendationis", n. 40; Eulogius Alex., "in Phot.", cod. 230, n. 10; S. Gregorius Magnus, lib. X, ep. xxxv, xxxix; Sophron., "Ep. Syn. ad Sergium"; Damascenus, "De Haer.," n. 85; Nat. Alex., "Hist. Eccl. in saec. sext.", n. 85). As to the Fathers preceding the Nestorian controversy, Leontius Byzantinus simply surrenders their authority to the opponents of our doctrine concerning the knowledge of Christ; Petavius represents it as partly undecided; but the early Fathers may be excused from error, because they wrote mostly against the Arian heresy, so that they endeavoured to establish Christ's Divinity by removing all ignorance from His Divine nature, while they did not care to enter upon an ex professo investigation of the knowledge possessed by His human nature. At that time there was no call for any such study. After the patristic period, Fulgentius (Resp. ad quaest. tert. Ferrandi) and Hugh of St. Victor exaggerated the human knowledge of Christ, so that the early Scholastics asked the question, why God's Omniscience was incommunicable (Lomb., "Liber Sent.", III, d. 14). But even at this period, at least a modal difference was admitted to exist between the Omniscience of God and the human knowledge of Christ (cf. Bonav. in III., dist. 13, a. 2). Soon, however, theologians began to limit the human knowledge of Christ to the range of the scientia visionis or of all that actually has been, is, or will be, while God's Omniscience embraces also the range of the possibilities. PETER LOMBARD, Liber Sent., III, dist. 13-14, and ST. THOMAS, ST. BONAVENTURE, SCOTUS, DIONYSIUS THE CARTHUSIAN on this passage; Summa, III, QQ. viii-xii, and sv, a. 2, and VALENT., SUAREZ, SALMERON, on these chapters; MELCHIOR CANUS, De Locis, XII, xiii; PETAVIUS, I, i sqq.; THOMASSIN, VII; LEGRAND, De Incarn., dissert. ix, c. ii; MALDONATUS, A LAPIDE, KNABENBAUER, etc., on Luke, ii, 52, and Mark, xiii, 32; FRANZELIN, De Verb. Incarn., p. 426. A number of works have been quoted during the course of the article. A.J. MAAS Knownothingism Knownothingism This was a name applied to a movement in American politics which attracted a large share of public attention during the period from 1851 to 1858. It was the revival or re-appearance under a new name of the Native American movement which, during the preceding quarter of a century, had made various organized efforts to engraft its principles upon the legislation and policy of the American government. These principles briefly stated, were + the proscription of those who professed the Roman Catholic faith and, + the exclusion of foreign-born citizens from all offices of trust and emolument in the government, whether federal, state, or municipal. It may be added that Roman Catholics of Irish origin, whether native or foreign-born, were at all times the special object of Native American hostility, and that the "foreigners", contemptuously so called, against whom the Knownothing denunciations were levelled, and who were to be excluded from the rights of citizenship, were for the most part Irish immigrants to the United States professing the Roman Catholic faith. This Native American spirit may be traced back to the very beginning of the National Government. In many of the colonies there were penal laws which forbade the practice of the Roman Catholic religion, and these laws remained on the Statute Books down to the time of the War of Independence. With the organization of government and the adoption of a written Constitution, the question of religious toleration naturally arose, and the principle of freedom of religion was incorporated in the Federal Constitution (Art. VI) which declared that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States". This liberty of conscience was further assured by an amendment adopted in 1791, which declared that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." While the policy of the National Government was thus defined, and its law-making power was restrained from legislation hostile to the principle of freedom of religion, the individual states had reserved the right to regulate the question of religion and of a state Church within their respective jurisdictions, and the elimination from the Constitutions of the various states of the religious disqualifications which they contained affecting Roman Catholics was accomplished slowly and not without much resistance on the part of a considerable portion of the population. Thus, it was not until 1833 that the union between Church and State in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was dissolved, and Catholics were relieved from having to pay taxes for the support of the state (Protestant) Church. New Jersey retained its anti-Catholic Constitution until 1844, and only in 1877 did New Hampshire expunge from its Constitution the provision disqualifying Catholics from holding office in that state. These, with instances from other states which might be added, show that the spirit of intolerance of the Roman Catholic religion still survived. Freedom of religion as asserted in the Federal Constitution was not by any means universally accepted in theory, still less in practice. The Tory element in the population, composed almost wholly of adherents of the Church of England, was most prominent in its resistance to that principle. Many of these were secretly opposed to the total independence of the colonies. In New York, where they were most numerous, they had been the governing class; theirs was the state Church; their wealth and social standing gave them a large share in the direction of public affairs which they rightly judged would be lost to them by the establishment of the republic on the principles of freedom and equality declared by Thomas Jefferson, and, when their mother country was compelled to acknowledge the independence of the colonies, over 30,000 of these Tories voluntarily deported themselves, most of them to England and Canada. Those who remained became identified with the political party known as the Federalists. Successful for a time in retaining the control of the newly-organized government, the leaders of that party "strove to preserve the political ascendency of Protestantism in the states both by Federal legislation affecting the naturalization of emigrants and by preventing legislation in their respective states for the relief of Catholics from their religious disabilities which was necessary to give effect to the liberal spirit and purpose of the Constitution" (see "U.S. Catholic Historical Records and Studies", Vol. III, p. 95). Thus, John Jay, of New York, who afterwards became Chief Justice of the United States, succeeded in fastening upon the Constitution of his own state a provision which denied the privilege of citizenship to every foreign-born Catholic unless he would first abjure and renounce all allegiance to the pope in matters ecclesiastical. This provision remained in force until 1821, when the power and influence of the Federal party had well nigh disappeared. During the administration of the Federalist president, John Adams, 1798-1802, that same party forced the passage of the Alien Act, under which the president might expel from the county all aliens whom he might regard as disaffected towards the Government, as well as that other Act requiring a residence of fourteen years in the country before any foreign-born person could be admitted to citizenship. In brief, the Federalists were the Native Americans of their day, and Knownothingism, as the latest and, because of its excesses, the most odious manifestation of the Native American spirit, may be said to have had its genesis in the prejudices nursed by the Federalists against foreign-born citizens and in their intolerance of their fellow-citizens professing the Roman Catholic faith. These offensive, not to say unlawful, sentiments found numerous advocates, not only among political demagogues and aspirants for public office, but also in the pulpit and in the religious press of those days. The tide of immigration which had set in was largely Irish and soon became distinctively Catholic in character. One of the inducements to this immigration was the hope it held out of release from the civil disabilities and the religious proscription under which the immigrants had laboured in their native land. When, therefore, a powerful party was founded exerting itself to exclude these immigrants from the privilege of citizenship because of their race and creed, it was most natural that they and their co-religionists of whatever race should, as they did, ally themselves with the opposing political party which supported those principles of political equality and freedom of religion which had been proclaimed as distinctive principles of the American scheme of government. The growing immigration and the increase in the number of naturalized citizens strengthened the party with which these immigrants had become identified, and the extension of their political influence, as shown at the elections, was used by the advocates of proscription as a justification of their policy. Throughout the various Native American and Knownothing movements which America has witnessed, political hostility and religious prejudice, the one supplementing the other, appear as the motive and inspiration. Knownothingism was only the development and application of the principles of Native Americanism whose character and origin we have briefly sketched. During the half-century preceding the Knownothing era, the questions involved in that movement had been frequently agitated. Catholics and foreigners were denounced, mainly from Protestant pulpits, as enemies of the Republic. Books and newspapers calculated to inflame the passions of the mob against their Irish and Catholic neighbours were extensively circulated. Catholic bishops and priests were maligned, their religion misrepresented and ridiculed, and acts of violence were committed against Catholics and their property. The burning of the Convent of the Ursuline nuns at Charleston, Mass., in 1834, by a Native American mod, and their cruel treatment of the unoffending nuns and their pupils, were the most notable manifestations, up to that time, of the evil effect of religious hatred. In 1835 the first formal organization of the partisans of the Native American movement under that name, was effected at New York City. Various newspapers, such as "The Protestant", "The Protestant Vindicator", "The Downfall of Babylon", and the like, were established in New York and New England as aids to the movement. The "evils of Popery" and the danger to arise to the Republic from tolerating the practice of the Catholic religion were staple topics of discussion by no inconsiderable number of ministers of religion, and under the impulse of these incitements the spirit of religious prejudice was kept alive; there were new aggressions upon the rights of Catholic citizens, the peace and order of the community were occasionally disturbed by acts of violence, and another decade in the history of Native Americanism terminated in the bloody riots which occurred at Philadelphia, in 1844, when several Catholic churches were attacked by the Native American mob, and two of them, St. Michael's and St. Augustine's, were deliberately fired and reduced to ashes, and the safety of those that remained were so endangered by the hostile demonstrations of the mob that public worship was suspended by order of Bishop Kenrick, and on Sunday, 12 May, 1844, all Catholic churches in that city were closed. Many houses tenanted by Irish Catholics were likewise wantonly destroyed by fire, some of the inmates were shot down at their doorsteps, and a number of other unoffending citizens lost their lives. The party whose members were soon to be described as "Knownothings" was formally organized in 1852 in the City of New York. Although begun as a local society, it was designed to become a national organization. Its leaders had planned to concentrate in a single party the membership of various Native American orders already in existence and the "American Republicans", the "Order of United Americans", "Sons of America", and "United American Mechanics of the United States" formed the nucleus of the new party. It adopted the title of "National Council of the United States of North America." Among the initiate it was called the "Supreme Order of the Star-spangled Banner" and was sometimes familiarly spoken of as "Sam". Its published ritual declared (Article II) the purpose of the organization to be "to protect every American citizen in the legal and proper exercise of all his civil and religious rights and privileges; to resist the insidious policy of the Church of Rome and all other foreign influence against our republican institutions in all lawful ways; to place in all offices of honour, trust or profit in the gift of the people or by appointment none but Native American Protestant citizens" (see American Politics, Book I, pp. 57-9). Article III declared "that a member must be a native-born citizen, a Protestant either born of Protestant parents or reared under Protestant influence, and not united in marriage with a Roman Catholic. . .no member who has a Roman Catholic wife shall be eligible to office in this order", etc. There were several degrees of membership as there were also state, district, and territorial councils, all of them subordinate to the National Council. The organization had the usual equipment of secret signs, grips, passwords, and the like. Upon his admission the member was required to take the following oath:-- "In the presence of Almighty God and these witnesses, you do solemnly promise and swear that you will never betray any of the secrets of this society, nor communicate them even to proper candidates, except within a lawful council of the order; that you never will permit any of the secrets of this society to be written, or in any other manner made legible, except for the purpose of official instruction; that you will not vote, nor give your influence for any man for any office in the gift of the people, unless he be an American-born citizen, in favor of Americans ruling America, nor if he be a Roman Catholic; that you will in all political matters, so far as this order is concerned, comply with the will of the majority, though it may conflict with your personal preference, so long as it does not conflict with the Constitution of the United States of America or that of the State in which you reside; that you will not, under any circumstances whatever, knowingly recommend an unworthy person for initiation, nor suffer it to be done, if in your power to prevent it; that you will not, under any circumstances, expose the name of any member of this order nor reveal the existence of such an association; that you will answer an imperative notice issued by the proper authority; obey the command of the State council, president or his deputy, while assembled by such notice, and respond to the claim of a sign or cry of the order, unless it be physically impossible; . . ." Although the existence of the new party was generally known, and its political activities soon became manifest, all inquiries by outsiders respecting its organization and purpose, and especially as to the names of members, were met by those identified with the movement with the answer: "I don't know". This was in conformity with that part of the oath which forbade the member "To expose the name of any member of their order nor reveal the existence of such an association", and from this answer so uniformly repeated the nickname "Knownothing" was invented and was applied to the party and its members, and thus the Native Americanism of that period has passed into history under the name of Knownothingism. Within three years state councils of the order were established in thirty-five states and territories, and its advocates claimed that it controlled one and a half million legal voters, or nearly one-half of the entire popular vote cast at the presidential election in 1852. For a time it confined its political activities to supporting candidates approved at the secret meetings of the councils who had been nominated by one or other of the older political parties, and the leaders of those parties were frequently surprised at the unexpected strength thus developed by the secretly favoured candidates; but by 1854 it directly nominated the candidates to be voted for. The party had been successful in the municipal elections in Philadelphia, Baltimore, San Francisco, New Orleans, and for a time in New York City. In 1854 the Knownothings sent forty representatives to Congress, and elected their candidate, Gardiner, Governor of Massachusetts, with a legislature of the same type. In New York, in the same year, the party polled 122,000 votes and in the next year was successful in that state, polling 146,000 votes. In 1855 New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Rhode Island each elected a Knownothing governor, and the party carried the elections in nine different states. In the Thirty-fifth Congress, which assembled in December, 1855, there were seventy-five Knownothing members elected as such. In 1856 Horace Greeley wrote: "The majority of the Banks men"--Banks being the candidate for Speaker of the House of Representatives--"are now members of Knownothing councils and some twenty or thirty of them actually believe in that swindle. Half of the Massachusetts delegation, two-thirds of that of Ohio and nearly all of that of Pennsylvania are Knownothings". In 1855 the Knownothing party suffered a serious reverse in Virginia, when Henry A. Wise, the Democratic candidate, was elected governor of that state, chiefly on the issue of his antagonism to Native American principles and policies. In 1856, at Philadelphia, the delegates of the Knownothing party held a convention at which they nominated Millard Fillmore as candidate for President. Opposed to them in that election were the Democratic party and the newly organized Republican party, both of whom had expressed their dissent from Native American principles. Speaking of this selection, Schouler says: "Their candidate Fillmore met with the most ignoble defeat, receiving only the eight electoral votes of Maryland, his adversary, James Buchanan, the nominee of the National Democratic party being triumphantly elected. For the Native Americans with their proscriptive tenets, the defeat was overwhelming. It was apparent that the American or Knownothing party had now nearly evaporated" (History of the U.S., IV, p. 357). The American people had weighed the claims of the Knownothing party to be regarded as the saviours of the republic and had witnessed the criminal excesses to which that party had resorted in its efforts to secure political control, and the sober sense of the great mass of the people had repudiated both. Moreover the great controversy over slavery coupled with the claim of the right of a state to secede from the Union was pressing upon the attention of the nation to the exclusion of nearly every other question, so that upon the election of President Lincoln (1860) Knownothingism as an organized party had ceased to exist, and only its disagreeable memory remained. The history of Knownothingism would be very imperfectly told without some account of the wrongs inflicted upon Catholics and the criminal excesses committed by the partisans of that movement. The same bitter attacks against the Catholics and the same incitements to violence could not fail to produce results similar to those which had characterized the earlier Native American movements. In 1851 the large Knownothing element in Providence, R. I., was excited over the establishment there of a community of Sisters of Mercy under the direction of Mother Xavier Warde. The cottage occupied by the sisters was attacked at night, and all the windows broken. In daytime, as the sisters passed through the streets, they were hooted at and otherwise insulted, and were openly threatened with the destruction of their convent. So persistent were these threats that the Mayor requested the sisters to abandon their residence in Providence so as to avert the threatened disorder. Soon afterwards a mob of Knownothing partisans fully armed was assembled whose purpose of attacking the convent had been openly announced. The bishop's house and one or more of the churches were likewise marked for destruction. After fruitless appeals to the civil authorities for protection, the Irish Catholics of Providence, under the prudent and resolute lead of Bishop O'Reilly, prepared to resist the mob and to repel any violence that might be attempted. The mob marched to the convent, but, finding it guarded by a number of Catholic Irishmen, with Bishop O'Reilly present and declaring that the sisters and their convent should be protected at whatever cost, the Knownothing leaders decided not to molest the convent, and the mob dispersed. In 1853, on the occasion of the visit to America of Archbishop Bedini, Apostolic Nuncio to the Court of Brazil, a great outcry was raised by the Knownothing element throughout the country, with whom were joined certain Italian refugees who had emigrated to escape the consequences of their criminal conduct at home. In all the cities visited by the archbishop hostile demonstrations were made against him. At Boston, Baltimore, Wheeling, St. Louis, and Cincinnati where the Nuncio took part in various solemn religious celebrations, there were scenes of disorder, and in some cases of bloodshed, provoked by the Knownothing speakers both lay and clerical, as well as by the anti-Catholic press. At Cincinnati, in December, 1853, a mob of 600 men armed with weapons of various sorts, and carrying lighted torches and ropes, marched to the cathedral intending to set it on fire and, as was believed, to hang the Nuncio. There was an encounter with the police, and the mob was dispersed, but not until after shots had been fired and several persons wounded. During 1854 there were numerous assaults upon Catholic churches throughout the country by the Knownothing element. St. Mary's church at Newark, N. J., was invaded by a mob made up of Knownothings and Orangemen from New York City; the windows were broken, some of the statuary destroyed, and one unoffending bystander, an Irish Catholic, was shot and killed. In October of the same year, at Ellsworth, Maine, Father John Bapst, S.J., was dragged from the church, robbed of his watch and money, tarred and feathered, and ridden about the village on a rail. On 4 July, at Manchester, N. H., St. Anne's church was attacked, its windows broken and furniture destroyed, the priest compelled to seek shelter away from his home, and the houses of Irish Catholics were likewise attacked, the inmates driven out, even the sick being dragged from their beds. At Bath, Me., the mob broke into the church and, after wrecking the altar and the pulpit, set fire to the building which was reduced to a heap of ashes. At Dorchester, Mass., a keg of gunpowder was placed under the floor of the little Catholic church, it was fired at three o'clock in the morning and resulted in almost the total destruction of the building. Another Catholic church, at Sidney, Ohio, was blown up with gunpowder. At Massillon, Ohio, another church was burned, and an attempt made to burn the Ursuline Convent at Galveston, Texas. At Lawrence and at Chelsea, Mass., the Catholic churches were attacked by the Knownothing mob, the windows smashed, and much other damage done. St. Mary's church at Norwalk, Conn., was set on fire and later its cross was sawed off the spire. A fire was started in the church of Sts. Peter and Paul in Brooklyn, and the building was saved only by the interference of the police aided by the militia, who drove off the mob. St. Mary's Church at Saugerties, N. Y., was set on fire and nearly destroyed by the fanatics, and an attempt made to burn the church at Palmyra, N. Y. The following year (1855), at Louisville, Ky., the elections were attended with such rioting and bloodshed, the result of Knownothing agitation, that the day (5 Aug.) acquired the name of "Bloody Monday". The cathedral was invaded by the mob and was saved from destruction only by the prudence of Bishop Spalding, who, in a letter to Bishop Kenrick summing up the results of the day's proceedings, said: "We have just passed through a reign of terror surpassed only by the Philadelphia riots. Nearly one hundred poor Irish have been butchered or burned and some twenty houses have been consumed in the flames. The City authorities, all Knownothings, looked calmly on and they are now endeavouring to lay the blame on the Catholics" (see "Life of Archbishop Spalding", by J.L. Spalding, p. 185). While their ignorant followers were engaged in these lawless proceedings the leaders were exerting themselves in various directions to secure legislation hostile to Catholics, especially to Irish immigrants, then mostly of that faith. In the legislatures of some of the states bills were proposed to authorize the visitation and inspection of convents and other religious institutions by state officials, and in Massachusetts, in 1854, such a law, known as the Nunneries Inspection Bill, was actually passed. Under this a legislative committee made a tour of inspection and in a very offensive manner visited several Catholic colleges and convents. In several states, notably in New York, church property bills were proposed which were designed to destroy the title to Catholic church property, which for the most part stood in the name of the bishop, there being then no law for the incorporation of Catholic churches by which such title might be securely held. In Congress efforts were made to restrict the benefits of the Homestead Laws to those who were actual citizens of the United States, and the old-time proposal to extend the period of residence to twenty-one years before a person could be admitted to citizenship was constantly agitated. Of lesser importance were the laws and ordinances passed in Massachusetts disbanding various volunteer militia companies bearing the name of some Irish patriot and composed for the most part of Catholic Irishmen. These different measures were advocated in the newspaper organs, both secular and religious, of the Knownothing party. The New York Church Property Bill evoked the newspaper controversy between Archbishop Hughes and Senator Brooks which attracted attention all over the country. In addition, many books and pamphlets were put in circulation in support of the Knownothing claims. Much of this literature was grossly insulting to Catholics and especially to the Irish members of that Church, and the Catholic press of those days was busily engaged in meeting the charges made against the Church. Speaking of Knownothingism, the authors (Nicolay and Hay) of the "Life of Lincoln" (Vol. II, p. 357) say: "Essentially it was a revival of the extinct Native American faction based upon a jealousy of and discrimination against foreign born voters, desiring an extension of their period of naturalization and their exclusion from office; also based upon a certain hostility to the Roman Catholic religion." Schouler, another non-Catholic historian, says (History of the United States, Vol. V, p. 305): "They [the Knownothings] revived the bitter spirit of intolerance against the Roman Catholic Church such as ten years before had been shown in the riots of Charlestown and Philadelphia, by representing it as foreign, the handmaid of popular ignorance and bent on chaining Americans to the throne of the Vatican. . . .Catholic churches were assaulted every now and then by some crowd of Bible bigots helped on by the brawny friends of free fight inflamed by street preachers and the revelations of 'converted Jesuits' and 'escaped nuns' etc." Speaking of the partisans of the movement, Bishop J. L. Spalding said (Life of Archbishop Spalding, p. 174) they were "the depraved portion of our native population". He added: "It was not the American people who were seeking to make war on the Church, but merely a party of religious fanatics and unprincipled demagogues who as little represented the American people as did the mobs whom they incited to bloodshed and incendiarism. Their whole conduct was un-American and opposed to all the principles and traditions of our free institutions". Brownson spoke of their prejudices as "contemptible"; "The Native-American Party", said he (Essays and Reviews, p. 428), "is not a party against admitting foreigners to the rights of citizenship, but simply against admitting a certain class of foreigners. It does not oppose Protestant Germans, Protestant Englishmen, Protestant Scotchmen, not even Protestant Irishmen. It is really opposed only to Catholic foreigners. The party is truly an anti-Catholic party, and is opposed chiefly to the Irish, because a majority of the emigrants to this country are probably from Ireland, and the greater part of these are Catholics." SPALDING, The Life of the Most Rev. M. J. Spalding (New York, 1873); HASSARD, Life of the Most Rev. John Hughes (New York, 1866); Complete works of the Most Rev. John Hughes (New York, 1866); SPALDING, Essays and Reviews (New York, 1877); SCHARF AND WESTCOTT, History of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, 1886); SANDERSON, Republican Landmarks (Philadelphia, 1856); The Works of the Rt. Rev. John England (Baltimore, 1869); COOPER AND FENTON, American Politics (Chicago, 1884) (non-partisan); O'DONNELL, History of the Diocese of Hartford (Boston, 1900); DE COURCY, The Catholic Church in the United States (New York, 1857); SPALDING, Miscellanea (Baltimore, 1894); FLYNN, The Catholic Church in New Jersey (Morristown, 1904); CORNELISON, The Relation of Religion to Civil Government (New York, 1895); SHEA, The Catholic Church in Colonial Days (New York, 1886); BAIRD, Religion in America; The Whig Almanac (New York, 1855); New England Magazine, XV (Boston, Sept., 1896); NICOLAY AND HAY, The Life of Abraham Lincoln (New York, 1890); SCHOULER, History of the United States (New York, 1891); Files of The Truth and Boston Pilot; NORTON, Startling Facts for American Protestants (New York, 1852); WHITNEY, A Defence of the American Policy (New York, 1856); Life of Mother M. Xavier Warde (Boston, 1902). PETER CONDON John Knox John Knox Scotch Protestant leader, b. at Haddington, Scotland, between 1505 and 1515; d. at Edinburgh, 24 November, 1572. All the older biographies assign his birth to 1505, but recent authorities (Lang, Hay Fleming, etc.) give grounds for the latter date from contemporary evidence, and from certain facts in his career. Nothing authentic is known of his ancestry or kinsfolk, excepting that his mother was a Sinclair; his father was probably a small farmer. Educated at the Haddington burgh school, he is not known to have graduated at any university, though both Glasgow and St. Andrews have claimed him. His own writings testify to his knowledge of Latin and French, and his acquaintance with the works of some of the Fathers, and he seems to have acquired a smattering of Greek and Hebrew in later life. His mastery of vernacular Scotch is shown in his "History", as well as the fact that he had studied law, for his citations from the Pandects are apt and not infrequent. We know from his own words that he was a priest -- "one of Baal's shaven sort", as he expresses it -- and practised as a notary by ecclesiastical authority. In a still extant document, he is styled "Johannis Knox, sacri altaris minister, sancte Andreæ diocesis auctoritate apostolica notarius." Nothing whatever is known of his ecclesiastical career; and we can only surmise that he had already begun to doubt, if he had not actually repudiated, the Catholic tenets by 1540, when we first find him engaged as private tutor to certain "bairns", a profession in which he continued until 1547. The names of some of his pupils have come down to us, but we know nothing of the details of his life until 1545, when his own "History of the Reformation", written some eighteen years later and largely autobiographical in character, first brings him before us. The most prominent exponent of the new doctrines in Scotland at this time was George Wishart, who had come home from his travels in Germany a confirmed Protestant, and was expounding his tenets in Haddington and other parts of the Scottish Lowlands. Bitterly hostile to Cardinal Beaton, the great champion of the Catholic cause, Wishart (whose most devoted adherent and disciple at this time was Knox) was deeply involved in the intrigues of the Protestant party with Henry VIII of England for the kidnapping or murder of the cardinal. Wishart was arrested in January, 1546, and burned at St. Andrews on 1 March; and on 29 May Beaton was murdered at the same place in revenge for Wishart's death. The assassination was approved and applauded by Knox, who describes the deed with a gleeful and mocking levity strangely unbecoming in a Christian preacher, though his panegyrists speak of it merely as his "vein of humour". Some months later we find him, with his pupils, shut up in the castle of St. Andrews, which Beaton's murderers and their friends held for some months against the regent Arran and the Government. On 31 July, 1547, the besiegers being reinforced by a large French fleet, the castle was surrendered, and Knox was imprisoned with some others for nineteen months on board the French galleys and at Rouen. His captivity, however, was not rigorous enough to prevent him from writing a theological treatise, and preaching to his fellow prisoners. In 1549 Knox was free to return home; but he preferred to stay for a time in England, where, under Edward VI, he would feel himself secure, rather than to expose himself to fresh arrest in Scotland. He received a state license to preach at Berwick, where he remained two years, and was then transferred to Newcastle, and at the same time appointed a royal chaplain. He preached at least twice before the young king, and in October, 1552, was nominated to the Bishopric of Rochester, which he refused, declining also a benefice in the city of London. His own alleged reason for declining these preferments was that he thought the Anglican Church too favourable to Roman doctrine, and that he could not bring himself to kneel at the communion service. When Edward VI was succeeded in July, 1553, by his Catholic sister Mary, Knox continued his preaching for a time, and, as long as he remained in England, took care not to attack the new sovereign, for whom indeed he published a devout prayer. But early in 1554 he thought it prudent to take refuge in Dieppe, having meanwhile gone through a form of marriage with Marjorie, fifth daughter of Mrs. Bowes, a Calvinistic lady of his own age living in Newcastle, who had taken him as her spiritual adviser. From Dieppe he went to Geneva, partly to consult Calvin and other divines as to the lawfulness and expediency of resisting the rule of Mary Tudor in England and Mary of Guise, just appointed Regent, in Scotland; but he got little satisfaction from his advisers. In September, 1554, he accepted the post of chaplain to the English Protestants at Frankfort; but his Puritanism revolted against the use of King Edward's prayer-book and of the Anglican ceremonial. Schism arose in the congregation: Knox's opponents accused him of comparing the Emperor Charles to Nero in a published tract; he was ordered by the authorities to leave Frankfort, and returning to Geneva he ministered for a time to the English congregation there. In August, 1555, however, an urgent summons from his mother-in-law, Mrs. Bowes, caused him (as he says, "most contrarious to mine own judgement") to set out for Scotland and join his wife at Berwick. The new doctrines had made headway during his absence, and he found himself able to preach both in public and in the country houses of his supporters among the nobles and gentry. At a historic supper, given by his friend Erskine of Dun, it was formally decided that no "believer in the Evangel" could attend Mass; and the external separation of the party from Catholic practice, as well as doctrine, thus became complete. Knox, whose religion had now become entirely of the Old-Testament type, boldly proclaimed that adherents to the old faith were as truly idolaters as the Jews who sacrificed their children to Moloch, and that the extermination of idolaters was the clear duty of Christian princes and magistrates, and, failing them, of all individual "believers". In the letter, however, which he addressed about this time, on the advice of two of his noble supporters, to the queen regent, he assumed a somewhat different tone, appearing to petition only for toleration for his co-religionists. The letter contained at the same time violent abuse of Catholics and their beliefs, and threatened the regent with "torment and pain everlasting", if she did not act on his counsel. Mary seems to have treated the effusion with silent contempt, which Knox resented bitterly; but it was no doubt with the conviction that the time was not yet come for the triumph of his cause that he returned to his ministry, in Geneva (in the summer of 1556), sending his wife and her mother thither before him. Immediately on his departure he was cited to appear before the judges in Edinburgh, condemned and outlawed (in absence) as contumacious, and publicly burnt in effigy. Until the end of 1558 Knox remained at his post in Geneva, imbibing from Calvin all those rigid and autocratic ideas of church discipline which he was subsequently to introduce into Scotland -- England would have none of them -- and which were to be followed by over a century of unrest, persecution, and civil war. His two sons, Nathaniel and Eleazar, were born to him at Geneva, and he was joined there by Mrs. Locke and other female admirers from England and Scotland. Glencairn and other friends tried to persuade him in 1557 to come back, on the ground that persecution was diminishing, and he actually got as far as Dieppe on his journey home. Here his courage seems to have evaporated; and after ministering for a time to the Dieppe Protestants he went back to Geneva. During 1558 his pen was constantly busy: he published his letter to the queen regent with comments, and his famous "First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women", directed against Mary Tudor, Mary of Guise, Catherine de' Medici, and the youthful Mary Stuart, who had just married the French Dauphin. In other writings he reiterated his views that every Christian man (i.e. Protestant) had a right to slaughter every idolater (i.e. Catholic), if he got an opportunity. In a "Brief Exhortation to England" he insisted on the expulsion of all "dregs of Popery" and the introduction of the full "Kirk discipline" of Calvin and Geneva; and in his "Treatise on Predestination" he answered the "blasphemous cavillations" of an Anabaptist. The last-named work was not published until 1560. At length, in the first days of 1559 (Queen Mary of England having been succeeded by her sister Elizabeth a few weeks previously), Knox deemed it safe or opportune to leave Geneva for Scotland. He came to Dieppe, and, finding himself refused a safe-conduct through England, travelled by sea from Dieppe to Leith, arriving on 2 May. He had already heard by letter that the Scottish Protestants were no longer in any danger. The queen regent had indeed denounced and forbidden by proclamation attacks on priests, disturbance of Catholic services, invasion of churches by lay preachers, and religious tumults in general. But she was already in the grip of deadly illness, was meditating a retirement to France, and, notwithstanding certain advices from that country, had neither the power nor the intention of organizing movement to suppress the Protestant party in the realm, which was growing daily in power and influence. St. Giles's Church in Edinburgh had been the scene of a riot, followed by the flight of the Catholic clergy. The Lords of the Congregation were practically in arms against the regent; and Knox, who had never seemed to be the least anxious for lonely martyrdom, showed himself full of fight and courage with a stout body-guard at his back. Repairing to Dundee, he found the Protestants masters of the situation there, and going thence to Perth he preached a series of inflammatory sermons which culminated on 25 May, when the mob of that city -- angered, according to Knox, by the regent's having broken her pledge of toleration of the preachers (see however as to this, Lange, "Knox and the Reformation", Appendix A) -- sacked and partly demolished the parish church and several of the monasteries. A private letter from Knox describes these deeds of violence and outrage as done by the "brethren"; but in his "History" -- written partly for the followers of Calvin, who rebuked and condemned such works of pillage -- he ascribes them to the "rascal multitude", with no reference to their having been inspired by his own harangues or encouragement. The Protestants, entrenched in Perth (the only fortified town in Scotland), were now in open rebellion against the regent, who advanced with her troops from Stirling. A parley with the Congregation resulted in a treaty, by which the Protestants were to be allowed complete freedom of worship, and no French troops were to be quartered in the town. Knox meanwhile moved on with his friends to St. Andrews, and, in spite of Archbishop Hamilton's threat that if he dared to preach there he should be saluted with "a dozen of culverins, whereof the most part should light upon his nose", he did preach there, with the result that the St. Andrews mob repeated the work of sack and pillage which had followed his sermons at Perth. The wreck of other great abbeys, such as Scone and Lindores, followed; the Congregation seized Stirling and marched to Edinburgh, the regent meanwhile retreating to Dunbar. Knox accompanied them to the capital, where the same scenes of devastation of churches and monasteries were repeated, and on 7 July he was chosen minister of the Edinburgh Protestants. "We meane no tumult, no alteratioun of authoritie", he wrote to one of his female devotees in Geneva, "but onlie the reformation of religioun, and suppressing of idolatrie." Knox wrote these words while actually in full revolt against the "authoritie" of the regent of the realm, with the further professed desire to prevent the lawful queen, Mary Stuart, from enjoying her hereditary crown. On 22 July the regent and her advisers suddenly determined to march upon Edinburgh, before the Congregation could concentrate its scattered forces, and the Protestants consequently decided to come to terms, one of the articles of the treaty being that the capital was to be free to choose its own religion. The choice of the majority would certainly not have been in favour of the new doctrines, and this and other points of the agreement were openly violated by the Congregation, who left preachers in possession of the churches, and retired to Stirling. Conscious at this juncture of the immense advantage of gaining the support of England, now a Protestant kingdom, they determined to appeal to Elizabeth, and to send Knox on a mission to her powerful minister Cecil. Knox had already written to Cecil with a letter for the queen which was more or less an apology for his fiery pamphlet, the "Monstrous Blast". He sailed from Fife to Northumberland early in August, interviewed Croft, the governor of Berwick, and finally brought back to Stirling letters from Cecil more or less favourable to the demands of the Congregation for help, but indefinite in their terms. Further correspondence, however, elicited from Sadler, Elizabeth's agent, a gift of money, which encouraged the Scotch Protestants to believe that the Queen of England was on their side. Knox in a letter to Geneva, dated 2 September, describes his labours as envoy of the Congregation, and adds that ministers are now permanently appointed to eight of the chief towns in Scotland. A few weeks later, the regent being then at Leith, which she had strongly fortified and garrisoned with French troops, the Congregation took a bold step. Encouraged by English sympathy, and still more, perhaps, by the adhesion of the powerful Earl of Arran to their cause, they proceeded to depose -- or, as Knox thought it more prudent to describe the measure, to suspend from office -- the regent in the name of the young king and queen, whose great seal was counterfeited in order to give official weight to the proclamations announcing the step. Leith was vigorously besieged, but unsuccessfully, and Knox continued to appeal energetically to England for money, troops, and military commanders. The result was that Elizabeth sent a fleet to the Firth of Forth; the Congregation, thus reinforced, renewed the siege of Leith, and the regent took refuge in Edinburgh Castle, where she died on 10 June, 1560. Knox vilified this unfortunate princess to the end, but neither contemporary opinion nor the judgment of history has accepted his verdict, or his outrageous aspersions on her moral character. A month after her death the Treaty of Edinburgh was signed by representatives of England and France, providing for the withdrawal from Scotland of the French and English troops. The Congregation held a solemn thanksgiving service at St. Giles's Church, Knox of course taking the leading part, and profiting by the occasion to prescribe from the pulpit the course which the Protestant leaders were bound to follow to secure the triumph of their cause. That triumph was indeed now imminent. Parliament met on 1 August, Knox preaching daily to crowded audiences "speciall and vehement" harangues on the need of rebuilding the temple, in other words establishing the Protestant religion. The spirit of the assembly -- at which, by the way, the sovereign was not represented, and which was consequently not really a parliament at all -- was never in doubt. The new Confession of Faith, drawn up by Knox and his friends, was adopted word for word; the authority of the pope was abolished; the celebration of Mass was forbidden -- "under certain penalties", as one of Knox's biographers mildly remarks, the penalty for the third offence being in fact death. The formality of praying the young king and queen to ratify these enactments was gone through; but Knox boldly says that such ratification was unnecessary -- a mere "glorious vane ceremony". The Catholic Church of Scotland was extinct, as far as human power could extinguish it, and the Protestant religion officially established. Parliament rose on 25 August, having commissioned Knox and three other ministers to draw up the plan of church-government, known as the "First Book of Discipline", which was ready by the date (20 December, 1560) of the first meeting of the newly constituted "General Assembly" of the Kirk, of which Knox was of course the most prominent member. The "Book of Discipline" was founded on the code of various Protestant bodies, more especially on the Ordonnances of Geneva and on the formularies of the German Church founded in London in 1550, both very familiar to Knox and both thoroughly Calvinistic in spirit. The opening words are that all doctrine contrary to the new evangel must be suppressed as "damnable to man's salvation"; and it is ordained that every home of the "ancient superstition" must be cleared out of the land. The several districts of Scotland were to be under the spiritual charge of officials known as superintendents, until such time as ministers were forthcoming for each parish; and there was provision for a comprehensive scheme of national education, elementary, secondary, and university. This plan, for which it has been customary to give all the credit to Protestantism, was devised on lines already laid down by the ancient Church; but as a matter of fact it was never carried into effect. Nor were the provisions for the diversion of the wealth of the old Church to national purposes any more effectual. Many of the Protestant nobles signed the book, but they had no idea of giving up their own share of the ecclesiastical plunder. "Converted in matter of doctrine", says Lang, "in conduct they were the most avaricious, bloody, and treacherous of men." Such as they were, they were the pillars of the new Church and the new religion. In December, 1560, died the young King Francis II of France, "husband to our Jezebel", as he is styled by Knox, who lost his own wife, Marjorie Bowes, about the same time. The whole situation in Scotland was now changed. The Catholic earls sent Bishop John Lesley to invite the widowed queen to land in the Catholic north; but she distrusted them, not without reason, and confided rather in her Protestant half-brother, Lord James Stewart, who promised that she should be allowed the private celebration of Mass in Scotland. Mary landed at Leith on 19 August, 1561, and on the following Sunday Mass was said in her chapel at Holyrood. This was followed by protests and riots; Knox publicly declared that "one mass was more fearful to him than 10,000 armed men", and in an interview with the queen inveighed against "that Roman antichrist", denounced the Catholic Church as a harlot, compared himself to Paul and Queen Mary to Nero, and indulged in much other abuse which he reports copiously in his "History" (suppressing most of Mary's replies) and calls "reasoning". The question of the queen's privilege to have her own Catholic services became a burning one: Lord James (now created Earl of Moray), Morton, Marischal, and other leading Protestants were on her side, Knox and most of the preachers on the other. It was suggested to refer the question to Calvin; but the lords' view was meanwhile accepted, and Mary kept the Feast of All Saints with what Knox calls "mischievous solemnity". He continued his tirades against the queen both privately and from the pulit, sometimes reducing her to tears by his violence. In the spring of 1562 he held a public controversy on the doctrine of the Mass with Abbot Quintin Kennedy, a Benedictine of Crossraguel; and he also had a controversial correspondence with an able Catholic apologist, Ninian Winzet of Linlithgow. Some months later Knox found himself in trouble for having summoned the "brethren" from all parts of Scotland to Edinburgh to defend -- apparently by violence, if necessary -- one Cranstoun, who was to be tried for brawling in the chapel-royal. Knox's letter was interpreted by the council as treasonable, but when brought to trial he was judged to have done nothing more than his duty in summoning the brethren in time of danger. Soon after this -- in March, 1564 -- general surprise seems to have been caused by the second marriage of Knox, his bride being a girl of sixteen, Margaret Stewart, daughter of Lord Ochiltree. He makes no mention of the fact himself in his "History". The Lords of the Congregation, in the summer of this year, publicly censured Knox for his violence in speech and demeanour against the queen, but Knox retorted with his usual references to Ahab and Jezebel, and maintained that idolaters must "die the death", and that the executioners must be the "people of God". The Lords in vain cited the opinions of Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, and other Continental Protestants as entirely opposed to Knox's views, and requested him to write and ascertain their judgment on the questions at issue. Knox flatly refused to write to "Mr. Calvin and the learned of other Kirks", and, as he always produced Scriptural texts to back up his opinions, the Lords were silenced if not convinced. A year later he was again in conflict with the council in consequence of a vehement attack he had made from the pulpit on Mary and the young king-consort, Darnley, in their presence, about a month after their marriage. He was formally suspended from preaching, but he seems to have disregarded the prohibition, remarking that if the Church (not the council) commanded him to abstain he would obey "so far as the Word of God would permit"; in other words, he would obey even the Church only so far as he himself thought fit. This particular sermon, which he printed with a preface, is the only extant specimen of his public eloquence; it is extremely long and dull to read, whatever may have been its effect when delivered. The situation in Scotland was now, from the point of view of Knox and his friends, a gloomy one. Moray and the other lords who had protested against Mary's marriage to Darnley were now in exile; all hope of the queen's conversion to Protestantism was at an end; and her Catholic secretary Rizzio was high in her confidence, indeed her chief adviser. Whether Knox was actually privy to the foul murder of Rizzio before the queen's eyes on 9 March, 1566, is a matter of doubt; but his own statement that "the act was most just and worthy of all praise" shows that his subsequent approval was beyond any doubt whatever. He thought it well at this juncture to leave Edinburgh for a time, and retired to his friends in Ayrshire, where he busied himself with the writing of his "History". In December he received from the General Assembly leave of absence from Scotland for six months, so that he was not a witness of the events of the first half of 1567, which included the murder of Darnley, the abduction of Mary by Bothwell, and her marriage to him on 15 May, 1567. The queen was already, after the disaster of Carberry Hill, a prisoner at Lochleven, when Knox re-appeared at Edinburgh and at once resumed, in spite of the disuasion of Throgmorton, the English Ambassador, his pulpit invectives against the sovereign, and his denunciations of the national alliance with France. On 29 July Knox went to Stirling to preach at the coronation of the young king, James VI, when he protested against the rite of unction as a relic of popery. The appointment of Moray to the regency brought him again into close association with Knox, who, however, after the fall of the queen, his great antagonist, never seems to have regained his former prominence in the country. "I live as a man already dead from all civil affairs", he wrote a little later to Moray's agent in England. "Foolish Scotland", he said on another occasion, "hath disobeyed God by sparing the queen", and he seemed constantly harassed and haunted by a dread of her restoration. Her escape from Lochleven apeared to justify his worst fears, but a fortnight later she was hopelessly defeated at Langside, and was a fugitive to England. Henceforth Knox's declining forces were devoted to his ministerial work, which he seemst to have carried on with many intervals of weariness and depression. "With his one foot in the grave", as he describes himself, the assassination of Moray in January, 1569, was a great blow to him. He preached the Regent's funeral sermon in St. Giles's Church and, according to one of his admirers, "moved three thousand persons to shed tears for the loss of such a good and godlie governor". The shock of this event doubtless affected his health, and he was struck by apoplexy in the autumn, and never entirely recovered. Knox continued to preach in his church in Edinburgh, but with the nobles, Protestant as well as Catholic, many of them his own former friends, in league for the queen's restoration, he was no longer at home or at ease in the capital; and in the spring of 1571 he retired to St. Andrews, where he remained for fifteen months, continuing to write, and preaching occasionally, notwithstanding his infirmities, with his old fire and vehemence. In August, 1572, Mary's adherents having left Edinburgh, Knox was persuaded to return thither. The news of the massacre of St. Bartholomew had just reached Scotland, and Knox thundered from his pulpit (to which he had almost to be carried), in the presence of the French ambassador, denunciations of "that cruel murderer and false traitor, the King of France". On 9 November he took part in the induction-services of Mr. Lawson as minister of St. Giles's in his place; and fifteen days later, on 24 November, 1572, he died in his house at Edinburgh. Contemporary narratives of his last illness and death (by Richard Bannatyne and Thomas Smeton) are printed by Laing in his edition of Knox's "Works" (vol. VI). At his burial, two days later, the Regent Morton uttered the well-known words, "Here lieth a man who in his life never feared the face of man." The facts of his life perhaps hardly justify these laudatory words. "Knox", says his learned and sympathetic biographer and editor, Dr. Laing, "cannot be said to have possessed the impetuous and heroic boldness of a Luther....On more than one occasion he displayed a timidity or shrinking from danger scarcely to have been expected from one who boasted of his willingness to suffer death in his master's cause." On his own showing he was courageous enough in his personal encounters with his unfortunate queen; but, according to another of his Protestant biographers, "he was most valiant when he had armed men at his back, and the popular idea of his personal courage, said to have been expressed by the Regent Morton, is entirely erroneous". As to Knox's religion, it is sufficient to say, without questioning the sincerity of his convictions, that the reaction from the Catholicism of his youth seems to have landed him outside the pale of Christianity altogether. Permeated with the spirit of the Old Testament and with the gloomy austerity of the ancient prophets, he displays neither in his voluminous writings nor in the record of his public acts the slightest recognition of the teachings of the Gospel, or of the gentle, mild, and forgiving character of the Christian dispensation. Genial, amiable, and kind-hearted he may have been in private life, though it is difficult to see from what premises his panegyrists deduce his possession of those qualities; but the ferocity and unrestrained violence of his public utterances stand out, even in the rude and lawless age in which he lived, as surpassing almost everything recorded of his contemporaries, even those most closely in sympathy with his political and ecclesiastical views. It is to his credit that he died, as he had lived, a poor man, and that he never enriched himself with the spoils of the Church which he had abandoned -- a trait in which he contrasts singularly with the Protestant lords and lairds who were his friends and adherents. Of his ability and his power of influencing those among whom he lived and laboured, there is no room to doubt. His gifts as a speaker and a preacher we have to take on the evidence of his contemporaries, whose testimony there is no need to question; of his command of his native tongue we have abundant proof in his writings, in particular in his "History", by far the most remarkable specimen of the vernacular Scots of the sixteenth century which has come down to us. The best edition of it is in his collected "Works", edited by David Laing in six volumes. The best-known likeness of Knox (of whom no contemporary portrait exists) is the woodcut of him in Beza's "Icones", published at Geneva in 1580, and often since reproduced. Lord Torphichen possesses a portrait of him painted a century later, probably from Beza's. The so-called Somerville portrait, maintained by Carlyle to be the only authentic likeness of Knox, apparently represents a divine of the seventeenth century. Knox was survived by his widow, who married again, and by two sons of his first marriage (who both died childless) and three daughters of his second. Descendants of his youngest daughter still exist. Laing, Works of John Knox, with introductory and chronological notes (6 vols., Edinburgh, 1895); Mc Crie, Life of Knox (2 vols., Edinburgh, 1813); Hume Brown, John Knox (2 vols., London, 1845); Lang, John Knox and the Reformation (London, 1905); Miller, John Knox, the Hero of the Scottish Reformation (London, 1905); Gosse, Life and Times of John Knox (London, 1888); Rogers, Genealogical Memoirs of John Knox (Grampian Club, 1879); Taylor Innes, John Knox (Famous Scots Series, Edinburgh, 1896); Wilmot, John Knox and the Scottish Reformation (Glasgow, Catholic Truth Society, s. d.); Mackay in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v. (London, 1892); Carlyle, Essay on the Portaits of John Knox in Collected Works (London, 1885); Brown, The Life Story of John Knox (London, 1905). D.O. Hunter-Blair Franz Quirin von Kober Franz Quirin von Kober German canonist and pedagogist, b. of simple countryfolk on 6 March, 1821, at Warthausen, Biberach, Würtemberg; d. at Tübingen, 25 January, 1897. He first attended the Latin school in the neighbouring town of Biberach, and subsequently, in accordance with the course prescribed for Catholic theologians of the Diocese of Rottenburg, entered the preparatory seminary at Ethigen on the Danube. From 1840 to 1844 he pursued his studies in the seminary (Wilhelmsstift) of Tubingen, and on 4 September, 1845, was ordained priest in Rottenberg. After only half a year's activity in the cure of souls at Ulm, Franz Kober became a tutor in seminary at Tubingen, and lectured on philology and the Pautine Epistles. From 1848 he taught canon law, to counteract the evil influence of the Josephinist professor Warnkonig, of the faculty of law, on which Catholic theological students even in Würtemberg had depended for the training in canon law according to a custom existing in Austria since Joseph II. On 28 January, 1851, Kober became professor extraordinary in the faculty of Catholic theology, teaching pedagogy, didactics, and the Pauline Epistles. He was appointed professor ordinary of canon law and pedagogy on 8 Septernber, 1857, having been professor extraordinary since 19 April, 1853. As such he wrote with good historico-legal method some excellent works: "Der Kirchenbann" (1857); "Die Suspension der Kirchendiener" (1862); "Die Deposition und Degradation" (1867). He also treated various ecclesiastico-criminal subjects ("Das Interdikt"; "Die körperliche Züchtigung als kirchliches Strafmittel gegen Kleriker und Mönche", "Die Gefangnisstrafe gegen Kleriker und Mönche"; "Die Geldstrafen im Kirchenrecht") in a series of essays, the majority being lengthy treatises, published in the "Archiv fur katholisches Kirchenrecht" and especially in the "Theologische Quartalschrift" of Tubingen. In the last-named periodical appeared other essays on canon law ("Der Ursprung und die rechtliche Stellung der Generalvikare"; "Der Einfluss der Kirche und ihrer Gesetzgebung auf Gesittung, Humanität und Zivilisation", "Medizin und Kirchenrecht"; "Die Residenz-pflicht der Kirehendiener bei feindlichen Verfolgungen und ansteckenden Krankheiten") and many book-reviews. Kober was also a frequent contributor to the first and second edition of the Freiburg "Kirchenlexikon". SÄGMÜLLER, Theolog. Quartalschr. LXXX (1897), 569 sqq. JOHANNES BAPTIST SÄGMÜLLER Anthony Koberger Anthony Koberger (KOBURGER, COBERGER). German printer, publisher, and bookseller, b. about 1445; d. at Nuremberg, 3 October, 1513. He was descended from an old family of skilful artisans who had belonged to the town council as early as 1350, and was a goldsmith before he became a printer. After the completion of the first dated volume (Alcinous, 24 Nov., 1472), Koberger's printing-house quickly developed an activity reaching out in all dlrections, and about 200 works appeared before the year 1500, mostly in folio form and some in bindings. In 1480 it had already outstripped Schöffer of Mainz, and, until practically the end of the fifteenth century, was the most important printing-house in the world. From a chance statement we learn that Koberger used twenty-four presses a day for his printing and employed over a hundred workmen. His publications demonstrate the generous plan on which his work was done. The paper will still outlast centuries. The type is almost entirely cut in Gothic form, is strong and carefully designed, and, in spite of its narrowness, gives a good, readable round script, which was later very widely used. An Antiqua type, resembling the Venetian, first appeared in 1492. The graceful Bible type of 1483, which is a facsimile of the writing used in fifteenth-century documents, deserves special mentions. The beauty of the letterpress is greatly enhanced by tasteful arrangement of the sentences, often a difficult matter (for example in "Canon Law", 1489-83; "Boethius", 1486). Koberger took no less pains to have his print clear and black, using a newly-cast fount, as well as to have the books lucidly subdivided and decorated by the rubricator and illuminator. The employment of woodcuts in the Bible of 1483, which was embellished with 109 vignettes, marks a new epoch in the history of printing, and opened the way for such works as Schedel's "Weltchronik" (1493), a book which, with its 2000 woodcuts from the drawings of the artists Wolgemut and Pleldenwurf, was almost too profusely decorated. This latter, the greatest illustrated work of the century, greatly influenced the development of the woodcut, and especially the work of Dürer, who was drawn towards Koberger, not only as the godfather of the latter, but also by bonds of personal friendship. Towards the end of the century, the business of the printing-house greatly diminished, the last proof appearing in 1504. Publication by contract occupied a prominent place in Koberger's enterprises; this, together with the war, pestilence, and other disturbances, was doubtlessly the chief cause of the dissolution of the printing-house. For some years previously he had had printing done for him at Basle and Strasburg, and from 1510 to 1525 the presses of Nuremberg, Hagenau, Strasburg, Basle, Paris and Lyons were busily engaged with his work. After Anthony Koberger's death (1513), his cousin Hans Koberger, some ten years his junior took charge of the business as trustee for Anthony's children. He, too, was a business man of great ability and under Anthony's supervision had from the year 1480 displayed great business activity, especially in foreign countries. He took charge of the business trader the most difficult of partnership relations until the children were of age. The eldest son Anthony, a way-ward youth, died in 1532; the second, Hans the younger, was actively engaged in the business of the house until his death in 1552. The publishing-house and the retail book trade were gradually given up before 1532, but the hereditary occupation of goldsmith and jeweller, which Anthony had never abandoned still for a long period engaged the attentions of the family. Thus, when the family became extinct in 1629, it still possessed extensive landed property. As a printer, Koberger had built up a wholesale trade such as was seldom commanded before the discovery of the steam press. Yet he is more renowned as the founder of a wholesale publishing-house, handling all the scientific literature of his time, and dominating the book trade of the world. On the same large scale this "king of booksellers" had developed into a valuable asset of his house an honourable hawking trade. The scholarly Latin literature of the Middle Ages of all tendencies formed the main basis of his world-wide commerce. Of great merit are his special editions of the classical literature of the Fathers of the Church. His editions of the Bible are also very important; before the year 1500 fifteen different editions appeared, while the whole output of the house exceeded thirty folio editions, including some in binding. The Kobergers participated for a short time the sale of the Reformation literature, and had some dealings with Luther in 1525. But further than this they took no part in the popular agitation. They remained true to the old principles of their world-renowned house, and devoted themselves to the sale of scientific works. HASE, Die Koberger (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1885). HEINRICH WILHELM WALLAU Andreas Kobler Andreas Kobler An historian, b. at Muhldorf in Bavaria, 22 June, 1816; d. at Klagenfurt, 15 November, 1892. He made his preliminary studies at Landshut, and studied theology at Munich, where Mohler and Gorres appear to have awakened in the young theologian his preference for the study of history. After his ordination (1840) he was a curate on the mission for four years, after which he entered the novitiate of the Society of Jesus at Graz. Later he was sent to America on account of the disturbances of 1848 in his own country, and was attached to the New York mission for five years, being occupied mostly as professor of mathematics. Returning to Europe, he taught at Presburg until 1857, where he was sent to Innbruck as professor of church history. He held this chair for fourteen years, and was rector of the college of Innsbruck from 1861 to 1866. In 1871 he became once more professor of mathematics at Linz, and for two years rector of the college there. Returning then to lnnsbruck, he dedicated nine years to literary work, was appointed superior (1887) of the seminary at Klagenfurt, where he was still vigorous and active in the pulpit when death overtook him in his seventy-sixth year. His literary works are for the most part on historical subjects. Besides contributions to periodicals, Kobler published: "Florian Bauke, ein Jesuit in Paraguay" (1870); "Die Aufhebung der Gesellschaft Jesu" (1873); "Eine innere Klosterschule im IX. Jahrhtmdert" (1876); "Die Märtyrer und Bekenner der Gesellschaft Jesu in England während der Jahre 1550-1681" (1886); "De Maistre, fünf Briefe über den öffentlichen Unterricht in Russland" (from the French); "Studien über die Klöster des Mittelalters" (from the English, 1867); "Katholisches Leben im Mittelalter" (from Kenelm Digby's "Mores Catholici", 1887-9) . BULOW, 100 Lebensbilder aus der osterr.-ungar. Provinz der Gesellshaft Jesu (Vienna, 1902); HOFMANN, Das Nikolaiheus in Innsbruck einst und jetzt (Innsbruck, 1908). N. SCHEID Jan Kochanowski Jan Kochanowski Born at Sycyna, 1530, died at Lublin, 22 August, 1584. He was inscribed in 1544 as a student in Crakow University but left on account of the plague. We find him studying at Padua in 1552 under the best instructors. There he wrote many of his Latin elegies in imitation of Tibullus and Propertius, these early works have little value. Thence he travelled to France, where he lived till his mother's death in 1557, writing more and better Latin poetry. On his return to Poland he received his inheritance of Czarnolas, and was for some time a courtier, first of some great lords, then at the Royal Court. During this period he produced, together with his best Latin elegies, his Polish songs and Fraszki (trifles). The former are the first really inspired poetry that appeared in Poland. The Fraszki, comical and witty but sometimes coarse, are very instructive, showing what social life was at that time. His "Zgoda" (Concord) and the "Satyr" are political in subject. Weary at last of court life, he retired to his estate. There he wrote "Proporzec" (The Standard) and "Wrozhi" (Omens -- in prose). This latter was a pamphlet warning Poles against future dangers and dissensions. He began his metrical translation of the Psalms, wrote more lyrics in Polish and Latin, and the poems "Dziewoslab" and "Sobotka" (description of certain old Polish customs). He is believed to have married about 1574. After Henry of Valois's flight from Poland, Kochanowski wrote two short Latin poems: the ode, "In Conventu Stesicensi", and "Gallo Crocitanti", the latter being a reply to an attack on Poland by the French poet, Philip Desportes. King Bathori was Kochanowski's hero, and most of his verses henceforth are full of political allusions to his reign. His "Odprawaposlow" (The Envoys Dismissed), dramatic in form, urged the nobles to fight Russia. In 1579 his "Psalter" was complete, written in a most beautiful style, and in 1580 appeared his last and best work, the "Treny" (Lamentations), after his little daughter's death. Kochanowski is the first true poet of his nation in point of time, and first, too in excellence until Mickiewicz. The representative of the Polish chivalry and civilization of his period for his fellow-countrymen he is truly great, having created poetry and made it a gift to his nation -- which none but the greatest could do. In religion though influenced by Protestantism and the humanistic trend, he never ceased to be a Catholic, even when attacking the morals of priests and popes. He distinctly declares that disunion in religion would imperil the country, and bade innovators "go to Trent". GACKI, O Rodzinie Jan Kochanoloski (of the family of J.K.) (Warsaw, 1869); PEZYBOROWSKI, Zycie J.K. (life of J.K.) (Warsaw, 1857); MEHRING, Zyciorys J.K. (sketch of J.K.'s life) (Warsaw, 1900): PLEENKIEWICZ, Life of J.K. in complete edition of works, IV (Warsaw, 1897); LONVENFELD, Lafeinische Dichtungen des J.K. (Warsaw, 1897); TARNOWSKI, Jan Kochanotoski (Krakow, 1885). S. TARNOWSKI Vespasian Kochowski Vespasian Kochowski Born at Sandomir?, 1633; died at Krakow, 1699. He received his education at the Jesuit College, Sandomir, served in the army, and then spent the rest of his life on his estate. Sobieski valued him so highly as an historian that he took him on his famous expedition to Vienna, the literary result of which was the "Commentarius de bello adversus Turcas". This and his other Latin chronicles are the best of his time and country. The collection of his short poems, entitled "Busy Idleness", contains many beautiful verses, and many more that are curious: the subjects range from religion to very coarse fun. There are also love poems, pleasing in their simplicity and nobility of sentiment; there are beautiful lamentations on his brother's death; and there are satirical poems full of wit and humour. Of all later poets he reminds us most of Kochanowski, though the resemblance is but distant. But he is far more than Kochanowski a writer of what may be called historical poetry, and his pieces in this style are perhaps the finest he has written. From the death of Wladislaw IV till the election of Sobieski, every event of note is celebrated by a separate poem. What strikes one most is the religiously patriotic tone of his poetry. His "Psalmody", a work of great and genial originality, is distinguished by this tone. Some psalms are merely pious; but in others his prayer falls into a description of the war with the Turks, and mingles therewith such outbursts of gratitude to God for victory, that one comes to feel personally more attached to this poet than to others more famous than he was. The Biblical form adapted to secular things constitutes a point of resemblance between Kochowski's poetry and the creations of several modern poets (Mickiewicz's "Book of the Pilgrimage"; Slowacki's "Anhelli"). "Vienna saved by the Act of God" has fine passages and even a certain epic talent, but is marred by want of artistic finish, proportion, and harmony. The same may be said of "The Stone of Testimony", a poem written to defend Lubomirski. His purely religious poems, "Christ Suffering" and the "Virgin's Garden" are distinctly inferior. CZUBEK, Life of Vesp. Z. Kochowa Kochowski in Transactions of the Krakow Acad. Of Sciences, philolog. dept., XXXII; TARNOWSKI, V. Kochowski na tle wsp lczesnem (Kochowski from a contemporary standpoint) (Lemberg, 1908). S. TARNOWSKI Ignaz Kogler Ignaz Kögler (Called LAI in Chinese). Along with Father Adam Schall (q.v.) the most important of the fifty German Jesuits who between 1650 and 1750 worked in the old Chinese missions. Born 11 May, 1680, at Landsberg in Bavaria; died at Peking, 30 March, 1746. He entered the Society of Jesus on 4 Oct., 1696, and taught mathematics and Hebrew from 1712 to 1714 in the University of Ingolstadt [cf. Mederer, "Annal. acad. Ingolstadt.", III, 130 sq.; Romstöck, "Die Jesuitennullen Prantl's" (Eichstätt, 1898), 178-84], and went to China in 1715. On account of his extraordinary and wide learning he enjoyed great consideration at the imperial court, and held the office of president of the mathematical astronomical tribunal for thirty years. He was a mandarin of the second class, and was even from 1731 a member of the supreme court of equity (Li-pu), a position which had never before been held by a foreigner ("Welt-Bott", No. 676). In accepting these positions, however, he refused the stipends attached to them. Father August von Hallerstein, his co-operator and successor, considers him "one of the most cultivated minds that ever came into these countries" (ibid., No. 587). Kögler carried on a brisk scientific correspondence with a number of European scholars, such as Eusebius Amort and T. S. Bayer, the Orientalist, sending to the lastnamed many valuable contributions for his "Museum Sinicum" (St. Petersburg, 1730) (cf. "Miscellanea Berolinensia", 1737, pp. 185, 189 sqq.; Gottfr. von Murr, "Journal", VII, 240 sqq.; IX, 81 sq.; "Neues Journal", I, 147 sqq.; II, 303, sqq.). He was twice visitor of the mission, and provincial of the Chinese and Japanese province, and, during the persecution which began under Emperor Yung Cheng, he was the main support of the suffering mission, which, through his influence at court, he so cleverly and bravely protected, and which so deeply deplored his death. Manuscript Letters in the Vienna State Archives, Geistl. Angelegenheiten No. 419 IV; Correspondence with Amort and numerous other letters, part in Munich State Library, MSS lat., t. I, p. 1 no. 1396-1407; part in Reichs-Archiv, Jesuitica in genere, NN. 278-81. Printed letters in We1t-Bott, nn. 157, 162, 190, 196, 198, 202, 228, 575, 578, 669; LIPOWSKY, Geschichte der Jesuiten in Bayern (Munich, 1816), App. nn. 3 and 4; VON LAIMBECKHOVEN, Reise-Beschreibung (Vienna, 1740), 47. The catalogue of Kögler's astronomical, mathematical, and historical writings is given in SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. des crivains de 1a c. de J. For biographical information consult PLATZWEG, Lebensbilder der deutschen Jesuiten (Paderborn, 1882), 272; VON RICHTHOFEN, China, I (Berlin, 1877), 688; Welt-Bott passim; HUONDER Deutsche Jesuitenmission re des 17. u. 18. Jahrh. (Freiburg im Br., 1899), 189. A. HUONDER Antony Kohlmann Antony Kohlmann Educator and missionary, b. 13 July, 1771, at Kaiserberg, Alsace; d. at Rome, 11 April, 1836. He is to be ranked among the lights of the restored Society of Jesus, and among its most distinguished members in America, where he spent nearly a quarter of a century of his laborious life. At an early age he was compelled by the troubles of the French Revolution to go to live in Switzerland, where at the college of Fribourg he completed his theological studies and was ordained priest. Soon after, in 1796, he joined the Congregation of the Fathers of the Sacred Heart. With them he laboured zealously for two years in Austria and Italy as a military chaplain. From Italy he was sent to Dillingen in Bavaria,, as director of an ecclesiastical seminary, then to Berlin, and next to Amsterdam to direct a college established by the Fathers of the Faith of Jesus, with whom the Congregation of the Sacred Heart had united (11 April, 1799). The Society of Jesus in Russia having been recognized (1801) by Pope Pius VII, Father Kohlmann joined it and entered the novitiate at Dunébourg on 21 June, 1803. A year later, in response to a call for additional workers in the United States, he was sent to Georgetown, D.C., where he was made assistant to the master of novices, and went on missionary tours to the several German congregations in Pennsylvania and Maryland. Affairs in the Church in New York having gone badly, Bishop Carroll picked him out as the person best qualified to introduce the needed reforms and to restore order, and with his fellow Jesuits, Benedict Fenwick and four scholastics, James Wallace, Michael White, James Redmond, and Adam Marshall, he took charge there in October, 1808. It was a time of great commercial depression in the city owing to the results of the Embargo Act of 22 December, 1807. The Catholic population, he states in a letter written on 8 November, 1808, consisted "of Irish, some hundreds of French and as many Germans; in all according to the common estimation of 14,000 souls". Such progress was made under his direction that the cornerstone of a new church, old St. Patrick's Cathedral, the second church erected in New York City, was laid on 8 June, 1809. He started a classical school called the New York Literary Institution, which he carried on successfully for several years in what was then a suburban village but is now the site of St. Patrick's Cathedral on Fifth Avenue. In April, 1812, he also started a school for girls in the same neighbourhood, in charge of Ursuline nuns who came at his instance for that purpose from their convent at Cork, Ireland. About the same time Father Kohlmann became the central figure in a lawsuit that excited national interest. He had been instrumental in having stolen goods restored to a man, who demanded in court that the priest should reveal from whom he had received them. Father Kohlmann refused to do this, on the ground that his information had been received under the seal of confession. The case was taken before the Court of General Sessions, where after a trial the decision rendered by De Witt Clinton was given in his favour. Its principle was later embodied in the State law passed on 10 December, 1828, which enacted that "No minister of the Gospel or priest of any denomination whatsoever shall be allowed to disclose any confession made to him in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the rules or practices of such denomination." To a report of the case when published Father Kohlmann added an exposition of the teachings of the Church on the Sacrament of Penance. (Sampson, "The Catholic Question in America", appendix, New York, 1813.) The book excited a long and vigorous controversy with a number of Protestant ministers, and was followed in 1821 by another learned work, "Unitarianism, Theologically and Philosophically considered", in which Father Kohlmann replied to the assertions of Dr. Jared Sparks and other Unitarian leaders. New York had no bishop as yet, the first appointed having died in Italy before he reached his see, and Father Kohlmann governed as administrator for several years. In 1815, expecting the early arrival of the second bishop (Connolly), he returned to the college of his order at Georgetown, D. C., as master of novices, and in 1817 became superior. In 1824, when Leo XII restored the Gregorian University to the direction of the Society of Jesus, Father Kohlmann was summoned to Rome to take the chair of theology, which he filled for five years. One of his pupils then was the subsequent Pope Leo XIII; another became later Archbishop of Dublin, and the first Irish cardinal (Paul Cullen). Leo XII and Gregory XVI both held Father Kohlmann in the highest esteem, and had him attached as consultor to the staffs of the College of Cardinals and several of the important Congregations, including that of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, of Bishops and Regulars, and of the Inquisition. The last part of his life he spent as a confessor in the church of the Gesù, where during the Lenten season of 1836 he overtaxed himself and brought on an attack of pneumonia that ended his career. SHEA, The Catholic Church in the U. S. (New York 1856); BAYLEY, A Brief Sketch of the Early History of the Catholic Church in the Island of N. Y. (New York. 1870); FINOTTI, Bibliog. Cath. Am. (New York, 1872); FARLEY, History of St. Patrick's Cathedral (New York 1908); U. S. Cath. Hist. Soc., Hist. Records and Studies, I (New York, 1899), pt. i; The Catholic Family Almanac (New York, 1872). THOMAS F. MEEHAN Marian Wolfgang Koller Marian Wolfgang Koller Scientist and educator, b. at Feistritz in Carniola, Austria, 31 October, 1792; d. of cholera at Vienna, 19 September, 1866. His education was very thorough; after studying the rudiments at Feistritz he went to Laibach, where he spent nine years (1802-11) in classical, philosophical, and scientific studies, and completed his school life by a course in higher mathematics at Vienna. From 1814 to 1816 he acted as private tutor in a family at Steinbach, and whilst here he was so attracted by the life and work of the Benedictines of Kremsm nster that he finally entered their novitiate on 5 October, 1816, taking the name Marian in place of his baptismal name of Wolfgang. He was ordained priest on 18 August, 1821, and after three years of very successful work in the parish of Sippachzell he was recalled to Kremsm nster to teach natural history and physics. In 1830 he was relieved of the professorship of natural history and appointed director of the astronomical observatory, and during the next seventeen years by his indefatigable labours not only preserved but increased the high repute of the observatory throughout Austria. He continued also to teach physics until 1839, when he was given general charge of the student body. His administrative abilities were so great as to attract the attention of the authorities at Vienna whither he was called in 1847. From this time on he was employed in high offices either in the University of Vienna or in the Department of Education, which was at that time undergoing a process of reconstruction. All matters pertaining to the Realschulen, and to the polytechnic, nautical, and astronomical institutions, were placed under his immediate care, and, as a mark of appreciation for his share in the thorough organization of the Realschulen, the emperor bestowed on him the Cross of the Order of Leopold on 27 May, 1859. In 1848 he was elected member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, and always took a very active part in its proceedings. He was also an active writer, and contributed to various scientific periodicals many articles on astronomy, physics and meteorology. To his high intellectual abilities was added the charm of a genial character, and he thus won not only the esteem but also the affection of those with whom he came into personal contact. His principal work is the "Berechnung der periodischen Naturerscheinungen", published in the "Wiener Denkschrift" (1850). FELLÖCKER, Gesch. der Sternwarte der Benedictiner-Abtei Kremsm nster (Linz, 1864-9), 247-98; WURZBACH, Biog. Lex. des Kaiserthums Oesterreich, XII (Vienna, 1864), 346-7. EDWARD C. PHILLIPS Stanislaus Konarski Stanislaus Konarski Born in 1700; died in 1773. This great reformer of Polish schools was a Piarist who, during a visit to Rome after his ordination, received there the first idea of his life's mission. Returning to Poland through France and Germany (whose systems of education he studied on his way), and at first unsuccessful in his plans, he set to compiling the "Volumina Legum", the first volume appearing in 1732. About the end of Augustus II's reign, and during the interregnum which followed, he wrote much in favour of Stanislaus Leszczynski, and, subsequently travelling in the Netherlands and in France, stayed for a time at the exiled king's court. Here he became convinced that reform in politics must be preceded by reform in education, and, returning home in 1738, he attempted to change the subject-matter and methods of education in Poland. Good school-books and teachers were necessary; the latter he tried to train himself as "Magister novitiorum" at Rzeszow college, and then sent them either to be tutors of young noblemen or to study abroad at his own cost. In 1740 he opened a collegium nobilium at Warsaw, a most important experiment. In the first year he had but one pupil, in the second there were more than ten, while in the third he had not room for all who came. The teachers he had instructed now began to help him in writing school-books, etc. In 1754 he built a college and obtained from Benedict XIV a change in the rule of the order: henceforth every Piarist was to be a teacher. There were soon as many schools as Piarist convents, and education was no longer a privilege of the nobility alone. The classics, history and geography, natural science, philosophy, Roman and Polish law, were taught, together with the modern languages; and for the first time the Polish tongue was taught as a separate subject. Mental, rather than purely mnemonic, work was encouraged; moral education was insisted upon; emulation succeeded to fear; self-sacrifice, honour, patriotism were inculcated as the duties of a citizen. Konarski had found theatricals in use; he maintained the custom, thinking these performances might become very instructive, had Racine and Corneille performed, and himself wrote a tragedy, "Epaminondas". He also introduced discussions and debating societies for advanced pupils. Together with this, he laboured to reform style in Poland, wrote "De emendandis eloquenti vitiis", and attacked the bad taste prevalent at the time. The Piarist schools succeeded so well that all others were obliged to follow his reform. Konarski was subjected to envious attacks, and the Papal nuncio, Durini, suspected his orthodoxy. He cleared himself by his book, "De religione honestorum hominum". Having effected a complete reformation in education, he returned to politics. From 1760 to 1763 appeared his "Effective Way of Deliberating", which proved that the right of one member to veto the proceedings of the whole Diet had never been a law, but an evil custom, and showed from the procedure of other parliaments that a working majority was sufficient. The impression made by this work was immense, and even the most bigoted partisans of the veto were convinced. Thenceforward this custom was doomed-in itself a great step forward and a preliminary to the constitution of the Third of May. But the book contains many other valuable ideas. His style is clear, calm, eloquent, rarely passionate. He did much for the Piarist publications (v.g. the "Diplomatic Codex"), and the "Volumina Legum" is his work. A great admirer of French civilization and taste -- which, however, were not without danger in their tendencies, as was subsequently seen -- he was also the last Latin writer in Poland; his "Opera Lyrica" (1767) are perfect in style and diction. King Stanislaus Augustus caused a medal to be struck in his honour, with the well-merited inscription, "Sapere auso". S. TARNOWSKI Joseph Konig Joseph König Theologian and exegete, born at Hausen on the Aach, District of Hegau, Grand Duchy of Baden, 7 Sept., 1819; died at Freigburg im Breisgau, 22 June, 1900. He was ordained to the priesthood in 1845. In 1847 König was privatdozent, in 1854 extraordinary, and from 1857 to 1894 ordinary, professor of Old Testament literature and exegesis at the University of Freiburg. On the expiration of this term he resigned his professorship. König's exegetical writings include: "Die Unsterblichkeitsidee im Buche Job" (1855); "Die Theologie der Psalmen" (1857), regarded by many as his ablest work; "Das alttest. Königtum" (programme, 1863); "Alter u. Entstehung des Pentateuchs" (pro-rectoral discourse, 1884). The editorship of the "Freiburger Diözesan-Archiv" was entrusted to K nig, and his period of office witnessed many notable contributions to the history of the great abbeys and civilization centres of Reichenau, St. Gall, and Fulda, several of which were from his own pen. He was highly commended for research work in diocesan history, but it is chiefly in connection with the University of Freiburg, to the history of which institution König contributed many notable studies (see e g. "Freiburger Diözesan-Archiv", XXI and XXII), that he is remembered. During the years 1885 to 1889 König's activity was centred mainly on the "Necrologium Frib.", a record of the period 1827-87. LAUCHERT in BUCHBERGER Kirchliches Handlex., s.v.; HERDER, Konversations-Lexikon, s.v. K niq (10); Freiburger Diözesan-Archiv, XXVIII (Freiburg im Br., 1900), v-xvi. P.J. MACAULEY Diocese of Koniggratz Diocese of Königgrätz (REGINAE HRADECENSIS). This Bohemian see owes its origin to Emperor Ferdinand III, who, soon after the creation of the Diocese of Leitmeritz (q.v.), decided to establish another to replace that of Leitomischl, which had been founded in 1344 but had disappeared during the Hussite wars. Through the mediation of Cardinal Ernst von Harrach, Archbishop of Prague, he obtained from Countess Anna Eusebia von Harrach the domain of Chrast and the manor of Auretitz in the district of Chrudim, and gave them to the new diocese. Alexander VII's Bull of erection is dated 10 November, 1664; Matth us Ferdinand Zoubek von Bilenberg, abbot of the Benedictine monastery of St. Nikolaus at Prague, was appointed first bishop. The new diocese embraced at first only the old district (Kreis) of Königgrätz, which, however, included the subsequently formed district of Bydzow with the exception of two parishes. In 1784, during the reign of Joseph II, the diocese received its present boundaries by the addition of the two districts of Chrudim and Czaslau, separated for this purpose from the Archdiocese of Prague. Among the bishops of Königgrätz worthy of special mention are: Johannes Adamus, Count Wratislaw von Mitrovic (1710-21), later Archbishop of Prague; Joseph Adam von Arco (1776-80); Aloys Joseph, Count Krakovsk von Kolowrat (1812-30), d. 1833 as Archbishop of Prague; Karl Borrom us Hanly von Kirchtreu (1831-74). Joseph Johannes Hais (1875-92), and Eduard Johannes Nepomuk Brynych (1892-1902) performed valuable services by their devotion to the training of the clergy, the development of pious associations, and the erection of churches. The present bishop is Josephus Doubrava (b. 29 February, 1852; consecrated 29 June, 1903). Statistics The diocese is divided into 32 vicariates, and includes 1 curatia canonicalis (cure of souls combined with jurisdiction), 2 provostships, 3 archdeaneries, 38 deaneries, 404 parishes served by secular priests, 16 parishes served by members of orders, 10 other benefices, 11 chaplaincies in noble families, 18 chaplaincies attached to foundations. At the close of 1909 the secular priests numbered 998, the regular 83. The diocese contains 1,476,942 Catholics, 50,037 non-Catholic Christians, and 11,372 Jews. The great majority of the inhabitans are Czechs. Of the vicariates 16 are entirely Czech, 3 entirely German, while in 13 the population is partly German and partly Czech. Three-quarters of the parishes are wholly Czech, over one-fifth wholly German, the rest include both German and Czech Catholics. The great majority of the secular clergy are Czechs, who minister even in parishes that are purely German, owing to the notable lack of German priests. This latter phenomenon is to be explained partly by the fact that the Liberal tendencies long prevalent in Bohemia have influenced German students against the priestly life; partly by the material conditions of the German parishes, which, being mainly in the mountains and far apart, repel German candidates for the priesthood. The cathedral chapter consists of the dean, who is also vicar-general, 7 regular and 6 honorary canons; the episcopal consistory is composed of the dean and 9 councillors. The ecclesiastical educational institutions in the diocese are: a seminary for priests, founded in 1802 and connected with the theological institute (1909): 6 professors, 3 tutors, 75 students; a seminary for boys, opened in 1860, with at present 142 pupils; the gymnasium of the Benedictine Abbey of Braunau. The religious orders conduct 10 institutions for the education and training of girls; 7 boarding-schools for girls; two training colleges for female teachers, and 25 day nurseries and kindergartens. At the close of 1909, the religious orders and congregations for men in the diocese were: Premonstratensians at Seelau, 18 priests and 6 clerics; Benedictines at Braunau, 40 priests; Jesuits, 3 fathers and 1 brother; Redemptorists, 8 priests and 7 brothers; Augustinians, 2 priests; Franciscans, 3 priests and 2 brothers; Capuchins, 2 monasteries with 5 priests and 4 brothers; Brothers of Mercy, 2 houses with 3 priests and 11 brothers; Piarists, 1 priest. At the same date the religious orders and congregations for women were: Ursulines, 3 convents with 98 sisters; Redemptorist Nuns, 3 sisters; Sisters of St. Francis, 13 convents with 187 sisters; Sisters of Notre-Dame, 26 houses with 143 sisters; Sisters of Mercy of St. Charles Borromeo, 7 convents with 40 sisters; Sisters of Mercy of the Holy Cross, 3 convents with 16 sisters; Sisters of the Most Holy Sacrament, 2 convents with 13 sisters; Sisters of St. Hedwig, 4 houses with 20 sisters. The diocese has many institutions for alleviating distress and suffering, also many well-endowed charitable foundations. Special mention should be made of the diocesan Institute for the Deaf and Dumb (the Rudolphinum) at Königgrätz; the Asylum for the Poor at Kukus (founded in 1711); 60 hospitals and homes for the poor, and 10 orphan asylums, all of which are conducted as religious institutions. Religious orders care for the sick in 12 hospitals. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul has eight conferences in the diocese; the Catholic Workingmen's Union and Journeymen's Union have each a large membership. Widely extended also through the diocese are the Association of St. Joseph, Catholic parish and public libraries (about 110), etc. The most important ecclesiastical buildings in the diocese are the cathedral, a Gothic structure of the early part of the fourteenth century, restored in 1864; the Gothic church of St. Barbara at Kuttenberg, begun at the beginning of the fourteenth century and finished in 1451; the abbey church of Braunau, and the pilgrimage church of the Piarists on the Muttergottesberg near Grulich. BENES, Das sociale Wirken der kathol. Kirche in der Diöcese Königgr tz (Vienna, 1897), with bibliography; IDEM in Die katho. Kirche unserer Zeit, II (Munich, 1900), 418-24; Catlogus Cleri Dioeceseos Reginæ-Hradecensis pro 1910 (Königgrätz, 1910). JOSEPH LINS Jacob Konigshofen Jacob Königshofen More properly JACOB TWINGER VON KÖNIGSHOFEN. Chronicler, b. in 1346 at Königshofen, a village near Strasburg, in Alsace; d. at Strasburg, 27 December, 1420. Of his life we have only a few meagre details, as for instance that he became a priest in 1382, that for a time he held the parish of Drusenheim, and that in 1394 he became notary Apostolic and in 1395 a canon of St. Thomas at Strasburg, where he was placed in charge of the archives and kept the stock-books and registers. Very early in life he had devoted himself with special zeal to historical studies, and a Latin "Chronicle" is extant, written by him before he came a priest (edited by Duchesne in "Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für die Erhaltung der geschichtlichen Denkm ler im Elsass", second series, IV). This work, it is true, only contains extracts from different authors, and is in consequence a mere collection of historical matter, but it was undoubtedly an excellent preparation for his principal work, the "Chronik". The latter he began in 1382; he twice revised it, and brought it down to the year 1415. One of the first universal histories in German prose, it includes also a territorial history of Alsace and a local history of Strasburg. Recognizing the needs of his time, he wrote it for the Klugen, that is, cultivated, lay men, "who read such things as eagerly as learned parsons". His narrative is therefore popular, and frequently enlivened by legends, jokes, and interesting details concerning the lives of the people. He possessed a good knowledge and availed himself very freely of the sources of medieval prose and poetry (particularly Ekkehard, but also Eusebius, Bede, Hermannus Contractus, Martinus Polonus, and others). On the other hand, those sections which treat of contemporary history are very valuable. In politics he was an adherent of King Louis the Bavarian, and to his imperialistic sentiments united a very strongly marked feeling for German nationality. Greatly influenced by the Alsatian chronicler Closener, he has himself been in many cases the authority for later historians. The last chapter of the "Chronik" contains an alphabetical list of historical events with dates, forms thus a kind of compendium of history, and was often copied separately. The "Chronik" was printed as early as 1474, and later at Strasburg in 1698. The best edition is that of Hegel in "Chroniken der deutschen Städte", VIII-IX (Leipzig, 1870-1). In addition we possess a Latin-German glossary by Königshofen, which may, however, in its essential details be traced to Closener. OBERLIN, De Jacobo Twingero Regiovillano (Strasburg, 1789); SCHNEEGANS, Notice sur Closener et Königshofen (Strasburg, 1842); POTTHAST, Bibliotheca, II, 1076-88. Concerning Königshofen as choralist see MATHIAS, Phototypische Wiedergabe des Königshofenschen Tonarius (Graz, 1903). PATRICIUS SCHLAGER Anthony Konings Anthony Konings Born at Helmond, Diocese of Bois-1e-Duc, Holland, 24 August, 1821; died 30 June, 1884. After a brilliant course in humanities he entered the diocesan seminary, where he soon became conspicuous for his great piety and his eager thirst for learning. Feeling a call to the monastic life, after mature deliberation he entered in 1842 the Redemptorist novitiate at St. Trond, Belgium, and was permitted to make his religious profession on 6 November, 1845. His superiors, recognizing the ability of the young cleric, sent him at once to the house of higher studies to afford him time to prepare for the work of teaching. He was ordained priest at Wittem, on 21 December, 1884. After being engaged for some time as teacher of humanities in the preparatory college of the congregation, he was called to fill the chair of moral theology and later that of canon law. Whilst holding these posts, he was appointed prefect of students, a most important office in the congregation. For some time he was also master of novices, and accompanied the provincial, Very Rev. F. Dechamps (afterwards Archbishop of Mechlin and cardinal), to Rome. Later he visited Rome a second time to take part in the general chapter of 1855, which united all the different provinces and decided upon Rome as the residence of the superior general of the order. Father Konings was appointed rector of Amsterdam, and in 1860 of the house of studies at Wittem, which post he continued to occupy until 1865, when he was appointed Provincial of Holland. In 1870 he was sent to the province of Baltimore to take up the work of teaching moral theology and canon law to the young clerics of the Redemptorist house of studies at Ilchester, Maryland. Thenceforth all his zeal and learning, his piety and his experience were employed in training the clerics of the congregation for the arduous work of the ministry. As professor of moral theology he soon felt the need of a suitable textbook, less voluminous than the old manuals and one more adapted to the peculiar conditions existing in North America. Father Konings thereupon undertook the task of writing such a handbook, which he subsequently published in two volumes (Boston, 1874). This work, based on the moral theology of Gury, was greeted with hearty approval on its appearance, not only on account of the simplicity of its language, but also by reason of the succinct form into which he cast the teachings of the great theologian, St. Alphonsus. He was the first to give a methodical exposition of the views of the saint regarding the vexed question of equiprobabilism. His thorough acquaintance with American law also greatly enhanced the value of his work. A devoted son of the great doctor, he knew how to recognize the merits of other theologians. Later, at the suggestion of the Rt. Rev. T. Mullen, Bishop of Erie, Pa., he published a commentary on episcopal faculties (intended for the United States), a work which was afterwards revised and enlarged by Rev. Jos. Putzer, C.SS.R. It has since gone through four more editions. In addition to these works he published several smaller books on various theological subjects. He rendered a great service to the cause of the parochial schools by his little work, "De Absolutione Parentibus, etc.", a pamphlet which despite strong opposition, was taken by the Holy Office as the basis of an Instruction to the bishops of the United States. As a matter of fact the very words of Konings were employed in the Instruction sent by the Holy Father and incorporated in the "Acts et Decreta Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis tertii", p. 279 sq. Since that time this Instruction has been the norm in the difficult matter of absolving parents that send their children to the public schools. The gist of his pamphlet is found in his "Moral Theology". Konings, on account of his great learning, was consulted by prelates and priests from the entire United States; he was invited to examine candidates for degrees in theology and canon law, and was summoned as an expert in trials touching ecclesiastical questions, especially in the celebrated trial resulting from the financial difficulties of the late Archbishop of Cincinnati, J. B. Purcell. His last charge was that of prefect of the second novitiate, in which the Redemptorist priests immediately after ordination are trained for the Apostolic work of the missions. Whilst occupying this post, he fell seriously ill, but nothing could daunt his zeal. From his sick-bed he continued his work of instructing and directing with his experience the young priests committed to his care. In the midst of these labours he passed away to his eternal reward. To quote the words of the Freeman's Journal (12 July 1884), "those who studied him found him a profound theologian, and a true exponent of St. AIphonsus. The beacon light of theologians in America has gone down, but his fame will linger in the heart of the Catholic Church in America. As a scholar he was known to the world." Konings's writings include the following: "Theologia Moralis", two editions by Konings and two by H. Kuper, C.SS.R.; "Commentarium in Facultates Apostolicas" (New York, 1884); "De Absolutione Parentibus qui prolem scholis publicis seu promiscuis instituendam tradunt neganda necne" (Boston, 1874); "Bulla Jubilæi 1875 cum notis practicis" (New York, 1875); "SS. D. N. Leonis XIII Litteræ Apostolicæ quibus extraordinarium Jubilæum indicitur in usum cleri notis practicis illustratæ" (2 editions, New York, 1881); "General Confession Made Easy" (New York, 1879), and in German "Die Generalbeichte erleichtert"; "Theologia Moralis Fundamentalis seu Tractatus de Actibus Humanis" (New York, 1882); "Verordningen voor de Missien en andere apostolische Werkzaamheden". He left in manuscript: "Introductio in Jus Canonicum"; "Compendium Juris Canonici"; "De Jure Regularium"; and a complete set of cases in moral theology (Latin) for American students, some of which were published over the initial "R" in "The Pastor", edited by the late W.J. Wiseman. Provincial and Domestic Chronicles C.SS.R.; Katholische Volkszeitung, XXV (Baltimore), n. xiv, p. 111; New York Freeman's Journal, XLV, nn. xix, xx; Catholic Home Almanac (New York, 1885), 61-2; Evidence of Father Anthony Konings, C.SS.R., in Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio, No. 61, 172, J. B. Manning, Assignee, vs. J.B. Purcell et al.; WISEMAN, The Pastor, II (New York, 1883-4), 288; HURTER, Nomenclator. JOHN A. HANDLEY Konrad (Der Pfaffe) Konrad Surnamed DER PFAFFE ("The Priest"). A German epic poet of the twelfth century, author of the "Rolandslied", a version of the famous "Chanson de Roland". We know almost nothing concerning his life. In the epilogue of the Heidelberg manuscript the poet calls himself "der Pfaffe Kuonrat", and informs us that he translated from the French, first into Latin, and then into German, without adding or omitting. We learn further that the French original was procured for him by Duke Henry, at whose request he composed his lay. Formerly it was supposed that this duke was Henry the Lion (1156-80), and that the poem was composed between 1173 and 1177. But it is now agreed that the duke in question was Henry the Proud, who ruled Bavaria from 1126 to 1139; the date of the composition of the poem would then be about 1131, in which year Henry is known to have made a journey to Paris, where he presumably procured the French manuscript. The lay itself was written in Bavaria, probably at Ratisbon, as is indicated also by the frequent mention of Bavarian names and places. That a translation was first made into Latin is shown by the numerous Latin endings that remain. The German version, however, is not slavishly literal. A comparison with the French original, as we know it, reveals quite a number of additions, especially in the way of passages in praise of the Bavarian prince and people. The crusading spirit, already noticeable in the "Chanson", is still more marked in the German poem. The fervour of the crusader has displaced the patriotic enthusiasm of the French epic, and gives the "Rolandslied" a pronounced religious tone. Charlemagne is depicted as the model Christian prince, while Roland is the peerless Christian knight who loses his life in battle for his Faith. Yet the influence of the folk-epic is quite evident, as, for instance, in the passage where the emperor's dazzling eyes are described . Altogether, there are 9094 verses. The form is the short rhymed couplet, the rhyme being often mere assonance. To Konrad has also been ascribed the authorship of the "Kaiserchronik", but not on convincing evidence. We possess no complete manuscript of the poem. The oldest and most important manuscript, that of Strasburg, was burned during the siege of 1870. A portion of it had appeared in print in Schilter's "Thesaurus" as early as 1727. Next in importance is the Heidelberg manuscript, adorned with thirty-nine miniatures. The other extant manuscripts are mere fragments. Editions by Grimm, "Ruolandes liet" (Göttingen, 1838), based on the Heidelberg manuscript; and by Bartsch (Leipzig, 1874), based on the Strasburg manuscript Selections by Piper, "Die Spielmannsdichtung", II, 14-91 (in Kürschner, "Deutsche National Litteratur", II). GOLTHER, Rolandslied des Pfaffen Konrad (Munich, 1887): BAUMGARTEN, Stilistische Untersuchungen zum deutschen Rolandsliede (Halle, 1899); cf. introduction in Piper's edition. ARTHUR F.J. REMY Konrad of Lichtenau Konrad of Lichtenau A medieval German chronicler, d. at Ursperg, in the year 1240. He descended from a noble Swabian family, and resided for some time at the imperial court, Having become a monk, probably during a temporary residence in Rome at the court of Pope Innocent III, he entered the Premonstratensian Order, and in 1226 became Abbot of the monastery of Ursperg in Bavaria, where he died. For a long time he was reputed the sole author of the so-called "Chronicon Urspergense", which narrates the history of the world from King Ninus to A.D. 1229. But critical investigation has shown that the work consists of several parts, of different authorship. The first part to 1125, was written, in part at least, by Ekkehard of Aura (q.v.); a continuation, from 1126 to 1225, was added by Abbot Burchard (d. 1230), Konrad's predecessor as Abbot of Ursperg. Then Konrad continued the work to 1229 and made the final redaction. Later continuators like Kaspar Hedio brought the chronicle down to 1537. The first edition was brought out by Miller and Foeniseca at Augsburg (1515) from a copy in the possession of Konrad Peutinger. Another edition by Melanchthon and Mylius appeared at Basle (1569). It was this edition that erroneously attributed the sole authorship of the chronicle to Konrad. The last edition was printed at Strasburg in 1609. The "Chronicon" was edited by Abel and Weiland in the "Mon.Germ. Hist. Script.", XXIII, 333-83; separate edition at Hanover, 1874. GRONAU, Die Urspergerchronik und ihr Verfasser (Berlin, 1890). For critical discussion and bibliography see WATTENBACH, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter, II (6th ed., Berlin, 1893), 450; POTTHAST, Bibliotheca Historica Medii vi (Berlin, 1896), s. vv. Burchardus (p. 178), Chronicon Urspergense (p. 296), and Ekkehardus Uraugiensis (p. 400). ARTHUR F.J. REMY Konrad of Megenberg Konrad of Megenberg (KUNRAT). Scholar and writer, b. probably at Mainberg, near Schweinfurt, Bavaria, 2 February, 1309; d. at Ratisbon, 11 April, 1374. The dates of birth and death are not absolutely certain, and Konrad himself calls his native place Megenberg. He studied at Erfurt and Paris; at the latter university he obtained the degree of Master of Arts, and he taught philosophy and theology there for several years. In 1337 he was named head of St. Stephen's school at Vienna. From 1342 he lived at Ratisbon, where he was first a parish priest, proving himself to be an able preacher. Later he became a cathedral canon, and member of the town council. In 1357 he made a journey to the Curia at Avignon. Konrad is one of the most prolific German writers of the fourteenth century. His best-known and most widely read work is his "Buch der Natur", which is still of importance for the history of culture. According to his own statement he was engaged in writing it in 1349. A Latin work, "de naturis rerum", of the Dominican Thomas of Cantimpré (d. 1263), served as model. Konrad, however, prepared his book with considerable freedom; much of the original was omitted, his own observations were introduced, corrections were made, and so on. His work gives a survey of all that was known of natural history at that time and is, besides, the first natural history in the German language. It was widely read up to the sixteenth century, and numerous manuscript copies of it are still extant, eighteen being at Munich. The first printed edition with a date is of 1475, and was issued at Augsburg from the shop of Hans B?mler, under the title of "Puch der Natur". It was printed at least six times before 1500; some of the editions were illustrated, all are now rare incunabula. A new edition of the original text was issued by Franz Pfeiffer (Stuttgart, 1861), with an introduction; an edition in modern German was edited by H. Schulz (Greifswald, 1897). Of Konrad's numerous other writings there should be mentioned: the "Sphære", a small compendium in German of astronomy and physics, prepared from the Latin work of Joannes ? Sacrobosco; the poem "Planctus ecclesiæ in Germania" (1337); a hymn in praise of the Virgin, and other poems; a work on morals, "Speculum felicitatis humanæ (1348); "De erroribus Begehardorum et Beguinarum"; "De translatione imperii" (1355); the large work "Oeconomica", written between 1353 and 1363; "Tractatus contra mendicantes ad Papam Urbanum V"; several biographies of saints, and some historical treatises, chiefly dealing with the local history of Ratisbon. In his writings Konrad shows himself to be a strong adherent of the pope, an opponent of the philosophy of Occam, and a stern critic of the moral failings of his age and of the clergy. PFEIFFER and SCHULZ, see above; BRAUNMLLER in Kirchenlex., s. v. Konrad von Megenberg; Allgemeine-Deutsche Biographie, XVI (Leipzig, 1882); CHEVALIER, Bio-bibl., gives the date of death incorrectly as 1398; LORENZ, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter, I (3rd ed., 1886). JOSEPH ROMPEL Konrad of Wurzburg Konrad of Würzburg A Middle High German poet, b. about 1230; d. at Basle, 1287. He was the most important of the romancers that followed the three great masters of the Middle High German epic. His especial model was Gottfried von Strassburg. He lived mostly at Strasburg and Basle. Like Gottfried he was of burgher rank and hence is called Meister, not Her. His poems consist of metrical romances, minnesongs, and Spr?che or sayings. Among his epics his "Schwanritter" is a version of the well-known Lohengrin legend. It is preserved only in fragmentary form and is based indirectly on the French poem "Chevalier au Cygne". In this version the Grail does not figure at all. Other short narrative poems are "Otto mit dem Barte" (Otto with the Beard), the story of the knight Heinrich von Kempten, and the famous "Herzem?re" (Tale of a Heart), a fantastic tale of knightly loyalty and love. A more ambitious effort is "Engelhart", one of those extravagant stories of friendship so popular in the Middle Ages. For his lengthy epics Konrad used French sources. The "Partonopier", written probably about 1277, is based on the French romance of Denis Pyramus, and has for its subject the loves of the knight Partonopeus and the fairy Meliur. The bulky epic on the Trojan War is is based on Benoit de St. More's "Roman de Troie", with additions from Ovid. It contains upwards of 50,000 verses, but not all of them are Konrad's own. The costumes and atmosphere are not at all antique but thoroughly medieval. Besides these epics Konrad wrote also poems of allegorical or legendary content. "Der Werlte L?n" (The World's Reward) is an allegory showing the vanity of things worldly. From Latin sources Konrad composed epics on the legends of St. Alexis, Pantaleon, and Pope Sylvester, also stories of asceticism and martyrdom. His most important religious poem is in honour of the Blessed Virgin, entitled "Die goldene Schmiede" (The Golden Forge). The poet conceives himself as a smith who is working a precious ornament for the Virgin out of epithets and attributes. Another allegorical poem in strophes, called "Klage der Kunst" (Complaint of Art), laments the decay of taste for poetry. There is little originality in Konrad's work; its chief merit lies in in its technical perfection. The "Partonopier", together with songs and sayings, was edited by Bartsch (Vienna, 1874); the "Schwanritter" by Roth (Frankfort, 1861); "Kaiser Otto" and "Herzem?re" by Lambel in his "Erz?hlungen und Schw?nke" (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1883); "Der Werlte L?n", by Roth (Frankfort, 1843); "Engelhart" by Haupt (Leipzig, 1844); "Die goldene Schmiede" by W. Grimm (Berlin, 1840); "Silvester" by the same (G?ttingen, 1841); the "Trojanischer Krieg" by A. von Keller (Stuttgart, 1858). See the introduction to GRIMM'S edition of Die goldene Schmiede; also VOGT, Geschichte der mittelhochdeutschen Literatur, in PAUL, Grundriss der germanischen Philologie (2nd ed., Strasburg, 1906), 219-23; PIPER, H?fische Epik, pt. III, in Deutsche National-litteratur, ed. K?RSCHNER, IV, 165-344. ARTHUR F.J. REMY Ferdinand Konsag Ferdinand Konsag A German missionary of the eighteenth century, b. 2 December, 1703, at Warasdin, Croatia; d. 10 September, 1758. Having joined the Society of Jesus in 1719, Konsag -- the name is variously written Konschak and (in its Spanish form) Consag or Gonsago -- went to Mexico in 1730, and after 1732 worked principally an the mission of Lower California, of which he was one of the most prominent apostles. He was at first superior of San Ignacio, and later visitator of the whole mission. "It is hardly possible", writes Clavigero (op. cit. infra), "to tell that this zealous man accomplished notwithstanding his delicate health." In him the courage of the explorer and the learning of the cartographer were combined with the missionary's ardent zeal for souls, and his exploration of the maritine country as far as the Rio Colorado entities him to an important place in the history of the exploration of America. Father Konsag's literary works include the following: (1) in manuscript: "Historia de las Misiones de la California", used by Venegas in his "Noticia de la California" (Madrid, 1757); "Carta del P.F.C. de la Comp. de Jesés, Visitador de la Mis. de Calif.", with forty-three pages of explanation (1 Oct., 1748); "Descripción compendiosa de lo descubierto de la Calif. por el P.F. Gonzago de la Comp de Jesús, 1746", the British Museum; various documents in Simancas, Spain, Est. leg, 5040, 118; 5042, 19; (2) printed: a letter of date 1731 in the "N. Welt-Bott", no. 743; "Diario de California" (Paris, 1767); account of the exploration of the Rio Colorado in Burriel, "Noticias de la California", III (Madrid, 1757), 140; a map of California copied by J. Baegert in his "Nachrichten von Californien" (Mannheim, 1770). cf. also Murr, "Journal", XII, 234. CLAVIGERO, Storia della California, II (Venice, 1787) 119 sqq., 132, and passim; ALEGRE, Historia de la comp. de J. en Nueva Espana, III (Mexico 1841-2), 286 sqq; ZEVALLOS, Carta sobre la Apostolica Vida y Virtudes del P. Ferd. Konsag, Insigne Misionero de la California (Mexico 1764); VILLA-SENOR, Teatro Americano, III, xxxix. A. HUONDER Koran Koran The sacred book of the Muslims, by whom it is regarded as the revelation of God. Supplemented by the so-called Hadith, or traditions, it is the foundation of Islam and the final authority in dogma and belief, in jurisprudence, worship, ethics, and in social, family, and individual conduct. The name Koran, or better Qur'an, from the Arabic stem Qara'a, "to read", "to recite", means the "Reading", the "Recitation", i.e. the "Book", par excellence. It is also called -- to select a few of many titles -- "Alkitab" (The Book), "Furquan" ("liberation", "deliverance", of the revelation), "Kitab-ul-lah" (Book of God), "Al-tanzil" (The Revelation). It consists of one hundred and fourteen suras or chapters, some being almost as long as the Book of Genesis, others consisting of but two or three sentences. It is smaller than the New Testament, and in its present form has no chronological order or logical sequence. CONTENTS AND ANALYSIS The Koran contains dogma, legends, history, fiction, religion and superstition, social and family laws, prayers, threats, liturgy, fanciful descriptions of heaven, hell, the judgment day, resurrection, etc. -- a combination of fact and fancy often devoid of force and originality. The most creditable portions are those in which Jewish and Christian influences are clearly discernible. The following analysis is based on Sir William Muir's chronological arrangement (op. cit. infra). First Period Suras 103, 91, 106, 101, 95, 102,104, 82, 92, 105, rhapsodies, which may have been composed before Mohammed conceived the idea of a Divine mission, or of a revelation direct from Heaven. Second Period (the opening of Mohammed's ministry) Sura 96, the command to "recite in the name of the Lord"; sura 113, on the unity and eternity of the Deity; sura 74, the command to preach, the denunciation of one of the chiefs of Mecca who scoffed at the resurrection, unbelievers threatened with hell; sura 111, Abu Lahab (the Prophet's uncle) and his wife are cursed. Third Period (from the beginning of Mohammed's public ministry to the Abyssinian emigration) Suras 87, 97, 88, 80, 81, 84, 86, 90, 85, 83, 78, 77, 76, 75, 70, 109, 107, 55, 56, descriptions of the resurrection, paradise, and hell, with references to the growing opposition of the Koreish tribe. Fourth Period (from the sixth to the tenth year of Mohammed's ministry) Suras 67, 53, 32, 39, 73, 79, 54, 34, 31, 69, 68, 41, 71, 52, 50, 45, 44, 37, 30, 26, 15, 51, narratives from the Jewish Scriptures and from rabbinical and Arab legends; the temporary compromise with idolatry is connected with sura 53. Fifth Period (from the tenth year of Mohammed's ministry to the Flight from Mecca) Suras 46, 72, 35, 36, 19, 18, 27, 42, 40, 38, 25, 20, 43, 12, 11,10,14, 6, 64, 28, 22, 21,17,16, 13, 29, 7, 113, 114. The suras of this period contain some narratives from the Gospel, enjoin the rites of pilgrimage, refute the cavillings of the Koreish, and contain vivid descriptions of the resurrection, judgment, heaven, and hell, with proofs of God's unity, power, and providence. Gradually the suras become longer, some of them filling many pages. In the later suras of the fifth period Medina passages are often interpolated. Last Period (suras revealed at Medina) This period includes the following suras: + Sura 98: on good and bad Jews and Christians. + Sura 2, the longest in the Koran, is called the "Sura of the Cow" from the red heifer described in verse 67 as having been sacrificed by the Israelites at the direction of Moses. It is a collection of passages on various subjects, delivered during the first two or three years after the Flight. The greater portion relates to the Jews, who are sometimes exhorted and sometimes reprobated. Biblical and rabbinical stories abound. This sura contains the order to change the Qibla (or direction at prayer) a denunciation of the disaffected, citizens of Medina, injunctions to fight, permission to bear arms in the sacred months and much matter of a legislative character promulgated on first reaching Medina, with passages of a later date interpolated. + Sura 3 belongs partly to the time immediately after the Battle of Behr. The Jews are referred to in terms of hostility. The interview with Christian deputation from Najran (verses 57-63) is of a later date. Passages pertaining to the farewell pilgrimage are introduced with other (probably) earlier texts on the rites of pilgrimage. + Sura 8 contains instructions on the division of spoil at Bedr. Some parts are in the old Meccan style and the Koreish are frequently referred to. In sura 47 war and slaughter are enjoined, and idolaters of Mecca threatened. In sura 62 the Jews are denounced for their ignorance; the Friday service is to take precedence of secular engagements. In sura 5 the Jews are reviled; the doctrines of the Christians are controverted; it contains also civil ordinances and miscellaneous instructions. + Sura 59, on the siege and expulsion of the Banu Nadhir. + Sura 4 entitled "women", from the large portion devoted to the treatment of wives and relation of sexes. There are also ordinances on the law of inheritance and general precepts, social and political. Idolatrous Meccans are to be shunned, and there are animadversions against the Jews. The "disaffected" are blamed for taking the part of the Jews. + Sura 65: on divorce and kindred subjects, with some religious observations. + Sura 63: menances against 'Abdallah ibn Obey for his treasonable language on the expedition against the Banu Mustalick. + Sura 24: vindication of 'Ayisha, with the law of evidence for conjugal unfaithfulness, and miscellaneous precepts. + Sura 33, composed of portions covering the year A. H. 5. The marriage of the Prophet with Zeinab, wife of his adopted son, is sanctioned. There are various passages on the conjugal relations of Mohammed, the siege of Medina, and the fall of the Banu Qoreitza. + Sura 57: injunctions to fight and contribute towards the expenses of war. The disaffected are warned. Christians are mentioned in kindly terms. + Sura 61: on war; speedy victory is promised. -- The remaining auras belong exclusively to the last five years of the Prophet's life. + Sura 48 refers to the truce of Hodeibia, and the prospect of victory and spoil to be obtained elsewhere. + Sura 60: on the treatment of the women who, after the truce, came over from Mecca; idolaters of Mecca to be shunned. + Sura 66: on the affair of Mohammed and the Coptic maid. + Sura 49: blaming the profession of the Bedouin Arabs as insincere, chiding the deputation which called out rudely at Mohammed's door, and exhorting believers against distrust and uncharitableness among themselves. + Sura 9 treats of the campaign to Tebuk (A. H.. 9). It opens with the "release" promulgated at the pilgrimage of the same year and declares the antagonism of Islam to all other religions. All but Muslims are excluded from Mecca and the rites of pilgrimage. Idolaters are threatened with slaughter and slavery. War is declared against Jews and Christians until they are humbled and pay tribute. This aura is called "the crusade chapter", and in the early campaigns was often read on the field before battle. DOCTRINE The doctrine of the Koran will be fully discussed in the article on the religion of Islam. It is sufficient to note here that the doctrine may be classified under four categories: + faith, or what to believe; + practice or worship; + ethics, or what to do and what to avoid; + moral, historical, and legendary lessons taken from the canonical, but mostly apocryphal, Christian and Jewish Scriptures, and from contemporary and ancient Arabian heathenism. CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER AND DISTINCTIVE FEATURES OF THE SURAS Various efforts have been made by Muslim writers and European scholars to arrange the suras chronologically, but Noldeke's arrangement is generally considered the most plausible. He divides the suras into Meccan and Medinian, namely those delivered at Mecca before the Flight or Hegira, and those delivered at Medina after the Flight. The Meccan suras are divided into three periods. To the first (from the first to the fifth year of Mohammed's mission) belong the following suras - 96, 74, 111,106, 108, 104, 107, 102, 105, 92, 90, 94, 93, 97, 86, 91, 80, 68, 87, 95, 103, 85, '73, 101, 99, 82, 81, 53, 84,100, 79, 77, 78, 88, 89, 75, 83, 69, 5l, 52, 56, 55, 112, 109, ll3, 114, and 1. To the second period (the fifth and sixth year of his mission) are assigned suras 54, 37, 7l, 76, 44, 50, 20, 26, 15, 19, 38, 36, 43, 72, 67, 23, 21, 25, 17, 27, and 18. To the third period (from the seventh year to the Flight) belong the following suras: 32, 41 45, 16, 30, 11, 14,12, 40, 28, 39, 29, 31, 42, 10, 34, 35, 7, 46, 6, and 13. The Medina suras are those which remain, in the following order: 2, 98, 64, 62, 8, 47, 3, 61, 57, 4, 65, 59, 33, 63, 24, 58, 22, 48, 66, 60,110, 9, and 5. The characteristic features of the various suras and of the periods in which they were delivered is described by Mr. Palmer as follows: In the Meccan Suras Mohammed's one and steady purpose is to bring his hearers to a belief in the one only God; this he does by powerful rhetorical displays rather than logical arguments, by appealing to their feelings rather than their reason; by setting forth the manifestation of God in His works; by calling nature to witness to His presence; and by proclaiming His vengeance against those who associate other gods with Him, or attribute offsprings to Him. The appeal was strengthened by glowing pictures of the happiness in store for those who should believe, and by frightful descriptions of the everlasting, torments prepared for the unbelievers. In the earlier chapters, too, the prophetic inspiration the earnest conviction of the truth of his mission, and the violent emotion which his sense of responsibility caused him are plainly shown. The style is curt, grand, and often almost sublime; the expressions are full of poetical feeling, and the thoughts are earnest and passionate, though sometimes dim and confused, indicating the mental excitement and doubt through which they struggled to light. In the second period of the Meccan Suras, Mohammed appears to have conceived the idea of still further severing himself from the idolatry of his compatriots, and of giving to the supreme deity Allah another title, Ar-Rahman, "the merciful one". The Meccans, however, seem to have taken these for the names of separate deities, and the name is abandoned in the later chapters. In the Suras of the second Meccan period we first find the long stories of the prophets of olden times, especial stress being laid upon the punishment which fell upon their contemporaries for disbelief, the moral is always the same, namely, that Mohammed came under precisely similar circumstances, and that a denial of the truth of his mission would bring on his fellow-citizens the self-same retribution. They also show the transition stage between the intense and poetical enthusiasm of the early Meccan chapters and the calm teaching of the later Medinah ones. This change is gradual, and even in the later and most prosaic we find occasionally passages in which the old prophetic fire flashes out once more. The three periods are again marked by the oaths which occur throughout the Koran. In the first period they are all frequent and often long, the whole powers of nature being invoked to bear witness to the unity of God and the mission of His Apostle; in the second period they are shorter and of rarer occurrence; in the last period they are absent altogether. To understand the Medinah Suras we must bear in mind Mohammed's position with respect to the various parties in that city. In Mecca he had been a prophet with little honour in his own country, looked on by some as a madman, and by others as an impostor, both equally grievous to him, while his following consisted of the poorest and meanest of his fellowtownsmen. His own clansmen, for the reason that they were his clansmen and for no other, resented the affronts against him. In Medinah he appears as a military leader and a prince, though as yet possessing far from absolute authority. Around in the city were, first, the true believers who had fled with him El Muhagerin; next, the inhabitants of Yathrib, who had joined him and who were called El Ansar, "the helpers"; and lastly, a large class who are spoken of by the uncomplimentary name of Munafiqun or "hypocrltes", consisting of those who went over to his side from fear or compulsion, and lastly those "in whose heart is sickness", who, though believing in him, were prevented by tribal or family ties from going over to him openly. Abdallah ibn Ubai was a chief whose influence operated strongly against Mohammed, and the hatter was obliged to treat him for a long time almost as an equal, even after he had lost his political power. The other party at Medinah was composed of the Jewish tribes settled in and around the city of Yathrib. The Jews were at first looked to as the most natural and likely supporters of the new religion, which was to confirm their own. These various parties together with the pagan Arabs of Mecca and the Christans are the persons with whom the Medinah Suras chiefly deal. The style of the Medinah Suras resembles that of the third period of the Meccan revelations, the more matter-of-fact nature of the incidents related or the precepts given amounting in a great measure for the more prosaic language in which they are expressed. er. The other party at Ivledinah was composed of the Jewish tribes settled in and around the city of Tathrib. The Jews were at first looked to as the most natural and likely supporters of the new religion, which was to confirm their own. These various parties together with the pagan Arabs of Mecca and the Christians are the persons with whom the Medinah Suras chiefly deal. The style of the Medinah Suras resembles that of the third period of the Meccan revelations, the more matter-of-fact nature of the incidents related or the precepts given accounting in a great measure for the more prosaic language in which they are expressed. In the Medinah Suras the prophet is no longer trying to convert his hearers by examples, promises, and warnings; he addresses them as their prince in general, praising them or blaming them for their conduct, and giving them laws and precepts as occasion required. (The Qur'an in "Sacred Books of the East", I, Oxford, 1880, pp. LXI, LXII, and LXIII). SOURCES The sources of the Koran be reduced to six: + The Old Testament (canonical and apocryphal) and the hybrid Judaism of the late rabbinical schools. During Mohammed's time the Jews were numerous in many parts of Arabia, especially around Medina. Familiarity's with them is undoubtly responsible for many Old Testament stories alluded to in Koran. Later Judaism and Rabbinism are equally well represented (Geiger, "Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthum aufgenommen?", Wiesbaden, 1833; tr. Judaism and islam", Madras, 1898). + The New Testament (canonical and apocryphal) and various heretical doctrines. On his journeys between Syria, Hijaz, and Yemen, Mohammed had every opportunity to come in close touch with Yemenite, Abyssinian, Ghassanite, and Syrian Christians, especially heretic. Hence, while the influence of orthodox Christianity upon the Koran has been slight, apocryphal and heretical Christian legends, on the other hand, are one of the original sources of Koranic faith. (See Muir, op. cit. infra, 66-239; Tisdall, "The Original Sources of the Qur'an", London, 1905, 55-211.) + Sabaism, a combination of Judaism, Manicheism, and old disfigured Babylonian heathenism. + Zoroastrianism. On account of Persia's political influence in the north-eastern part of Arabia, it is natural to find Zoroastrian elements in the Koran. + Hanifism, the adherents of which, called Hanifs, must have been considerable in number and influence, as it is known from contemporary Arabian sources that twelve of Mohammed's followers were members of this sect. + Native ancient and contemporary Arabian heathen beliefs and practices. Wellhausen has collected in his "Reste des arabischen Heidentums" (Berlin, 1897) all that is known of pre-Islamic Arabian heathen belief, traditions, customs, and superstitions, many of which are either alluded to or accepted and incorporated in the Koran. From the various sects and creeds, and Abul-Fida, the well-known historian and geographer of the twelfth century, it is clear that religious beliefs and practices of the Arabs of Mohammed's day form one of the many sources of Islam. From this heathen source Islam derived the practices of polygamy and slavery, which Mohammed sanctioned by adopting them. AUTHORSHIP, COMPILATION It is generally admitted that the Koran is substantially the work of Mohammed. According to the traditionalists, it contains the pure revelation he could neither read nor write, but that immediately afterwards he could do both; others believe that even before the revelation he could read and write; while others, again, deny that he could ever do so. Thus it is uncertain whether any of the suras were written down by the Prophet himself or all delivered by him orally and afterwards writen down by others from memory. The Koran is written in Arabic, in rhymed prose, the style differing considerably in the various suras, according to the various periods of the Prophet's life. The language is universally acknowledged to be the most perfect form of Arab speech, and soon became the standard by which other Arabic literay compositions had to be judged, grammarians, lexirographers, and rhetoricians presuming that the Koran, being the word of God, could not be wrong or imperfect. Mohammed's hearers began by trusting their memories to retain the words of the revelation they had received from him. Later, those who could write traced them in ancient characters on palm leaves, tanned hides, or dry bones. After the Prophet's death all these fragments were collected. Zaid ibn Thabit, Mohammed's disciple, was charged by Abu Bekr, the caliph, to collect all that could be discovered of the sacred text in one volume. The chapters were then arranged according to their length and without regard to historical sequence. The revision made twenty years later affected details of language of the text. The best and most accessible edition of the Koran is that of Flugel, "Al-Qoran: Corani textus Arabicus" (Leipzig, 1834 and since). Maracci's famous Latin translation of the Koran, with a refutation and commentary, is still unique and useful: "Alcorani textus universus" (Padua, 1698). The standard English versions are those of Sale (London, 1734) with a still useful introductory essay; Rodwel (London, 1861), arranged in chronological order; and Palmer in "Sacred Books of the East" (Oxford, l880). GABRIEL OUSSANI Tadeusz Kosciuszko Tadeusz Kosciuszko Polish patriot and soldier, b. near Novogrudok, Lithuania, Poland, 12 February, 1752; d. at Solothurn, Switzerland, 15 October, 1817. He was educated at the military schools of Warsaw and Versailles, and attained the rank of captain in the Polish army. When the American Revolution broke out he embarked for the scene of conflict and, joining Washington's army, received a commission as officer of engineers, 18 October, 1776. He served with distinction through the war, was made a brigadier general, and was voted the thanks of Congress. He then returned to Poland and lived for several years in retirement. In 1789, when the Polish army was reorganized, he was appointed a major-general and fought gallantly under Prince Poniatowski against the Russians. At the second partition of Poland, he resigned his commission and went to live in Leipzig. He headed the abortive revolution of Poland in 1794, and was wounded and captured by the Russians at the battle of Maciejowice, 10 October. Imprisoned for two years, he was liberated by Emperor Paul on parole and with many marks of esteem. Thereafter his life was passed in retirement. In 1797 he revisited the United States, receiving everywhere great honor and distinction. Congress voted him a grant of land and an addition to his pension. On his return to Europe he took up his residence near Paris, spending his time in agricultural pursuits. In 1806 Napoleon wished him to join in the invasion of Poland, but he felt bound by his parole to Russia and refused. He went to live in Switzerland in 1816, making his home at Solothurn, where he was killed by a fall from a horse. His remains, by direction of the Emperor Alexander, were taken to Krakow, where they were interred with solemn pomp in the cathedral near the tombs of Poniatowski and Sobieski. A mound 150 feet high, made of earth taken from every battle-field in Poland, was piled up in his honor in the outskirts of the city. HASSARD, Hist. of U. S. (New York), GRIFFIN in Am. Cath. Hist. Researches (Philadelphia, April, 1910); MICHELET, Pologne et Russie, legende de Kosciuszko (Paris, 1851); IDEM, La Pologne martyre (1863); FALKENSTEIN, Kosciuszko (Leipzig, 1827); RYCHLICKI, Kosciuszko and the Partition of Poland (Krakow, 1872); CHODZKO, Histoire militaire, politique et privee de Kosciuszko (Paris, 1837). THOMAS F. MEEHAN Stanislaus and John Kozmian Stanislaus and John Kozmian Two brothers who took part in the Polish insurrection of 1831, and subsequently fled the country. Stanislaus settled in England, studied its institutions, and strove to make both nations, England and Poland, acquainted with each other. John lived in France, was zealous in spreading Catholic ideas, and, when his wife died, became a priest. Later he went to Posen, and, as editor of the "Posen Review", became the centre of religious and political life there; Stanislaus aided him in his work and, returning to Posen, became president of the Society of Friends of Science. Both were ardent Catholics, able reformers, courageous politicians, and had minds of exceptional power. Stanislaus Kozmian (b. in 1811; d. in 1885) When a student at Warsaw, had written some poetry, very romantic but only of average worth; later, in England, he set to translating Shakespeare, a work which occupied him for thirty years, and was not complete at his death; he also translated poems by Byron, Moore, Southey, Shelley, Cowper, and especially the splendid passages of Campbell on Poland. He was secretary to the Society of Friends of Poland, and in close relation with Lord Dudley Stuart. His translations of Shakespeare, though naturally not perfect, are as good as those in any other language. Of his original work, the poem best known in his days was entitled "To the Masters of the Word ", addressed to Mickiewicx, Krasinski, and Zaleski in 1846. He especially worshipped and loved Krasinski, two of whose books ("The Day of To-Day" and "The Last One") first appeared as Koxmian's, as the author would not otherwise have published them. Their success put Kolmian in a very false and painful position, which he described in one of his poems--an imitation of Dante's "Inferno". Several other poems of a patriotic and religious tendency are also deserving of notice. His prose consists mainly of essays, many of which were published together in two volumes under the title "England and Poland". The first volume contains important information for the writer on that period of Polish history: what the English thought, what they knew of Poland, how far their friendly feeling went, why the majority of the nation were indifferent to what might befall Poland, and so on. The second was interesting for the contemporary Polish reader, giving particulars of English institutions, life, politics, and literature--in the last respect nothing so good has since appeared in Polish. But it is impossible to notice separately all the multitudinous short articles that he wrote, those which deal with literary criticism are especially admirable. He was a practical man of action, a born journalist unpopular indeed, because, being a fervent Catholic, he condemned conspiracies and did not confound revolution with a war for independence. He lived and died comparatively unknown. John Kozmian Born in 1812, died in 1877. As priest and author he wrote for upwards of twenty years in the "Posen Review"; his articles have been collected in three volumes (1881). Specially noteworthy are the programme of the Review, "That she may fulfil her mission, Poland must be united to the Church"; "The Two Idolatries", i.e., Revolutionism and Panslavism, and his last essay, "Duties are permanent." He also wrote a great deal about Italian affairs and in favor of the Temporal Power. We may also mention a controversial essay with the Jesuit F. Gagarin (a Russian convert), who maintained that the great obstacle to the conversion of the Russians is that they identify Catholicism and Poland. His literary articles are not numerous. He also wrote funeral orations. He and his brother were the first secular workers for the revival of Catholic convictions in Poland. S. TARNOWSKI Adam Krafft Adam Krafft Sculptor, b. about 1440 at Nuremberg; d. Jan., 1509 at Schwabach. He carved at Nuremberg the last famous Gothic monuments in stone. The earliest of his extant works are the so-called "Seven Falls of Christ", that is to say Stations of the Cross representing Christ tottering and falling under the weight of His Cross, as well as the descent from the Cross. They were completed about 1490, and are now in the Gerrnanic Museum at Nuremberg. The memorial bronze monument over the Schreyer and Landauer tomb in the church of St. Sebaldus was completed in 1492; three of its reliefs, highly coloured, represent Christ carrying the Cross, His burial and resurrection, with a landscape for background. Later, Krafft undertook, at the request of Imhoff, the famous marble tabernacle in the church of St. Laurence. Decorated with tall slender turrets, a canopy, carved figures, and finely chiselled ornaments, it tapers gradually to its summit. Four bases and three carved figures, of the master and his two apprentices, support the pedestal, above which rises the rectangular tabernacle, richly decorated with delicate reliefs and with the figures of angels and saints in the numerous surrounding niches. It is universally admired as one of the most beautiful creations of Gothic art, and legend relates that the stone softened at the touch of Krafft's chisel, to harden again in the new form which he imparted to it. Among the master's works are also three handsome sepulchral monuments with statues of the Madonna, besides an "Entombment of Christ" and "Christ on Mount Olivet". Krafft's technical skill is amazing. His scenes from the Passion show deep feeling, his portrayal of saints is noble and full of expression, though his executioners are vulgar and repulsive. Gothic idealism seems to merge into a native realism, not Italian beauty of form, but native German strength, simplicity, and piety give value to his art. WAGNER, Nurnberger Bildhauerwerke des Mittelalters, I: Nurnbergische Kunstler nach ihrem Leben und ihrem Wirhen, pt. XI; particularly DAUN, Adam Krafft (Berlin, 1897); IDEM, Peter Vischer und Adam Krafft (Bielefeld, 1905). G. GIETMANN Krain Krain (Or CARNIOLA; Slov. KRANJSKO) A duchy and crownland in the Austrian Empire, bounded on the north by Karinthia, on the north-east by Styria, on the south-east and south by Croatia, and on the west by Trieste, Goritza, and Istria; area, 3857 sq. miles; population, 510,000. The Julian and Karavanken Alps traverse the country. The highest mountain peaks are Nanos, 4200 feet; Vremscica, 3360 feet; Sneznik, 5900 feet; Triglav, 9300 feet, on the top of which Jacob Aljaz, priest and tourist, erected a cylindrical hut of steel, capable of accommodating 4 or 5 persons. The principal rivers are the Save, the Trzaska Bistrica, the Kokra, the Kamniska Bistrica, the Sora, the Ljubljanica, the Mirna, the Krka, and the Kupa which serves as a boundary with Croatia. The principal lakes are Crno, spreading into seven lakes, of which the highest is over 6000 feet above sea-level; Bohinjsko; Blesko, in the middle of which on an island is built a church to the Blessed Virgin, amidst most picturesque scenery; Cerknisko, 1700 feet above sea-level, varies annually in extent from over ten to about five sq. miles. It was known to the Romans as Lugea palus, and is a natural curiosity. Dante Alighieri mentions it in his "Divina Commedia" (Inferno, xxxii). The Ljubljana fens cover an area of 76 sq. miles. Hot and mineral springs are to be found at Susica, Smarjetske, and Medijske. There is an interesting cave at Postojna. Of the inhabitants 95 per cent are Slovenes, kinsmen to the Croats; the remainder are Germans, 700 Croats, and Italians. In the districts of Gotschee and Crnomelj dwell the White Krainers, the connecting link between the Croats and Slovenes. One-half of the Germans live in Gotschee, 5000 in Ljubljana, 3500 at Novo Mesto, and 1000 at Radovljice. The Germans at Gotschee were settled there by Otho, Count of Ortenburg, in the fourteenth century, and they preserve their Tyrolean German dialect. Over 99 per cent of the people are Catholics, the remainder includes 319 Schismatics, 509 Protestants, 24 Armenians, 96 Jews, 7 infidels. Ninety-six per cent of the soil is productive. Agriculture thrives better in Upper than in Lower Krain. The valley of Vipava is especially famous for its wine and vegetables, and for its mild climate. The principal exports are all kinds of vegetables, clover-seed, lumber, carvings, cattle, and honey. In the mineral kingdom the principal products are iron, coal, quicksilver, manganese, lead, and zinc. Upper Krain has the most industries, among the products being lumber, linen, woollen stuffs, and laces (in Idria), bells, straw hats, wicker-work, and tobacco. The railroads are the Juzna, the Prince Rudolf, the Bohinjska, the Kamniska, the Dolenjska, and the Vrhniska. The capital is Ljubljana, see of the prince-bishop, population, 40,000; it was known to the Romans as Aemona, and was destroyed by Obri in the sixth century. Krain is divided into Upper Krain or Gorenjsko, Lower Krain or Dolenjsko, and Central Krain or Notranjsko. The principal cities and towns are: Kamnik, Kranj, Trzic, Vrhnika, Vipava, Idria (which has the richest quicksilver mine in the world), Turjak, Ribnica, Metlika, Novo Mesto, Vace (famous for its prehistoric graveyard). The mean average temperature in spring is 56 deg.; in summer, 77 deg.; in autumn, 59 deg. and in winter, 26 deg. Politically the country is divided into 11 districts consisting of 359 communes; the state capital is the residence of the imperial governor. The districts are: Kamnik, Kranj, Radovljica, the neighbourhood of Ljubljana, Logatec, Postojna, Litija, Krsko, Novo Mesto, Crnomelj, and Gotschee or Kocevje. There are 31 judicial circuits. The duchy was constituted by rescript of 20 December, 1860, and by imperial patent of 26 February, 1861, modified by legislation of 21 December, 1867, granting power to the home parliament to enact all laws not reserved to the imperial diet, at which it is represented by eleven delegates, of whom two are elected by the landowners, three by the cities, towns, commercial and industrial boards, five by the village communes, and one by a fifth curia. The ballot is secret, every duly registered male twenty-four years of age has the right to vote. The home legislature consists of a single chamber of thirty-seven members, among whom the prince-bishop sits ex-officio. The emperor convenes the legislature, and it is presided over by the governor. The landed interests elect ten members, the cities and towns eight, the commercial and industrial boards two, the village communes sixteen. The business of the chamber is restricted to legislating on agriculture, public and charitable institutions, administration of communes, church and school affairs, the transportation and housing of soldiers in war and during manoeuvres, and other local matters. The land budget of 1901 amounted to 3,573,280 crowns ($714,656). Ecclesiastical History In early Christian times the duchy was under the jurisdiction of the metropolitans of Aquileia, Syrmium, and Salona;, but in consequence of the immigration of the pagan Slovenes, this arrangement was not a lasting one. After they had embraced Christianity in the seventh and eighth centuries Charlemagne conferred the major part of Krain on the Patriarchate of Aquileia, and the remainder on the Diocese of Trieste. In 1100 that patriarchate was divided into five archdeaconries, of which Krain was one. Emperor Frederick III, 6 December, 1461, established the Diocese, of Ljubljana or Laibach, subject directly to the pope, and this was confirmed by a Bull of Pope Pius II, 10 September, 1462. The new diocese consisted of part of Upper Krain, two parishes in Lower Krain, and a portion of Lower Styria and Karinthia; the remaining portion of Krain was attached to Aquileia, later on to Goritza and Trieste. At the redistribution of dioceses (1787 to 1791) not all the parishes in Krain were included in the Diocese of Ljubljana, but this was accomplished in 1833, by taking two deaneries from the Diocese of Trieste, one from Goritza, and one parish from the Diocese of Lavant, so as to include all the territory within the political boundaries of the crownland. The diocese is divided into 5 archdeaconries, comprising 22 deaneries, two chapters with 17 canons, 296 parishes, 1336 churches, 204 chapels, 722 priests, 572,613 Catholics of the Latin Rite, and 360 of the Oriental Rite. The following congregations of men have houses in Krain: Cistercian Franciscans 4, Capuchins 2, Brothers of Charity 1, Jesuits 1, Congregation of Missions 1, priests of the German Order 1, Salesians 2. Congregations of Women: Ursulines 3 convents, Carmelites 1, Sisters of Charity 12 houses, including two schools. Krain has a diocesan seminary and one resident college for boys. The patron of the duchy is St. Joseph, and the patrons of the diocese, St. Hermagora and St. Fortunatus, Martyrs. Education The school system was founded by state law of 14 May, 1869, and of 2 May, 1883. There are 386 schools, of which 327 are public. Attendance is compulsory, from the age of seven to fourteen. There are two training schools for teachers: one for males, one for females, connected with the school of agriculture. There are 7 colleges, in which both Slovenian and German are taught. The first college was founded in 1418 by a parish priest. There is a high school for girls. The industrial schools have commercial courses, besides teaching wood carving, trades, domestic economy, horse-shoeing; instruction is also given in singing and on the pipe organ. The Museum Rudolfinum has a famous library. The inspection of the schools is under a school-board. The parish priests have the right of visiting the schools or of appointing substitutes. The schools are supported from national, regional, and local taxes. The provincial school-board is the highest school authority for all the schools, except those subject directly to the minister of instruction and worship. It consists of twelve members, of whom two are priests. There is a literary society, the "Matica Slovenska," one Catholic daily paper, and a few monthly magazines. Slovenes in the United States There are in the United States about 100,000 Slovenes organized into two great benevolent associations on religious principles. They possess the following churches: St. Joseph's, Joliet, Ill.; St. Stephen's, Chicago, Ill.; St. Mary's, West Allis, Wisconsin; St. Joseph's, Calumet, Michigan; St. Joseph's, Leadville, Col.; St. Mary's, Pueblo, Col.; St. Lawrence's, St. Vitus's, St. Mary's, Cleveland, Ohio; St. Mary's, Steelton, Pa.; St. Mary's, Pittsburgh, Pa.; St. Joseph's, Forest City, Pa.; Holy Family, Kansas City, Kansas. Joliet has one parish school, and one Catholic weekly paper. The saintly bishop, Frederic Baraga, author of the first grammar of the Indian language, Bishops Ignatius Mrak, and John Vertin, Slovenes, were pioneers in apostolic work in upper Michigan, as well as Bishops James Trobec and John Stariha, who are still living. Civil History Before the coming of the Romans (c. 200 B.C.) the Taurisci dwelt in the north of Krain, the Pannones in the south-east, the Iapodes or Carni, a Celtic tribe, in the south-west. Under Roman rule, the northern part was joined to Noricum, the south-western and south-eastern parts and the city of Aemona to Venice and Istria. In the time of Augustus all the region from Aemona to Culpa belonged to the province of Savia. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire (476), Krain was incorporated into the Kingdom of Italy, and (493) under Theodoric it formed part of the Ostrogothic kingdom. Between the upper Save and the Sotcha lived the Carni, and towards the end of the sixth century the Slovenes peopled that region called by Latin writers Carnia, or Carniola, i.e. part of greater Carnia. Later on with the coming of the Slovenian language, the name was changed to "Krajino" or in German "Chrainmarcha," Chreine, "the boundary." The new inhabitants were subjected to the Avars, but threw off their yoke, and joined the great Slavic state of Samo. Krain was governed by the Franks about the year 788. When Charlemagne established the province of Friuli he added to it a part of Krain. After the division of Friuli, it became an independent province, having its own Slovenian margrave residing at Kranj, subject to the governor of Bavaria at first, and after 876 to the Dukes of Karinthia. Henry IV gave it to the Patriarch of Aquileia (1071). In the Middle Ages the Church held much property in Krain, thus in Upper and Lower Krain the Bishop of Friesing became (974) a feudal lord of the city of Skofja Loka, the Bishop of Brixen held Bled and possessions in the valley of Bohinj, and the Bishop of Lavant got Mokronog. Among secular potentates the Dukes of Meran, Goritzza, Babenberg, and Zilli held possessions given to them in fief by the patriarchs of Aquileia. The dukes governed the province nearly half a century, and finally Krain was given in fief with the consent of the patriarch to Frederick II, of Austria, who obtained the title of duke, 1245. Frederick was succeeded by Ulrich III, Duke of Karinthia, who married a relative of the patriarch, and endowed the churches and monasteries, established the government mint at the city of Kostanjevica, and finally (1268) willed to Otokar II, King of Bohemia, all his possessions and the government of Karinthia and Carniola. Otokar was defeated by Rudolf II of Hapsburg, and at the meeting at Augsburg, 1282, he gave in fief to his sons Albrecht and Rudolf the province of Krain, but it was leased to Count Majnhardt. Duke Henry of Karinthia claimed Krain; and the Dukes of Austria asserted their claim as successors to the Bohemian kingdom. Henry died 1335, Jan, King of Bohemia, renounced his claims, and Albrecht, Duke of Austria, got Krain; it was proclaimed a duchy by Rudolf IV, in 1364. Frederick IV united Upper, Lower, and Central Krain as Metlika and Pivka into one duchy. The union of the dismembered parts was completed by 1607. The French occupied Krain in 1797, and from 1805 to 1806. After the Treaty of Vienna, 1809, Napoleon erected Illyria, with Ljubljana as its capital, and Krain formed a part of the new territory from 1809 to 1813. The defeat of Napoleon restored Krain to Francis I, with larger boundaries, but at the extinction of the Illyrian Kingdom. Krain was confined to the limits outlined at the Congress of Vienna, 1815. O'GORMAN, Church History (New York, 1900); Oesterreichischungarische Monarchie in Wort and Bild, Koernten und Krain (Vienna, 1891); VALVASOR, Die Ehre des Herzogthums Krain (Ljubljana, 1689); ERBEN, Vojvodstvo Kranjsko (Ljubljana, 1866); GRUDEN, Cerkvene razmere u XV. stoleju (Ljubljana, 1908); RUTAR, Beneska Slovenija (Ljubljana, 1899); OROZEN, Vojvodina Kranjska (Ljubljana, 1907); POLJANEC, Kratka zgodovina slovenskega naroda (Ljubljana, 1908). M.D. KRMPOTIC John Kramer John Krämer (Also called INSTITOR, the Latin form of his name). Born about the end of the fourteenth century, he must have died between 1437 and 1440, as a manuscript of the Carthusian monastery of Memmingen speaks of the gift made to it by Krämer in 1437, and the general chapter of the Carthusian Order held in 1440 mentions his death. Having entered the charterhouse of Buxheim, in the Diocese of Ausburg, Bavaria (whence he is sometimes called John of Buxheim), he there led the life of a pious and obedient religious. There, also, he wrote sundry works, including two treatises published by D. Pez in his "Bibliotheca ascetica". The first of these entitled "Breviloquium anirni cujuslibet religiosi reformativum"; it consists of two parts. In the first part the author teaches a good religious divers means and practices which he should observe in order to remain a faithful child of the Church, to acquire, on earth, the grace of perfection and, in heaven, ever-lasting happiness. In the second part, by a quaint allegory, he puts the religious on his guard against the faults of monastic life which are represented by twenty birds of prey, the eagle, the vulture, the hawk, the owl, etc., whose characteristics and manners he describes. Though written in a rude, uncultured style, the book was much read in the monasteries of the Middle Ages. The subject of Krämer's second book is sufficiently indicated by its title, "Tractatus exhortativus ad evitandam malam iram". In these two books we find the spirituality peculiar to the Carthusians of the fifteenth century: a rigorous asceticism, relieved somewhat (under the influence of Denis the Carthusian) by a few touches of mystical tenderness. An unpublished treatise, "De Objectionibus bibliae", has also been sometimes attributed to Krämer, but without sufficient warrant. PEZ, Bibliotheca ascetiva, antiquo-nova VII (Ratisbon, 1723--), 119-388; PETREIUS, Bibliotheca Carthusiana (Cologne, 1609); FABRICIUS, Bibliotheca latina mediae aetatis (Florence, 1898 --) III; PUYOL, L'Auteur du livre de imitatione Christi (Paris, 1899). ANTOINE DEGERT Ignatius Krasicki Ignatius Krasicki Born in 1735; died at Berlin, 1801. He took orders in early youth, and soon after became a canon, travelled abroad, preached the coronation sermon for King Stanislaus Poniatowski, by whose favour he shortly got a bishopric in what was soon to become Prussian Poland. Frederick II then made his acquaintance, and it was to amuse this king, they say, that Krasicki wrote his "Monachomachia". In 1775, there appeared a heroicomic poem, "Myszeis" (The Mousiad), a purposely entangled allegory on the state of Poland. "Monachomachia" is clear enough, but a bishop ought rather to have made an effort to reform the monks than to have laughed at them, and to have written it for a Protestant king's amusement was a greater blunder if the charges were true: as a Catholic, as well as a Pole, he could not be the friend of the Prussian king. Krasicki felt this, and wrote his "Anti-Monachomachia" to destroy the bad impression made. In 1770 he published "Doswiadczynski" a novel written under the influence of contemporary English fiction -- partly a clever satirical and lifelike sketch of character, partly describing an ideal community, and imitating Johnson's "Rasselas". The latter part is so much feebler in its description of an impossible Utopia that it mars the other. The best part of Krasicki's poetry is his "Satires" (1778) and his "Fables". The former, witty, soberly ironical, without gall, exaggeration, or malice, and perfect in form, remind us of Horace: they are historically important as pictures of the state of Poland and are very patriotic in tendency. The national faults and aberrations are pointed out wittily always and sometimes with sorrowful eloquence. "Pan Podstoli", though in form a prose novel, has a like aim. The tale diverts us, but its moral is the essential thing and both are excellent. From the highest duties to the meanest particulars of religious, family, and social life, all is pointed out in the best and noblest way. Surely, if a book could have regenerated Poland, "Podstoli" would have done so. The "Fables" (1779) are, like all others at that time in Europe, imitations of Lafontaine, but none were so like their model as Krasicki's. Like Lafontaine's, Krasicki's are amongst the best ever written, while in colour they are distinctly original, because Polish. Though clear and artistlic the "War of Chocim" (1780), an heroic poem written in order to give an epos to Polish literature, is a failure, though far superior to Voltaire's famous "Henriade". But it is impossible even to name all his works -- "Epistles" in verse, comedies some not without merit, lives of great men, novels, and notes. Let us mention his "Poetic Art", "Gardens", and his "Translation of Ossian". He died in 1801 at Berlin, seven years after his elevation to the Archbishopric of Gnesen, a man much like Horace, witty, sensible, kind, lacking in passion and creative power, but not in good will. As the regenerator of Polish poetry, he has forever deserved his countrymen's gratitude. S. TARNOWSKI Sigismund Krasinski Sigismund Krasinski Count, son of a Polish general, b. at Paris, 19 Feb., 1812; d. there, 23 Feb., 1859. He lost his mother (Mary, née Princess Radziwill) in early childhood. From boyhood he loved study, and, as a student in Warsaw, distinguished himself as a sympathizer with the Romantic literary movement. But, when -- against his will and purely to obey his father -- he refrained from political manifestations at Warsaw in 1829, he became so unpopular amongst his fellow-students that his father sent him to Geneva. Being intensely patriotic, he suffered moral agonies during the insurrection of 1831, as his letters show, and, when he was forced to return and present himself at Tsar Nicholas's Court, his health gave way. Permitted to withdraw to Vienna, he brought out his first great work, those which he had written previously being far inferior. "Nieboska Komedya" (The Infernal Comedy, 1833) is the struggle between the old order and the new: each has its champion, both are self-seeking, faithless, and end in despair. This work was paraphrased and expanded by Edward Robert, Lord Lytton, as "Orval, the Fool of Time" (1869). In 1836 "Irydion" appeared. It is distinctly patriotic in tone: a young Greek dreams of delivering his country from the Roman yoke, attempts under Heliogabalus to do so, and, in order to have the Christians on his side, becomes one of them. His vengeance fails, and at the end Christ, his judge, condemns not his patriotism but his evil deeds and want of trust in Providence. After "Irydion" until the appearance of "Przedswit" (Before Dawn) Krasinski passed through a period of little literary activity but much philosophical thought, during which his works were few and of little importance. "Before Dawn" is a most beautiful poem, and was intended by Krasinski to be his last. The poet sailing in a boat with Beatrice, his loved one and the source of his inspiration has a vision showing him some of the heroes of old Poland, which makes him happy, for Czarniecki reveals to him the destiny of Poland, the only nation which preserved the spirit of Christianity: thence its present sufferings and its future greatness. Shortly after the publication of "Before Dawn" Krasinski married Elizabeth Branicka. In 1845 he began to write his "Psalms of the Future" poems inspired by the desire to prevent his country from rushing into an abyss for he had been informed that an armed rising was close at hand. The "Psalms of Faith, Hope, and Love" appeared together, followed (in 1848) by the "Psalms of Sorrow and of Good-will". The last marks what is perhaps the very highest summit of Krasinski's inspiration. Here, as an "Before Dawn", he makes Poland the "Chosen Nation of the Lord". His other works are: "The Day of To-Day", and "The Last One", both published in 1848, but written long before; "Resurrecturis", a "Gloss of St Theresa", and his last work which has no name but "The Unfinished Poem", and which as a whole, though he had been working at it before 1840, is much inferior to his best production. After 1848 Krasinski's health, which had been feeble, gave way completely. He spent some time in Baden and Heidelberg and travelled to France in search of a congenial climate; but his last years, saddened by family losses, were spent in a state of great physical suffering. Krasinski's poetry, possibly the noblest of all contemporary efforts to base politics on the principles of Christianity, has for key-note his exclusive interest in all such political questions as touch upon a happier future for the world. The "Infernal Comedy" deals with all Europe as a whole and in general; "Irydion" enquires how any particular nation is to be regenerated; "Before Dawn" gives the answer, as also do the "Psalms of the Future", though more distinctly and with less of enshrouding mysticism. As a thinker, Krasinski is greater than as a poet. Though at times too obscure, too allegorical, and too prone to set forth his message at the expense of artistic form, yet his creations show wonderful talent, rich imagination, and complete originality. He owes nothing either to antiquity or to contemporaries, whether English, Polish, or German. His defects (redundancy of ornament, exaggeration in thought, turgidity of style), conspicuous only in his feebler works, pass unnoticed in his greatest creations, of which they cannot impair the grandeur. No Polish author writes with greater splendour and majesty. He is representative of the noblest trends of the thought of his time, and eloquently expressive of his nation's sufferings, whilst he warns her not to go astray and points out the way to salvation. He is indeed one of the mightiest minds that Poland ever brought forth. S. TARNOWSKI Franz Xaver Kraus Franz Xaver Kraus An ecclesiastical and art historian, b. at Trier, 18 September, 1840; d. at San Remo, 28 December, 1901. He completed his studies in the Trier gymnasium, began his theology in 1858-60 in the seminary there, and finished it in 1862-64, having passed in France the time from the autumn of 1860 to the spring of 1862 as tutor in distinguished French families. He was ordained a priest by the suffragan bishop Eberhard of Trier, 23 March, 1864. Even after he became a priest, he continued his studies in theology and philology at the universities of Tubingen, Freiburg -- where he had received the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in 1862, and received that of Doctor of Divinity in 1865 -- and Bonn. In the autumn of 1865 he became beneficiary of Pfalzel near Trier, where he developed a zealous literary activity, interrupted by severaf journeys of the purpose of study to Paris Belgium, and to Rome in January, 1970. In the spring of 1872 he was attached to the faculty of philosophy at the university of Strasburg as professor extraordinary of the history of Christian art, and in the autumn of 1878 he succeeded Johann Alzog as Professor ordinary of Church history at Freiburg. In 1890 he was made grand-ducal privy councillor, and held the office of pro-rector of the university for the period 1890-1. He was also curator of religious antiquities in the Grand Duchy of Baden, and from 1883 a member of the Badern Historical Commission. Kraus was a man of brilliant and versatile talents, a scholar of great learning, a clever and elegant writer, and, in spite of ill-health and the acute bodily sufferings of his closing years, an author of wonderful productivity, who delighted in his work. Although, from an ecclesiastical standpoint, much of his literary work is greatly to be deplored and rejected and though his political activity -- to which we shall refer later -- did not always influence favourably his intellectual labours, his achievements of positive and permanent value form a sufficiently imposing array to entitle Kraus to a place among the ablest scholars of the nineteenth century. After a few translations from the French (van Hemen, de Ravignan, and Lacordaire) he began his independent literary career with small works on the history of early Christian literature in the first centuries and the Middle Ages, among them: "Ægidius von Rom" (in "Oesterreichische Vierteljahreschrift für kath. Theologie", I, 1862) "Observationes criticae in Synesii Cyrenaei epistulas" (Sulzbach, 1863); "Studien uber Synesios von Kyrene" (in "Theologische Quartalschrift, XLVII, 1865; "Der Briefwechsel Pauli mit Seneca" "Theologissche Quartalschrift", XLIX, 1867), and later "Ueber das Martyrium des h. Ignatius von Antiochien" ("Theol. Quartalschrift", LV, 1873). Of the edition of the "Opera omnia" of Thomas à Kempis, undertaken by Kraus, only the first volume appeared ("Opuscula", Trier, 1868). Another series of writings, published in the "Bonner Jahrbucher des Vereins von Alterthumsfreunden" and in the "Serapeum", deals with particular features of the history and archology of Trier. In this manner Kraus was led on to the study of Christian archaeology in general, and then to Christian art in all its aspects, thus reaching the field of research for which he seemed particularly qualified, and in which he was to accomplish his best work. Among other larger or smaller publications we may mention: "Beitrage zur Trierischen Archaologie und Gesehichte. I, Der heilige Nagel in der Domkirche zu Trier" (Trier, 1868); "DieKunst bei den alten Christen" (Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1868); "Die christliche Kunst in ihren fruhesten Anfangen. Mit besonderer Berucksichtigung der neuesten Resultate der Katakomben-Forsehung popular dargestellt" (Leipzig, 1872); "Ueber den gegenwartigen Stand der Frage nach dern Inhalte und der sedeutung der romischen Blutampullen "(Freiburg, 1872); "Das Spotterucifix vom Palatin" (Freiburg, 1872); "Roma sotterranea: Die romischen Katakomben. Eine Darstellung der neuesten Forschungen, mit Zugrundelegung des Werkes von J. Spencer Northeote und W. R. Brownlow" (Freiburg, 1873; 2nd ed., 1879); "Ueber das Studium der Kunstwissenschaft an den deutschen Hochschulen" (Strasburg, 1874); "Ueber Begriff, Umfang, Geschichte der christlichen Archaologie und die Bedeutung der monumentalen Studien far die historische Theologie. Akademische Antrittsrede" (Freiburg, 1879); "Synchronistische Tabellen zur christlichen Kunstgeschichte" (Freiburg, 1880). These were followed by the great works which constitute Kraus's chief claim to an enduring fame: "Kunst und Alterthum in Elsass-Lothringen. Beschreibende Statistik im Auftrage des kalserlichen Oberprasidiums von Elsass-Lothringen herausgegeben" (4 vols, Strasburg, 1876- 92); "Beal-Encyklopadie der christlichen Alterthümer" (2 vols., Freiburg, 1882-6); "Die Kunstdenkmäler des Grossherzogthurns Baden" (vols. I -- VI, 1, Freiburg, 1887-1904 -- is being continued by other authors); "Die christlichen Inschriften der Rheinlande" (2 vols, Freiburg, 1890-4); and lastly his masterpiece: Geschichte der christlichen Kunst" (vol. I and the first half of volume II (Freiburg, 1896-1900). The second half of volume two, which brings the description of the Italian Renaissance to a close, was published by Joseph Sauer in 1908. This work combined the results of all Kraus's labours in the field of art. Its chief merit lies in the description of the connection of art with the general and religious culture of the different periods. Other important publications belong to the special history of art: "Die Wandgemälde der St. Georgskirche zu Oberzell auf der Reichenau" (Freiburg, 1884); "Die Miniaturen des Codex Egberti in der Stadtbibliothek zu Trier" (Freiburg, 1884); "Die Miniaturen der Manesseschen Liederhandschrift" (Strasburg, 1887); "Die mittelalterlichen Wandgemälde im Grossherzogthum Baden" (with H. von Oechelhäuser, vol. I, Darmstadt, 1893); "Die Wandgemälde der Sylvesterkapelle zu Goldbach am Bodense" (Munich, 1902). Kraus 's literay leanings were directed especially towards Italy. After a close study of Dante, covering years of labour, he published the work, which must be ranked among his greatest: "Dante. Sein Leben und sein Werk. Sein Verhältniss zur Kunst und Politik" (Berlin, 1897). Though his opinions may not be in all cases incontestable, this work will always claim a prominent place in Dante literature. Somewhat earlier he had published "Luca Signorelli's Ilustrationen zu Dante's Divina Commedia" (Freiburg, 1892). His collected "Essays" also belong to Kraus's most brilliant literary efforts (vols. I and II, Berlin, 1896 and 1901); they are of a literary, historical, and political character, and the majority appeared originally in the "Deutsche Rundschau"; particularly noteworthy are the essays "Antonio Rosmini" -- for whom Kraus had a particular veneration -- and "Francesco Petrarca in seinem Briefwechsel". Compared with the more congenial occupation of literature and art, Kraus's work on church history takes second place. His "Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte fur Studierende" (lst ed. in 3 parts, Trier, 1872-5; 4th ed., 1896, French translation: "Histoire de l'Eglise par F. X. Kraus traduite par P. Godet et C. Verschaffel" (4 vols. Paris, 1891-2) contains much that is excellent, but has also serious defects. It is distinguished by clear and perspicuous arrangement, based more or less on that of the well-known manual of the Protestant historian Kurtz, and by its elegant and interesting narrative, but its statement of fact is frequently neither sufficiently accurate nor reliable. One misses the calm objectivity of the historian, the author showing in many instances the inordinate influence which his liberalizing views exerted over his judgment. This bias naturally aroused enmity, and as it was still more emphatic in the second edition of 1882, Kraus was compelled by the pope to withdraw this edition and revise it. The revised edition appeared in 1887 with the ecclesiastical imprimatur. The first edition of the church history was followed by the "Synchronistische Tabellen zur Kirchengeschichte" (Trier, 1876) and "Charakterbilder aus der christlichen Kirchengeschichte" (5 parts, Trier, 1877), which were designated the fourth and fifth divisions of the ecclesiastical history, but had really the character of separate works. Among his less important ecclesiastico-historical works are "Briefe Benedicts XIV. an den Canonicus Francesco Peggi in Bologna 1727-1758" (Freiburg and Tubingen, 1884; 2nd ed., 1888): "Medicean Rome" in "The Cambridge Modern History", II (Cambridge, 1903), 1-35. Mention should also be made of his preparation of the tenth edition of Alzog's "Handbuch der allgemeinen Kirchengeschichte" (2 vols., Mainz, 1882), and his "Gedachtnissrede auf Johannes Alzog, Professor der Theologie an der Universitat Freiburg" (Freiburg, 1879). His political rather than his ecclesiastical views are reflected in "Die Erhebung Italiens im 19 Jahrhundert: Cavour" (Mainz, 1902 -- "Weltgeschichte in Karakterbildern", vol. V). As a politician Kraus displayed an extensive journalistic activity, which, from the Catholic standpoint, is greatly to be regretted. Personally, he was a man of deep religious feeling and Catholic faith, but, from association with the Liberal Catholics in France, Italy, and Germany, he soon became imbued with their views on ecclesiastical polity. At the time of the Vatican Council, he entered into close connections with the opposition party, and kept up these relations for some time. He remained in the Church, but the strife had engendered in his mind a certain bitterness. In many anonymous or pseudonymous articles written for the Liberal press, he gave vent to his dissatisfaction with certain ecclesiastical conditions -- often with excessive severity and bitterness. The "Kirchenpolitische Briefe" in the "Beilage zur Allgemeinen Zeitung" (1895-9), written under the pseudonym of "Spectator", created a great sensation. It is to him that we owe the distinction between "religious and political Catholicism", a formula in which he imagined he had found the solution of many difficulties. The permanent services of Kraus as a scholar are, however, sufficiently great to permit us to draw a veil of oblivion over his political errors and his secret activity on behalf of Liberalism. BRAIG, Zur Erinnerung an Frans Xaver Kraus (Freiburg, 1902); HAUVILLER, F.X. Kraus, ein Lebensbild aus der Zeit des Reformkatholizismus (Colmar, 1904; 2nd ed., Munich, 1905), shows Liberal tendencies; GRAUERT in Historische Jahrbuch (1902), 238-44; Kolnische Volkszeitung (1902, nos. 21, 22, 24; KUNSTLE, Notice biographique et bibliographique sur F. X. Kraus in Revue d'historire ecclesiastique, III (1902), 431-41; SAUER, in Kunstchronik, New Series, XIII (1901-2), cols. 225-33; Deutsche Rundschau, CX (1902), 432-59; HURBIN, F. X. Kraus und die Schweiz in Hochland, I, 2 (1904), 650-67; SCHRORS, in Badische Biographien, V (Heidelberg, 1906), 424-42. FRIEDRICH LAUCHERT Karl Kreil Karl Kreil Austrian meteorologist and astronomer, b. at Ried, Upper Austria, 4 Nov., 1798; d. at Vienna, 21 Dec., 1862. He received his early education at the Benedictine Abbey of Kremsmünster, under the noted astronomer P. Boniface Schwarzenbrunner. There he joined in the work at the observatory. He studied law for financial reasons, but, in 1823, decided to give it up and to devote himself exclusively to the mathematical and physical sciences. In 1827 he became assistant at the observatory of the Vienna University, then, 1831, adjunct at the observatory de La Brera of Milan. In 1838 he was transferred to the Prague Observatory, of which he became director in 1845. He found this observatory in a very poor condition and was therefore obliged to confine his work more and more to terrestrial observations. He introduced into Austria the study of a new science, that of terrestrial physics. The necessary instruments he obtained by personal privations and persistent efforts. He organized a rational system of magnetic and meteorological observations, which soon placed Prague in the same class with such observatories as that of Göttingen, which was richly endowed and which was directed by the great Gauss. The emperor conferred upon him the cross of Knight of the Order of Francis Joseph. A member of the Imperial Academy of Vienna since its foundation in 1847, he submitted to it his plans for the establishment of a central station for magnetic and meteorological observations in Austria. This was realized at Vienna in 1851. He was made the first director and at the same time became professor of physics at the University of Vienna. His systematic observations, begun at Milan and Prague, soon extended first over Bohemia and later over the entire empire to the shores of the Adriatic, as well as to Turkey and the Black sea. His religious convictions were very pronounced, and, far from clashing with his scientific occupations, they added a new force to them. He contributed a number of papers and reports to the Academy, improved magnetic apparatus, and constructed some self-registering meteorological instruments. The work at Prague was published in eleven volumes, 1839-1850, under the title of "Magnet. und Meteorolg. Beob. zu Prag." Other publications are: "Cenni storici e teoretici sulle comete" (Milan, 1832); "Beob. über den grossen Kometen von 1843" (Prague, 1843); "Natur und Bewegung der Kometen" (Prague, 1843); "Magn. und geogr. Ortsbestimmungen in Oesterr. Kaiserthum" (5 vols., Vienna, 1846-1851); "Anleitung zu magn. Beobachtungen" (2nd ed., Vienna, 1858); "Horizontale Komponente der magnetischen Erdkraft" (Vienna, 1853). He edited "Astronomisch-meteorologisches Jahrbuch für Prag" (Prague, 1842-1845) and also "Jahrbücher der Zentral-anstalt für Meteorologie und Erdmagnetismus" (1849-1862). KNELLER, Das Christentum (Freiburg, 1904), 104; GÜNTHER, Allgemeine Deutsche Biogr., XVII (Leipzig, 1883); MARSHALL, Les Mondes, I (Paris, 1863), 401; GRUNERT, Archiv der Math. und Phys.; Litter. Bericht, CLVII (Greifswald, 1864). WILLIAM FOX William Kreiten William Kreiten Literary critic and poet, b. 21 June, 1847, at Gangelt near Aschen; d. 6 June, 1902, at Kerkrade (Kirchrath) in Dutch Limburg. At the age of sixteen he entered the Jesuit novitiate of Friedrichsburg at Münster. After receiving his classical education at Münster and Amiens, he began his philosophical and theological studies at Maria Laach in 1868, but was compelled to interrupt them the following year on account of ill-health. From 1869 to 1871 he pursued literary studies at Münster. When the Jesuits were expelled from Germany, in 1872, Kreiten was sent to Aix in Provence, where he completed his theological studies and was ordained priest on 8 June, 1873. From 1870 to 1878 he was on the editorial staff of "Stimmen aus Maria Laach" at Tervueren near Brussels. In 1878 ill-heath compelled him to retire to Kerkrade, where he spent the remaining twenty-three years of his life in literary pursuits. Though continually suffering, he was one of the chief workers on "Stimmen aus Maria Laach", to which he contributed numerous essays on literary subjects and most of the reviews of current Catholic literature from 1874 to 1902. His larger works in the field of literary history and criticism are "Voltaire, Ein Beitrag zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Liberalismus" (Freiburg, im Br., 1878, 2nd ed., 1884); "Molieres Leben und Werke" (Freiburg im Br., 1887; 2nd ed, 1897); "Lebrecht Dreves. Ein Lebensbild" (Freiburg im Br, 1897); a critical edition of the poems of Annette von Droste-Hulshoff with an exhaustive biography of the great Westphalian poetss (Monster, 1884-6; 2nd ed., 1900 --); a series of twenty-one articles in "Stimmen aus Maria Laach" on Blaise Pascal and his works. His poetical works are "Heimatweisen aus der Fremde (Aachen, 1882), the second edition of which has many additional poems and is entitled "Den weg entlang" (Paderborn, 1889; 10th ed, 1904); translations of selections from the modern Provencal Christmas hymns of Louis Simon Lambert, entitled "Bethlehem" (Freiburg im Br, 1882; 2nd ed., 1895). Furthermore, Kreiten completed and published a biography of Klemens Brentano which had been begun by the friend of his youth, J. B. Diel, S. J., 2 vols., (Freiburg im Br., 1877); edited the other posthumous works of Diel, 2 vols. (Freiburg im Br., 1877); and Brentano's "Die Chronik des fahrenden Schulers" (Munich, 1883; 2nd ed., 1888). His last work was a collection of eight hundred aphorisms entitled "Allerlei Weisheit" (Paderborn, 1901). Stimmen aus Maria Laach, LXIII (Freiburg, im Br. 1902), 1-11; Deutecher Hausschatz, XXVIII (Ratisbon, 1901-2), supplement, 113; GULDNER in The Messenger, XXXVIII (New York, 1902), 471-3. MICHAEL OTT Kremsmunster Kremsmünster A Benedictine abbey in Austria, on the little river Krems, about twenty miles south of Linz, founded A.D. 777 by Tassilo II Duke of Bavaria, who richly endowed it, as did subsequently Charlemagne and his successors. The first colony of monks came from Lower Bavaria, and Fatericus was the first abbot. The position and reputation of the monastery soon became such that its abbots, in the absence of the bishop of the diocese (Passau), exercised the episcopal jurisdiction. In the tenth certury the abbey was destroyed in an incursion of the Hungarians, and its possessions divided among the Duke of Bavaria and other nobles and the bishops; but it was restored, and recovered its property, under the emperor Henry II, when the holy and zealous Gothard became abbot. In the following century Kremsmünster shared the general decadence of religious houses, and fell into decay, which was fortunately arrested by the action of the excellent Bishop Altmann of Passau, who brought a community from Gottesau, and introduced the reformed observance of Cluny into the abbey. After this it became known as one of the most flourishing houses in Germany, "excelling all other abbeys" says an anonymous chronicler, "in observance and piety, also in respect to its lands, buildings, books, paintings, and other possessions, and in the number of its members prominent in learning and in art". The monastic library was famous, and drew eminent scholars to study at Kremsmünster, where several important historical works were written, including histories of the bishops of Passau and of the dukes of Bavaria, and the chronicles of the abbey itself. Schrodl (Kirchenlex., VII, 1053) gives a list of writers connected with Kremsmünster from the eleventh to the sixteenth centuries, and of their literary labours. One of the most distinguished abbots was Ulrich Schoppenzaun (1454-1484), and it was owing to his attainments and zeal, and those of his disciple and successor Johann Schreiner (1505-1524), that at the critical time when the Reformation errors were beginning to spread in Germany, Kremsmünster held firmly to the old faith and doctrines. From the Reformation period onwards nearly every abbot who ruled the monastery proved himself pious and learned, zealous and patriots ready to make all needful sacrifices for his country and his emperor. Abbot Lechner, towards the middle of the sixteenth century, constituted the hitherto private monastic school into a public school, and did much to preserve Catholicism in the district, where the Protestant doctrines had become widely prevalent. Abbot Weiner (1558-1565) unfortunately favoured the new teaching, thus introducing into the abbey dissension which nearly developed into disruption. This was, however, prevented by the zeal of succeeding abbots; and Abbot Wolfradt especially (1613-1639) brought the monastery into so highly flourishing a condition that he was known as its third founder; while its reputation as a house of studies and learning was even increased under his successor, Placid Buchauer (1644-1669). Among the abbots of the eighteenth century the most prominent and distinguished was Alexander Fixlmillner (1731-1759), who built the great observatory, constructed many roads on the monastic estate, and was a man of most edifying life and unbounded charity to the poor. Towards tne end of this century the drastic and innovating policy of the Emperor Joseph II, especially with regard to the religious houses of his dominions, brought Kremsmünster, like other great foundations, to the verge of supression; but it happily escaped this fate. The house suffered much during the long Napoleonic wars, and was slow in recovering its position. It was not until the abbacy of Thomas Mitterndorfer (1840-1860) that, with its material position reinforced, and learning and discipline again flourishing within its walls, it regained all its former prestige. One of the most illustrious abbots in recent times was Dom Celestine Ganglbauer, who celebrated in 1877 the eleven-hundredth anniversary of the foundation, became Archbishop of Vienna in 1881 and was raised to the cardinalate in 1884 (d. 1889). The present abbot is Dom Leander Czerny, who succeeded Abbot Achleutner in 1905. The community of Kremsmünster Abbey numbers about a hundred members. The abbey has the cure of souls of twenty six parishes (population over 42,000) and within the precincts are a Gymnasium, or boys school (300 pupils), of high reputation, and a school of philosophy. The imposing pile of buildings, as they now stand, are mostly of the eighteenth century. The valuable library contains some 70,000 volumes, 1700 manuscripts, and nearly 2000 incunabula. There is an interesting collection of objects of natural history in the lower part of the observatory, which is eight stories high; and a curious feature is the series of fish-tanks decorated with statues and a Colonnade. LOSERTH, Die Geschichtsquellen von Kremsmünster im XllI. und XIV. Jahrhudert (Vienna, 1877); Histor. Patav. et Cremifanens. in PERTZ, Mon. Germ. Hist., XXV (1880), 610-678); PACHMAYR, Histor.-chronolog. series . . . monast. Cremifan. (4 vols., Steyr, 1777-1782); HARTENSNEIDER, Darstellung des Stiftes Kremsmünster (Vienna, 1830); HAGN, Das Wirken der Benedictinerabtei Kremsmünster (Linz, 1848); RETTENPACHER, Annales monast. Cremifanensis (Salzburg, 1677); PEZ, Script. ver. Austriae (Leipzig, 1725), II, 57. D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR Martin Kromer Martin Kromer A distinguished Polish bishop and historian; b. at Biecz in Galicia in 1512; d. at Heilsberg, Ermland (now East Prussia), on 23 March, 1589. He was the son of a substantial citizen who, desirous of a public career for his son, sent him to the University of Cracow where he obtained his degree in philosophy. Afterwards he studied theology at Bologna and at Rome. When he returned to Poland he was appointed secretary to Gamrat, Bishop of Cracow, and shortly afterwards he was made secretary to Prince Sigismund August. The latter was so pleased with him that, when he afterwards ascended the Polish throne, he entrusted Kromer with many high official duties, and in order to enable him to receive promotion to even higher dignities the king elevated him in 1552 to the rank of a nobleman. Kromer was charged with diplomatic missions to Vienna, Rome, and to the Council of Trent. In Poland he had complete charge of the national archives, arranged the various documents and materials in systematic form, and in doing so devoted himself especially to the history of his country. At the suggestion of the king he utilized the studies made in arranging these archives by writing his great historical work, "De origine et rebus gestis Polonorum" in thirty books, which was published at Basle in 1555, and treated of the history of Poland from the earliest times down to the year 1506. It was translated into German by Heinrich Pantaleon and also published at Basle in 1562, and was likewise translated on two different occasions into Polish and published at Cologne in 1589 and at Cracow in 1611. In this history Kromer showed himself a keen critic, with a graceful style and polished Latinity, and he was particularly successful in setting forth clearly and lucidly the intricate political relations of Poland with the neighbouring states. It is to be regretted, however, that his history ended without describing the events of the very epoch which he knew so well from his own participation therein. Following this, he published at Cologne in 1577 his great geographical and descriptive work, "Polonia, sive de situ, populis, moribus, magistratibus et republica regni Polonici," in two books, which still remains an important source of information about contemporary Poland. It was translated into Polish by Kondratowicz and published at Wilna in 1853. He had even turned his attention to music, for in 1534 he had published a volume at Cracow entitled "De musica figurata." He took a very active part in opposing the spread of Protestantism in Poland. His various polemical writings, his sermons, and his catechism were all written in Polish and in a simple style devoted to the enlightenment of the people; they formed an energetic protest against the introduction of the new Lutheran and Calvinistic doctrines. In 1570 he was appointed by Cardinal (then Bishop) Stanislaus Hosius as coadjutor in the Diocese of Ermland, where together with the latter he wrote popular works in explanation and defence of the Catholic Faith. After the death of Hosius in 1579 Kromer was made Bishop of Ermland, and held that see until he died in 1589. EICHHORN, Der ermlaendische Bischof Martin Kromer (Braunsberg, 1868); WALEWSKI, Martin Kromer (Warsaw, 1874); HIPLER, Die deutschen Predigten und Katechesen der ermlaendischen Bischoefe Hosius und Kromer (Cologne, 1885). ANDREW J. SHIPMAN Andrew Krzycki Andrew Krzycki Date of birth uncertain; d. in 1535. -- A typical humanistic poet, a most supple courtier for whom poetry was to be a source of renown and profit, Krzycki was well-read in Latin poetry and knew the language to perfection. He wrote numerous epigrams, pointed and spirited in style and diction. His individuality was conspicuous; his talent, though not creative, and confined to imitations of the ancients, was by no means insignificant; his wit, mordant and at times coarse. His verses, whether laudatory or satirical, were mostly written to commemorate notable occasions. In 1512, for instance, he celebrated in verse the marriage of King Sigismund I with Barbara Zapolya; Krzycki subsequently became chancellor to the youthful queen. When the king won the victory of Orsza, he again wrote a poem, and sent verses purporting to be from the queen to her absent husband after the model of Ovid's "Epistolae Heroidum"; these, in a letter to Krzycki, Erasmus praised enthusiastically. After Barbara's death he continued to be chancellor in the household of Bona Sforza, Sigismund's second wife. He took orders and managed to obtain rich benefices, and even a bishopric; a flatterer in his verse when he hoped to get anything, he was malicious and biting when his suit was refused, and amongst his verses indecent and even obscene passages are to be found. Krzycki was plainly uneasy at times in the anticipation of impending danger. The Reformation, then rapidly spreading, filled him with dismay, and was the occasion of the most serious, and perhaps the best, work that he produced, "Religions et Reipublicae quaerimonia" (1522). When the Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights became a Lutheran, and Sigismund I (very wrongly) recognized him as his vassal and Duke of East Prussia, this act astonished the whole Catholic world, especially at Rome and in the Court of the emperor. Krzycki in a letter written to Baron Pulleon, very cleverly tried to explain and justify this action of his sovereign. He finally rose to the very highest dignity in his country, that of Primate Archbishop of Gnesen. His great talent and sense distinguished him amongst the Polish-Latin poets; he possessed all the characteristics of a humanist and a worldly-minded priest of his epoch. It is true that Krzycki loved his country and that he feared for its future. He readily patronized youthful talent, as in the case of Janicki. His last work, "De Asiana Dieta," was a criticism of those turbulent and fruitless Polish diets common in his time. S. TARNOWSKI Johannes von Kuhn Johannes von Kuhn Theologian, b. at Waeschenbeuren in Wuertemberg, 19 Feb., 1806; d. at Tübingen, 8 May, 1887. He pursued his classical studies at Gmuend, Ellwangen, and Rottweil, and courses in philosophy and theology from 1825 to 1830 at Tübingen; entered the seminary at Rottenburg in the autumn of 1830, and was there ordained on 14 Sept., 1831. In the autumn of 1832, he became professor of New Testament exegesis in the Catholic theological faculty then attached to the University of Giessen. At Easter, 1837, he was called in the same capacity to the University of Tübingen, where, in 1839, he was appointed to the chair of dogmatic theology. He retired in 1882. Kuhn was a clear thinker, with remarkable gifts for philosophical and theological speculation. With Staudenmaier he occupies the foremost rank among the speculative dogmatists of the Catholic school at Tübingen. His first important work was the result of his deep research into the new philosophy "Jacobi und die Philosophie seiner Zeit. Ein Versuch das wissenschaftliche Fundament der Philosophie historisch zu erörtern" (Mainz, 1834). During the years he taught at Giessen, his literary activity in the domain of New Testament studies resulted in a series of articles which he published in the "Jahrbücher für Theologie und christliche Philosophie" (Frankfurt, 1834-6), edited by him and by his colleagues, Locherer, Lüft, and Staudenmaier. His work in this field closed with the important, though unfinished work, "Das Leben Jesu wissenschaftlich bearbeitet" (Mainz, 1838), in which he opposed the destructive tendencies of Strauss. After he had taken the chair of dogmatic theology at Tübingen, he made the study of speculative dogma his life work. His most important work is the "Katholische Dogmatik," an undertaking of wide scope which unfortunately was never completed. The following parts appeared: Vol. I, part I: "Einleitung in die katholische Dogmatik" (Tübingen, 1846, 2nd ed., 1859); Vol. I, part II: "Die dogmatische Lehre von der Erkenntniss, den Eigenschaften und der Einheit Gottes" (1849; 2nd ed., 1862); Vol. II: "Die christliche Lehre von der göttlichen Dreieinigkeit" (1857). Kuhn had already outlined his work in the paper "Über Princip und methode der speculativen Theologie" (University programme, Tübingen, 1840). Among his other works which were issued in part independently, and in part in the Tübingen "Theologische Quartalschrift," many bear a polemical character. His treatment of the fundamental questions on the relation of faith and knowledge, of philosophy and theology, brought about a controversy first with the Hermesians, and in later years with the advocates of the neo-Scholastic philosophy (Clemens, Schäzler). To the analysis of Hermesanism the work: "Über Glauben und Wissen, mit Rücksicht auf extreme Ansichten und Richtungen der Gegenwart" (Tübingen, 1839), is partly devoted. The "Philosophie und Theologie" (Tübingen, 1860) was directed against the philosopher Franz Jacob Clemens of Bonn, as was also the essay, "Das Verhältniss der Philosophie zur Theologie nach modern-scholastischer Lehre" (Theologische Quartalschrift," 1862, pp. 541-602; 1863, pp. 3-83). In 1863 and the subsequent years, Kuhn was engaged in a controversy with Constantine von Schäzler, first in regard to a free Catholic University and later on the dogmatic question of the relation of nature and grace, of the natural and the supernatural. On the former question he wrote "Die Historisch-politischen Blätter über eine freie katholische Universität Deutschlands und die Freiheit der Wissenschaft" (Tübingen, 1863); on the latter he wrote "Das Natürliche und das Übernatürliche" (Tübingen, 1864). Schäzler then published his important work, "Natur und übernatur. Das Dogma von der Gnade und die theologische Frage der Gegenwart. Eine Kritik der Kuhn'schen Theologie" (Mainz, 1865), and later "Neue Untersuchungen über das Dogma von der Gnade" (Mainz, 1867). It was especially against these two works that Kuhn directed his last important book, "Die christliche Lehre von der goettlichen Gnade. Erster und allgemeiner Theil: Die urspruengliche Gnade und die damit zusammenhaengenden Untersuchungen über den Begriff und das Wesen der Gnade überhaupt, mit besonderer Beziehung auf die Scholastik und deren neueste Umdeutung" (Tübingen, 1868). A prospective second volume, in which the grace of Redemption was to be set forth from a positive and theoretical standpoint, never appeared. Of Kuhn's earlier works we may mention a few others, which are particularly serviceable against the Pantheistic, anti-Christian theories of contemporary philosophy: "Die moderne Speculation auf dem Gebiet der christlichen Glaubenslehre" ("Theologische Quartalschrift," 1842, pp. 171-225; 1843, pp. 3-75; 179-226; 405-67); "Die Schelling'sche Philosophie und ihr Verhältniss zum Christenthum" ("Theologische Quartalschrift," 1844, pp. 57-88; 179-221; 1845, pp. 3-39). Kuhn also opposed Hegel's philosophy of religion in the above-mentioned "Über Glauben und Wissen" (1839). SCHANZ, Zur Erinnerung an Johannes Evangelist von Kuhn in Theol. Quartalschrift (1887), pp. 531-98; IDEM, Gedaechtnissrede auf Joh. Ev. v. Kuhn (Rottenburg, 1887); IDEM in Kirchenlex. (2nd ed., 1891), s.v.; LAUCHERT in Allg. Deutsche Biographie, LI, pp. 418-20. Regarding Kuhn's philosophy, see also SCHMID, Wissenschaftliche Richtungen auf dem Gebiete des Katholicismus in neuester u. in gegenwaertiger Zeit (Munich, 1862); WERNER, Gesch. d. kathol. Theologie (Munich, 1866), pp. 499 sqq., 637 sqq.; GODET, Kuhn et l'ecole catholique de Tubingue in Annales de philosophie chretienne, LXXVIII (1907), pp. 26 sqq., 163 sqq. FRIEDRICH LAUCHERT Kulturkampf Kulturkampf The name given to the political struggle for the rights and self-government of the Catholic Church, carried out chiefly in Prussia and afterwards in Baden, Hesse, and Bavaria. The contest was waged with great vigour from 1871 to 1877; from 1878 to 1891 it gradually calmed down. On one side stood the government, the Liberals, and the majority of the Conservatives; on the other, the bishops, the priests, and the bulk of the Catholic people. Prussia was the chief centre of the conflict. The Prussian government and Prince Bismarck were the leaders in this memorable struggle. I. CAUSES OF THE KULTURKAMPF They are to be sought: (1) in the political party-life of Germany; (2) in the trend of ideas among the German people towards the middle of the nineteenth century; (3) in the general European policy of Bismarck after 1870. (1) Moritz von Blankenburg was the leader of the Prussian Conservatives. From the first he declared himself openly and clearly in Parliament for an anti-Roman policy. The Conservatives represented the orthodox Protestants of Prussia, themselves threatened by the Liberal movement at that time opposed to all positive Christianity. Nevertheless the attitude of Blankenburg was no personal caprice. The Conservatives yet held in principle to the Protestant character of the State of Prussia as formerly constituted (i.e., up to the German Revolution of 1848). After the Constitution of 1848, it is true, this exclusively Protestant character of the State was no longer recognized by law. But the Conservatives jealously saw to it that as a matter of fact no change took place in Prussia. It could not be pleasing to them that the Catholics of the Rhineland and Westphalia should gradually rise to power through the new parliamentary institutions. When the German Empire was formed in 1870, and South Germany, in great majority Catholic, was thereby joined with Prussia, they conceived the gravest fears for the supremacy of Protestantism in Prussia. However, the real instigators of the onslaught on German Catholicism were the German Liberals. Their attitude is thus explained: previous to 1860 the Liberal party had long been composed almost entirely of men belonging to narrow professional circles--professors, lawyers, etc., also prominent business men. They united in opposition to political absolutism, and were eager for a larger constitutional life in Germany. But they had also an intellectual bond. Whether as anti-clerical disciples of French Deism or Austrian Josephinism, or as enthusiastic admirers of German poetry and philosophy (and therefore advocates of an undogmatic and unecclesiastical Christianity), they were all inimically disposed towards the Catholic Church and all positive belief. With the help of legislation and state schools they hoped to secure for "free and indepedent science" (die freie Wissenschaft) an absolute control over the intellectual life of the whole German nation. Indeed, the original pioneers of the Liberal party were as unanimous in their philosophical views of the world and life as they were in their views of the State. In the beginning, therefore, they were inclined in their public utterances to promote equally both policies. Until 1860, however, they considered themselves too weak to undertake vigorous action in behalf of their Kultur aims, i.e., their intellectual and political ideals as described above. Isolated failures of an earlier date (the Kölner-Wirren, or ecclesiastico-political troubles of 1837, and the Deutsch-katholischen movement of Ronge in Baden, 1844-46) still served as warnings. In both cases vast masses of the people had been deeply troubled. Even the middle-class citizens, usually rather indifferent in matters of faith, were not yet ready to participate in religious conflicts of this nature. Their chief aims at that time were politico-economical; a little later, after 1850, the passion of national unity stirred deeply the entire Bürgerthum of Germany. But when the Liberal influence increased after 1860 in the Prussian Parliament (Landtag) and in the various German states, the party leaders began to change their tactics. The Grand Duke of Baden confided to them the organization of the Ministerium, i.e., the civil administration of the State. Forthwith the Archbishop of Freiburg and the clergy of Baden were subjected to the strictest civil supervision. The Church was deprived of all free control of its property and revenues, with which, till then, the Government had not interfered. All ecclesiastical influence was expelled from the schools, and an effort made to introduce the spirit of "free science" even into the education of the clergy. In the summer of 1860 Bavaria offered the Liberals a pretext for the introduction of their Kultur programme. Of course, in so Catholic a people and state, no permanent results were attainable apart from a thorough transformation of popular life and thought. This was to be done by means of new educational laws and by the so-called Bavarian "social legislation". The latter, in particular, was meant to clear the way for a complete renovation of the economic and social conditions of the Bavarian people. For the present, however, only preliminary steps were taken. Education was naturally the foremost question. Meantime the parliamentary supremacy of the Prussian Liberals, so recently and laboriously acquired and so essential for their success, was seriously challenged. In Otto von Bismarck, since the end of 1862 chief of the Prussian Ministry, they found a superior opponent. This led (1866-67) to the formation of a Prussian National Liberal Party committed to a reconciliation of the hitherto dominant Liberals with the now all-powerful minister. In this way it was hoped to secure again for the party its waning influence in Prussia. In public opinion the Liberals had been for three decades the chief representatives of the idea of national unity under Prussian leadership. Bismarck had now realized that ideal, and in this fact was found the common ground between the National Liberals and the new master of German politics. Bismarck then abandoned his anti-Liberal attitude and for the most part of the next decade received the parliamentary support of the Liberals; towards the year 1870 the more important offices, both Prussian and German, were held by the Liberals. Soon the party began, in Prussia, as previously in Bavaria, to attack the Catholic ecclesiastical influence in the schools; politico-economical and social questions were also brought to the front apropos of the new and systematic legislation proposed. The National Liberals at this time reached the acme of popularity, owing to the universal enthusiasm over the defeat of France, also through the general satisfaction with the economic legislation of the party that left free scope to the growth of material interests. (2) The Kultur policy which the Liberal party then sought to impose on the newly-established empire and on its chief constituent states need not have produced the intense excitement that followed. It would have been possible, through the public press and assemblies, to keep up in the Parliament an appearance of peaceful legislative work and to influence in a moderate way the public opinion of the nation, somewhat, if we may so put it, as is now done in France. Instead of this, legislative action degenerated into a savage party stuggle that aroused in the public mind all manner of violent emotions. The Liberal efforts to influence public opinion became so many fanatical assaults on the hereditary devotion to their Church of the orthodox Catholic masses. It is to be noted, however, that for this violence of temper there were certain reasons. The great events of the years 1866-1871 had agitated deeply the now united German nation. It was not unnatural, therefore, that its people should consider all political problems in the light of their extremest consequences, from the view-point of principles, and of the great ideas that were then appealing to the popular masses. In the average German mind at this period two great thoughts were dominant--the new-born German nationality and a new philosophy of man and life. Most German Catholics were very apprehensive for the future welfare of their religion in the ancient fatherland; as a matter of fact it was Protestant Prussia, the birthplace of Kant and the source of Hegelianism, that had accomplished the unity of Germany. Most Liberals, on the other hand, while they rejoiced over the settlement of the "German question" by Prussia, continued to hold the national unity as incomplete so long as the Germans were divided in religion and in the aforesaid fundamental philosophic views. They maintained that a permanent political unity of Germany depended absolutely on unity of religion, language, and education. On this ground they proclaimed the Catholic minority a foreign element in the new empire; it must be either assimilated or exterminated. The deep-rooted religious differences of Germany, thus brought again to the front in connection with the nation's future, were freshly aroused, though such new occasion was scarcely necessary. Even while the Liberals yet hesitated to evoke them, they had, of themselves as it were, and by their own nature, taken on a new life. As early as 1848, an important "Catholic Movement" sprang up in Germany. During the eighteenth century the German Catholics had been quite outman uvered by the Protestants, and in the early decades of the nineteenth century found themselves politically powerless. Economically they had fallen into the background, nor could they exercise socially an equal influence. In general education they were also backward, in comparison with their rivals. Their Catholic consciousness was therefore much weakened; no longer proud of their religion, they ceased to profess it openly and freely. But about the middle of the nineteenth century a change came over the Catholics of Germany, and they awoke to a fresh sense of the power and beauty of their religion. Simultaneously Catholic life took on a new development throughout the entire West, especially during the pontificate of Pius IX. This pope had a wonderful influence over the Catholic masses, whom he filled with a remarkable confidence and zeal, especially as to their public life. In the Syllabus of 1867 he condemned with great earnestness that Liberalism which was then everywhere proclaimed as the heir expectant of Catholicism. Thereupon, he convened an cumenical council, the first in 300 years. At this turning-point the German Catholics, so long eliminated from the political, economic and educational life of their nation, rallied to the defence of their faith against Liberalism. Under papal leadership they devoted themselves to the defence of Christian teaching and life, violently attacked by a multitude of infidel writers, and undertook to withstand the combined hosts of Protestantism and Liberalism. The Liberals, on the other hand, resented bitterly both Syllabus and Papal Infallibility; in some places (Mannheim, Berlin) Catholics suffered from the violence of mobs. At the very time when the dogma of Papal Infallibility was being proclaimed, Germany was winning her great victories over France; to the Liberals (some of whom were thus minded in the Prussian war of 1866 against Austria) it seemed as if the time had come for the final conflict between the empire and papacy, the last decisive battle of the Reformation against enslavement of religious thought and subjection to ecclesiastical authority. Gradually and almost unconsciously, under the influence of the aforesaid political and ecclesiastical events, a situation that in the Liberal mind originally contemplated only a more or less comprehensive legislation, both as to the schools and the relations of Church and State, developed into one of the most passionate conflicts of principles ever fought out within the limits of a great nationality. This was the state of affairs when, in the fall of 1870, the Prussian Catholics, not satisfied with their widespread system of popular associations, (Vereinswesen) undertook the creation of a new political party, the Centre (Zentrum); on the other hand, in the Reichstag elections of the Spring of 1871 the Liberals overthrew the Conservatives and took up the reins of power. In April, 1871, the mutterings of the tempest were already heard in the opening debates of the Reichstag, especially in the debate on the Address to the Throne, when the Liberals insisted very pointedly on a flat and final rejection of any proposition looking towards the restoration of the Temporal Power, characterizing any such steps as an interference with the domestic affairs of a foreign people. As yet, however, no one had the courage to let loose the turbulent passions that filled men's breasts, nor as late as the end of 1871 (Memoirs of Prince Hohenlohe) were the Liberal leaders ready to open the campaign. The Centre remained on the defensive, occupied chiefly in outlining its parliamentary status. At this juncture Bismarck appeared on the scene. (3) He was then under strong nervous tension, owing to the extraordinary exertions and emotions of the "high stakes" policy of his previous eight years. He was dominated by the fear that new and more exhaustive wars would soon be necessary in order to defend the unity of Germany then barely won. In this temper he was deeply concerned lest within the empire itself the foreign enemy should find aid and succour from particularist or anti-Prussian elements, whose importance he easily over-estimated. At this stage of his diplomacy he was bent on preventing the recurrence of any situation similar to that of 1863-66, when he found himself helpless in the presence of a powerful parliamentary opposition. He was at all times naturally inclined to resent as unnecessary, and therefore unjustifiable, any kind of parliamentary opposition. Quite indifferent to theories of home government and the division of political authority within the State, he was equally eager for a solid centralization and thorough reinforcement of all national resources, in view always of the foreign enemy. In this spirit he had once fought the Liberals, and compelled his former opponents to become the ardent supporters of his foreign policy. Now, on his return from France, he found before him a party, on the one hand more powerful in a parliamentary sense than the Liberal opposition of the sixties, while on the other it seemed to him gravely perilous in case of a foreign war. He was suspicious of one deputy, Ludwig Windthorst, in whom he at once recognized the real leader of the Centre. While Bismarck was fully aware of the high abilities of Windthorst, he knew also that he was a former subject of the House of Hanover and was still in close touch with that dynasty, that he had never approved the exclusion of Austria from the German unity as accomplished by Bismarck, and that he vigorously disapproved the excessive favour shown by Bismarck to the Liberals, both in Prussian and in imperial affairs. He had already suffered a notable defeat at Windthorst's hands in the Tariff Parliament of 1868, on which occasion Bismarck tried in vain to obtain from the assembly anything more than the politico-economical services for which it had been called (i.e. he failed then to secure the peaceful union of the South German States with the North German Confederation). Windthorst at that time had no strong parliamentary following, yet his political strategy had proved successful. But now a strong party was at his back, and, as its acknowledged leader, he lost no occasion to increase its influence. On the one hand he appealed to certain Conservatives, superior to Protestant prejudices, and unalterably opposed to the National Liberals as enemies of Christianity and the traditional German views of the State; on the other he was always ready to combine with those Liberals who had not gone over unconditionally to Bismarck. This welcoming of recalcitrant Liberals was always Bismarck's chief cause of complaint. He had also persuaded himself from the beginning that the Centre entertained foreign relations inimical to the new German Empire. After the Franco-Prussian War the chancellor seems to have feared a conflict with Russia as champion of the new Panslavism. He had in large measure the habitual distrust of Prussia for its Polish subjects, and was persuaded that in case of war they would be on the side of Panslavism--that, whether in war or diplomacy, they would always prove a thorn in the side of Germany. He had watched them closely for several years and noted with deep suspicion the alliance of their deputies with the German Catholics. He laid great stress on this fact; as is well known, the Polish question is one of those which cause most uneasiness to Prussian statesmen. It offended him, moreover, that Catholic members of the Centre frequented the Radziwill salons in Berlin, and were thereby willing to appear friendly to Polish demands and aspirations. His suspicions were still further aroused by the undeniably lively zeal which the Catholic clergy at large exhibited for the growth of the Centre, while, under Windthorst's direction, the party was standing out not only for the rights of the Catholic Church, but also for a definite political programme. This zeal of the German clergy was at this juncture especially odious to Bismarck; despite his clear-headed political realism, his imagination was deeply affected by the idea that Protestant Prussia had restored to Germany its former imperial grandeur precisely when Papal Infallibility was being proclaimed at Rome. In his eyes the empire once more stood over against the papacy; only there was now added another antithesis, that of Protestant individual freedom against submission to ecclesiastical authority. He persuaded himself that Rome was less friendly to the new empire than any other European power, and that it meant to unite against the new Protestant Empire all the Catholic nations of Europe and its own priesthood everywhere. To obtain definite information as to the relations of Rome and the Centre he demanded, in the spring of 1871, through the Bavarian ambassador at the Vatican, that Rome should censure the Centre party for its antagonistic attitude in the Parliament. A friendly answer was made by the Holy See, but on the representation of prominent members of the Centre, notably of Bishop Ketteler, Rome refused to further influence the Catholic party, whereat the indignation of the chancellor was boundless. In the meantime the South German Liberals, foremost among them Prince Hohenlohe, stirred up unceasingly his original mistrust of the Centre, the Catholic clergy, and Rome. Though for a while slow to act, he became daily more convinced that a grave peril for the empire existed in the activity of a powerful parliamentary party of German Catholics under the leadership of a man like Windthorst, to which must be added the influence of the Vatican over this party. In his eyes the Centre was an outcome of the German Catholic Movement (die katholische Bewegung); deprived of the support of the latter, it would collapse. Now the Catholic Movement, as he knew it since 1850, was for Bismarck something entirely hostile; it had been friendly to Austria, and its adherents were numerous in Southern Germany and Westphalia. Moreover, its enthusiasm for Rome and for the independence of the Catholic Church was odious to him. As a Prussian official he believed in a State Church; the Church should not only be under the supervision of the State, but should positively serve the purposes of the State. It seemed, therefore, that the psychological moment had come for the arrest of this Catholic Movement. All Germany was enthusiastic over the new-born imperial unity. To judge by various occurrences within the ranks of German Catholicism, it seemed as if Rome had gone too far in its claims on the obedience of German Catholics in matters of faith. The Old-Catholic organization then taking shape seemed a likely nucleus for a German National Church, a State Church for Catholics; it would welcome all seceders from Rome and guarantee them a new ecclesiastical life. Old-Catholicism, he argued, must be supported; the Roman Catholic clergy forced to submit; the masses behind the Catholic Movement must be intimidated, the immediate pressure of Roman authority removed from them, and the Centre stigmatized before its constituents as an enemy of the German Empire. II. COURSE OF THE CONFLICT It may be divided roughly into three periods: 1871-72; 1872-78; 1878-91. A. 1871-72 The afore-mentioned views of Bismarck concerning the Centre and the Catholic Movement were by no means so clearly worked out in the summer of 1871 that he was then ready to begin a systematic onslaught on German Catholicism. For a year and a half his policy was manifested only in individual cases, though in all such cases a unity of attitude was clearly exhibited. As early as 8 July, 1871, he abolished the Catholic Section of the Prussian Ministry of Worship and gave over henceforth to officials in great majority Protestant the conduct of all government matters pertaining to Catholic churches and schools. His excuse was that the members of the aforesaid Catholic Section of the Department of Worship were guilty of too close relations with the Poles. Towards the end of 1871 he proceeded, on similar grounds, against the Catholic clergy of the eastern provinces of Prussia; he introduced at that time in the Reichstag a law concerning the supervision of instruction and education. This act contemplated the extension of the civil school-supervision to religious instruction and simultaneously the abolition of all ecclesiastical supervision of the entire primary-school system hitherto exercised conjointly with the civil authorities. Henceforth, whenever the schools of a district were entrusted to ecclesiastical superintendents, their authority was to be derived solely from the State; in large measure, moreover, the Catholic clergy were excluded from any supervision of the schools. During the discussion of this School Supervision Law, Bismarck made an extremely violent attack (2 Feb., 1872) on Windthorst's leadership of the Centre, held out to the latter the olive branch of peace on condition of abandoning Windthorst, but threatened, in case of refusal, to pillory the party before all Germany as an enemy of the Empire. Shortly afterwards he caused the house of a Polish canon in Posen to be searched by the police, in the hope of finding there correspondence that would enable him to convict Windthorst of an alliance with the Poles. In this he was unsuccessful. On 4 July, 1872, the Reichstag passed the law against the Jesuits (Jesuitengesetz), on the plea that they were the emissaries of Rome in Germany (pretending at the same time to free the bishops from the Jesuit yoke); moreover, in defiance of all legality (both from a Conservative and a Liberal standpoint) the Jesuits were handed over to the arbitrary supervision of the police authorities and could at any moment be expelled from the Empire. In addition, the Bundesrath (Imperial Supreme Council) interpreted the law to mean complete exclusion from all ministry either in church or school. Thereupon the Jesuits left Germany. The next year the law was extended to the Redemptorists, Lazarists, Fathers of the Holy Ghost, and the Ladies of the Sacred Heart, as being closely related to the Jesuits, whereupon these orders also left Germany. In the same month the Government again manifested its ecclesiastico-political views by the measures which it sanctioned against the Prussian bishops, in the interest of the Old Catholics. Still earlier (1 Dec., 1871) the so-called Kanzelparagraf, or pulpit-law, was, for a similar purpose, incorporated in the Criminal Code. The Bishop of Ermland had forbidden the Old Catholic teacher of religion (Religionslehrer) in Braunsburg Gymnasium any longer to exercise his office. The Government then interfered and compelled the parents to send their children to the lessons of this instructor. Later, after a unanimous protest from the bishops of Prussia, the Government abandoned its position in this case, but demanded from the Bishop of Ermlund a declaration to the effect that "in the future he would obey in their entirety the laws of the State." He refused to make the declaration, whereupon his salary was withheld. A similar treatment befell the Catholic Head Chaplain (Feldpropst) of the Prussian Army, to whom pertained the administration of public worship for the Catholic soldiers. At Cologne the church of the Catholic military chaplain had been turned over by the Government to the Old Catholics, whereupon the Head-Chaplain of the troops forbade his subordinate to hold there the usual Catholic services. The Cologne chaplain was then brought before the Minister of War and suspended as guilty of "resisting the administrative ordinances of his superiors." The close relation of Bismarck's anti-Catholic attitude in Germany with his foreign policy was soon shown in his famous papal election dispatch (14 May, 1872), in which he invited the European governments to agree on the conditions under which they would recognize the next papal election. The dispatch was ineffective, equally so Bismarck's attempt to compel the pope to accept, as the German Empire's first ambassador to the Vatican, Cardinal Hohenlohe, brother of the above-mentioned Prince Chlodwig Hohenlohe whose close relations to both National Liberals and Old Catholics were well-known. On this occastion Bismarck uttered the celebrated words: "Nach Canossa gehen wir nicht" (We shall not go to Canossa), i.e., he foretold the real issue of the conflict before it had yet fairly begun. Nevertheless he was now fully determined to carry it on to the end. He found a ready instrument in the person of Herr Falk, appointed Minister of Worship in January, 1872, a clever and personally well-meaning man, but a jurist of a very formalist type and an extreme partisan. The chancellor had already, 7 Feb., 1872, urged the Minister of the Interior to undertake the solution of the Polish question "on a basis of principle, actively, and aggressively"; he now engaged Falk to walk in the same course. He was "to make known with all due clearness and in every sense the relations of the State to the various religious societies". On the side of the Church her defenders began now to seek the open. The Prussian hierarchy, assembled at Fulda for its annual meeting, issued (20 Sept., 1872) a memorial to all the German States in which the recent anti-ecclesiastical measures were treated in their entirety, exhibited for the judgment of public opinion, and proof supplied that rights of the Church hitherto acknowledged both by international and national law had been seriously violated. Pius IX, moreover, lifted his voice twice in protest. On the first occasion (24 June, 1872) he said to the German Catholics in Rome that Bismarck had placed himself at the head of the persecutors of the Church. "Who knows, however, but that soon the little stone will fall from the mountain and strike the feet of the colossus and shatter it?" Another time (Christmas Consistory, 1872) he spoke reprovingly of "men who not only do not belong to our holy religion, but do not even know it, yet arrogate to themselves authority to decide concerning the doctrines and the rights of the Catholic Church." The popular agitation grew from day to day. The Association of German Catholics (Mainzer Verein), founded under the presidency of Baron Felix von Loe, soon counted 200,000 members, and took a much bolder attitude than the Centre, whose leader, Windthorst, observed at all times much moderation. In the meantime Falk aimed to make the Catholic bishops independent of Rome, the clergy independent of the bishops, and both dependent on the State. The following means were in his mind destined to accomplish these aims. The education of the clergy was to depend entirely, or nearly so, on the State, and to be carried out in the spirit of the average German Liberalistic education. Next, all ecclesiastical offices were to be filled only after approval by the highest civil authority in each province. In the future all ecclesiastical courts outside Germany should no longer exercise any disciplinary power over the Prussian clergy. From all German ecclesiastical courts there was to lie, in the future, an appeal not only on the part of the accused, but also of the Chief President (on grounds of public interest), to a court composed of civil officials and to be known as the "Royal Court of Justice for Ecclesiastical Affairs". Falk sought also to restrict considerably the exercise of the Church's punitive and disciplinary authority, in other words to facilitate apostasy so that priests and laymen who chose to side with State might suffer no inconvenience. It was evident from these measures that Falk had no idea of the close and indivisible solidarity of German Catholicism whereby bishop and clergy on one side, and the bishop and Rome on the other, were intimately bound to one another. He erred most grievously, however, when he made it a criminal offence for any priest to exercise his ministry without due authorization from the civil power, and "silenced" every bishop who refused to comply with the new legislation. In case the German clergy remained loyal to the Church these measures meant the withdrawal of the sacraments from the Catholic people, i.e., the most grievous spiritual suffering. The plans of Falk were formulated in four bills. The first was laid before the Landtag in November, 1872, the other three in January, 1873, though the royal consent was obtained with difficulty and only after insistence on the severity of the aforesaid papal allocution at Christmas of 1872. It was during the discussion of these Falk Bills that the word Kulturkampf was first used. The Landtag (Prussian Assembly) Commission to which the Falk Bills were referred expressed grave doubts as to their constitutionality, seeing that the Prussian Constitution guaranteed to the Catholic Church an independent administration of its own affairs. The Commission did not, therefore, advise the rejection of the Falk Bills, but rather proposed an amendment to the Constitution to the effect that in all her administration the Church was subject to the laws of the State and the juridically authorized supervision of the same. B. 1872-78 This amendment and the four bills were adopted in May, 1873, hence the term May Laws (Maigesetze). To hasten their execution the Prussian Ministry at once enabled the Old Catholics to establish themselves as a Church, and contributed large sums for that purpose. It also encouraged the public adhesion of so-called State Catholics, i.e., Roman Catholics who protested formally their willingness to obey the new laws. Nevertheless, both Old Catholics and State Catholics remained few in number. On the other hand the unexpected happened in the shape of a remarkable development of ecclesiastical loyalty on the part of the Catholics. The bishops of Prussia had protested beforehand (30 January, 1873) against the forthcoming legislation. On 2 May they issued a common pastoral letter in which they made known to the faithful the reasons why all must offer to these laws a passive but unanimous resistance. On 26 May they declared to the Prussian Ministry that they would not co-operate for the execution of the Falk Laws. Almost without exception the clergy obeyed the mandate of the bishops. Thereupon the punishments prescribed by the laws for their violation were at once applicable; in hundreds of cases fines were soon imposed on the clergy for the execution of their ecclesiastical ministry. As none of the condemned ecclesiastics would voluntarily pay the imposed fines, these were forcibly collected, to the great irritation and embitterment of the Catholic parishioners. Soon the prisons began to open, and Falk declared (24 Oct., 1873) that still greater severity would be used. The Minister of War declared Catholic theological students subject to military service; the Marian congregations were forbidden to exist; the Catholic popular associations and the political activity of the Centre (public meetings, Catholic press) was subjected to close and inimical supervision, in every way hindered, and the Catholic population persecuted for their fidelity to the party. In December, 1873, changes were made in the oath of loyalty taken by the bishops to the king, every reference to their oath to the pope was stricken out, and an unconditional observance of the laws of the State prescribed. These measures, however, did not produce the desired results. In the November elections (1873) the Centre returned to the Landtag 90 members instead of its former 50, and to the Reichstag 91 instead of its former 63. The number of its votes was doubled, and reached about 1,500,000. The number of Catholic papers increased in 1873 to about 120. Falk sought to overcome all this Catholic opposition by fresh ravages on the pastoral ministry. New laws of the Landtag (May, 1874) supplemented his authority and put at his disposal new means of compulsion. It was provided that when a bishop was deposed a representative agreeable to the Government should be appointed; if none such were to be had, appointments to vacant parishes should lie in the hands of the "patrons" in each parish, or should take place by free election of the parishioners. The Reichstag aided by passing a Priests-Expulsion Law (Priester-ausweisungsgesetz) by which all priests deprived of their offices for violation of the May Laws were turned over to the discretion of the police authorities. During the debates on this law the Archbishops of Posen and Cologne and the Bishop of Trier were condemned to imprisonment; later, the Archbishop of Posen (Count Ledochowski) was deposed. Shortly after the promulation of the new May Laws the Ministry saw to it that all the Prussian sees were vacated. A very great number of parishes were also deprived of their pastors. The ecclesiastical educational institutions were closed. These renewed efforts were no more successful than the former measures. No cathedral chapter chose an administrator, and no parish elected a parish priest. The exiled bishops governed their sees from abroad through secretly delegated priests. The faithful everywhere made it possible to hold Divine Service. The pope declared, 5 Feb., 1875, the May Laws invalid (irritas). On all sides exasperation was well-nigh boundless. Under these circumstances Bismarck himself took charge of the situation. His main hope still lay in proving that the Centre party was the ememy of the empire, and this stigma he endeavoured by all possible means to fasten upon it; could he do so, the party would be isolated in the Reichstag, and soon helpless. At Kissingen, 13 July, 1874, the Catholic cooper's apprentice, Kullmann, attempted to assassinate him. Though the chancellor had no evidence to justify his assertion, he declared in a public session of the Reichstag that the murderer "held to the coat-tails of the Centre", and refused to consider any denial of the charge by that party. Bismarck now called to his aid two allies which in the past he had always found serviceable in face of great popular opposition, i.e. hunger and penury. The methods of Bismarck differed considerably from those of Falk. The latter saw in the religious life of the Catholic people their chief fortress, and so attacked it with all earnestness, hoping to meet with victory in the tumultuary reaction likely to follow any interference with the spiritual needs of an entire people. In this there was for Bismarck too much idealism; he chose rather to appeal to the material needs of his opponents. On 22 April, 1875, he obtained from the Landtag the so-called Sperrgesetz, by which all state payments to the Catholic bishops were withheld until they or their representatives complied with the new laws. Another law of the Landtag (31 May, 1875) closed all monasteries in Prussia, and expelled from Prussian territory all members of religious orders, with the exception of those who cared for the sick--and they were variously restricted. Finally (20 June, 1875), he dealt the Catholic Church what seemed to him a crushing blow; on that date was passed in the Landtag a law which confiscated all the property of the Church, and turned over to its administration to lay trustees to be elected by the members of each parish. To accomplish this he had previously to commit another act of supreme violence, i.e. the abolition of those paragraphs of the Prussian Constitution which concerned the Church. The aforesaid Kanzelparagraf, or "pulpit-law", was now amended by the Reichstag (26 Feb., 1876) so as to enable the Government to prosecute before the criminal courts any priest who should criticise in the pulpit the laws or the administration of the Prussian State. In the following years sixteen million marks ($3, 250,000) were withheld by the Government from the Church, by virtue of the Sperrgesetz; two hundred and ninety-six monastic institutions were closed. By the end of 1880, 1125 parish priests and 645 assistants had fallen victims to the new laws (out of 4627 and 3812, respectively). Within the circle of their operation 646,000 souls were entirely deprived of spiritual assistance. We must add to this the Falk Ordinance of 18 Feb., 1876, issued with Bismarck's consent, by which in the future religious instruction in the primary schools was to be given only by teachers appointed or accepted by the State, i.e., all Catholic ecclesiastical control was suppressed. The debates on all these measures were the most violent ever heard in the German Parliament; it was apparent that on both sides the leadership would soon fall to the extremists. On the Catholic side, therefore, evidences of moderation were soon forthcoming, and tended to prevent further extreme measures on the part of the Government. The bishops felt that the gravest perils had been successfully met and averted. The earliest relief was the result of legislation originally intended to do great damage to the Catholic cause. The Prussian Civil Marriage Law of March, 1874 (extended to the German Empire, 6 Feb., 1875), withdrew from the clergy their former right of keeping the civil registers, and made civil marriage obligatory. It was hoped that in this way the laity at least would be freed from ecclesiastical control, since neither bishops nor clergy were willing to separate from Rome. Under the circumstances, however, the law turned to the advantage of the sorely persecuted Church. Had marriages remained possible only in the presence of civilly recognized priests, the Catholic population, in the end, given the absolute necessity of marriages, would have had to accept one of two issues: either they would tolerate the state clergy, or they would bring pressure to bear on the Catholic clergy in the sense of obedience to the new laws. On the other hand the bishops met successfully Bismarck's secularization of the Church property. They declared that in this respect it was material interests which were chiefly at stake, and in such cases the Church was always inclined to the most conciliatory measures; confiding, therefore, in the ecclesiastical loyalty of the faithful they directed them to obey thse laws. In the mean-time by the laws of 7 June, 1876, and 13 Feb., 1878, Bismarck undertook to sequestrate all Church property; he had already failed, however, in his original purpose. Windthorst, on the other hand, strove earnestly to check all extremist tendencies among the Catholics and to incline them to peace with the Government as soon as the ecclesiastical situation would permit. In this temper a reconciliation was evidently no longer remote, much less impossible. It was now clear to Bismarck that the popular agitation had reached a height that no material force could overcome, and that the civil authority itself was endangered. The chief motive that had originally led him to enter on this grave conflict with German Catholicism had long since disappeared; since 1875 he no longer feared an anti-German coalition of Catholic powers or a war with Russia. In the meantime those closer relations with Austria had begun which in 1879 terminated in the actual Triple Alliance. His new foreign policy brought with it a frequent rapprochement with the Catholics. In the German Paliament he could no longer act quite independently of them, and this was another factor in the future reconciliation. The National Liberals in the Reichstag had ceased to be his unconditional supporters in the grave questions of internal reform (politico-economical, social, and financial) that now claimed all his attention. The continued opposition of so large a party as the Centre was henceforth an element of grave danger for all his plans. Conservative Protestants, meanwhile, rebelled against the Liberalism of Falk, which under the circumstances was far more offensive to them than to Catholics. Moreover, Emperor Wilhelm inclined daily more in their direction. Indeed, the position of Falk had become practically untenable. C. 1878-91 The death of Pius IX and the election of Leo XIII (Feb., 1878) made possible the restoration of peace in the much troubled Fatherland. At once, and again during that year, Leo XIII wrote in a conciliating way to Kaiser Wilhelm urging the abolition of the May Laws. His request was refused; at the same time Berlin expressed a desire for reconciliation. In July, 1878, Bismarck had a personal interview with the papal nuncio, Masella, at Kissingen (in Bavaria). However, a full decade was to intervene before the May Laws quite disappeared. The proposed basis of negotiations was not calculated at this juncture to bring about the much desired peace. Bismarck insisted that the May Laws should not be abolished by any formal act; he was willing, however, to modify their application, obtain gradually from the Landtag temporary discretionary authority in regard to the laws, remove certain odious points, etc., all this on condition of a yielding attitude on the side of the Catholics. The latter, indeed, were in this respect praise-worthy. Bismarck further desired that in all measures of relief the Government should appear to take the initiative--of course after proper diplomatic negotiations with Rome. In return he demanded from the Curia an assurance that the Centre party would support the policies of the Government; otherwise the latter could have no interest in a reconciliation. As a proof of goodwill he dismissed Herr Falk in 1879 and replaced the author of the odious May Laws by Herr Puttkamer, whose ecclesiastico-political attitude was more conciliatory than that of his predecessor. Under him the Church began to regain its former influence over the schools. He obtained from the Landtag on three occasions (1880-83) discretionary authority to modify the May Laws; thereby he provided for a restoration of orderly diocesan administration, and the filling of the vacant sees. The vacant parishes, it is true, remained yet without pastors; it was allowed, however, to administer them from neighbouring parishes. After 1883 the Sperrgesetz, or suspension of ecclesiastical salaries, was not enforced. In 1882 Prussia established an embassy at the Vatican. Bismarck in the meantime held firmly to one point: the obligation of the bishop to make known to the Government all ecclesiastical appointments, and the Government's right to veto. This much Rome was not disinclined to allow, but demanded a previous formal abolition of at least certain portions of the May Laws. Leo XIII was very anxious to re-establish peace and harmony with Germany, and for that reason chose for his secretary of state, in 1881, Lodovico Jacobini, who had been nuncio at Vienna since 1879, and had conducted the preliminary negotiations. During the negotiations that followed, the principal defect of the papal diplomacy consisted in the excessive stress it laid on the purely politico-ecclesiastical elements of the problem (those which affected the general European situation of the Church), not sufficiently taking into account the fundamental source of the conflict, i.e., the violation of the constitutional law of Prussia. From this point of view it did not seek to co-operate with the tactics of the Centre in that party's dealings with Bismarck; it rather complied in several ways with the wishes of the latter, and sought to influence the Centre (in substantially political matters) in favour of the Government. On the other hand, while Windthorst did not perhaps give quite sufficient consideration to the general European situation, he was all the more earnest in his resolution to give permanency to the exertions of his party, to again anchor the rights of the Church in the Prussian Constitution, and to make the latter document guarantee once again the independence of the Church. During these years of more or less fruitful negotiations between Rome and Berlin, the political power of the Centre in the Reichstag grew notably; the Government was no longer able to count on a majority against it. By this time the Conservatives had again obtained the upper hand in the Landtag, and soon made evident their intention to abolish completely the Falk system of interference with the disciplinary and pastoral life of the Catholic Church (Conservative Resolution, 25 April, 1882). When Bismarck saw that it was impossible to make the Centre a Government party (spring of 1884), the negotiations on his side were temporarily dropped. To the Conservatives, now urgent, he replied that he was ready to proceed to a revision of the May Laws as soon as he knew that Rome would accept the Anzeigepflicht, or obligation of making known to the Government all ecclesiastical appointments, with the corresponding civil right of veto. He believed, apparently, that the Kulturkampf agitation would gradually die out, and the Catholic people grow weary of their struggle for "a constitutional and legal independence of the Church", now that the most burdensome of the May Laws had been withdrawn and a somewhat orderly ecclesiastical life was again possible. In the meantime the Centre party and its press kept alive a strong Catholic feeling. On the other hand, the foreign situation soon brought up the question of the final abolition of the May Laws. Bismarck was again anxious in regard to Russia, and this time feared an alliance of that nation with France; the recent awakening of Panslavism added to his solicitude on this point. He was concerned lest the Vatican should favour the Franco-Russian alliance. On the other hand he now sought to rally all forces at the disposal of the Government for the suppression of the Polish movement that had by this time taken on large proportions; owing to his Kulturkampf policy, all classes of the Polish people had been deeply stirred during the previous decade, and their attitude now caused the chancellor great anxiety. He hoped, also, that a decisive ending of the ecclesiastical conflict would seriously affect the hitherto intact solidarity of the Centre and weaken notably the popular attachment to the party, whereby its influence, even yet the source of his gravest political difficulties, would finally diminish. Leo XIII saw clearly that Bismarck was now earnestly desirous of peace; Rome, therefore, it seemed, need no longer be over-timid in the matter of concessions based on suitable guarantees. The pope also hoped that Bismarck would in turn be helpful to him in respect of the German imperial policy towards Italy. It was of considerable importance that at this juncture the most statesmanlike member of the Prussian hierarchy, Bishop Kopp of Hildesheim (now Cardinal, and Prince-Bishop of Breslau), was made a member of the Prussian House of Lords (Herrenhaus). Bismarck still held with tenacity to the former government claims. In the matter of the Anzeigepflicht, the nominations of parish priests at least should not take place without the Government's approval. Nor would he listen to the restoration of the former recognition of the Church by the Prussian Constitution. Finally, he held in its entirety to the state control of the schools. In reality he was able to maintain these three points; on the other hand he yielded to the Church, practically, the control of ecclesiastical education, permitted the re-assertion of the papal disciplinary authority over the clergy, allowed the restoration of public worship and the administration of the sacraments, the application of ecclesiastical disciplinary measures (censures, etc.), and held out to the religious orders the hope of returning. This is substantially the content of the two comprehensive laws (21 May, 1886, and 29 April, 1887), that modified the May Laws in an acceptable way and thereby ended formally the long conflict since known as the Kulturkampf. During the negotiations for the first law the pope had allowed the bishops (25 April, 1886) to lay before the Government for approval the appointments of parish priests. While the second law was under discussion the pope declared that it showed the way to peace, while Bismarck termed it the restoration of a modus vivendi between State and Church. The Centre was deeply suspicious of both laws because the pope did not insist on constitutional guarantees. In the interval between these laws, and in view of them, the chancellor made a last attempt to obtain through Rome the support of the Centre for his military policy and the foreign aims it implied. He wished the Centre to vote in the Reichstag for the so-called Septennate. A correspondence ensued between Cardinal Jacobini and the President of the Centre Party; Windthorst was not to be moved from his position. It may be said that the hopes of Leo XIII in Bismarck's help respecting Italy were deceived. In the following years the last remnants of the May Laws disappeared. The law prescribing the expulsion of all priests (Priesterausweisungsgesetz) was withdrawn in 1890, and in 1891 the Sperrgelder (i.e. the ecclesiastical salaries, etc., withheld since April, 1875) were distributed to the various German dioceses. For a while it seemed as if another grave conflict would follow, this time apropos of the schools. However, since the early nineties there has prevailed the present quiescent attitude in all matters ecclesiastical and educational. It may be added that the anti-Jesuit legislation was so modified in 1905 as to offer no longer its former exceptional character; the Redemptorists had been previously allowed to return. One important consequence of the Kulturkampf was the earnest endeavour of the Catholics to obtain a greater influence in national and municipal affairs; how weak they formerly were in both respects was clear to them only after the great conflict had begun. These efforts took the name of the Paritätsbewegung, i.e., a struggle for equality of civil recognition. In turn the discussions awakened and fed by this movement soon led to a vigorous self-questioning among the Catholic masses as to the fact of, and the reasons for, their backwardness in academic, literary, and artistic life, also in the large field of economic activities (industry, commerce, etc.). On the other hand, the reconciliation between Church and State made it possible for the Catholics of Germany to participate more earnestly than hitherto in the public life of the Fatherland, in illustration of which we may point to the notable contributions of the Centre Party (1896-1904) to the solution of the great imperial problems of that period. At present (1908) a reaction seems imminent. In closing it may be said that the Kulturkampf rightly appears as only the first phase of the vast movement of antagonism in which Catholicism stands over against Protestantism and Liberalism, on the broad field of Prussia, henceforth one of the great powers of Europe, and within the German nation now coalescent in the political unit of the Empire. BACHEM, Kulturkampf und Maigesetzgebung in Staatslexikon G rresgesellschaft, 2d ed. (Freiburg, 1902), III; SIEGFRIED, Aktenst cke betreffend des preussischen Culturkampf (1882); F.X. SCHULTE, Geschichte des Kulturkampfs in Preussen (1882), and Geschichte der ersten sieben Jahre des preussischen Kulturkampfs, I: Der Schulkampf, 2d. ed. (1879); MAJUNKE, Geschichte des Kulturkampfs in Preussen-Deutschland (1886); BRÜCK, Geschichte der katholischen Kirche in Deutschland im 19. Jahrhundert, IV, ed. KISSLING (1907); HAHN, Geschichte des Kulturkampfs in Preussen (1881); VON GERLACH, Aufzeichnungen aus seinem Leben und Wirken, II (1903); HUESGEN, Ludwig Windthorst (1907); SPAHN, Ernest Lieber (1906), and Das deutsche Zentrum (1907); HEUSER, Bismarck's Conflict with the Catholic Church, in Am. Cath. Quart. Review (1884), 322 sqq.; O'SHEA, Bismarck's Decline and Fall, ibid. (1898), 836 sqq.; SCHRÖDER, The Impregnable Fortress; Prince Bismarck and the Centre, ibid. (1890), 390 sqq.; IDEM, Windthorst, ibid. (1891), 515 sqq. MARTIN SPAHN Diocese of Kumbakonam Diocese of Kumbakonam (KUMBAKONENSIS). Kumbakonam, signifying in English the "Jug's Corner," is a town of 60,000 inhabitants, and is situated in the fertile plain of the Tanjore District about half-way on the railroad which connects Madras with Tuticorin. Although of no great importance to the British Râj (dominion), still, as a religious centre, it enjoys a wide popularity among the Hindus as the seat of one of their holiest shrines in the south of the peninsula. Nothing positive is known of the origin of this shrine, but a mythological legend says that, some time before the Deluge, the mighty god Siva, desiring to provide against the consequences of the coming cataclysm, directed Brahma to get ready an earthen pitcher wherein he could place in safety on a layer of ambrosia, the spark of creative power, the Vedas, and a supply of corn-seed. Brahma having done this, Siva closed the jug and set it on Mount Meru. When the waters prevailed upon the earth, the precious vessel was lifted up by the flood and tossed about upon the waves, until, at last, at rested on the very spot where where is now the "sacred" tank of Kumbakonam, called the Maghàmaghan. From time immemorial a solemn festival has been celebrated once in every twelve years to commemorate this event. It begins on the day of February when Jupiter is in conjunction with the full moon in the lunar constellation called Magham. The Hindus believe that, on this occasion, the waters of the "sacred" tank are fecundated by those of the "divine" Ganges, and that whoever bathes in them not only receives the pardon of his sins, but also opens the gates of salvation to every one of his ancestors up to the one hundred and eightieth generation. This duodennial solemnity took place recently (1909). It began at the temple of Kumbesshur, the "Lord of the Jug", and lasted ten days, during which time about 800,000 pilgrims made their ablutions in the Maghàmagham. Kumbakonam, seen through European glasses, is a rather dirty and dusty town with vulgar, tortuous streets, where, with the exception of several pagodas, very few buildings are worthy of attention. However, one of these temples possesses several ancient sculptures and a very valuable library of Sanskrit books. Though not properly speaking an industrial or commercial town, its silk-dyeing, silk-weaving, chintz-stamping, and especially metal industries have won a good repute for its artisans in the South of India. The glory of Kumbakonam is found in the number of learned people who live in it, and in the comparatively high percentage of the young who receive a liberal education in its schools. The college, conducted on distinctly English lines, is under the management of a European gentleman, who is seconded by an efficient staff of native teachers. The city has also good educational institutions for girls. The "big school" which numbers about 280 students, is placed under the tuition of native Catholic nuns, paid by the municipality. The diocese, which was created in 1899, is entirely on British territory, although it is suffragan to Pondicherry (the capital of French lndia). It is bounded on the north by River Vellar, on the west and south by the Cauvery (which divides it from the Dioceses of Madura and Coimbatore), on the east by the Bay of Bengal and the French territory of Karikal. It includes part of the British civil districts of Tanjore, Trichinopoly, South Arcot, and Sale. The first and present occupant (1909) is Dr. H.M. Bottero of the Society of Foreign Missions (Paris), author of the first Catholic version of the Bible in Tamil, and editor of several classical and devotional books in both this and the Bengali languages. The diocese numbers 88,000 native Catholics (out of population of about 3,000,000), evangelized by 50 priests (35 European, 15 native). In the mission there are 67 schools, with 3400 children in attendance, 5 orphanages, 4 dispensaries and a hospital under care of the French nuns. A native Catholic gentleman has built at Perumpanniyur a church at a cost of about 133,000 dollars (four lacs of rupees), and has also richly endowed it. H.M. BOTTERO Kutenai Indians Kutenai Indians An important tribe of south-eastern British Columbia and the adjacent portions of Montana and Idaho, occupying chiefly the present Kootenai County, B.C., between the main Rockies and the Selkirk Range, from about 52° southwards, including the basins of the Koutenay and Lower Columbia Rivers, and extending to Lake Pend d'Oreille in Idaho. They constitute a distinct linguistic stock, designated as the Kitunahan, from the proper name, Kitanáqa. The meaning of this name is unknown, but it occurs in the form of Cattanahowes in the Mackenzie map of 1801. To their Shalishan neighbours they are known as Skalzi, "lake, or water, people", and to the French as Arez-à-plats, Anglicized Flatbows. They have a distinct tradition of having formerly lived in the plains east of the Rockies, whence they were probably driven by the Blackfeet, their hereditary enemies. Up to a recent period, they were in the habit of making annual descents to the Plains, in company with the Flatheads, Kalispel, and Nez Percés, for the purpose of hunting buffalo. They are commonly differentiated as Upper and Lower (or Flatbow proper), approximately in British Columbia and the United States respectively, with several minor subdivisions and two main dialects. Physically the Kutenai rank as the tallest and best built Indians of British Columbia, being also almost entirely free of blood taint and other consequences of dissipation so prevalent among other tribes of the region. Intellectually they are more stable and capable of mental exertion, while concurrent testimony of traders, travellers and missionaries places them in the first rank for morality, honesty, reliability, and manly qualities. In their primitive condition the Kutenai lived in small skin or mat-covered tipis, of which the universal sweat lodge (see Indians) was always an important adjunct. They subsisted by hunting, fishing, and gathering of wild berries and roots, particularly camas (Camassia: see Kalispel). The Lower Kutenai dried immense quantities of fish for winter. They made no pottery, but were expert basket-weavers, boiling their food in water-tight baskets by means of heated stones. They dressed in buckskin, painted their faces in bright colours, and wore their hair full length, either braided or flowing. Their social organization was extremely simple, with no trace of the clan system or the secret societies common to most other tribes of the region. Each band had its own chief, hereditary in a certain family, who was assisted by a council. Both slavery and polygamy existed, the slaves being captives taken in war. Erring wives were punished by cutting off one of their hair braids, instead of by death or mutilation as in other tribes. Orphan children were adopted by their relatives, while near relatives were not allowed to marry. Murder was compounded by a fine, or punished with death by the family of the victim. The dead were buried in the ground with all their finery, and the debts of the deceased were paid by the surviving relatives. The religion was the usual Indian Animism, with the Sun, personified as a woman, as the highest and most beneficent deity, to whose home the spirits of the dead journeyed, to rejoin their friends later in this world at a place of sacred pilgrimage, on the shore of Lake Pend d'Oreille. Tabus, fasting, and sacrifice were part of the system, and the shaman doctors exercised great influence. Among their great ceremonies were the fish festival, described by De Smet as witnessed by him in 1845. The Lower Kutenai, who retained more of their primitive custom, are still more addicted to gambling games. Although known to the Hudson Bay traders and other adventurers as early, perhaps, as 1780, the Kutenai remained practically unchanged until the advent of the Jesuits under Father Peter De Smet, about 1840. In the next two years he preached to visiting bands of the tribe at the Flathead mission, and, on the establishment of St. Ignatius mission among the Kalispel by Fathers Adrian Hoecken and Antonio Rivalli, the southern bands were brought regularly under mission influence. In August, 1845, at a large camp on the Kutenai River, U.S., De Smet himself celebrated "the first Mass ever offered in their land", and set up the cross of a mission which he named in honour of the day "The Assumption." The Mission of the Sacred Heart of Mary was founded on the Tobacco Plains, B.C., within the next year. The whole tribe, with the exception of a portion of the Lower Kutenai, accepted almost at once the new faith, in which they have remained steadfast and exemplary ever since. Those within the United States are chiefly gathered upon the Flathead Reservation, Montana, by treaty of 1855, where they are still under Jesuit teaching, while some few in Idaho probably retain their old beliefs. Those in British Columbia are under the ministry of the Oblate Fathers, who, assisted by the Sisters of Charity, conduct a successful mission school at Saint-Eugène, near Fort Steele. The school was established in 1854 by Father Léon Fouquet, the first of the Oblates to enter the Kutenai field. The great majority have long since adopted the ways of civilization, and subsist by farming, stock-raising, and labouring in the lumber camps and for the white ranchers. The official Canadian report (1908) describes the various bands as "industrious, steady, and law-abiding", "temperate and moral", and "progressing" while the mission work "deserves the greatest praise". In spite of several great epidemic visitations in years past, notably smallpox, the Kutenai have held their own well, thanks to their innate manliness and to the strict observance of the precepts inculcated by their religious teachers. They probably number now nearly as many as at any period in their history and even seem to have largely increased in the past twenty years. Official reports for 1908 give them about 1120 souls, viz: British Columbia, Kootenay Agency, 513; Montana Agency, 606. Our principal authorities on the Kutenai are: Chamberlain, De Smet, and the official reports. Consult: Chamberlain, Kootenay Indians in Rept. Brit. Am. Advancement Society (London, 1892); Idem, Kootenay Indians in Ontario Archæological Report (Toronto, 1905); Idem, Some Kutenai Linguistic Material in Am. Anthropologist (Lancaster, Jan., 1909); Maximilian, Travels (London, 1843); Morice, Catholic Church in Western Canada (Toronto, 1910); Shea, Catholic Missions (New York, 1854); De Smet, Oregon Missions (New York, 1847); also Annual Reports of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs (U. S.) (Washington), and of the Department of Indian Affairs (Canada) (Ottawa). JAMES MOONEY Kwango Kwango (Prefecture Apostolic) Kwango is the name of a river which flows into the Kassai, which itself is a tributary of the River Congo. This mission (missio Kwangensis) formed a part of the Vicariate Apostolic of Belgian Congo till April, 1892, when a decree was issued, entrusting this new mission to the Jesuit Fathers of the Belgian province. The late Father Emil von Henexthoven (1852-1906) was its first superior. He left Belgium on 6 March, 1893 with two fathers, one scholastic, and two lay brothers, and reached the mission towards the end of May. Unfortunately, owing to the hardships of the voyage, one of the fathers died on the way. By decree of 30 January, 1903, the Kwango mission was made a prefecture Apostolic (Præfectura Apostolica Kwangensis), the first prefect Apostolic being Father Julian Banckaert, S. J., whose residence is in Kinsantu, the chief mission station. The prefecture comprises the civil districts of Eastern Kwango and that of Stanley Pool as far to the north as the River Kassai. It is located between 4° to 8° S. latitude and 15° to 20° E. longitude. Its boundaries are to the north the river Kassai, to the east the range of hills between the River Loange and Jjuma; to the south Portuguese territory; to the west the River Inkisi and the railway to Leopoldville. The sisters of Notre Dame de Namur have two important institutions at Kinsantu and Nlemfu, where they provide for more than one thousand native girls. Julian Banckaert, S. J., was born at Bruges in 1847, entered the diocesan seminary, and was ordained in 1871. He joined the Society of Jesus in 1875 and was sent to Bengal in 1878. There he was successively a missionary, superior of the mission, and military chaplain until, in 1901, he was sent to the Kwango mission. Missiones Catholicæ (Rome, 1907). J. BANCKAERT Kwangi-Si Kwang-si (Prefecture Apostolic) The mission of Kwang-si comprises the entire province of that name. As a country, it is very mountainous and extremely poor. The province has a population of about ten million souls divided among several distinct races, the most remarkable of whom are the settlers from the Canton, the Hakkas, and the wild Yao-tse and Miao-tse. The first missionary to Kwang-si was the Jesuit Father Ruggieri who in 1583 endeavoured without success to establish himself at the capital, Kwei-lin. Fifty years later the Franciscan, Francesco d'Escalone, arrived at Wu-chou. About the middle of the seventeenth century, Father Koffler built a church at Kwei-lin and baptized at Nan-ning, under the name of Constantine, a son of the Emperor Yung-li, a pretender to the Ming dynasty, who still combatted in the southern part of the empire the advancing Manchu conquerors. Father Boym laboured in company with Father Koffler. In 1692 Father Jacques Duval laboured to give further impulse to the work of his predecessors, and then came Fathers Chamaya and Lopez. At the same time the Spanish Augustinians established themselves at Kwei-lin and Wu-chu, and the Franciscans at Ping-lo-fu. All were expelled in 1724 by Emperor Yung Chen and Kwang-si thenceforth remained without missionaries for a hundred and thirty years. In 1848 Kwang-si, united to the mission of Kwang-tung, was confided to the Paris Society of Foreign Missions. In 1854 Blessed Auguste Chapdelaine first entered the province from Kwei-chou, but was arrested and thrown into the prison of Si-lin-hien ten days after his arrival. Liberated after sixteen or eighteen days of captivity, he ministered until 1856. Up until this date he had baptized several hundred catechumens, but he was again arrested, taken to Si-lin, sentenced to death, and executed on 29 February of the same year, with Blessed Laurence Pe-mu and Agnes Tsau-kong. In 1866, several missionaries again penetrated Kwang-si, but were unable to stay long. In 1868, Father Mihière was appointed superior to the mission of Kwang-si, but died in 1871. Under his direction several missionaries were able to enter the province. Among them was Father Foucard, who evangelized Shang-sze, while labouring in the disguise of a wood-cutter to avoid arousing the suspicions of the mandarins. On 6 August, 1875, Pius IX made Kwang-si a prefecture Apostolic, and placed it under the authority of Father Jolly, previously missionary in Kwang-tung. At this same period were founded the districts of Kwei-hien and of the "hundred thousand mountains" among the wild Yao-tse. Father Jolly died in 1878 and Mgr Foucard was made titular Bishop of Zela and Prefect Apostolic of Kwang-si. The Chinese authorities placed many obstacles in the way of the free spread of the Gospel. Mgr Foucard was obliged to proceed personally to Peking and demand justice, but he obtained no satisfaction. The Franco-Chinese War of 1884 served to increase the difficulties of this mission. Fathers Lavest and Pernet were subjected to cruel treatment and several Christian communities were uprooted. Only the communities established among the savages and at Si-lin experienced relative tranquility. Mgr Foucard died in 1878 and was succeeded by Mgr Chouzy. Under the direction of the new prefect, other communities were established, and finally a certain measure of liberty was accorded to the missionaries. Often, however, sudden revolts seriously interfered with their labours. Two missionaries, Fathers Mazel and Bertholet, were massacred in different districts. In 1899, Mgr Chouzey died, and in the following year Mgr Lavest undertook the mission. During the Boxer troubles but three missions and a few other houses belonging to the Christians were pillaged. Mgr Lavest subsequently moved his residence from Kwei-hien to Nan-ning, intending to erect a cathedral at the latter place. Two French schools have been established, one at Nan-ning, and one at Kwei-lin, by the Little Brothers of Mary. Nuns of St. Paul of Chartres have established themselves at Nan-ning and Long-chau. During 1908 they have relieved 4300 sufferers at their dispensary in Nan-ning and 4000 at that of Long-chau. The following figures give the condition of the mission at the various periods named: In 1889, 1 bishop, 11 missionaries, 1 seminary, 21 schools with 211 pupils, 16 churches and chapels, 1249 Catholics. In 1900, 1 bishop, 17 missionaries, 1 seminary with 16 students, 24 schools with 310 scholars, 32 churches and chapels, 110 baptisms of native adults and 61 baptisms of native children, 1536 Catholics. In 1908, 1 bishop, 27 missionaries, 4 native priests, 2 seminaries with 16 students, 34 schools with 379 pupils, 311 baptisms of adults, and 113 baptisms of native children, 4214 Catholics. Launay, Atlas de la Société des Missions Etrangères de Paris (Paris, 1890). V.H. MONTANAR Kwang-Tung Kwang-tung (Prefecture Apostolic) This prefecture comprises the whole province of that name except the civil prefecture of Shin-hing, the three districts of Heung-shan, Yan-ping, and Yeung-tsun, which belong to the Diocese of Macao, and the three districts of San-on, Kwei-shin, and Hoi-fung, which belong to the Vicariate Apostolic of Hong-Kong. St. Francis Xavier was the first missionary who attempted to penetrate the province of Kwang-tung (1552), but he died in the Island of Shang-sch'wan (St. John's Island), south-west of Macao, before he was able to preach Christianity there. In 1556 Father Melchior Barreto penetrated as far as Canton, where he discussed science and moral theology with the mandarins; other Jesuits followed, and in 1581 Father Ruggieri secured authorization to open a chapel. In 1582, the real founder of Christianity in China, Father Matteo Ricci, arrived at Canton. From Canton Father Ricci went to Shin-hing, then the capital of the province, and afterwards to Shin-chou, were he met for the first time the celebrated Sin, a native of Kiang-nan. He then travelled to towards Kiang-si and Nan-king, establishing on the way Christian settlements, which have persevered to the present time. Until 1658 Kwang-tung was dependent on the Diocese of Macao. In that year it was confided to Mgr de la Motte Lambert. The priests of the Missions Etrangères then preached there together with the Jesuits, the Franciscans, and the Dominicans. From 1682 to 1710, Mgr de Guéméner and Fathers de Cecè and Ducarpon established themselves at Canton and Shin-chou. The tomb of Mgr de Guéméner (d. 1704) is at Shin-chou as is also that of Père Lirot (d. 1720). When the persecution of Emperor Yong-chin broke out in 1742 there were 30,000 Christians in the province of Kwang-tung, but all the missionaries were then expelled. From that time until 1844, when Mgr. de Lagrenée obtained the proclamation of religious liberty, the missionaries did not enter Kwang-tung except in disguise. The bishops of Macao had meanwhile regained jurisdiction over the province, but the number of Christians tended by native priests had fallen to 7000 or 8000. On 30 September, 1848, the Congregation of the Propaganda confided this mission to the Société des Missions Estrangères de Paris without removing all jurisdiction from the Bishop of Macao. Father Libois, procurator of the Société at Hong-Kong, was named prefect Apostolic, and Father Guillemin was the first missionary sent to the province. The progress was slow at first: there were 115 baptisms of adults in 1851, 214 in 1854. In 1853 Father Guillemin was named prefect Apostolic instead of Father Libois. A persecution broke out, and seven missionaries were arrested and thrown in prison. Difficulties having arisen with Macao, Rome put an end to them on 8 Aug., 1856, by nominating Father Guillemin Bishop of Cybistra in partibus infidelium, by giving him on 17 September, 1858, complete jurisdiction over Kwang-tung, Kwang-si, and Hainan. In 1856, Blessed Auguste Chapdelaine was martyred in Kwang-si with two companions, Blessed Laurence Pe-mu and Blessed Agnes Chow-kong. As the result of the Anglo-French expedition, which ended in the taking of Peking, a treaty was signed on 25 October, 1860. This was a signal for wider liberty for the missionaries. In compensation for the churches which had been destroyed and the property which had been taken from the mission, the bishop obtained the site of the ancient palace of the viceroy, on which were built the seminary and the orphanages. With the assistance of Napoleon III and the Catholics of France was also built the fine cathedral of Canton, one of the most beautiful religious monuments of the Far East. A chapel in honour of St. Francis Xavier was built at Shang-ch'wan, and this island became a place of pilgrimage for the people of Hong-Kong, Macao, and Canton. Baptisms became more numerous, amounting to 740 in 1862 and to 922 in 1867. There were some troubles in 1868 and 1869. In 1875 the Province of Kwang-si was separated from the Mission of Kwang-tung, while the island of Hai-nan and the district of Heung-shan was ceded to the Diocese of Macao. These districts were given to the priests of the Missions Estrangéres de Milan, who were established at Hong-Kong. The mission then ministered to 15,000 Catholics; in 1880 it had 23,730 under its care. In 1881, Mgr Guillemin, worn out with labour, left Mgr Chausse, titular Bishop of Capsa, in charge of the mission. In 1884, at the time of the war of Tongking, the missionaries were ordered to discontinue the mission, and had to stay at Hong-Kong for nearly a year. The Christian establishments of Canton were destroyed. The districts of Shun-tak, Sha-tan, Shin-hing, Tong-kun, were laid waste, but it is worthy to remark that the districts nearest Tongking suffered the least. In some of these the missionaries were able to remain throughout the hostilities. On the restoration of peace the missionaries and the Christians who had followed them returned to the country. No indemnity was granted either to the missionaries or the Christians, on the pretext that the French would not restore the vessels sunk at Fu-chau. The report of 1889 gives 1 bishop, 43 missionaries, 7 native priests, 150 churches or chapels, 1 seminary with 30 students, 135 schools or orphanages with 2067 pupils, 28,852 Catholics. In 1894 and 1895, during the war between China and Japan, there were some disorders. A missionary was besieged for nine days in a Christian village by soldiers returning from Formosa, and the mandarin of the place had to pay several thousand dollars to induce the soldiers to raise the siege. After the war, there was a great conversion movemnet which lasted several years, especially at Kit-yueng and Tong-kun. In 1898, Father Chanès was slain with eight Christians in his district of Pok-lo. In 1900, during the Boxer uprisings, several missionaries were ordered by the viceroy, then the famous Li Hung Chang, to leave the province, but they all remained at their post. However, in September, when the troops of the allies had been in Peking a month, the chief Christian settlements of Shun-tak, Sha-tan, and Tong-kun were destroyed and the chapels burned by the populace. Mgr Chausse, who was ill, could not survive these disasters, and died a few days later. However, the arrival at Canton of European and American warships soon brought the pillagers to reason. In 1901 Mgr Mésel was named Bishop of Orcisto and Prefect Apostolic of Kwang-tung. In January, 1902, Father Julien was assassinated with his two servants at Ma-tez-han, a district of Chi-hing on the frontiers of Kiang-si. In 1905 five American Presbyterian missionaries were massacred at Lin-chou, on the borders of Hu-nan, by an infuriated populace. Since then peace has lasted. The inhabitants of Kwang-tung seem to have a decided leaning towards the things of Europe and America. Numerous students go to be educated in Japan, the United States and Europe. Mgr Mérel has founded the College of the Sacred Heart, to teach English and French to the Chinese without distinction of religion. The number of students exceeds 250. In 1908 the mission of Kwang-tung ceded to the Diocese of Macao the civil prefecture of Shin-hing and the two districts of Yang-ping and Yeung-tsum, belonging to Shin-hing at the time of the fulmination of the decree of the Holy See, instead of which the Island of Hai-nan was given to the Prefecture Apostolic of Kwang-tung. But as Shin-hing contains more than 2500 Catholics, while the Island of Hai-nan has only 300 or 400, it will be readily understood why the reports of the mission of Kwang-tung number less Catholics in 1908 than in 1907. The statistics for the two years are as follows: 1907, 65 missionaries, 20 native priests, 66 seminarians, 455 churches and chapels, 210 schools, 2050 pupils, 2037 baptisms of adults, 7000 baptisms of pagan children, 60,000 Catholics; 1908, 73 missionaries, 24 native priests, 70 seminarians, 484 churches and chapels, 250 schools, 3500 pupils, 2214 baptisms of adults, 9586 baptisms of children of pagans, 58,917 Catholics to about 30,000,000 pagans. Launay, Histoire de la Société des Missions Etrangères; Idem, Atlas Missions de la Société des Missions Etrangères; Catholic Missions (New York, July, 1909); Comptes rendus de la Société des Missions Etrangères (1907-8). V.H. MONTANAR Kwei-Chou Kwei-chou (Vicariate Apostolic) The mission of Kwei-chou embraces the entire province of that name. The country is very mountainous and it is principally inhabited by Chinese from other provinces and the race of aborigines known under the generic term of Miao-tze, who are subdivided into numerous tribes. The Faith was carried for the first time into Kwei-chou by a Portuguese Jesuit towards the end of the sixteenth century. The first vicar Apostolic of the Paris Society of Foreign Missions, Mgr Pallu, was created administrator of Kwei-chou in 1658. In 1708 Father Claude Visdelou was made vicar Apostolic of this province by Cardinal de Tournon, but never entered upon his mission. The Holy See finally joined the mission of Kwei-chou to that of Sze-ch'wan under the direction of the Paris Society of Foreign missions. From 1769 onwards, Mgr Potier, Vicar Apostolic of Sze-ch'wan, Yun-nan, and Kwei-chou, made a practice of sending a native priest every two years to visit the few Christian communities established in Kwei-chou by Christian families migrated thither from Sze-ch'wan. The Venerable Moye visited these settlements in 1774. He was arrested, imprisoned, and eventually expelled from Kwei-chou. In 1815 Blessed Joseph Chang Ta-pong was beheaded at Tsi-i. In 1839 there were other martyrdoms, among them that of Joachim Ho. In 1846 Kwei-chou was detached from Sze-ch'wan and made an independent Vicariate Apostolic. Father Stephen Albrand, missionary in Siam, was placed in charge. He found twelve hundred of the faithful in the entire province. He established himself at the capital, Kwei-yang. In 1849 he was created vicar Apostolic and consecrated Bishop of Sura. On 28 January, 1858, the blessed martyrs, Jerome Lu Pin-mei, Laurent Wang, and Agatha Ling were decapitated at Mau-keou. In 1860 Mgr Faurie succeeded Mgr Albrand. This same year, because of the victories of the British and French, the Treaty of Peking guaranteeing religious liberty was signed. The province was, however, ravaged for several years afterwards owing to feuds between the Chinese and Mohammedans. During this period Christians were imprisoned, their parishes pillaged, and their missionaries massacred. On 29 July, 1861, four native Christians were beheaded at Tsin-gai. These were Blessed Joseph Chang, Paul Chen, J. B. Lo, and Martha Wang. In 1862 Blessed John Peter Neel, a French missionary, Martin Wu, John Chang, John Chen, and Lucy I were beheaded at Kai-chou. In 1865 Father Muller was massacred with several native Christians. Notwithstanding the persecution, it was possible in 1866 to record 408 baptisms of adults, and 13,178 infant baptisms among the natives. In 1867 the number baptized included 601 adults and 11,023 infant baptisms; in 1868, 92 adults and 9322 infant baptisms. Mgr Faurie died in 1872 on his return from Rome, where he had taken part in the Vatican Council. He was succeeded by Mgr Lions who was consecrated titular Bishop of Basilita in 1872. Peace reigned during several years, and the missionaries were able to greatly augment the number of Christian communities, but in 1884, during the Franco-Chinese War, the persectutions were renewed. They were particularly violent in Kwei-chou. The Christians of the capital alone escaped. Hardly had this initial persecution terminated than a second, which was still more terrible, broke out, beginning with the destruction of the Catholic establishments at Chun-king (Sze-ch'wan). The Chinese priest, Father Lin, was massacred, together with his catechist and a neophyte. Many Christians were thrown into prison, and the missionaries were only able to obtain justice by application to Peking. In 1884 Mgr Guichard had been made coadjutor to Mgr Lions. Upon the death of the latter in 1893, Mgr Guichard took the entire management of the mission in hand. During the following period peace was secure in the Kwei-chou mission, and the missionaries were able to augment rapidly the number of their converts. In 1900 Kwei-chou again escaped the troubles which overwhelmed many of the other Catholic missions in China. In 1907 Mgr Seguin was made coadjutor to Mgr Guichard, and consecrated titular Bishop of Pinara. In 1899 the Catholic community numbered 2 bishops, 29 missionaries, 6 native priests, 66 churches and chapels, 1 seminary with 18 students, 120 schools and orphan asylums ministering to 2031 pupils, 18,000 Catholics. In 1900: 1 bishops, 38 missionaries, 8 native priests, 86 churches and chapels, 2 seminary with 36 students, 150 schools and asylums with 2844 scholars, 998 native adult and 4634 native infant baptisms, 19,128 Catholics. In 1908: 2 bishops, 51 missionaries, 17 native priests, 3 seminaries with 62 students, 196 schools and asylums with 2388 pupils, 13 orphan asylums with 855 children, 1472 native adult and 4713 native infant baptisms, 25,728 Catholics. Launay, Atlas Missions de la Société des Missions Etrangères de Paris (Paris, 1890). V.H. MONTANAR Kyrie Eleison Kyrie Eleison Kyrie Eleison (Greek for "Lord have mercy"; the Latin transliteration supposes a pronunciation as in Modern Greek) is a very old, even pre-Christian, expression used constantly in all Christian liturgies. Arrian quotes it in the second century: "Invoking God we say Kyrie Eleison" (Diatribæ Epicteti, II, 7). A more obvious precedent for Christian use was the occurrence of the same formula in the Old Testament (Psalm 4:2, 6:3, 9:14, 25:11, 121:3; Isaias 33:2; Tobit 8:10; etc., in the Septuagint). In these places it seems already to be a quasi-liturgical exclamation. So also in the New Testament the form occurs repeatedly (Matthew 9:27, 20:30, 15:22; Mark 10:47; Luke 16:24, 17:13). The only difference is that all these cases have an accusative after the verb: Kyrie eleison me, or eleison hemas. The liturgical forumula is shortened from this. HISTORY It is not mentioned by the Apostolic Fathers or the Apologists. The first certain example of its use in the liturgy is in that of the eighth book of the "Apostolic Constitutions". Here it is the answer of the people to the various Synaptai (Litanies) chanted by the deacon (Brightman, "Eastern Liturgies", pp. 4 and 5; cf. "Ap. Const.", VIII, vi, 4). That is still its normal use in the Eastern rites. The deacon sings various clauses ofa litany, to each of which the people answer, Kyrie Eleison. Of the Greek Fathers of the fourth century, Eusebius, Athanasius, Basil, Cyril of Jerusalem, and the two Gregories [of Nazianzus and Nyssa] do not mention it. But it occurs often in St. John Chrysostom. Its introduction into the Roman Mass has been much discussed. It is certain that the liturgy at the Rome was at one time said in Greek (to the end of the second century apparently). It is tempting to look upon our Kyrie Eleison as a surviving fragment from that time. Such, however, does not seem to be the case. Rather the form was borrowed from the East and introduced into the Latin Mass later. The older Latin Fathers, Tertullian, Cyprian, etc., do not mention it. Etheria (Silvia) heard it sung at Jerusalem in the fourth century. It is evidently a strange form to her, and she translates it: "As the deacon says the names of various people (the Intercession) a number of boys stand and answer always, Kyrie Eleison, as we should say, Miserere Domine" (ed. Heræus, Heidelberg,1908, XXIV, 5, p. 29). The first evidence of its use in the West is in the third canon of the Second Council of Vaison (Vasio in the province of Arles), in 529. From this canon it appears that the form was recently introduced at Rome and in Italy (Milan?): "Since both in the Apostolic See as also in all the provinces of the East and in Italy a sweet and most pious custom has been introduced that Kyrie Eleison be said with great insistence and compunction, it seems good to us too that this holy custom be introduced at Matins and Mass and Vespers" (cf. Hefele-Leclercq, "Histoires des Conciles", Paris, 1908, pp. 1113-1114; Duchesne, "Origines", p. 183). The council says nothing of Africa or Spain, though it mentions Africa in other canons about liturgical practices (Can. v). It appears to mean that Kyrie Eleison should be sung by the people cum grandi affectu. E. Bishop (in the "Downside Review", 1889) notes that this council represents a Romanizing movement in Gaul. The next famous witness to its use in the West is St. Gregory I (590-604). He writes to John of Syracuse to defend the Roman Church from imitating Constantinople by the use of this form, and is at pains to point out the difference between its use at Rome and in the East: "We neither said nor say Kyrie Eleison as it is said by the Greeks. Among the Greeks all say it together, with us it is said by the clerks and answered by the people, and we say Christe Eleison as many times, which is not the case with the Greeks. Moreover in daily Masses some things usually said are left out by us; we say on Kyrie Eleison and Christe Eleison, that we may dwell longer on these words of prayer" (Ep. ix in P.L., LXXVII, 956). The last words appear to mean that sometimes other prayers are left out that there may be more time for singing the Kyrie Eleison. We also see from this passage that in St. Gregory's time the special Roman use of the alternative form Christe Eleison (unknown in the Gallican and Eastern rites) existed. It seems inevitable to connect the Kyrie Eleison in the Roman Mass with an original litany. Its place corresponds exactly to where it occurs as part of a litany in the Syrian-Byzantine Liturgy; it is still always sung at the beginning of litanies in the Roman Rite too, and St. Gregory refers to "some things usually said" in connection with it. What can these things be but clauses of a litany, sung, as in the East, by a deacon? Moreover there are still certain cases in the Roman Rite, obviously of an archaic nature, where a litany occurs at the place of the Kyrie. Thus the last clause (Kyrie Eleison, repeated three times; Christe Eleison, repeated three times; Kyrie Eleison, repeated three times) is sung as the celebrant says the first prayers of the Mass, and correspond in every way to our usual Kyrie. So also at ordinations the Litany is sung towards the beginning of the Mass. In this connection it may be noted that down to the late Middle Ages the Kyrie of the Mass was left out when it had just been sung in a Litany before Mass, as on Rogation days (e.g., Ordo Rom., XI, lxii). We may suppose, then, that at one time the Roman Mass began (after the Introit) with a litany of general petitions very much of the nature of thethird part of our Litany of the Saints. This would correspond exactly to our great Synapte in the Syrian Rite. Only, from what has been said, we conclude that the answer of the people was in Latin -- the "Miserere Domine" of Etheria, or "te rogamus, audi nos", or some such form. About the fifth century the Greek Kyrie Eleison was adopted by the West, and at Rome with the alternative form Christe Eleison. This was then sung, not as in the East only by the people, but alternately by cantors and people. It displaced the older Latin exclamations at this place and eventually remained alone as the only remnant of the old litany. The first Roman Ordo (sixth-seventh cent.) describes a not yet fixed number of Kyries sung at what is still their place in the Mass: "The school [ schola, choir] having finished the Antiphon [the Introit] begins Kyrie Eleison. But the leader of the school watches the Pontiff that he should give him a sign if he wants to change the number of the litany" ("Ordo Rom. primus", ed. Atchley, London, 1905, p. 130). In the "Ordo of Saint Amand", written in the eighth century and published by Duchesne in his "Origines du culte" (p. 442), we have already our number of invocations: "When the school has finished the Antiphon the Pontiff makes a sign that Kyrie Eleison should be said. And the school says it [ dicit always covers singing in liturgical Latin; cf. the rubrics of the present Missal: "dicit cantando vel legendo" before the Pater Noster], and the Regionarii who stand below the ambo repeat it. When they have repeated it the third time the Pontiff signs again that Christæ [ sic] Eleison be said. This having been said the third time he signs again that Kyrie Eleison be said. And when they have completed it nine times he signs that they should stop." So we have, at least from the eighth century, our present practice of singing immediately after the Introit three times Kyrie Eleison, three times Christe Eleison, three times Kyrie Eleison, making nine invocations altogether. Obviously the first group is addressed to God the Father, the second to God the Son, the third to God the Holy Ghost. The medieval commentators are fond of connecting the nine-fold invocation with the nine choirs of angels (Durandus, "Rationale", IV, xii). From a very early time the solemnity of the Kyrie was marked by a long and ornate chant. In the Eastern rites, too, it is always sung to long neums. It is still the most elaborate of all our plainsong melodies. In the Middle Ages the Kyrie was constantly farced with other words to fill up the long neums. The names of the various Kyries in the Vatican Gradual (for instance, Kyrie Cunctipotens genitor Deus of the tenth century, Kyrie magnæ Deus potentiæ of the thirteenth century, etc.) are still traces of this. As an example of these innumerable and often very long farcings, this comparatively short one from the Sarum Missal may serve: Kyrie, rex genitor ingenite, vera essentia, eleyson. Kyrie, luminis fons rerumque conditor, eleyson. Kyrie, qui nos tuæ imaginis signasti specie, eleyson. Christe, Dei forma humana particeps, eleyson. Christe, lux oriens per quem sunt omnia, eleyson. Christe, qui perfecta es sapientia, eleyson. Kyrie, spiritus vivifice, vitæ vis, eleyson. Kyrie, utriqusque vapor in quo cuncta, eleyson. Kyrie, expurgator scelerum et largitor gratitæ; quæsumus propter nostrasoffensas noli nos relinquere, O consolator dolentis animæ, eleyson (ed. Burntisland, 929). [Lord, King and Father unbegotten, True Essence of the Godhead, have mercy on us. Lord, Fount of light and Creator of all things, have mercy on us. Lord, Thou who hast signed us with the seal of Thine image, have mercy on us. Christ, True God and True Man, have mercy on us. Christ, Rising Sun, through whom are all things, have mercy on us. Christ, Perfection of Wisdom, have mercy on us. Lord, vivifying Spirit and power of life, have mercy on us. Lord, Breath of the Father and the Son, in Whom are all things, have mercy on us. Lord, Purger of sin and Almoner of grace, we beseech Thee abandon us notbecause of our Sins, O Consoler of the sorrowing soul, have mercy on us.] Notice the greater length of the last farcing to fit the neums of the last Kyrie, which are always longer. Sometimes the essential words are mixed up with the farcing in a very curious mixture of Latin and Greek: "Conditor Kyrie onmium ymas creaturarum eleyson" (Ib., 932*). The reformed Missal of Pius V happily abolished these and all other farcings of the liturgical text. IN THE ROMAN RITE In the Mass, the three groups of invocations are sung by the choir immediately after the Introit. They form the beginnings of the choir's part of the Ordinary. A number of plainsong Masses are provided in the Gradual, each characterized and named after the Kyrie that begins it. Although each Mass is appointed for a certain occasion (e.g., for solemn feasts, doubles, Masses of the B.V.M., etc.) there is no law against using them without regard to this arrangement. Moreover, except on ferias, which keep their very simple chants, the various parts (Kyrie, Gloria, etc.) of different Masses may be combined (see rubric after the fourth Creed in the Vatican "Gradual"). The new Vatican edition also provides a series of other chants, including eleven Kyries, ad libitum. The Kyrie Eleison (as all the Ordinary and proper of the choir) may also be sung to figured music that does not offend against the rules of Pius X's "Motu proprio" on church music (22 Nov., 1903). Meanwhile the celebrant, having incensed the altar and read the Introit at the Epistle side, says the Kyrie there with joined hands alternately with the deacon, sub-deacon, and surrounding servers. At low Mass the celebrant after the Introit comes to the middle of the altar and there says the Kyrie alternately with the server ("Ritus celebr." in the Missal, iv, 2, 7). The Kyrie is said in this way at every Mass with the exception of Holy Saturday and also of the Mass on Whitsun Eve at which the prophecies and litany are chanted. On these occasions the cantors finish the litany by singing the nine invocations of the Kyrie. After the prayers at the foot of the altar the celebrant goes up, incenses the altar, and then at once intones the Gloria. But he should say the Kyrie in a low voice himself first. Besides in the Mass, the Kyrie occurs repeatedly in other offices of the Roman Rite, always in the form Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison, Kyrie Eleison (each invocation once only). It begins the preces feriales at Lauds, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers; it begins the preces at Prime and Compline. It is sung after the Responsorium at funerals, said at marriages and on many other occasions for blessings and consecrations. In these cases it generally precedes the Pater Noster. It also begins and ends the Litany of the Saints. As an imitation of this, it is always placed at the beginning of the various other private litanies which are imitations of the official one. IN OTHER RITES In the first place, the invocation Christe Eleison is purely Roman. With one exception, obviously a Roman interpolation in the Mozarabic Rite, it does not occur in any other use. Local medieval uses had it, of course; but they are only slight local modifications of the Roman Rite, not really different rites at all. In the Gallican Mass, as described by Germanus of Paris, three boys sing Kyrie Eleison three times after the Trisagion which follows the Antiphon at the entrance, then follows the Benedictus. These chants represent the beginning of the Mass (Duchesne, "Origines du Culte", pp. 182, 183). After the Gospel and Homily comes a litany sung by the deacon like the Syrian and Byzantine synaptai. The people answer in Latin: Precamur te Domine, miserere; but at the end come three Kyrie Eleisons. The Milanese rite shows its Gallican origin by its use of the Kyrie. Here, too, the form is always Kyrie Eleison three times (never Christe Eleison). It occurs after the Gloria, which has replaced the older Trisagion, after the Gospel, where the Gallican litany was, and after the Post-communion, always said by the celebrant alone. It also occurs throughout the Milanese offices, more or less as at Rome, but always in the form of Kyrie Eleison three times. The Mozarabic Liturgy does not know the form atall, except in one isolated case. In the Mass for the Dead, after the singing of the chant called Sacrificium (corresponding to the Roman Offertory) the celebrant says Kyrie Eleison, and the choir answers Christe Eleison, Kyrie Eleison ("Missale mixtum" in P.L., LXXXV, 1014, 1018, 1021, 1024, etc. -- the various Masses for the Dead). This is obviously a Roman interpolation. All the Eastern rites use the form Kyrie Eleison constantly. It is the usual answer of the people of choir to each clause of the various litanies sung by the deacon throughout the service (varied, however, by paraschou Kyrie and one or two other similar ejaculations). It also occurs many other times, for instance in the Antiochene Rite it is sung twelve times, at Alexandria three times just before Communion. In the Byzantine Rite it comes over and over again, nearly always in a triple form, among the Troparia and other prayers said by various people throughout the Office as wellas in the Liturgy. A conspicuous place in this rite is at the dismissal (Brightman, 397). In general it may be said to occur most frequently in the Syrian-Byzantine family of Liturgies. In the Syriac liturgies it is said in Greek, spelled in Syriac letters Kurillison, so also in the Coptic liturgies (in Greek letters, of course -- nearly all the Coptic alphabet is Greek); and in the Abyssinian Rite it is spelled out: Kiralayeson. The Nestorians translate it in Syriac and the Armenians into Armenian. All the versions of the Byzantine Rite used by the various Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches (Old Slavonic, Arabic, Rumanian, etc.) also translate Kyrie eleison. ADRIAN FORTESCUE __________________________________________________________________ Labadists Labadists A pietist sect of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries founded by Jean de Labadie, who was born at Bourg, near Bordeaux, 13 February, 1610, and died at Altonia, 13 February, 1674. He was educated by the Jesuits at Bordeaux, joined their order in 1625, and was ordained ten years later. Having left the Society of Jesus in 1639 he preached successfully at Bordeaux, Paris, and Amiens, where in 1640 he was appointed canon and professor of theology. He exercised his priestly functions at Abbeville also, andin 1649 withdrew to the Carmelite monastery of Graville, near Havre, to avoid a conflict with the ecclesiastical and civil authorities. In 1650 he joined the Reformed Church of Montauban, where he was appointed professor of theology. In 1657 he took up pastoral work at Orange on the Rhône, because extraordinary preacher at Geneva in 1659, and seven years later accepted a call to the French-speaking congregation at Middelburg, Holland, where he refused to subscribe to the Belgian Confession or to recognizethe authority of the Reformed Church and founded a separate sect, whereupon he was expelled from the city. He then endeavoured to organize a community first in the neighbouring town of Veere, then at Amsterdam, where he permanently won over to his cause the learned Anna Maria van Schurman. On the invitation of the princess-abbess, Elizabeth, he removed in 1670 with some fifty-five followers to Herford in Westphalia. Having been banished also from this place in 1672, the congregation settled at Altona where De Labadie died. Shortly after his death, his followers, to the number of one hundred and sixty-two finally migrated from Altona to Wiewert in West Friesland. Here they reached the highest point of their prosperity, but even then did not number more than about four hundred. In 1680 they accepted an invitation from the governor of the Dutch colony of Surinam to establish a missionary settlement in his dominions. But the colony of "Providence" which they founded disappeared in 1688. A similar attempted atNew Bohemia on the Hudson in the State of New York also ended in failure. The congregation of Wiewert itself dispersed in 1732. In their doctrinal teaching, the Labadists laid great stress on the necessity of interior illumination by the Holy Ghost for the understanding of the Bible. The Church for them was a community of holy persons who have been born again from sin. These alone are entitled to the reception of the sacraments. Hence they frowned upon infant baptism, seldom celebrated the Lord's Supper, and declared that marriage with an unregenerate person is not binding. They held property in common, after the example of the primitive Church, supported themselves by manual labour and held very lax views regarding theobservance of Sunday. N.A. WEBER Laban Laban Son of Bathuel, the Syrian (Gen. xxviii, 5; cf. xxv, 20); grandson of Nachor, Abraham's brother (xxii, 20, 23); cf. xxiv, 5, where he is called "son of Nachor"; brother of Rebecca (xxiv, 29, 55; xxv, 20; xxvii, 43; xxviii, 5); uncle of Jacob (xxviii, 2; xxix, 10) and also his father-in-law (xxix, 25; xxx, 25; xxxi, 20; cf. xxix, 12, 15; xiii, 8, where he is called his "brother"); the father of Lia and Rachel (xxix, 16) and of several sons (xxx, 35; xxxi, 1). Laban's home was in Haran (xxvii, 43; xxix, 4), the city of Nachor (xxiv, 10), in Mesopotamia of Syria (xxviii, 2, 5) where Nachor, his grandfather, remained when Abraham and Lot migrated to Chanaan (xi, 31; xii, 4). Hence Laban is also called "the Syrian" or "Aramæan" (xxv, 20; xxvi, 20, 24; Heb.). It was here in Mesopotamia that Laban met Abraham's servant and consented to Rebecca's departure to become the wife of Isaac (xxiv, 29, sqq.) (see Abraham ). The subsequent history of Laban is intimately connected with that of Jacob, his sister's son (Gen., xxix, 10-xxxi, 55) (see Jacob ). The latter having arrived in Haran was met by Rachel who notified her father Laban of his brother's (sic) arrival. Laban goes forth to meet Jacob and offers him the hospitality of his home (xxix, 10-14). After a month's time Laban invites his nephew to remain permanently with him, even allowing him to fix his own wages. Jacob agrees to work seven years for his uncle, and his wages were to be the hand of Rachel, Laban's younger daughter (xxix, 14-18). These terms appeared satisfactory to Laban, who, at the end of seven years, prepared the marriage feast, but, instead of giving his younger daughter Rachel to Jacob, he gave him his elder daughter Lia whom Jacob, however, failed to recognize until after the marriage (xxix, 18-24). When Jacob remonstrated with his uncle, Laban agreed to give him his younger daughter on the sole condition that Jacob serve him seven more years. Jacob agreed to this, and at the end of seven years Laban gives his younger daughter Rachel to Jacob (xxix, 24-29). Having received the wife whom he sought, Jacob resolved to return to his own home, but Laban, wishing to retain the profitable services of his nephew, once more prevailed upon Jacob to remain with him (xxx, 25-28). The terms stipulated by Jacob this time appeared most advantageous to Laban, but he and his sons soon discovered that Jacob had outwitted them in this last agreement, which procured for Jacob a large increase of flocks (xxx, 29-43). Laban and his sons then began to despise Jacob, who, noticing their change of attitude towards him, and dissatisfied with the treatment accorded him by his uncle, who had changed his wages ten times, secretly departed together with his wives and possessions (xxxi, 1-20). Three days later, Laban, apprised of Jacob's flight, and having remarked the loss of his idols, which Rachel had taken with her, goes in pursuit of the fugitives. After seven days Laban overtakes Jacob near the mount of Galaad, but during the night he is warned in a dream not to inflict any harm on Jacob (xxxi, 21-25). The next day Laban meets Jacob and remonstrates with him on his ungrateful and foolish action, accusing him at the same time of taking his idols (xxxi, 25-31). Laban is then invited by Jacob to search for his idols, and when he fails to find them, thanks to Rachel's shrewdness, he is vigorously upbraided by Jacob (xxxi, 31-42). Laban and Jacob then enter into an agreement whereby Jacob is not to harm Laban's daughters, and neither party is to pass with hostile intent the limits set by a heap of stones called "the witness heap". Laban then takes leave of his sons and daughters and returns home, never to be heard of again in history (xxxi, 42-55). Francis X.E. Albert Labarum (Chi-Rho) Labarum (Chi-Rho) Labarum is the name by which the military standard adopted by Constantine the Great after his celebrated vision (Lactantius, "De mortibus persecutorum", 44), was known in antiquity. The original labarum, designed under the emperor's direction on the day subsequent to the appearance of the "cross of light", is described by Eusebius (Vita Constant., I:26) as "a long spear, overlaid with gold", which with a transverse bar formed the figure of a cross. "On the top of the whole was fixed a wreath of gold and precious stones, and within this the symbol of the Saviour's name, two letters indicating the name of Christ by means of the initial letters, the letter X intersection P at the centre." These two letters formed what is known as the monogram of Constantine, so called -- not because it was the invention of this emperor, for it had been a familiar Christian symbol prior to his conversion -- but because of the great popularity it enjoyed from the date of its appearance on the imperial standards. From the cross-bar of the spear, was suspended a purple banner with the Greek inscription TOUTO NIKA -- i. e. conquer by this (sign), usually rendered in Latin "In hoc signo vinces" (in this sign thou shalt conquer). This banner, square in form, covered with a rich embroidery of precious stones, and "being also richly interlaced with gold, presented an indescribable degree of beauty to the beholder". The part of the staff immediately above the embroidered banner was adorned with medallions of the emperor and his children. Fifty soldiers of the imperial guard, distinguished for bravery and piety, were entrusted with the care and defense of the new sacred standard (Vita Constant., II:8). Standards, similar to the original labarum in its essential features were supplied to all the legions, and the monogram was also engraved on the soldiers' shields. An idea of some of the deviations in form of the standards furnished to different divisions of the army may be obtained from several coins of Constantine's reign still preserved. On one coin, for instance, the portrait of the emperor and his sons are represented on the banner instead of on the staff; on a second the banner is inscribed with the monogram and surmounted by the equal-armed cross, while the royal portraits, though on the shaft, are below instead of above the banner. In form, the labarum of Constantine was an adaptation of the already existing cavalry standard of the Roman army; the pagan emblems were merely replaced by Christian symbols. The term labarum, which is of uncertain derivation, was probably familiar in the Roman army from the reign of Hadrian. MAURICE M. HASSETT Jean-Baptiste Labat Jean-Baptiste Labat Dominican missionary, born at Paris, 1664; died there, 1738. He entered the Order of Preachers in his native city at the age of twenty years and was professed on 11 April 1685. After the completion of his philosophical andtheological studies he was ordained and for several years taught philosophy publicly to the secular students of Nancy. Abandoning this work he devoted himself to missionary activity and for many years preached in the various churches of France. The missionary fields of America were proving a strong attraction to the zealous clergy of his day, and Labat became filled with a burning desire to assist in the evangelization of the Indians. Accordingly, in 1693, he obtained permission from the general of the order to depart for those colonies of the West Indies which were then underFrench domination, and laboured among the Indians for thirteen years, until 1706, when he sailed for Italy in the interests of his mission. After attending a meeting of the order at Bologna, and presenting to the general a report of his work, he prepared to return to American, but was denied permission and detained in Rome for several years. During this period he commenced a long contemplated history of the West Indies. The work wasfinally published in six volumes at Paris, in 1722, with copious illustrations made by himself ("Nouveau Voyage aux isles Françoises de l'Amérique", Paris, 1722). Labat had a wide reputation as a mathematician and wonrecognition both as a naturalist and as a scientist. He embodied in the history his scientific observations and treated comprehensively and accurately of the soil, trees, plants, fruits, and herbs of the islands. He also explained the manufactures then in existence and pointed out means forthe development of commercial relations. He published similar works on other countries, drawing information from the notes of other missionaries.His two works on Africa have become well known: "Nouvelle relation de l'Afrique occidentale", Paris, 1728 and "Relation historique de l'Ethiopie occidentale" (Congo, Angola, Matamba, after the Italian of Father Cavazzi, Cap. (Paris, 1732). The latter treatise is supplemented with notes and statistics drawn from Portuguese sources. IGNATIUS SMITH Phillipe L'Abbe Philippe Labbe Born at Borges, 10 July, 1607; died at Paris, at the College of Clermont, 17 (16) March, 1667; a distinguished Jesuit writer on historical, geographical, and philological questions. He entered the Society of Jesus, 28 Sept., 1623. After literary, philosophical, and theological studies, he successively taught classes of rhetoric and philosophy; then he held for five years the chair of theology. His memory was quick and retentive, his erudition most extensive and accurate; every year witnessed the production of one or more of his works, so that in the field of history Labbe and Petavius have been considered the most remarkable of all French Jesuits. After his death it was found that his notes and annotations on all kinds of authors were so numerous and extensive as to exceed in bulk what an ordinary savant reads in his lifetime. A great deal of time was taken up answering the doubts or questions of others; he was constantly consulted on points of history, on questions of literature, on difficulties in moral and scholastic theology. However, he found time to express his devotion to Christ and His Blessed Mother in elegant Latin verse. His biographers emphasize his tender devotion to the Holy Eucharist and the Blessed Mother. Sommervogel enumerates more than eighty works left by Labbe, but we have to be satisfied with the titles of only the most important ones. (1) Among the works on philological subjects we may mention: Trirocinium Linguæ Græcæ etc.," Paris, 1648. The work went through some thirteen or fourteen editions. Labbe had the annoying habit of modifying the titles of his works in their various editions, so that a list of their complete titles is quite impossible here. (2) "La Géographie royale" appeared in first Paris in Paris, 1646. (3) "De Byzantinæ historiæ scriptoribus, etc." (Paris, 1648), was valued as a most useful work at the time of its publication. (4) Concordia sacræ et profanæ chronologiæ annorum 5691 ab orbe condito ad hunc Christi annum 1638" (Paris, 1638); the author published several other harmonies of historical dates, which contained a number of dissertations on special questions. (5) "Bibliotheca antijanseniana" (Paris, 1654) is a catalogue of all writings directed against the Jansenists, and gives a brief history of the origin of Jansenism. (6) "Bibliotheca bibliothecarum" (Paris, 1664), a bibliography for the handy use of librarians. The second edition of this work contains an additional paper entitled "Bibliotheca nummaria", and describes old medals, coins, weights, measures, and other antiquarian objects. (7) "Sancrosancti Oecumenici Tridentini Concilii . . . canones et decreta", (Paris, 1667), is a work containing a great number of documents referring to secular princes and their representatives in the council, and giving some of the conciliar transactions. (8) But the chief work is a collection of councils entitled "Sacrosancta concilia ad regiam editionem exacta", published by the joint labour of Labbe and Cossart, and printed in Paris at the expense of the Typographical Society for Ecclesiastical Books. When Labbe died, the volumes I-IX and XII-XV had been printed; vols. IX and X were in press; Cossart finished these two volumes and also volume XI. In the sixteen volume (or the seventeenth, for XI is a double volume) the "apparatus" of the collection has been added by Cossart. A second "apparatus" has been added in vol. XVIII, which contains the treatise "De consiliis" by Jacobatius; but this volume is extremely rare and expensive, the price being as high as that of the rest of the collection. Hurter, Nomenclator; Sommervogel, Bibl. de la C. de J., IV (Paris, 1803); Cossart, Sacrosancta Consilia, XVIII, Præfat (Paris, 1863); Hardouin, Præf. in Concil. Collect. regia maxima, p. vi sq. A.J. MAAS Labour and Labour Legislation Labour and Labour Legislation Labour is work done by mind or body either partly or wholly for the purpose of producing utilities. This definition is broad enough to include the work of the actor, the physician, the lawyer, the clergyman, and the domestic servant, as well that of the business man, the mechanic, the factory operative, and the farmer. When used without qualification to-day, the word labour, commonly designates hired labor, and frequently hired manual labour. This is particularly true when the term is used to describe the persons who labour rather than the work or effort. The explanation of this narrower usage is that in most occupations hired labourers are more numerous than self-employing workers, and that among wage-earners manual labourers exceed in numbers those whose activity is predominantly mental. In this article labour always means the laboring classes. When used of the ages preceding the industrial revolution, it includes not merely hired workers, but all who get their living mainly through their own labour, and only in a slight degree by employing others. Hence it takes in the master artisans of the Middle Ages, and the agricultural tenants who worked partly on their own account and partly for the feudal lord; for the former did work that is now performed by hired labour, and the latter possessed even less economic independence than do the wage-workers of to-day. Moreover, usage justifies this extension of the terms, labour and labouring class. Passing over the nomadic and pastoral stages of economic life, because there was then no distinct laboring class, we shall touch briefly upon the condition of labour among some of the great nations of antiquity that were engaged in agriculture, commerce, or industry. A few years ago the majority of scholars held that the earliest from of land-tenure everywhere was joint ownership and joint cultivation of land by all members of the community. According to the weight of present opinion, if such a condition existed, it has not been proved by positive and convincing evidence. Perhaps the nearest approach to this arrangement in historical times is the clan system, by which the clan, or tribe, or sept, owned the land in common, but allotted definite portions of it for individual cultivation by each member. So far as we know, this system has not played a great part in agrarian history. In ancient Egypt the Pharaoh owned the greater part of the land, and the tenant cultivators, though not in the strict sense slaves, were compelled to live and labour in conditions that differed but little from the most oppressive slavery. Their labour it was that built the Pyramids, the public works at Lake Moeris, and the Labyrinth; there, too, they were exploited to the limit of physical endurance, just as were the Hebrews by the Egyptian taskmasters of a later period. There were some large private estates which were cultivated by a servile population. Indeed, the history of labour down to a little more than one thousand years ago, is for the most part the history of slavery. Judea had few manufactures, and very little commerce; but its working class consisted to a great extent of slaves and compulsory labourers. On the whole, these seem to have been better treated than workers of the same condition in Gentile countries. However, the division of Solomon's empire into two kingdoms was caused in large part by the contributions of labour and produce which the monarch exacted from his own people. In later times a large proportion of the independent Hebrew cultivators were deprived of their lands by rich capitalists, and compelled to become slaves or forced labourers. Some of the strongest denunciations of the Prophets were uttered against this form of exploitation. The great trading and manufacturing nation of antiquity was the Phoenicians, and most of their activities and achievements in this field seem to have based upon the labour of slaves. The industrial and commercial supremacy of the world passed, in the fifth and fourth centuries before Christ to the Greeks, but slave labour continued to be its main support. Although a considerable proportion of the tillers of the soil seem to have been freeholders at the beginning of Greek history, the majority were slaves in classical and post-classical times. During the latter period the slaves considerably outnumbered the free population as a whole; consequently, they must have formed a large majority of the labouring class. Their condition, however, especially at Athens, was not nearly so wretched as that of the Roman slaves during the classical period of that country. They had some protection from the law against injuries, and considerable opportunities of emancipation. In fact, labour seems to have been less disdained in Greece in the fifth and fourth centuries than in any other country at that time, except Judea, and it was certainly held in higher respect than in Rome. A great deal is said concerning the organizations that existed among the Greek artisans, but they do not appear to have exercised much influence over the conditions of employment. Many of these associations which are reckoned as labour unions were chiefly religious and convivial. While the labourers of Athens who were citizens participated to some extent in the affairs of government, they do not seem to have obtained any legislation for the benefit of labour. In the early centuries of the Roman Republic its commerce and industry were of very little importance. Agriculture was almost the only occupation, and perhaps the majority of the cultivators were freeholders, or at least free tenants. By the beginning of the fourth century, however, there were so many large estates tilled by slave labour that the Licinian law forbade any citizen to hold more than 500 jugera of land, or to employ slaves out of due proportion to the number of his free workers. The tendency to large estates, cultivation by slaves, and the impoverishment of the freemen continued, however, until the period of the latifundia, when, as Pliny informs us, all the land of Italy was in the hands of a few persons, and the free tillers of the soil had almost entirely disappeared. Most of the latter had gone into the city to swell the number of idlers who were supported at the public expense. Soon after the Roman wars of conquest the commerce of the country assumed large proportions, but the greater part of the labour was performed by slaves. In the last days of the republic there were more slaves than freemen in most of the towns of Italy. Concerning their treatment at the hands of their masters, Mommsen declares: "It is very possible that, compared with the sufferings of the Roman slaves, the sum of all Negro sufferings is but a drop" (History of Rome, III, 308). From the earliest historical period of Rome there existed, indeed, several associations of free craftsmen, called collegia, which later on were extended to most of the countries that were under the Roman dominion. A few years before the birth of Christ, these organizations became recognized and regulated by the law of the empire. Nevertheless, they comprised but an insignificant proportion of the working population. And their economic condition was probably not much superior to that of the enslaved labourers. It could not be otherwise, since they were everywhere in competition with the latter, whose labour under a policy of reckless and inhuman exploitation was evidently cheaper than that of freemen. Such, in fact, was the lot of the free labourers in every country where slave labour predominated. As to labour legislation, there is no evidence that any measure for the benefit of the working classes was ever enacted in ancient Rome, except the Licinian law mentioned above. The proposition is generally true that the man who got his living by the sweat of his brow was held in more or less contempt by the nations of antiquity, and that legislation on their behalf was rarely if ever thought of by the ruling classes. The one conspicuous exception is furnished by the Hebrews. As soon as the Christian teaching on the essential dignity and equality of men, and the nobility and obligation of labour began to take hold of the Roman mind, the condition of the toiler began to change for the better. The number of the slaves decreased both absolutely and relatively to the number of freemen. In the second and third centuries the slaves obtained certain legal rights, such as a partial recognition of their marriages and domestic relations, and redress in the courts for injuries suffered from the master. A considerable proportion of them were gradually transformed into serfs, that is, instead of being obliged to expend all their labour for the benefit of the master, they were enabled to work a part of the time on their own account on land which they rented from him. Instead of being subject to sale, they were merely bound to the soil. In a sense, they could indeed be sold with the land upon which they worked. From the time of Alexander Severus freemen and freedmen seem to have predominated in urban industry, although they were not free in the modern sense of that term. They were members of associations which they were forbidden by law to abandon, and they were not allowed to leave their occupations. The State took this measure on the theory that these labourers were engaged in an industrial function which was necessary for the welfare of society. It was, therefore, the duty of the law to provide that this function should be properly discharged. Although this particular restriction of the freedom of labour seems very unreasonable to the modern mind, the fact is that some form of minute regulation of industry has been the rule rather than the exception in Christian times. In the latter days of the empire the slave labourers were chiefly domestic servants, the employees of the large landholders, and the workers in the imperial mines and manufactures. At the beginning of the fourth century the emperor Diocletian issued an edict fixing the wages of artisans. According to the computations of Levasseur, the rates of remuneration prescribed in this edict were about the same as those that prevailed in France at the end of the eighteenth century, and a little more than half as high as the wages in that country at the end of the nineteenth century. It was not, however, the purpose of this rescript to benefit the labourer. The rates of wages laid down were maximum rates, and the object was to prevent the price of labour as well as of goods from rising above the point which the emperor regarded as sufficient. Despite the teaching and influence of Christianity, the laws and institutions, the ruling classes and public opinion, the intellectual classes, and, indeed, the bulk of the people were still pagan. A few years later, Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the empire, but he did not thereby make the people Christian. The majority were still dominated by selfishness, dislike and contempt for labour, and by the desire to exploit their fellows, especially through usurious practices. The language employed by Ambrose, Augustine, Basil, Chrysostom, and Jerome against the rich of their time, is at once a proof that the powerful classes were not imbued with the Christian spirit, that the labouring classes were suffering great hardships, and that the Christian teachers were the truest friends of the poor and the toilers. The doctrine laid down by these Fathers, sometimes in very radical terms, that the earth was intended by God for all the children of men, and that the surplus goods of the rich belonged of right to the needy has been the most fruitful principle of human rights, and the most effective protection for labour that ever fell from the lips of men. It is, in fact, although not always so recognized, the historical and ethical basis of the now universally accepted conviction among Christian peoples that the labourer has a right to a living wage, and that the owner of property may not do all that he likes with his own. During this brief period (the fourth century), likewise, large numbers of men and women who found it impossible to live a life of Christian perfection in the still semi-pagan society of the time, founded monasteries and convents, and there gave to the world its first effective lesson in the dignity and necessity of work. These foundations gradually became centres of industry and peace, and later on developed into those medieval towns in which labour became for the first time fully self-respecting and free. By the time of the barbarian invasions in the sixth century, the majority of rural slaves had become either free tenants or serfs. The latter were soon reduced to their former condition, and all the legislation and customs which, under the influence of Christianity, had been introduced for the protection of the slave were ruthlessly set aside by the new masters of the Roman Empire. With the exception of the Visigoths and Burgundians, the barbarian tribes generally restored to the landlord the power of removing the serf from the land, and to the master the power of life and death over his slave. Speaking generally, this continued to be the situation down to the time of Charlemagne. From the beginning of his reign the lot of the slaves rapidly improved and their numbers rapidly decreased, so that by the middle of the tenth century they had almost been transformed into serfs throughout the Holy Roman Empire. One hundred years later, about seven per cent of the inhabitants of England were slaves, but the institution had practically disappeared in that country by the middle of the twelfth century. In the year 1170 the last remnant of it in Ireland was abolished by St. Lawrence O'Toole. At the end of Charlemagne's reign practically all the land within his dominions was held by the great warriors, the clergy, and the monasteries. The majority of the workers on these great estates were serfs, while the proprietors were feudal lords. Politically, the latter were not only the military defenders of their territory, but to a great extent legislators, administrators, and judges; economically, they had the right to receive from the cultivators of the soil a rent, either in services, produce, or money. Serfdom differed very much in its degrees at different times and in different places, but it always assumed that the serf, while not owned like a slave, belonged in a general sense to the lord, was obliged to expend a certain portion of his labour for the benefit of the latter, and was bound to the soil. Very often he was compelled to make other contributions to the lord, such as a fine on the occasion of his own or his son's marriage. In the course of time the serf was relieved of these less regular burdens, his labour services were definitely fixed by custom, and his tenure of the land that he cultivated on his own account was made secure by custom, if not by law. Between the eighth and the twelfth century serfdom was the condition of the majority of the labouring class, not only throughout the Holy Roman Empire, but, with the exception of Ireland, all over Europe. Ireland had the clan system. During the period now under discussion town life was generally less important than it had been before the downfall of the old empire. Most Most of the towns were merely integral elements of the feudal estates. Since there was very little commerce between one country and another or between different portions of the same country, the town handicrafts supplied as a rule only those comparatively few local needs that could not be met by labour within each household. The condition of the labouring class seems to have been on the whole better than at any previous time. The fact that the great majority of the workers were no longer slaves, and that they were enabled to till on their own account land of which their possession was fairly secure, represented a large measure of progress. With the exception of ordinances mitigating and abolishing slavery, there was no important labour legislation during this period. Between the twelfth and the end of the fifteenth century, the great majority of the serfs of England became free tenants, that is, they were gradually relieved from the fines and petty exactions imposed upon them by the lord, and from other disabilities, economic and civil; they were permitted to pay their rent in money instead of in labour or produce; they were no longer bound to the soil, and their possession of their holdings was secured by law, or by custom which had the force of law. In France emancipation was not quite so rapid, nor was it so thorough in the individual case; still it had been extended to a great majority of the serfs by the time of the Reformation. It was effected much more slowly in Germany. At the beginning of the Reformation the condition of the majority of the tenants there was that of serfdom, and a particularly oppressive form of serfdom in the case of a considerable number. As a consequence of their revolt and its bloody suppression, their emancipation was set back for at least a century. The majority of the German peasants were still serfs at the end of the eighteenth century. Serfdom lasted in Russia until 1861. The emancipation of the serfs during the later Middle Ages was due in great measure to the growth of towns and town industries. Attention has already been called to the fact that many of the towns owed their origin to the settlements made and the industries built up by the monks. The latter not only exercised handicrafts themselves, but taught their neighbors to do likewise. In the course of time groups consisting of several hundred, and sometimes of several thousand, persons were centered about the monastery, many of whom were artisans more or less independent of any lord, and having a fairly good realization of their freedom and their importance. Not all, indeed, but very many of the medieval towns arose in this manner. In the twelfth century the towns in England began to purchase charters from the king, the lord, or the monastery, according as each happened to control the land upon which the town was situated. In this way they obtained a considerable measure of self-government. About the same time the merchants and the artisans began to combine in associations called, respectively, merchant guilds and craft guilds (see GUILDS). The latter, which were much the more important, comprised master-workmen, journeymen, and apprentices. They had, generally speaking, a monopoly of their respective trades or crafts, and regulated not only the general conditions in which work was performed, but even the wages of the journeymen and the prices of the product. Their ordinances had for a long time a semi-legal character and all the practical force of a civil law. Thus the towns became the abode of populations that were not subject to the lord, and that were a standing check upon his power, not only because they were free themselves, but owing to the contagion of their example. Moreover, the serf who escaped from a lord and maintained a residence in the town for a year and a day, was thereby made a freeman. The development of the towns and guilds in England was typical, with some differences, of time and detail, of Europe generally. In most places the guilds reached their highest degree of efficiency in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The condition of the labouring classes both in town and country during these two centuries was much better than it had ever been before. In the first place, the worker enjoyed considerable security of position, either on the land that he tilled or in the craft that he pursued. According to the theories of the time, the members of every class performed a social function which gave them a social claim to a livelihood in conformity with their needs and customs. Hence the feudal lord and the monastery were charged with the care of all the inhabitants of their estates, while the guilds were required to find work or relief for their members. Although the workers enjoyed as a whole less individual freedom than they do to-day, their economic position was more secure, and their future less uncertain. There was no proletariat in the modern sense, that is, no considerable number of persons for whose welfare no person or agency was held socially responsible. As to the content of the livelihood obtained by the average labourer of that period, any attempt at a precise statement would be misleading. Nor is it possible to institute any general comparison that would be of value between the welfare of the labourer then and now. This much, however, may be asserted with confidence: the poorest one-tenth of the labouring population were probably better fed and better clothed, if not better housed, than is the poorest one-tenth to-day; for the grinding and hopeless poverty, just above the verge of actual starvation, so often prevalent in the present time, did not belong to medieval life (Gibbins, Industry in England, 177); the labouring class (meaning all persons who got their living as wage-earners or through self-employment, and not by employing others) received a larger share per capita of the wealth then created than our wage-earners obtain from the wealth produced in our time; and, finally, the guild system which governed town industry did for a time, and in large measure, succeed in reconciling the interests of consumers and producers (Ashley, English Economic History, II, 168). Legislation pertaining to labour during the three centuries immediately preceding the Reformation was mostly enacted by the towns, the feudal lords, and the guilds. Its main results were the emancipation of the serfs and the privileges by which the guilds were enabled to become the real, if not the nominal, lawmakers in all things affecting the economic welfare of their members. The towns frequently, and the national governments occasionally, regulated the prices of bread and other articles of food. For the industrial principle of the time was regulation, not competition. In 1349 the English Parliament enacted the first of the many statutes of labourers that have been passed in that country. It prohibited higher wages than those that had prevailed in 1347, the year before the Black Death. A similar law was enacted at the same time in France. Both ordinances aimed at keeping down the remuneration of the labourer, but neither was very successful. From the Reformation until the industrial revolution at the end of the eighteenth century, the history of labour for the most part records a decline from the conditions of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The confiscation of the monastic and guild lands in England under Henry VIII and Edward VI, the eviction of large numbers of the tenants from their holdings, the enclosures of these lands and a large part of the common lands into great estates, and the substitution of competitive for customary rents, caused immense hardships to the agricultural population. In Germany much the same process of spoliation and impoverishment occurred, although it had begun in that country before the time of Luther. Owing to the Hundred Years' War and other causes, the rural population of France underwent many vicissitudes of fortune, the net result of which seems to have been unfavourable. As a result of the great increase of capital, and the immense expansion of commerce and industry during this period, the labouring population in the towns and cities increased greatly in numbers and importance. Their condition was as a whole less happy than in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. This is particularly true of England, where, in the first half of the sixteenth century, the guild lands were confiscated, and the guilds themselves all but disappeared. Although they continued in France until the Revolution, and in Germany somewhat later, their control over industry in these countries was not as thorough as it had been before the Reformation. It must be remembered, however, that the power of the guilds would have been checked even if there had been no Reformation; for they were becoming too exclusive and too indifferent to the welfare of the consumer. In fact, these tendencies had already caused a great decline in the English guilds before the end of the fifteenth century. Nevertheless, it remains true that both in England and Germany the Reformation inflicted great injury on the guilds, and through them upon the whole labouring class. There was no legislation during this period that was of any marked benefit to the labourer. In France and Germany laws were passed restricting the activities of the guilds. In England the Statute of Labourers, which had been re-enacted and amended at least ten times in the course of two centuries, was supplanted in 1563 by the famous statute of Elizabeth. It embraced all the most stringent provisions of the preceding laws, with some clauses that were intended for the protection of the worker. But its principal fault lay in the stipulation that wages should be fixed and the law administered by the justices of the peace. The latter generally were keenly interested in keeping wages down, and in exploiting the labourer. So thoroughly did they enforce the law for their own benefit that by the beginning of the eighteenth century they had made low wages, famine wages; traditional, and these wages insufficient by themselves, were supplemented from the poor rate (Rogers, The Economic Interpretation of History, 43). This reference to the poor rate calls to mind the Elizabethan Poor Law, which had been rendered necessary through the confiscation of the guild and monastic lands, and the destruction of the monastic system of poor relief. The modern industrial era, the factory system, the age of machine production, began, properly speaking, with the industrial revolution. The latter phrase describes that series of changes which was effected by several notable inventions, chiefly the steam-engine, spinning machinery, and the power-loom, during the last quarter of the eighteenth century. Among their most important immediate results were: the grouping of workingmen into factories where they tended machines instead of working in their homes with the old and simple tools; the ownership of the factories and machinery by capitalist employers, instead of by the labourers themselves; a great increase in the dependence of the labourer upon the employer; and congestion of the working population in the cities which grew up close to the factories and commercial establishments. Hereafter, labour in this article is to be understood of wage-earners only. Simultaneously with the revolution in industrial processes and relations, there occurred a revolution, as thorough if not as sudden, in economic theory and legislation. The teaching of the physiocrats and the eighteenth-century political writers in France, the economico-political theories of Smith and Ricardo in England, and the self-interest of the English capitalists, all combined to inaugurate a regime of complete freedom of contract, complete freedom of competition, and almost complete non-intervention of Government in industry. The old legislation fixing wages, and requiring a seven-year's period of apprenticeship, was abolished in 1813 and 1814, and nothing was substituted for the protection of the labourer. While every law that in any way restricted the freedom of the employer or regulated the conditions of employment was abolished, the old Combination Acts, which made labour organizations criminal, were re-enacted in 1799. This act prohibited even the contribution of money in furtherance of a strike. In fact, the prevailing theory of industrial liberty seemed to require that the individual employer should always deal with the individual worker, and to assume that this would be for the best interests of all. Undoubtedly, many of the old regulations, such as the law of apprenticeship, had outlived their usefulness and ought to have been repealed, but some of them were still valuable or could have been made so by amendment. What was needed was new and appropriate regulation, not the absence of all regulation. As a result of the policy of non-intervention, the working classes of England experienced during the first half of the nineteenth century a depth of misery and degradation which has obtained the name of "English wage slavery". Long before these conditions had reached their lowest level, however, some steps had been taken to protect the labouring class by legislation. In 1802 a law was passed which aimed at giving some relief to the pauper children in the cotton factories, and in 1824 the prohibition of labour combinations was repealed. Between 1833 and 1878, the famous English Factory Acts were enacted, amended, and re-enacted, until they provided for safety and sanitation in all workshops, and regulated the hours of labour of women and children, and the age at which the latter were permitted to work. In the other countries of Europe the change from the system of handwork to the factory system came somewhat later and somewhat more slowly than in England, and consequently caused less hardship to the weaker members of the labouring class. Moreover, the theory of legislative non-intervention was not so fully carried out, except in France and Belgium, where the political philosophy of the Revolution had obtained a strong foothold. The guilds were abolished in France in 1789, and labour unions, strikes, and lock-outs were prohibited during substantially the whole period between that date and the year 1884. The first effective factory legislation was enacted in 1841, but it was not seriously enforced for thirty years. In Belgium the guilds were abolished in 1795, and there was no very important labour legislation until 1886. Most of the laws for the protection of labour in Switzerland came into existence during the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Effective labour laws were not enforced in Italy until 1886. In Prussia the complete abolition of the monopolistic privileges in certain trades enjoyed by certain towns, classes, and organizations took place in 1845, while a general code providing for industrial freedom was adopted in 1869 by the North German States, and afterwards extended to the whole of the present German Empire. In 1881, however, a law was passed which gave to the volunteer guilds a certain privileged position, and the tendency since then has been to confirm that position. Austria likewise retained the guilds and the old industrial regulations longer than England or France, and enacted new legislation during the first half of the nineteenth century. At no time did Austria attempt to carry out the disastrous policy of "complete industrial freedom". At the present time laws regulating the hours of labour exist in all the countries of Europe. Except in Great Britain and Belgium, the State asserts the right to apply such legislation to the labour of all adult males, as well as to that of women and children. As yet, however, this regulation has not applied to adult males generally, but only to those in certain arduous and dangerous occupations. The hours for women and children in mines, factories, and workshops, and frequently in some other occupations, are restricted by most European states to ten per day, while the age at which children may be employed varies from eleven to thirteen in most employments. Regulations providing, with varied degrees of efficacy and comprehensiveness, for safety and sanitation in factories, workshops, and mercantile establishments are practically universal. Many of the countries have compulsory state insurance against sickness and accidents; Germany and Italy have in addition a system of old-age insurance. England requires employers to compensate their employees for industrial accidents, and has a system of old-age pensions. Switzerland and Belgium insure against unemployment. In most of the European countries there are laws providing for the arbitration of industrial disputes, but in one of them is the arbitration compulsory. All the countries permit, and some of them give special privileges to, labour unions or guilds. In German and Austria membership in a guild is indispensable for certain trades. Generally speaking, peaceful strikes and boycotts are everywhere lawful. Boycotting was made legal in Great Britain in 1906. The theory of non-intervention has exercised a stronger influence in the United States than even in England, owing to the fact that it was incorporated into the National Constitution, and in the Constitutions of most of the states. The constitutional prohibitions of class legislation and of interference with freedom of contract have caused American labour laws to be for the most part, "a collection of exceptions to these general provisions" (Adams, Labor Problems, 464). Between 1840 and 1850, laws were passed in some of the states limiting the hours of labour for women and children, and in 1877 Massachusetts enacted a code of factory legislation. Since then more than half the states have followed the example set by Massachusetts, and the general tendency points constantly toward more and better regulations for the protection of labour. In no state, however, is there a general law limiting the hours of labour for adult males. Such legislation would undoubtedly be construed as contrary to the constitutional guarantee of freedom of contract. The few states that have enacted provisions of this sort have limited their application to occupations involving special danger to health, safety, or the public welfare. In many of the states the working day of women is restricted, usually to ten hours, on the theory that this is a legitimate exercise of the police power in the interest of public or private health, or on behalf of a peculiarly weak section of the population. The hours of labour of children have been limited in all the states, in the majority of cases to ten per day, but in a few instances to eight, nine, eleven, or twelve. Almost all the states set a minimum age at which children may be employed, at least in certain places, such as factories and stores. In the majority of cases the limit is fourteen years, although it is sometimes one or two years less, and sometimes one or two years higher for certain employments. Laws governing the safety and sanitation of factories exist in more than half the states. As yet, there is no legislation providing for insurance against disabilities of any sort nor for old-age pensions. The only legal regulations of this nature are based on the common law concerning the employer's liability for accidents occurring to his employees while at work. In many of the states tribunals have been created for the voluntary arbitration of industrial disputes, but none of these boards has been of much service. The national Arbitration Law, which applies only to railroads, has been more successful. Labour unions are given no special privileges, except that in some states they are encouraged to incorporate. Strikes are not prohibited, but occasionally the sympathetic strike and frequently the boycott have been forbidden by the courts through the process of injunction. This brief review of the history of labour seems to make a few conclusions tolerably safe. If the labouring class of to-day be taken in the wider sense which we have given it in discussing the ages before the industrial revolution, it is undoubtedly better off than it has ever been since the world began. If we use the phrase in the narrower sense of wage-earners, we can still say that the majority of these are now in a better position materially, socially, and politically, than the labouring class, whether widely or narrowly interpreted, has ever been before. While it is very probably true that the poorest section of the manual workers of the later Middle Ages was in a happier condition materially than the poorest workers of to-day, it is also true that the latter have the advantage socially and politically. And when we recall the sufferings that the toilers have endured through the contumely of the socially powerful classes, and through the injustice of legislation, we will not be inclined to make light of the better and more hopeful social and political position that belongs even to the lowliest among us to-day. When we remember that about one thousand years ago the majority of the workers were either slaves or serfs, we realize that, in spite of set-backs, there has been great and encouraging progress. When we compare the condition and status of the labouring class during the best days of Greece and Rome with its condition and status to-day, we cannot doubt that the improvement is mostly due to Christianity, and that continued progress will be in proportion to the influence of Christian ideals in the social order. Some of these ideals are stronger to-day than ever before. The medieval doctrine that the price of goods ought to be sufficient to afford the producers a decent living has emerged from the obscurity of three centuries, and is once more accepted by the majority of persons in every Christian country. Finally, when we recall that the condition of the toilers has improved notably and steadily for the last seventy-five years, and that, while some of the economic forces to which that improvement is due are not so strong as they once were, other beneficent forces, moral and political, have grown stronger, we cannot deny that the outlook for the future is one of sane, if moderate, optimism. CUNNINGHAM, Western Civilization in its Economic Aspects (Cambridge, 1900); IDEM, A History of English Industry and Commerce (Cambridge, 1905); WARD, The Ancient Lowly (Washington, 1889-1900); MOMMSEN, History of Rome (New York, 1905); BROWNLOW, Slavery and Serfdom (London, 1892); HASBACH, History of the English Labourer (London, 1909); GIBBINS, Industry in England (London, 1898); ADAMS AND SUMNER, Labor Problems (New York, 1905); WILLOUGHBY, Bulletin of the Bureau of Labor (Washington), nos. 25-30; STIMSON, Report of the Industrial Commission, XVI (Washington); Twenty-Second Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor (Washington); GUIRAUD, La main-d'oeuvre industrielle dans l'ancienne Grèce (Paris, 1900); LEVASSEUR, Histoire des classes ouvrières et de l'industrie en France avant 1789 (Paris, 1900); INAMA STERNEGG, Deutsche Wirthschaftsgeschichte (1879); RATZINGER, Volkswirthschaft (Freiburg im Br., 1895); JANNSEN, Geschichte des deutschen Volkes (Freiburg im Br., 1893). JOHN A. RYAN Labour Unions (Moral Aspects) Labour Unions (Moral Aspects) Since a labour union is a society, its moral aspects are determined by its constitution, its end, its results, and the means employed in pursuit of the end. If its constitution, that is, the conditions upon which its members become associated, be immoral, the society will be morally unlawful. For example, if the members were required to promise blind obedience to the leaders, if the rules called for an unlawful degree of secrecy in its affairs, or if one of the conditions of membership were the promise to support some illicit action or project, the society would be bad in its constitution. It would be under moral condemnation, regardless of its aims, practices, or results. As there is no evidence to show that the labour union of to-day is immoral in its constitution, we may dismiss this particular moral aspect and turn to the consideration of the other three. I. THE AIMS AND RESULTS OF THE LABOUR UNION The two general aims, ends, or objects of the union are mutual insurance and better conditions of employment. In the opinion and procedure of the unionists, the second is much the more important. Conditions of employment include wages, hours, sanitation, and safety, and several other circumstances that affect the welfare of the workers. Better conditions mean, in the consciousness of the unionist, not only better conditions than those now enjoyed, but better than he would have if the union did not exist. In other words, the union aims at safeguarding and increasing present benefits. Inasmuch as these benefits rarely exceed, and probably in the majority of instances still fall below, the amount to which labour is entitled in justice, this, the chief aim of the union, is morally justified. The morality of the insurance feature is obvious. So much for the union in general with regard to its general aims. In any specific instance a union is justified in seeking advantages, whether of wages, hours, or other conditions, only when these are in accord with the law of right. If its members are already receiving all that they are morally entitled to, they of course do wrong when they use the power of their organization to extort more. For, contrary to the prevailing conceptions and the too frequent practice of the last century, there is an element of justice in the labour contract, and when either party deliberately ignores this factor, its aim is to that extent immoral. This is as true of an organization as of an individual. Though good in its constitution and end, the union might possibly be immoral on account of the disproportionate amount of evil to which it leads. It is doubtful whether any intelligent and unbiased observer would contend that this hypothesis is verified to-day. Although the evil effects of the union are frequent, and sometimes very serious, they seem to be, on the whole, morally outweighed by its good effects. "An overwhelming preponderance of testimony before the Industrial Commission indicates that the organization of labour has resulted in a marked improvement in the economic condition of the workers" (Final Report of the Industrial Commission, p. 802). And the good results obtained by organization are considerably enhanced by the fact that they could not have been secured in any other way. As Walker, a very conservative writer, puts it, "Nothing, economically speaking, can save economic society from progressive degradation except the spirit and power of the working classes to resist being crowded down" (Elementary Course in Political Economy, 266). A careful survey of the history of labour during the last one hundred years will show with abundant clearness that no entire grade or class of labourers has secured any important economic advantage except by its own organized resistance and aggressiveness. And practically every union has at some time protected the working conditions of its members against deterioration. These facts are merely a result of the system of unlimited competition, not a condemnation of the employing class. If anyone doubt that the evils resulting from the unions are less important morally, economically, and politically, than the benefits that they have produced, let him calmly survey the conditions that would exist in England to-day if the unions were still prohibited by law, as they were during the period of English "wage slavery", in the early decades of the nineteenth century. It is quite possible that individual unions are sometimes immoral, and as such forbidden to conscientious working-men, because the organization does more harm than good. This was probably true of the Western Federation of Miners in Colorado a few years ago. The moral judgment to be passed upon unionism from the side of its results applies for the most part to the past. It cannot with certainty be applied to the future in order to determine whether a union or all unions are worthy of condemnation or of approval, except in so far as the past conduct of an organization may create a presumption for the time to come. If the judgment expressed in the last paragraph is sound, the presumption, therefore, is that the labour union in general will in the future be justified from the view-point of its results, and that it may claim the allegiance of conscientious men. And we have al ready seen that it is lawful in its general constitution and general aims. II. THE METHODS OF THE LABOUR UNION While the union itself may be morally lawful in the sense just explained, many of its actions may be unlawful. This statement is obviously true of many social institutions. In the case of the labour union, the greater part of the moral condemnation that is pronounced has reference neither to its constitution, its general aims, nor its net results, hut to its actions. Since these have practical importance only in so far as they are characteristic and habitual, they will be most profit ably discussed under the head of methods or practices. A. The Strike This is probably the most important of the methods, from the side of morals. It can not be condemned absolutely, but it is an extreme method and ought not to be employed unless certain grave conditions are verified. Whether they are all present in a given case, is rarely easy, and sometimes impossible, to determine with certainty. At any rate, the following seem to be the general conditions that ought to be fulfilled before a strike can be justified objectively: The advantage which is sought by the workers must be one to which they have a lawful or equitable claim; a peaceful solution of the difficulty must have been tried and found ineffective; the grievance must outweigh the evil results that are likely to follow from the strike; and there must be good grounds for hoping that the strike will be successful. One of the good effects of well-established unions has been to lessen the number of strikes, and to moderate their excesses and abuses. Violence and the sympathetic strike are less frequent than formerly in connexion with the strike proper, but they are still so prominent as to deserve discussion. In so far as any attempt is made to justify the former, it is usually based on the claim that the labourer has a right to his job, or that he has at least the right to decent conditions of employment, and consequently that he may use force to protect this right against the unjust aggression of the man who has usurped it. From the nature of the case this so-called right to a job cannot be a right in the same sense as the right to a horse or a hat; for it lacks all the customary titles to physical property, and its object or content may be destroyed by a private individual even in the absence of extreme necessity of any sort. For example, the employer may go out of business, and thus abolish the job, without doing the labourer any injustice. At most, the right to a job is merely the right to continue economic relations with a particular employer. It is, consequently akin to the right of a merchant to the patronage of his customers, or the right of any man to pursue a lawful good by lawful means. Hence it is a right to a social relation, which leads to a material good, rather than a right to the material good itself. In a general way it is a right to liberty rather than to property; a right to pursue rather than a right to possess. Consequently, it may be violated as truly as the right to patronage is violated by an unjust boycott; as truly as the right to obtain a promised gift is violated through slander which prevents the would-be giver from carrying out his intention. The nature of the right to patronage will be discussed presently in connexion with the boycott. Now it would seem that a right to his job in this sense of the phrase does inhere in the labourer who would suffer grave inconvenience if compelled to seek some other occupation; for example, a man with a family who owns a home where he works, and who would be unable to get employment at his trade from another employer in the same city, There is good reason to maintain that the employer who should discharge such an employee without grave reason would sin against not merely charity but justice. Conversely, cases can occur in which the labourers who quit their employer without a sufficiently grave reason will be guilty of injustice toward the latter. If these propositions are not sound, no boycott, however unreasonable, will be unjust merely because of the damage inflicted through the withdrawal of patronage. The labourers that take the places of the striking workers, who are assumed to have this right to their jobs, will likewise violate justice unless they have a sufficiently grave reason for the act. The right of the strikers to their jobs is not valid against other workers who are in grave need. For example, if the latter can not without great difficulty find employment else where, they will offend neither against charity nor justice when they take the places of the former; for they, no less than the strikers, have a right to seek and obtain a livelihood on reasonable terms. Both classes of workers are contending for advantages that both have a right to pursue, and their respective rights must be interpreted and determined by reference to their respective conditions and needs. Hence it may happen that the prior right of the old employees to their jobs will give way before the sufficiently grave needs of the new-comers. Thus far we have assumed that the employer is attempting to compel his old employees to accept unjust conditions, but that he accords full justice to the new ones. If, however, he is willing to treat the former justly they do wrong to strike, and their right to their jobs would seem, generally speaking, to be forfeited by such conduct. On the other hand, if the new men submit to unjust conditions, at least if they consent to work for less than living wages, they commit an illicit action, and consequently use immoral means to prevent the old employees from obtaining an advantage that the latter have a right to seek. And yet, the needs of the new men may be sufficiently grave to justify them in submitting to these harsh terms for themselves, and in depriving the older men of their jobs. Suppose, however, that the action of the new-comers finally results in the old employees, or some of them, returning to work on the old, unjust conditions. This is what usually happens when a strike is lost through the employment of new men. In this case the new men undoubtedly co-operate in producing an unjust effect, that is, in causing injustice to the old employees. The latter are unjustly treated, yet the instrumental agents of such injustice, namely, the new men, will be justified if their needs are such as to compel them to work under unsatisfactory terms. They sometimes lack such justification, particularly when they are professional "strike breakers", and when they would better their condition by holding off, and assisting the striking workers to obtain the just terms that are sought. In view of the foregoing outline of the equities of the situation, the question concerning the morality of violent methods of supporting a strike may be answered somewhat as follows: As against the employer, the strikers have no right to destroy his property; for this is lawful only as one of the extreme measures of war, and a strike, no matter how just, has not the moral standing of a just war. As against the men who take the places of the strikers, no violence is lawful when the action of the former is justified by their own needs. Will it be lawful when there is no such justification? May not the strikers forcefully repel unjust assaults upon their rights to decent conditions of employment, just as a man may use force to withstand the attack of a burglar? Pottier hesitates about giving a categorical answer, contenting himself with the statement that force will certainly not be justifiable when less objectionable means would be effective, or when the good effects to be expected are not great and certain in proportion to the evil effects (De Jure et Justitia, pp. 228, 229). Now, it is certain that the good effects to be obtained through the use of violence are practically never sufficient to outweigh the evil effects; for the benefits that labour would thus secure are in significant compared with the social disorder and anarchy through which they would be obtained; The interests and rights of a class must yield before the interest and rights of the community. The sympathetic strike occurs when labourers who have no personal grievance quit work in order to aid their fellows. It can be directed either against the employer of the latter, or against some other employer who is not concerned in the original dispute. We have an example of the first kind when the brakemen on a railway strike out of sympathy with the trackmen who have left work because they have been refused an increase in wages. If the cause of the trackmen is just, the brakemen will not be wrong in thus acting; for the employer's right to the continued services of the brakemen is valid only so long as he treats them reasonably, and does not use the advantages which he derives from their services for unreasonable ends. On the other hand, their obligation to continue at work ceases when a reasonable cause arises. Such a reasonable cause may well be at hand when their continuation at work becomes a means of assisting the employer in his unjust course towards the trackmen, while their withdrawal from his service will be effective in compelling him to do justice. Their obligation towards their employer gives way before their right morally to coerce him to grant justice to their fellows. If, indeed, they should quit work with out any reasonable cause whatever, they would be guilty of unreasonable interference with the employer's right to pursue the advantages to be derived from the railroad industry, but the cause of the unjustly treated trackmen may be sufficient to render the interference reasonable. It is on this principle that a strong nation or a strong man is justified in coming to the assistance of a weak nation or a weak man who is oppressed by a nation or man with whom the assisting power or person is at peace. When, however, the sympathetic strike is against another employer than the one concerned in the original dispute, when, for example, brickmakers quit work because their employer continues to furnish material to a builder whose employees are on a strike, it will ordinarily be contrary to both charity and justice. To be sure, there are extreme cases in which the unconcerned employer would be under an obligation of charity to assist the labourers who are involved in the first strike, by ceasing to have business intercourse with the off ending employer, but such cases would be of rare occurrence. Much rarer would be the situation in which a sympathetic strike against employers generally would be morally permissible. For the great body of employers and the general public are not reasonably treated when they are compelled to suffer so great in convenience in order that an offending employer may be coerced into reasonable treatment of a small section of the community. While we cannot be certain that a general strike is never justified, we can safely say that there is against it an overwhelming presumption. B. The Boycott In general the boycott is a concerted refusal to engage or continue in business or social intercourse with a person or corporation. Like the sympathetic strike, it is of two kinds, primary and secondary, or simple and compound. The primary boycott is carried on against a person with whom the boycotters have had a dispute; the secondary against some person who refuses to join in the primary boycott. The morality of the primary boycott depends upon the grievance that the boycotters have against the boycotted, and the extent to which, and the means by which it is prosecuted. If the labourers have not been unfairly treated by the person with whom they are at variance, they commit injustice when they organize and carry on a boycott against him. It is true, indeed, that the employer or business man has no absolute right, nor any property right, to the patronage of his employees. The same principle applies to the merchant and his customers. Nevertheless both have a right that is valid as long as it is not forfeited by unreasonable conduct. The basis of this right is the same far-reaching principle that we noticed in connexion with the right of a man to his job, and of an unconcerned employer to the services of his employees who threaten to make him the victim of a secondary sympathetic strike. It is the principle that every man has the right to seek and material goods and opportunities on reasonable terms, and without unreasonable interference. Indeed, this is the real basis of even property rights, and the sole final justification of all the recognized property titles. Hence it is a violation of justice to deprive a man of the benefits of social or business intercourse without some sufficient reason. But there can be a sufficient reason. It will be present when the injustice inflicted by the employer is grave, and when no milder method will be effective. To deny this would be to maintain that the employer has a right to pursue his advantage in an unreasonable way, and immune from reasonable interference. The labourers are endowed with the same right of seeking material benefits on reasonable conditions and by reasonable methods; in this case the boycott is a reasonable method. After all, the boycott does not differ essentially from the strike, which is also a concerted refusal of intercourse. But the boycott must be kept within the limits of justice and charity in its process and extent. It must be free from violence and other immoral circumstances, and it must not be carried so far as to deny to its object the necessaries of life, or any of those acts of social intercourse which are demanded by the fundamental human relations -- what the theologians call the "communia signa charitatis". For the sake of clearness and simplicity, the foregoing observations refer only to cases in which a boycotted employer is treating his employees unfairly; but it is obvious that lawful boycotts have a much wider application. When the cause and the need are sufficiently grave, the boycott may be employed with due moderation against any unreasonable conduct that inflicts harm, material, moral, or religious, upon a section of the community. Witness the boycotting of perverse newspapers and theatres. The secondary boycott is directed, as already noted, against "innocent third persons", that is, those per sons who refuse to assist in the primary boycott. For example, the labourers refuse to buy from a merchant who will not discontinue his patronage of a manufacturer against whom they have a grievance. In principle it is the same as the secondary sympathetic strike, and in practice it is likewise immoral except in extreme cases. It is ordinarily immoral because it is an unreasonable interference with the right of the unconcerned person to pursue and possess the advantages of social or business intercourse with his fellows, that is, with the person who is originally boycotted and the boycotters themselves. It is an unreasonable interference because it subjects him to what is in most cases an unreasonable inconvenience, that is, the deprivation of intercourse with either the boycotted or the boycotters. This inconvenience is unreasonable be cause it is excessive as compared with the moral claims of the boycotters to the co-operation of the man who is compelled to suffer the inconvenience. That the former have a right to bestow their patronage where they please, is true as a general proposition, but the proposition is too general to reflect adequately the equities of the situation. Undoubtedly the labourers, or any other class of persons, are within their rights and exempt from moral censure when they transfer their patronage to some person whom they wish to favour; in the secondary boycott, however -- and in the primary as well -- the desire to help a friend is only incidental, while the intention to injure the boycotted person is direct and primary. This is not morally lawful unless the thing that they seek to compel him to do can be reasonably required of him. For example, when labourers withdraw their trade from a merchant because he refuses to refrain, at great financial loss, from patronizing a manufacturer who, we will suppose, is justly boycotted by the labourers and their friends, he is compelled to undergo a loss that is out of proportion to his duty of assisting the latter. His right to business intercourse on reasonable terms is violated. On the other hand, cases do occur in which an unconcerned person may reasonably be required to give up the advantages of business relations with the man against whom tie primary boycott is directed, if he refuses, he may rightfully be made the object of a secondary boycott until he is ready to act reasonably. A clothing merchant who obstinately continues to buy his supplies from a boycotted manufacturer of "sweat shop" goods would seem to be a case in point. For the merchant can with no great inconvenience purchase his goods elsewhere, the manufacturer, it is assumed, rightly deserves to be boycotted, and the secondary boycott will not only tend to induce the merchant to assist the original boycott, but will directly and in itself increase the scope of the latter. Consequently the secondary boycott is not essentially and always wrong. Lawyers, and occasionally judges, condemn it on the ground that it involves threats, or that it causes injury to a man's business, or that it implies a conspiracy, but every one of these features is contained in a strike. Whatever may be the legal aspect of the matter, a threat is not morally wrong per se. Its morality depends upon what is threatened, and how, and why. Injuries indirectly caused, which is the case in strikes and boycotts, are justified whenever all the conditions are present which render morally lawful the performance of an action not bad in itself, but which produces both good and bad effects. The morality of a conspiracy is determined on the same principle. Although the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission denounced the secondary boycott unreservedly, the particularly immoral and cruel instances cited show that the commission had in mind the abuses of the practice rather than the practice itself. Nevertheless, the abuses seem to be so frequent in actual life that we cannot wonder at the attitude of those who wish to have the practice forbidden by positive law. C. The Closed Shop, or the Union Shop These phrases point to that method or policy of the unions by which their members refuse to work with non-unionists in the same establishment or employment. Now, if, as sometimes happens, the unions refuse to admit non-unionists to membership on reasonable terms, in order to monopolize the trade or employment, their action will, generally speaking, be uncharitable, if not unjust. But if the union is willing to admit all capable workers, and if it has a sufficient reason for pursuing the closed-shop policy, the latter will be neither unjust nor uncharitable. Among the considerations advanced in justification of the policy are the following: The non-unionist ought to help to defray the expenses of organization, from which he derives so much benefit; the presence of non-unionists in an establishment often prevents that peace and discipline which is one of the aims and results of an agreement between the union and the employer, and provokes constant bickering between the two classes of workers, and, most important of all, the average employer strives to supplant gradually the unionist employees or to reduce their wages to the lower level accepted by the non-unionists. In a word, the general defence of the closed-shop policy is that it is indispensable to effective organization. The employment inevitably tends to become all union, or all non-union. This defence may not be fully justified by the vital facts, but if it does give a true account of the situation, the closed-shop policy is justifiable; for, as a general rule, organization is necessary to obtain just conditions for labour. Of course there are exceptions to this rule. We speak here only of what generally happens, with out inquiring into the frequency of the exceptions. In so far as the closed shop is necessary as a means to reasonable conditions of employment, it will not be immoral, as against either the non-unionist or the employer. Neither is deprived of his right to enter economic relations and pursue his livelihood on reason able conditions. It is reasonable that the non-unionist should comply with that condition which alone makes justice possible for the mass of his fellow-workers, and it is unreasonable that he should desire to work as a non-unionist when such action tends to produce unjust circumstances for all. There are, indeed, cases in which the inconvenience of joining the union is great, as compared with the harm that would be done to the class through the opposite course. Membership in the union would then be an unreason able prerequisite to employment. The closed-shop policy is often objected to, on the ground that it deprives the non-unionist of his natural right to work. In this assertion the right to work, which no one denies, and which cannot possibly be violated except by physical restraint, is confounded with the right to work in certain conditions and relations. The specific demand of the non-unionist is that he shall be permitted to work beside members of the union. If this were an unconditional right it would contradict and annul a similar right of the unionist, namely, the right not to work beside the former. One of these rights is no better than the other. In point of fact neither is genuine, for there can be no such prerogative as an unconditional right to a social relation. The right of a non-unionist to work in the same shop with a unionist is no more unconditional than the right to strike, to boycott, or to enter any social relation which requires the consent of the other party. It is conditioned by the circumstances, and it is valid only when these are reasonable. In the hypothesis that we are considering, membership in the union is such a reasonable condition, while refusal to enter is unreasonable. Hence, if the closed-shop policy is necessary in order to obtain proper conditions of employment for the body of the labourers, it will not violate the right of the non-unionist, even if it prevents him from obtaining any employment; for the right in question is dependent upon the contingency that it be exercised within reasonable limits. To deny this is implicitly to assert that the unionists are obliged to work in conditions that are unreasonable. Finally, the policy under discussion may properly be opposed by an employer who otherwise treats his employees fairly. Contrary to the impression that seems to be prevalent, the closed shop is not an innovation. It was enforced for centuries by the guilds, and for a long time in many places it was sanctioned and prescribed by civil legislation (Cf. Ashley, "English Economic History", I, 82). Practically speaking, the law forbade a man to work at his trade unless he belonged to the guild. What the civil law could then command, individuals can now with reason seek to obtain by persuasion, bargaining, and contract. The methods and policies discussed in the foregoing pages exhibit all the more important moral aspects of the labour union. All these practices involve economic relations which are a means of obtaining material goods. If the relations were not necessary to this end, they could not become the basis of rights. Since they are necessary, they give rise to a right, which, like all other rights, is limited by the end to which it is a means, and is sufficiently realized when it can be exercised on reasonable terms. On this principle, and on this principle only, we justify every kind of right, whether to life, property, or liberty. And all that has been said in connexion with the strike, the boycott, and the closed shop, was merely an attempt to apply this general and far-reaching principle. To forestall misunderstanding, it may be well to note that every violation of justice through labour-union methods is also a violation of charity, and that charity may sometimes be offended without any breach of strict justice. D. Limitation of Output and of Apprentices The practice of restricting the amount of work to be per formed, or the quantity of product to be turned out by its members seems to be more frequent than the union is generally willing to admit. But it is probably less frequent than the opponents of the union assert. In itself this method is not wrong, and it may even be laudable. Competent authorities maintain that the exceptional workman is often constituted the pacemaker for all the others, and that the intensity of exertion demanded by many forms of high-speeded machinery has considerably reduced the working-life of the labourer (see Brooks, "The Social Unrest", 191; and "Final Report of the Industrial Commission", p. 733). In such cases the union does well to endeavour to keep the output of the average man down to an average reasonable limit. When the restriction goes beyond this, and is motived by indolence or by the desire of making a job last longer, it is clearly unjustifiable and dishonest. To the complaint of the employer that in many of the skilled trades the union will not permit the training of a sufficient number of apprentices, the unionist replies with a simple denial. The explanation of the difference between them is largely in their different standards of sufficiency. Both recognize that a scarcity of apprentices tends to make wages high, but they do not agree as to the point at which wages are sufficiently high. Since the employer is generally able to pass the extra cost of labour on to the consumer, he is not seriously injured, at least financially, by the practice. But the consumer suffers unjustly, if the supply of skilled workers is kept so low that their wages are unreasonably high. The workers who are able and willing to qualify for the trade are also injured, inasmuch as they are compelled to enter a lower and less remunerative occupation. At what precise point in the wage scale a real injustice is done the consumer, it is practically impossible to say; but, since such a point can be reached, since the men in those trades where limitation of apprentices is enforced are, as a rule, sufficiently organized to defend their just interests, and since a considerable injury is done to those who are excluded from the trade, the practice would seem to be of doubtful moral correctness. After all, a labour union can become a real monopoly, capable of practising extortion upon the community as truly, though not as extensively, as a monopoly of products. While the unions are a necessity of our present industrial system, they are nevertheless, both in spirit and in many of their methods, a necessary evil. They are too often established and maintained on the theory or conviction that the competition between employer and employee is a veritable warfare, in which each is at liberty to strive for all that he can possibly secure, and in which the victory is always to the stronger force. If competition were restrained by law or by some other species of social control within the limits of reason and morality, if the taking of exorbitant profits and the reduction of wages below the level of decent living were alike rendered impossible, the union would still be desirable, indeed, just as organization is desirable for every class of men whose interests are common; but a far greater proportion of its activities could be devoted to mutual help, especially in the form of insurance, and a much smaller proportion to the struggle against the imposition of unfair terms, and to economic warfare generally. In that better, though still remote, day, most of the extreme methods of the union, such as the strike, the boycott, and the closed shop, could be discarded in favour of milder practices, such as collective bargaining, insurance, and education. JOHN A. RYAN Jean de la Bruyere Jean de La Bruyère Born at Paris in 1645; died at Chantilly in 1696. He was the son of a comptroller general of municipal revenue. An advocate in the Parlement of Paris, he soon gave up the bar and purchased a post from the Treasurer of Finances at Caen (1673), continuing to reside at Paris. He was leading a studious life there "in the solitude of his study" according to his own expression, when Bossuet's friendship secured his admission into the house of Condé to teach history to the Duc de Bourbon, grandson of the victor of Rocroi. This boy was then six years old, and for two years received lessons from his new tutor. The latter only half succeeded in his task, but he secured the friendship of the great Condé, and remained at Chantilly attached to the duke's person, with a pension of 3000 livres, until he died of an attack of apoplexy in 1696, having been for three years a member of the French Academy. Favourably placed for seeing the world, and led to judge it without indulgence, both because of the rebuffs which he must have experienced in his subordinate position and because of his upright but proud and morose nature, he published anonymously in 1688 "Les Caractères de Théophraste, traduits du Grec, avec les caractères et les moeurs de ce siècle." The book met with great success. Though his means were modest, the author freely gave his manuscript to the bookseller Michallet as a contribution towards the dowry of his daughter, and it is claimed that it brought in nearly 300,000 francs. The first part of the book was a not very remarkable translation of a faulty text. The second part assumed larger proportions, especially as regards the "portraits." La Bruyère continued to add to it from the first edition (1689) to the ninth (1696). The first fifteen chapters, he said with some complacency in his rather loosely-drawn plan, "are preparations for the sixteenth and last, 'Des esprits forts,' in which Atheism is attacked and perhaps overthrown." La Bruyère must not be regarded as a profound and powerful moralist like Pascal. He is a keen, honest, Christian observer and, above all, an admirable writer. But the stylist and the artist are too much in evidence; he lacks the large simplicity of the authors of the preceding generation. His art is, however, inimitable. Particularly striking is the variety, the finish of detail, the profusion of wit, the skill in securing an effect, the inexhaustible resources of his diction; his works are an inventory of the powers of the French language. By his ideas as well as his life he belongs to the seventeenth century, but his brief and sententious phrases foreshadow the eighteenth. FOURNIER, La comedie de La Bruyère (1867); ALLAIRE, La Bruyère dans la maison de Condé (1886). GEORGES BERTRIN Labyrinth Labyrinth A complicated arrangement of paths and passages; or a place, usually subterraneous, full of windings, corridors, rooms, etc., so intricately arranged as to render the getting out of it a very difficult matter. The labyrinth as an architectural term derives its name from the famous ancient or mythical labyrinths of Crete and Egypt. Geometrical figures composed of various pieces of coloured marbles and so disposed as to form labyrinths were frequently found in the pavements of French cathedrals and so-called labyrinthes de pavé. The finest remaining example is in the centre of the nave of Notre Dame, Chartres, and a person following the various windings and turns of the figure would walk nearly 800 feet before he arrived at the centre, although the circumference does not exceed thirteen yards. Similar labyrinths formerly existed at Notre Dame, Paris, at the cathedral of Reims, and at Amiens. This latter was only taken up in the latter part of the last century, and the centre stone (which is octangular and was formerly inlaid with brass imagery) is still preserved in the museum of that city. These labyrinths were supposed to have originated in a symbolical allusion to the Holy City, and certain prayers and devotions doubtless accompanied the perambulation of their intricate mazes. In modern times, generally a fantastic arrangement of lofty and thick hedges in a garden as at Hampton Court, where it is difficult to find one's way to the centre. THOMAS H. POOLE Stanislaus du Lac Stanislas Du Lac Jesuit educationist and social work, b. at Paris, 21 November, 1835; d. there, 30 August, 1909. His father, Louis Paul Albert du Lac de Fugères, was descended from a noble family, noted in history as early as 1206, and his mother was Camille de Rouvroy de Lamairie. Entering into the novitiate of the Society of Jesus at Issenheim, in Alsace, October 28, 1853, he studied theology at Laval till 1869, when he was ordained priest by Mgr. Wicart, 19 September. The following summer (1870) he was made rector of the new College of Sainte-Croix, at Mans, where, during the Franco-Prussian war, he organized an efficient hospital service. During the ten months of his rectorship at Mans, twenty-two thousand soldiers sojourned successively in his college. In October, 1871, he succeeded the martyred Father Léon Ducoudray as Rector of the Ecole Sainte-Geneviève, generally called "La Rue des Postes", an institution which prepared candidates for the great military and scientific schools of France. During his rectorship, from1872 to 1881, 213 of his pupils were admitted to the Ecole Centrale, 328to the Ecole Polytechnique, and 830 to Saint-Cyr. With a rare combination of firmness and gentleness he trained his students to be such fearless Catholics that they gradually infused a Catholic spirit into the military school of Saint-Cyr. This, together with their unparalleled success at the entrance examinations, was the real cause of the closing of the Jesuit colleges in 1880 and of the subsequent persecution of the Church in France. In 1880 he founded a new French college, St. Mary's, at Canterbury, England, where he remained as rector nine years, venerated and loved by all who met him, Protestants as well as Catholics. The last twenty years ofhis life were spent in Paris and Versailles, as preacher, director of souls, and founder of the "Syndicat de l'Aiguille", a collection of loan and benefit societies for needlewomen, dressmakers, seemstresses, especially those young sewing girls who are called midinettes. As early as 1901 this syndicate, which has spread all over France, counted more than two thousand members and two hundred lady patronesses in Paris alone, where its two restaurants, reserved exclusively for members, had served more than a million meals, and where its preventive zeal had saved and consoled thousands of young women. Father du Lac had been for many years, in the eyes of the ignorant anti-Catholic multitude, the personification of the scheming Jesuit, while the Catholics who knew him best thought him only too frank, too apt to waste his kindness on men whose hatred of the Church was implacable. He wrote two books: "France" (Paris, 1888), which vividly portrays the affectionate relations between the Rector of St. Mary's, Canterbury, and his French boys; and "Jésuites" (Paris, 1901), a defence of the Society of Jesus, containing many autobiographical reminiscences. In the last long months of illness God took him away from the strife of tongues into the solitude of a religious house which was not his own, a hospital where he died in poverty and perfect trust. LEWIS DRUMMOND Lace Lace (Lat. laqueus; It. laccio, trine, merletto; Sp. lazo, encaje, pasamano; Fr. lacis, dentelle; Ger. Spitze). I. HAND-MADE LACE (1) Classification (a) Needle-made lace, or needlepoint (trine ad ago), which has three divisions:--(i) Lacis, lace made by working various needlepoint stitches on a specially prepared knotted netting (modano) or twisted netting (buratto). (ii) Lace made by the needle on a foundation of woven linen--the pattern sometimes made by drawing threads together by the needle, sometimes by cutting portions of the linen away and sewing over the remaining threads. This linen lace is called drawn-work (tela tirata) and reticello or cut-work (tela tagliata). A Venetian chalice-cover of the seventeenth century has a background of cut-work, the figures being worked in punto in aria. (iii) Needle lace made without any foundation at all, and hence called punto in aria. This includes every variety of needle-made or point lace made entirely without foundation, such as Venice and Spanish flat point and raised point, point de France, Alençon point, point de gaze, etc. However widely dissimilar these laces may be in their designs and styles of execution, they all come under the head of needlepoint lace. (b) Bobbin-point lace, which is made with bobbins on a pillow (trine a fuselli) or by crochet, tatting or simply twisting and knotting threads by hand into fringe as in macramé (Sp. moresco). There are three chief ways of making bobbin-lace. (i) Early or peasant lace.--A tape, sometimes plain, sometimes ornamented, is made on the pillow, and joined up as required, but is not cut or finished off until the pattern is completed. (ii) Genoese, Milanese lace, etc.--Complete sprays or patterns are made and finished on the pillow and afterwards placed as required and joined by brides or by a réseau. (iii) Mechlin, binche, valenciennes, etc.--The same bobbins which were first filled and placed on the pillow continue throughout the process, and complete both pattern and ground of the lace. (2) History Among the Egyptian antiquities discovered in 1909 by Professor F. Petrie, at Qurneh, it is interesting to recognize the square knotted mesh netting, similar to the lacis called modano. This netting covers the vases found at the side of the coffin of a remarkable burial of the seventeenth dynasty (1600 B.C.). Other specimens of lace made with bobbins and of lace stitches worked on linen have been found in Egyptian tombs of the first to the third century, and fine specimens of these are in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, and in the Cluny Museum, Paris. For many subsequent centuries we possess no actual specimens of lace fabrics, but records, illuminated manuscripts, sculpture, and paintings give us evidence that hand-work in lace and on linen was continuously and gradually developed into the beautiful products of the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It will be worth while to quote some ancient references. The "Ancren Riwle" of the thirteenth century cautions nuns against devoting too much time to lace and ornamental work, to the detriment of work for the poor. The record of a visitation at St. Paul's, London, in 1295, mentions lacis under the name of album filum nodatum (knotted white thread). A roll of the possessions of the Knights Templars after their suppression in 1312 includes an inventory of the Temple Church, London. An item in this is "one net which is called Espinum to cover the Lectern". On the question of design, as indicating the date of lacework, the early geometric character of design inspired by the East was modified as early as the eighth century, as we see, by realistic ornamentation, such as the flowing scrolls and vine leaves introduced into the initial letters of manuscripts of that date. These paintings were chiefly the work of monks of the Benedictine Order, and the lace at that time was undoubtedly the work of nuns and intended for church purposes. Therefore we may conclude that mutual assistance in design was given, as both were working for the same object, the ornamentation and glory of the Sacred Scriptures and the services of the Church. The two earliest known specimens of lace-worked linen albs are that of St. Francis, preserved at St. Clare's convent, Assisi, and the alb of Pope Boniface VIII, now in the treasury of the Sistine Chapel. The Assisi alb is said to have been worked by St. Clare of Assisi and her nuns, and to have been worn by St. Francis himself (d. 1226). This alb is of hand-woven linen, very fine in texture, and the tela tirata work introduces no less than twenty varieties of polygonal design. Many of these are formed of the Coptic gammadion or symbol of the cross. Symbolic animals and chimeras are also introduced, and the Eastern character of the design is obvious. The other ancient alb is also of linen lace and is said to have been worn by Pope Boniface in 1298. As to its possible history, it is known that St. Nilus and his monks were driven from the East by the Saracens in the tenth century and were welcomed in Italy by Pope Gregory V. He established them near Rome, where their successors still worship with the Eastern Rite. The famous alb may have been brought by these monks or by those who followed them from the East. The design is worked in punto tirato and is evidently of Eastern origin; the flounce of pillow lace was added at a later date. Dr. Daniel Rock has pointed out that the long strips of lacis and linen lace of early work, now sometimes found, were covers for the lectern; and this is confirmed by the fact that the figure subjects are usually worked across the width of the piece, as in a remarkable piece dating from the fifteenth century. This is a strip of tela tirata, six feet by twelve and one-half inches, probably worked by the nuns at Assisi as a lectern cover, and representing, among other sacred subjects, St. Francis receiving the Stigmata. Existing records as early as the twelfth century mention "worked albs" belonging to the Abbey of St. Albans, and in an inventory of 1466 of St. Stephen's, London, we read of "worked altar cloths and towels" and some with three "rayes" at each end. These "rayes" were rows of insertion of reticello work. There is no doubt that the Church was the first patron of lace-making in Europe, and the finest existing specimens both of early and late work were made to decorate albs, Mass vestments, etc. A very curious specimen of linen lace of pre-Reformation times is the pyx veil now existing in the parish of Hesselt in Suffolk. This beautiful square, entirely worked in tela tirata, has a hole in the centre through which the chain passed to hand the vessel containing the Blessed Sacrament. The earliest lace-pattern books now existing are dated 1527, which proves that the art was already well known and practised, as the patterns given in these books are only practicable for very experienced workers. From this time in Venice began the punto in aria, worked first as flat point and punto avorio, and then with numberless enrichments constituting raised, or rose, point, point de neige, or rosalline point, caterpillar point, etc. The flowing scrolls and graceful, though always conventional flowers, are characteristic of the splendid Venetian laces. In the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, is a very remarkable set of Mass vestments, chasuble, stole, maniple, and chalice veil, made entirely of the finest seventeenth-century Venetian rose point; the veil has emblems of the Blessed Sacrament, the vine, ears of corn, etc. In the same place is a splendid altar-frontal of seventeenth-century gros point de Venise. It should be remembered that many articles made for church use in early times are much to be admired as a testimony to zeal and devotion. But some the rubrics at present in force would not approve of for use in the sanctuary. Albs and cottas should have the major part of linen; lace, to be correct, should be only twelve inches deep, as an alb flounce, and there should be no frill of lace at the neck. Two examples of the flourishing industry of modern production of needlepoint are work done at the convent at Youghal, Ireland, and from the school of Burano, in Venice, patronized by the Holy Father, the Queen of Italy, and others. Spanish needlepoint laces may be identified by a certain over-elaboration of design and ornaments. Much seventeenth-and eighteenth-century church lace came from Spain at the time of the Revolution and suppression of the monasteries in 1830; hence the name "Spanish point" is often given to gros point de Venise. The lace now made in Spain is distinctly derived and actually named from Flemish and Italian originals. Barcelona makes much silk lace. A Venetian lace-designer was invited to France by Henry III about 1580, and lace-making was established in Auvergne. Fifty years later an edict of the Toulouse Parliament put a stop to this flourishing industry, and the inhabitants of Velay and Le Puy were reduced to misery, but by the exertions of the Jesuit Father John Francis Regis (afterwards canonized by Clement XII) the obnoxious law was repealed, and the saint is still the patron of lace-making. Lace in those days was even technically under the protection of the Church, among the names of stitches being "Pater", "Ave Maria", "Chapelet", etc. More than 100,000 workers now make pillow lace and point Arabe, as the modern guipure is called, at Le Puy, and lace is also made in the departments of Cantal and Vienne, and at Mirecourt in the Vosges. Alençon had an early lace-making industry, and portions of laces made for church use about 1550 by the then Duchess of Alençon are now to be seen in the museum of that town. Later, the needlepoint industry of Alençon was founded by Venetian workers imported by the State in 1665, and the magnificent point de France was the result. The French modifications of Venetian design were most ambitious and ingenious, and in any important piece of point de France may be found every variety of realistic design, or emblems of religion, war, or the arts, together with portraits of great personages and heraldic devices. Towards the end of the eighteenth century a less ambitious style was adopted, the Alençon laces lost their Venetian character, and the designs became for the most part a series of small floral patterns. Needle point is still made at Alençon by two or three hundred workers. Pillow lace flourished in Belgium and Holland from the fifteenth century and attained its apogee in the eighteenth; the designs closely followed the fashions of France and Italy. Magnificent flounces for albs of Brussels point d'Angleterre are mentioned in the inventories of Paris churches from 1740. At the same time that France began to rival Italian lace King Charles II of England revived a previous edict against foreign laces. But while the French successfully rivalled Venetian laces, the fine bobbin laces of Flanders called point de Flandre and point d'Angleterre were never approached by English workers. Hollie, or holy, point is the only English distinctive needlepoint lace; this was principally used for infants' caps and other garments at baptism, and the Holy Dove, a pot with flowers reminiscent of the Annunciation, etc., were devices often used. Bobbin lace has been made in England since early in the sixteenth century. Devonshire lace was and is the most important. Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire follow closely, and nearly every county in England at the present time has taken up the industry with praiseworthy results. The needlepoint lace of Youghal, Ireland, was started by the nuns of the Presentation Convent, at the time of the terrible famine of 1847. It is celebrated for excellence both of design and execution and received a gold medal from the Vatican. Lace has been made at Youghal for empresses and queens. In 1905 the sum of $17,500 was paid to workers, and the quantity of lace made is always increasing. Needlepoint lace is also the specialty of the Poor Clares at Kenmare; the industry was founded in 1862, and beautiful lace was made for the Archbishop of New York and other prelates. The Institute for Deaf and Dumb Girls, St. Mary's, Cabra, Dublin, is most successful with Limerick darned lace. Much is made for church use, and it has received honours both at home and at Chicago in 1893. The Convent of Mercy has made Limerick and crochet laces ever since the Famine year in the beautiful old town of Kinsale. Large quantities of lace were sold at Chicago; about a hundred and fifty workers are employed. The Co-operative Lace Society established at the convent at New Ross makes every kind of crochet lace, and because of its durability this lace is much used for church purposes. Many other convents and institutions impossible to enumerate encourage this beautiful industry with success. In the report presented to Parliament in 1909, the value of lace exported was estimated at $475,000. But as many convents sell privately, this is a very low figure. II. MACHINE LACE The beautiful laces made by machinery are the most widely known and used at the present time. England originated lace machines, and France may claim to have perfected them. The stocking machine was no doubt the parent of lace-making machinery. The machines were started at Nottingham in England, early in the nineteenth century, and were called bobbin-net, or point-net, or warp-net, machines, and the lace first made was often finished and enriched by hand. Owing to the destruction of more than a thousand stocking frames and lace machines by rioters, it was made a capital offence in 1812 to destroy machines. Imitation lace was shown at the Exhibition of 1851, and Nottingham now employs designers for lace of all kinds, and produces machinery for making the heaviest, as well as the finest, of modern laces. Calais in France, St. Gall in Switzerland, and Plauen in Saxony are centres of activity and enterprise in the production of lace fabrics, and the value of lace manufactured in England, France, Switzerland and Germany exceeds a billion dollars annually. BRAUN, Die liturgische Gewandung (Freiburg, 1907); CHARLES AND PAGES, Broderies et Dentelles (Paris, 1906); COLE, Ancient Needlepoint; DREYER, Entwicklung und Geschichte (Vienna, 1901); FELKIN, Machine Lace (London, 1867); PETRIE, Qurneh (London, 1909); PALLISER, History of Lace (London, 1902); POLLEN, Seven Centuries of Lace (London, 1908); VERHAEGEN, Dentelle (Brussels, 1902); ROCK, Textiles (London, 1870). MARIA M. POLLEN Diocese of Lacedonia Diocese of Lacedonia (LAQUEDONIENSIS) Located in the province of Avellino, Southern Italy. Lacedonia is famous in history for the "conspiracy of the barons" of the Kingdom of Naples against King Ferdinand I, which took shape in the cathedral of Lacedonia (1484). The episcopal see dates from the eleventh century. The first known bishop is Desiderius, mentioned in 1082, but he is known to have had predecessors. Among the other noteworthy bishops were Fra Guglielmo Neritono (1392); Antonio Dura (1506); Gianfrancesco Carducci (1564); the distinguished mathematician Marco Pedacca 1584); the learned and virtuous Giacomo Candido (1606); Giacomo Giordano (1651), who built the episcopal palace and planned a new cathedral; Benedetto Bartolo, who was seized by the brigands and later redeemed by the Marquess of Carpi; Morea (1684), who suppressed certain festivities of pagan origin celebrated on the vigil of Epiphany, and laid the corner-stone of the new cathedral; Francesco Ubaldo Romanzi (1798), under whom the Diocese of Lacedonia was increased by union with Trevico, a neighbouring diocese subject to the Metropolitan of Benevento, and which dates at least from the tenth century, when a Bishop Benedetto is mentioned (964). Lacedonia has suffered much from earthquakes, especially in 1694 and 1702. The diocese is a suffragan of Conza and Campagna, and has 11 parishes with 28,000 souls, 1 Capuchin monastery, and 1 house of the Daughters of St. Anne. CAPPELLETTI, Le chiese d' Italia, XX (Venice, 1857). U. BENIGN Francois d'Aix de la Chaise François d'Aix de la Chaise ( Also Chaize). Confessor of King Louis XIV, born at the mansion of Aix, in Forez, Department of Loire, 25 August, 1624; died at Paris, 20 January, 1709. He entered the Jesuit novitiate at Roanne in 1649; after teaching the humanities and philosophy for some time at the Collège de la Sainte Trinité at Lyons, hebecame rector of the same college and, somewhat later, provincial of hisorder. In 1675 he succeeded the deceased Father Ferrier a confessor to King Louis XIV, and filled this influential but extremely delicate position conscientiously for thirty-four years. He is often accused of having connived at the king's liaison with Made de Montespan, and of having advised the revocation of the Edict of Nates and the violent suppression of Protestantism. The facts are that La Chaise used all his influence to put anend to the king's illicit relations with Montespan and finally succeeded, with the help of Madame de Maintenon, in breaking the liaison. After the death of Queen Maria Theresa in 1683, he advised the king's marriage toMadame de Maintenon, through whose influence the king and the whole court of Versailles underwent a wholesome change. It is not know in how far La Chaise was connected with the revocation ofthe Edict of the Nantes, but it is probable that, like most other Catholics of France, he advocated it. The accusation that he advised the use ofviolence against Protestants is without foundation, and does not harmonize with the admitted mildness of his character. Saint-Simon (Mémoires, IV, 285-7), Voltaire (Siècle de Louis XIV, III, 305), and other enemies of the Jesuits testify to his kindness and humanity. He corresponded with Edward Coleman concerning the lawful means for bettering the sad condition of the Catholics in England; but a letter concerning the extirpation of Protestantism, alleged to have been written by La Chaise to Father Petre, the confessor of James II of England, has been proved to be a forgery. Asa mark of esteem King Louis XIV presented him with Mont-Louis, a beautiful tract of land in the south-eastern part of Paris. In 1804 it was converted into a cemetery, and it is still known as Père Lachaise. MICHAEL OTT Lacordaire Jean-Baptiste-Henri Dominique Lacordaire The greatest pulpit orator of the nineteenth century b. near Dijon, 13 May, 1802; d. at Sorèze, 21 Nov., 1861. When he was only four years old he lost his father, and was thenceforth under the care of his mother, "a brave Christian" but no dévote. She came of a family of lawyers, and brought her son up for the bar. While still at school he lost his faith. From Dijon he went to Paris, to complete his legal studies under M. Guillemain. His first efforts at the bar attracted the attention of the great Berryer, who predicted for him a successful career as an advocate. Meantime, however, he regained his faith, and resolved to devote himself entirely to the service of God. He entered the seminary of Issy, 12 May, 1824, and in spite of the reluctance of the superiors, was ordained by Mgr de Quélen, Archbishop of Paris, 22 Sept., 1827. His first years in the ministry were spent as chaplain to a convent and at the Collège Henri IV. This work was little to his taste. Accordingly, when Mgr. Dubois, Bishop of New York, visited Paris in 1829 in search of priests for his diocese, he found a ready volunteer in the young Abbé Lacordaire. All arrangements were complete, but before a start could be made the Revolution broke out (July, 1830). The Abbé de Lamennais, at this time at the height of his reputation as a defender of the Church immediately offered him the post of collaborator in "L'Avenir", a newspaper intended to fight for the cause of "God and Freedom". The story of this famous journal belong to the article LAMENNAIS. Here it will be enough to mention that Lacordaire gladly accepted the offer, and abandoned his proposed journey to America. He and Montalembert, whom he first met at the office of "L'Avenir", were the principal contributors. Thei programme was to renounce all State protection and assistance, and to demand religious freedom, not as a favour, but as a right. They advocated free speech and a free press, and exhorted the Catholics to avail themselves of these weapons in defence of their rights. Their religious teaching was strongly Ultramontane. In the first sixteen numbers the leading article on seven occasions was from Lacordaire's pen. He did not write on abstract subjects; his line was to take some event of the day -- some insult to religion, some striking incident in the action of Catholics in other countries, notably Ireland -- and make this a text for the demand of religious rights. He possessed in a remarkable degree the qualities of a great journalist -- clearness, force, brilliancy, the power to discuss the graver topics of the day at short notice in limited space, and in a manner adapted to the general intelligence. Royalists and Liberals alike were assailed with a power and fierceness never before exerted in the cause of religion. Even at this long interval of time it is impossible to read his articles without feeling keenly their strength and vividness. His contributions, and not those of Lamennais, were the most aggressive. When the paper was condemned by the bishops of France, it was Lacordaire who suggested the appeal to Rome and drew up the memoir to be presented to Gregory XVI. But it was he, also, who was the first to recognize that their cause was lost, and that they must bow to the pontiff's decision. He left Rome at once, 15 March, 1832, though Lamennais and Montalembert remained for some months longer. The three met again at Munich, and there, while at a banquet, they received the formal condemnation of the whole policy of "L'Avenir" (Encyclical "Mirari Vos", 15 Aug., 1832). On their return to France, Lacordaire went to stay at La Chênaie, in Brittany, where Lamennais had established a house of higher studies for ecclesiastics. He remained there for three months. It must be said, however, that the two men were at no time altogether cordial in their relations, and less than ever after their defeat. The system of philosophy adopted by Lamennais was never accepted by his colleague, who also refused to pay the homage which was expected from the inmates of La Chênaie. But the main cause of the contention which arose was that Lacordaire's submission was sincere, whereas Lamennais continued to speak strongly against Rome. Lacordaire left La Chênaie, 11 Dec., 1832, and returned to Paris, where he was admitted to the circle of Madame Swetchine, who exercised a restraining influence over him as long as she lived. As the press was no longer open to him, he began to give religious lectures (conferences) at the Collège Stanislas (Jan., 1834). These were attended by some of the leading men of the day, but were soon denounced on account of the Liberal views expressed. The archbishop intervened, and insisted that the lectures should be submitted beforehand to censors. The correspondence which ensued led to a complete change in the archbishop's attitude. He now offered Lacordaire the pulpit of Notre-Dame, and there, in the beginning of Lent, 1835, the first of the famous conferences was delivered. Their success was astonishing from the very outset. The second series in the following year met with even greater favour. At the conclusion of these last conferences Lacordaire announced his intention of retiring from the world for a time, in order to devote himself to study and prayer. During a retreat at the Jesuit house of St. Eusebius in Rome, he resolved to enter the religious state. Even in his seminary days he had thought of becoming a Jesuit, but had been prevented by Mgr de Quélen. He now decided to enter the Dominican Order whose name of "Friars Preachers" naturally appealed to him. Meantime he preached a course of conferences at Metz in the Lenten season of 1838, which were equally successful with those of Notre-Dame. His "Mémoire pour le Rétablissement des Frères Prêcheurs" was preliminary to his reception of the habit at the Minerva in Rome (9 April, 1839). Next year he made his vows (12 April, 1840) and returned to France. The first house of the restored order was established at Nancy in 1843, a second at Chalais in 1844; a novitiate at Flavigny in 1848, and finally a French province was erected with Lacordaire as first provincial. Meantime, in the Advent of 1843, the conferences were resumed at Notre-Dame, and continued with one break until 1852. At first King Louis Philippe endeavoured to prevent the resumption of the conferences, but the new archbishop, Mgr Affre, was firm, and merely required that the preacher should wear a canon's rochet and mozetta over his Dominican habit. The interest in the conferences was greater than ever. It was noted that the orator had gained in depth and brilliancy by his years of retirement. And here it will be well to describe briefly the nature of the conferences and the causes of the extraordinary interest which they aroused. The old-fashioned sermon -- text, exordium, three points; and peroration -- dealt with dogmatic or moral subjects, and was addressed to believers. It reached its highest perfection at the hands of Bossuet, Bourdaloue, and Massillon. The clergy in the first part of the nineteenth century went on preaching as before, speaking of the same subjects bringing forward the same arguments, using the same methods; forgetting all the while that they had to appeal not only to believers but also to infidels. It was Lacordaire's merit that he discerned the necessity of a complete reform, new subjects, new arguments, new methods must be adopted. The matter must be apologetic, and, as apologetics vary according to the nature of the enemy's assaults, it must be adapted to meet the attacks of the day. With the rare insight of genius, Lacordaire began where the ordinary apologist ends. He took the Church as his starting-point, considering her as a great historical fact, and drawing from her existence, her long-continued duration, and her social and moral action the proof of her authority. Thus the first conferences in 1835 treated of the Church's constitution and her social activity. In the second course he went on to speak of the doctrines of the Church viewed in their general aspect. When he resumed the conferences in 1843 he spoke of the effects of Catholic doctrine upon the human mind, upon the soul (humility, chastity, and other virtues), and upon society. Again, before treating of God he took Christ for the subject of the best known of all the series (1846). From the Son he passed to the Father (1848), proving the existence of God and dealing with His work of creation. From God he descended to man and the doctrine of man's Fall and Redemption (1849-50). The coup d'état prevented the continuance of the conferences in Notre-Dame, but a further course was delivered at Toulouse in 1854, treating of life, natural and supernatural. So much for the subjects. The form of the conferences was quite unlike that of the ordinary sermon. There was no opening text, or prayer, no firstly, secondly, thirdly; no pause between the divisions. After a short exordium, indicating the subject to be dealt with, he plunged at once in medias res, and let his subject grow upon his hearers. His voice, feeble at the beginning, gradually grew in volume until it rang through the vast vault of the cathedral, sometimes breaking out into a cry which thrilled the hardest hearts. His gestures were graceíul and yet full of vigour, his dark eyes flashed out the fire that was burning within him. His words were the choice of the moment, coming freely to his lips after careful preparation of the matter and the main lines of his discourse; indeed, his most brilliant passages were inspired by some movement among his audience, or some sudden emotion within himself. We can understand the state of prostration produced by such delivery, and how his strenuous efforts tended to shorten his life. The govermnent of Louis Philippe came to an ignominious end in Feb., 1848. In his opening conference of that year, delivered while the barricades were still standing, Lacordaire welcomed the Revolution in language which was greeted with prolonged applause. Now at last he hoped to carry out his old programme of "God and Freedom" -- without the youthful excesses that marred the policy of "L'Avenir". A new paper, "L'Ere Nouvelle", was started under his editorship, but he wrote little in its columns. He realized that his strength lay rather in speech than in writing. In the elections he accepted a nomination for Paris, but obtained only a small number of votes. He was, however, returned for the department of Bouches-du-Rhône. He took his seat on the Extreme Left, clad though he was in his Dominican habit. A few benches below him sat his former friend and master, now his bitter foe, Lamennais. The invasion of the Assembly by the rabble convinced him that his dream of a Catholic republic was not to be accomplished. He resigned his seat 18 May, and some months later gave up the editorship of "L'Ere Nouvelle". He did his utmost to prevent the Church from becoming identified with the Empire established by Napoleon III. For this reason he refused to continue his conferences in 1852, though urged to do so by Mgr Sibour. His last discourse in Paris was delivered in the church of Saint-Roch in 1853. It was a sermon on the text: "Esto vir" (III Kings, ii, 2), and was an outspoken attack on the new Government. After, this it was impossible for him to remain in Paris. For the rest of his life he had charge of the military school of Sorèze, in the department of Tarn, where he inculcated the duties of manliness and patriotism as well as religion. Though he was devoted to his youthful pupils he naturally felt that he was exiled and silenced. In 1861 (24 Jan.) he was called out of his obscurity to take his seat in the Academy -- an honour which cast a gleam of brightness over his last days. It was at this time that he uttered the famous words: " J'espère mourir en religieus pénitent et en libéral impénitent." Towards the end of the year (21 Nov.) he passed away at Sorèze, after a long and painful illness, in his sixtieth year. Lacordaire was of middle height, sparely but strongly built. He always objected to sit for his portrait, but one day at Sorèze he submitted. He is represented seated, and absorbed in prayer, with his hands crossed one over the other, for the Elevation bell was ringing in the church when the portrait was taken. Besides his "Eloges funèbres" (Drouot, O'Connell, and Mgr Forbin-Janson) he published: "Lettre sur le Saint-Siège"; "Considérations sur le système philosophique de M. de Lamennais"; "De la liberté d'Italie et de l'Eglise", "Vie de S. Dominique"; "Sainte Marie Madeleine" (the two last-mentioned works contain many sublime passages, but are of little historical value). Mme Swetchune said of him: "On ne le connaítra que par ses lettres." Eight volumes of these have already been published, including his correspondence with Mme Swetchine and Mme de la Tour du Pin, and" Lettres à des Jeunes Gens", collected and edited by his friend H. Perreyve in 1862 (tr. Derby, 1864; revised and enlarged ed. London, 1902). Amongst Lacordaire's most celebrated works are his "Conferences" (tr. vol. I only, London, 1851), "Dieu et l'homme" in "Conférences de Notre Dame de Paris" (tr. London, 1872); "Jésus-Christ" (tr. London, 1869), "Dieu" (tr. London, 1870). Oeuvres du R. P. H. D. Lacordaire (Paris, 1873); FOISSET, Vie de Lacordaire (Paris, 1870), CHOCARNE, Le R. P. Lacordaire, sa vie intime et religeuse (Paris 1866), tr. The Inner Life of Père Lacordaire (9th ed., London, 1901). These two Lives mutually complete each other: FOISSET dealing with the outer life as detailed in the above art., while CHOCANE tells the wonderful story of his mortifications and spiritual trials; MONTALEMBERT, Le Père Lacordaire (Paris, 1862; tr. London, 1863); IDEM, Le Testament du P. Lacordaire (1870); RICARD, Lacordaire (Paris, 1888); D'HAUSSONVILLE, Lacordaire (Paris, 1895), SAINTE-BEUVE, Causeries du Lundi, I (Paris, 1852), Nouveaux Lundis, IV (Paris, 1885); -- these articles are written with all the skill and discernment of the great critic, who had once been on intimate terms with Lacordaire: MacNABB, Lacordaire 1802-1861 (London, 1890); LEAR, H. D. Lacordaire (London, 1882). T.B. SCANNELL La Crosse La Crosse (CROSSENSIS) Diocese erected in 1868; included that part of the State of Wisconsin, U.S.A., lying north and west of the Wisconsin River. In 1900 the establishment of the Diocese of Superior subdivided this territory and reduced it to the Counties of Adams, Buffalo, Chippewa, Clark, Crawford, Dunn, Eau Claire, Grant, Iowa, Jackson, Juneau, La Crosse, Lafayette, Marathon, Monroe, Pepin, Pierce, Richland, Sauk, Trempealeau, Vernon, and Wood; an area of 17,299 square miles. It is suffragan to Milwaukee. At the establishment of the diocese there were ministering to the scattered Catholic population twenty-two priests, who had to care for twenty-three churches and about fifty stations. Besides the English and German congregations provision had also been made for Poles and Italians. Franciscan sisters and lay teachers had charge of six parish schools. The Very Rev. Michael Heiss, then head of St. Francis's Seminary, Milwaukee, was elected as the first bishop, and consecrated, 6 Sept., 1868. He was born at Pfaldorf, Bavaria, 12 April, 1818; in 1835 he entered the University of Munich, where Möhler, Döllinger, and Görres were professors, intending to study law, but changed his mind, took a course in theology, and was ordained at the age of twenty-two. Knowing the need of German priests in the United States, he arrived in New York, 17 December, 1842, and was affiliated to the Diocese of Louisville. Two years later he moved to Milwaukee at the invitation of Bishop Henni, and in 1846 erected the first parish church in that city, his charge extending over an area of fifty- two square miles. He opened a seminary in a private house, which was subsequently merged into the Seminary of St. Francis, of which he was president. During the twelve years of his administration in La Crosse, he built several churches, including the cathedral, and the episcopal residence. While president of St. Francis's Seminary he published in English "The Four Gospels Examined and Vindicated on Catholic Principles" and a Latin essay "De Matrimonio." As a priest he took part in the Councils of Baltimore in 1849 and 1866, and Pius IX made him a member of one of the four great commissions of bishops engaged in the preparatory work for the Vatican Council, 1869-70. On 14 March, 1880, he was appointed coadjutor with right of succession to the Archbishop of Milwaukee, and succeeded, 7 September, 1881. He died at La Crosse, 26 March, 1890. Kilian Flasch, second bishop, was born at Retzstadt, Bavaria, 16 July, 1837. His parents took him to the United States when he was ten years old, and settled near Milwaukee. He made his academic studies at Notre Dame University, and his theological course at St. Francis's Seminary, where he was ordained, 16 September, 1859. With two brief intermissions he spent the subsequent years as professor and rector of this seminary until he was selected as the successor of Bishop Heiss and was consecrated Bishop of La Crosse, 24 August, 1881. During his administration of ten years he laboured zealously to increase the churches and the schools of the diocese, and died after a long illness, 3 August, 1891. James Schwebach, his vicar-general, succeeded him as the third bishop, and was consecrated, 25 February, 1892. He was born at Platten, Luxembourg, 15 August, 1847. He made his early studies at the college of Diekirk, and in 1864 emigrated to the United States, where he completed his course at the Seminary of St. Francis, Milwaukee, and was ordained. 17 July, 1870. Soon after, appointed rector of St. Mary's Church, La Crosse, he built two schools and two churches there under Bishops Heiss and Flasch. The latter appointed him vicar-general and administrator of the diocese. Religious communities in the diocese Men: Jesuits, Dominicans, Fathers of the Holy Ghost, Missionary Fathers of the Sacred Heart. Women: Franciscan Sisters of the Perpetual Adoration, Sisters of the Third Order of St. Dominic, Sisters of the Sorrowful Mother, Hospital Sisters of St. Francis, School Sisters of Notre Dame, Sisters of St. Dominic, Franciscan Sisters of Charity, School Sisters of St. Francis, Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis of Assisi, Sisters of St. Benedict, Polish Sisters of St. Joseph, Sisters of the Society of the Divine Saviour. Priests, 177 (26 religious); churches with resident priests, 126; missions with churches, 86; stations, 6; chapels, 24; college, 1, students, 225; academies for girls, 2, pupils, 292; high schools, 2; parish schools, 76, pupils: boys, 4874, girls, 5044; orphan asylums, 2, inmates, 180; total young people under Catholic care, 10,468; hospitals, 5; Catholic population, 112,400. Official Catholic Directory, 1869-1910; Catholic Family Almanac (New York, 1892); Benziger's Almanac (New York, 1888, 1893): REUSS, Biog. Cycl. of the Cath. Hierarchy, U.S. (Milwaukee, 1898); The Catholic Citizen (Milwaukee), files. THOMAS F. MEEHAN Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius A Christian apologist of the fourth century. The name Firmianus has misled some authors into believing that he was an Italian from Ferno, whereas he was an African by birth and a pupil of Arnobius who taught at Sicca Veneria. An inscription found at Cirta in Numidia, which mentions a certain L. Caecilius Firminianus, has led to the conclusion in some quarters that his family belonged to that place (Harnack, "Chronologie d. altchr. Lit.", II,416. Lactantius was born a pagan and in his early life taught rhetoric in his native place. At the request of Emperor Diocletian he became an official professor of rhetoric in Nicomedia. One of his poems (Hodoeporicum) is an account of his journey from Africa to his new home. It is probable that his conversion to Christianity did not take place until after his removal to Nicomedia. It seems clear, however, that he could not retain his position as public teacher after the publication of Diocletian's first Edict against the Christians (24 February, 303). After his dismissal it was easy to find pupils in that Greek city who would patronize a teacher of Latin, and he was in consequence reduced to such poverty that he at times lacked the necessities of life (St. Jerome, "Chron.", ad. ann. abr. 2333). In those circumstances, he attempted to eke out a living by writing. The persecution impelled him to leave Nicomedia and from the outbreak of hostilities until perhaps 311 or 313 he had to find a home elsewhere. The friendship of the Emperor Constantine raised him from penury and though very old (extrema senectute) he was appointed tutor in Latin to the emperor's son Crispus. This new appointment compelled him top follow his charge to Trier where he spent the remainder of his life. It seems very probable that his transfer to Trier did not take place until 317, when Crispus was made Caesar and sent to the city.. Crispus was put to death in 326, but when Lactantius died and in what circumstances is not know. Like so many of the early Christian authors, Lacantius in all his works betrays his dependence on classical models and true to the requirements of his profession, he is polished rather than profound. He well merits the designation of the "Christian Cicero" bestowed on him by the humanists, for he exhibits many of the shortcomings as well as the graces of his master. Among the works of his pen extant, the earliest is the "De Opificio Dei", written in 303 or 304 during the Diocletian persecution, and dedicated to a former pupil, a rich Christian named Demetrianius. The apologetic principles underlying all the works of Lactantius are well set forth in this treatise, which may be considered as an introduction to his great work "The Divine Institutions" (Divinarum Institutionum Libri VII), written between 303 and 311. This the most important of all the writings of Lactantius is systematic as well as apologetic and was intended to point out the futility of pagan beliefs and to establish the reasonableness and truth of Christianity. It was the first attempt at a systematic exposition of Christian theology in Latin, and though aimed at certain pamphleteers who were aiding the persecutors by literary assaults on the Church, the work was planned on a scale sufficiently broad enough to silence all opponents. The strengths and the weakness of Lactantius are nowhere better shown than in his work. The beauty of the style, the choice and aptness of the terminology, cannot hide the author's lack of grasp on Christian principles and his almost utter ignorance of Scripture. The "dualistic and panegyrical" passages, which have been such a puzzle to students of Lactantius, are manifestly not from his pen, but from that of someone who lived close to his time, probably a rhetorician of Trier. The "Epitome Divinarium Institutionum", made by Lactantius himself at the request of a friend named Pentadius, is much more than a mere abbreviation, rather a more summary treatment of the subject dealt with in the older work. Another treatise, "De Ira Dei", directed against the Stoics and Epicureans, is supplementary to the "Divine Institutions" (II, xvii,5) and deals with anthropomorphism in its true sense. Knowing the bent of Lactantius's mind it is not surprising that the only historical work we have from his pen, "De Mortibus Persecutorum", should have an apologetic character. In this work, we have an account of the frightful deaths of the principal persecutors of the Christians, Nero, Dormitian, Decius, Valerian, Aurelian, and the contemporaries of Lactantius himself, Diocletian, Maximian, Galerius, and Maximus. This work, not withstanding the manifest bias of the author, is of prime importance as a source of the last and greatest of the persecutions, though, somewhat strangely, the style is not so perfect might be expected. The full text is found in only one manuscript, which bears the title, "Lucii Caecilii liber ad Donatum Confessorem de Mortibus Persecutorium". Many attempts have been made to show that the work was not written by Lactantius; however the coincidences of name, both of author and recipient the similarities in style and train of thought between this and other works of Lactantius, atr too striking to admit of such a possibility. The chronological difficulties which Brandt thought he discovered are shown by Harnack to have no weight (Chronologie, II, 423). Of the poems attributed to Lactantius only one, besides the "Hodoeporicum", is genuine, viz., the " De Ave Phoelous", an account, in eighty-five distichs, of the fabulous eastern bird which is reborn from its own ashes every thousand years, The poem "De Resurrectione" was written by Venantius Fortunatus, and the "Passione Domini"is a medieval humanist. St. Jerome (De Vir.Ill., c. lxxx) mentions two other works, "Symposium" and "Grammaticus", which have not been preserved. Monceaux, Histoire Littéraire de l'Afrique Chrétienne, II (Paris 1902); Brandt, Sitzungsberichte der philos. Hist. Klasse der Akad. Wiss., CXVIII, CXIX, CXX, CXXV, (Vienna, 1889-91). The best edition of the works of Lactantius is that of Brandt and Laubmann, 2 vols. in Corpus Script. Eccl. Lat., XIX, XXVII (Vienna, 1890-97) P.J. HEALY James Laderchi James Laderchi An Italian Oratorian and ecclesiastical historian, born about 1678, at Faenza near Ravenna; died 25 April, 1738, at Rome. He is chiefly known for hiscontinuation of the "Annals" of Baronius and Raynaldus, which he broughtdown from the year 1566 to 1571. His work, though of some usefulness, isnot sufficiently critical and is encumbered with numerous unimportant documents. It appeared in Rome (1728-1737), and extends from volume XXXV tovolume XXXVII in the latest edition of Baronius (Bar-le-Duc, 1864-83). Laderchi was also the author of several other historical works, two of which involved him in heated literary controversies. His voluminous "Life of St. Peter Damian" (Vita Sancti Petri Damiani, Rome, 1702) was mercilessly but excessively criticized in the anonymous work entitled: "Sejani et Rufini dialogus de Laderchiana historia S. Petri Damiani" (Paris, 1705). When he published his edition of the "Acts of the martyrdom of St. Crescusand companions" (Acta passionis SS. Cresci et sociorum martyrum, Florence, 1707), the Servite G. Caspassi attacked their authenticity and trustworthiness in a letter to the Roman scholar Fontanini. The letter fell intothe hands of Laderchi, who published it with a refutation. This eliciteda vehement answer from Capassi under the title "Nugæ Laderchianæ" (Genoa, 1709). The ecclesiastical authorities seem to have put an end to the controversy; both works were placed on the Index (22 June, 1712). These controversies probably occasioned the composition of "La Critica d'oggidi" by Laderchi (Rome, 1726). He was also the author of the following works: "De Basilicis 88. Martyrum Petri et Marcellini dissertatio historica" (Rome, 1705); "Acta S. Cæciliæ et transtiberina basilica illustrata" (Rome, 1722); "Acta SS. Christi martyrum vindicata" (Rome, 1723); "Sanctorum patriarcharum et prophetarum, confessorum . . . cultus perpetus in Ecclesia catholica assertus et illustratus" (Rome, 1730). N.A. WEBER St. Ladislaus St. Ladislaus King of Hungary, born 1040; died at Neutra, 29 July, 1095; one of Hungary's national Christian heroes. He was the son of Béla I; the nobles, after the death of Geisa I, passed over Solomon, son of Andrew I, and chose Ladislaus to be their king in 1077. It is true that he made peace with Solomon, when the latter gave up all claims to the throne of Hungary; however, later on he rebelled against Ladislaus, who took him prisoner and held in the fortress of Visegrád. On the occasion of the canonization of Stephen I, Ladislaus gave Solomon his freedom, but in 1086 Solomon, with the aid of the heathen Cumans, revolted against Ladislaus a second time; the latter, however, vanquished them, and in 1089 gained another victory over theTurkish Cumans. In 1091 Ladislaus marched into Croatia, at the request of his sister, the widowed Queen Helena, and took possession of the kingdom for the crown of Hungary, where, in 1092, he founded the Bishopric of Agram (Zágráb). In the same year (1092), he also founded the Bishopric of Grosswardein (Nagy-Várad), in Hungary, which, however, some trace back to Stephen I. Ladislaus governed the religious and civil affairs of his assembly of the Imperial States at Szabolcs, that might almost be called a synod. He tried vigorously to suppress the remaining heathen customs. He was buried in the cathedral of Grosswardein. He still lives in the sagas and poems of his people as a chivalrous king. In 1192 he was canonized by Celestine III. MICHAEL BIHL Renee-Theophile-Hyacinthe Laennec René-Théophile-Hyacinthe Laennec Born at Quimper, in Brittany, France, 17 February, 1781; died at Kerlouanec, 13 August, 1826, a French physician, discoverer of auscultation, and father of our modern knowledge of pulmonary diseases. He was the son of a lawyer of literary instincts who wrote poems which are said to recall those of his better known compatriot De Forges Maillard. His mother died when he was six, and the boy went to live with his grand-uncle the Abbé Laennec. At the age of twelve he proceeded to Nantes where his uncle, Dr. Laennec, was professing in the faculty of medicine at the university. He was wonderfully successful in his studies and obtained a number of prizes, learned English and German very thoroughly, and began his medical studies under his uncle's direction. At nineteen (1800) he went to Paris and almost within a year obtained there the first prizes in both medicine and surgery at the medical school of the university. He became a pupil of Corvisart, Napoleon's great physician, who had re-introduced into medicine Auenbrugger's neglected method of diagnosis by percussion of the chest. Laennec followed up the idea, so readily suggested by this, of listening to the sounds produced within the chest and, after twelve years of careful study and observation, laid the foundation of the modern knowledge of diseases of the chest. He also invented the stethoscope, the original employment of the instrument being suggested by his desire to save a young woman's modesty from the shock of having him listen directly to her chest. Roger sums up what Laennec had thus accomplished when he says that Laennec's ear opened to man a new world in medical science (Roger, "Les Médecins Bretons"). Laennec published his book on the subject in 1819, with the modest motto in Greek "the most important part of an art is to be able to observe properly." Prof. Benjamin Ward Richardson declared (Disciples of Æsculapius) that "the true student of medicine reads Laennec's treatise on mediate auscultation and the use of the stethoscope once in two years at least as long as he is in practice. It ranks with the original work of Vesalius, Harvey, and Hippocrates." Practically nothing of importance has been added to our knowledge of auscultation since Laennec wrote this book. Besides this he made very careful studies in pathology, especially on diseases of the liver. He was the first to study hyatids exhaustively, and it is to him we owe the name cirrhosis of the liver. Alcoholic cirrhosis is often spoken of as Laennec's cirrhosis. He threw much light on sclerotic conditions generally. Unfortunately while studying tuberculosis over assiduously at a time when its contagion was scarcely suspected, he contracted the disease and died at the early age of forty-five. Laennec was noted for his kindness and was beloved by his colleagues and his students. He showed himself especially obliging towards his English-speaking pupils. As might be expected from his Breton birth and training, he was intensely religious and was a devout Catholic all his life. A characteristic story illustrates this: On his way to Paris with his wife he was thrown from his carriage. When the vehicle was righted and they had once more been seated he said to her: "Well, we were at the third decade"; then they went on with the rosary they had been reciting just before the accident. His charity to the poor became proverbial and his principal solicitude towards the end of his life was to keep as far as possible from giving trouble to others. Dr. Austin Flint in his lecture on Laennec said: "Laennec's life affords a striking instance among others disproving the vulgar error that the pursuit of science is unfavourable to religious faith." He was one of the greatest clinical students of medicine of the nineteenth century. His principal work is "De l'auscultation médiate", Paris, 1819. SAINTIGNON, Laennec, Sa vie et son oeuvre (Paris, 1904); RICHARDSON, Disciples of Æsculapius (London, 1898); ROGER, Les Médicins Bretons (Paris, 1900); WALSH, Makers of Modern Medicine (New York, 1907). JAMES J. WALSH Laetare Sunday Laetare Sunday The fourth, or middle, Sunday of Lent, so called from the first words of the Introit at Mass, "Laetare Jerusalem" -- "Rejoice, O Jerusalem". During the first six or seven centuries the season of Lent commenced on the Sunday following Quinquagesima, and thus comprised only thirty-six fasting days. To these were afterwards added the four days preceding the first Sunday, in order to make up the forty days' fast, and one of the earliest liturgical notices of these extra days occurs in the special Gospels assigned to them in a Toulon manuscript of 714. Strictly speaking, the Thursday before Laetare Sunday is the middle day of Lent, and it was at one time observed as such, but afterwards the special signs of joy permitted on this day, intended to encourage the faithful in their course through the season of penance, were transferred to the Sunday following. They consist of (like those of Gaudete Sunday in Advent) in the use of flowers on the altar, and of the organ at Mass and Vespers; rose-coloured vestments also allowed instead of purple, and the deacon and subdeacon wear dalmatics, instead of folded chasubles as on the other Sundays of Lent. The contrast between Laetare and the other Sundays is thus emphasized, and is emblematical of the joys of this life, restrained rejoicing mingled with a certain amount of sadness. The station at Rome was on this day made at the church of S. Croce in Gerusalemme, one of the seven chief basilicas; the Golden Rose, sent by the popes to Catholic sovereigns, used to be blessed at this time, and for this reason the day was sometimes called "Dominica de Rosa". Other names applied to it were Refreshment Sunday, or the Sunday of the Five Loaves, from a miracle recorded in the Gospel; Mid-Lent, mi-carême, or mediana; and Mothering Sunday, in allusion to the Epistle, which indicates our right to be called the sons of God as the source of all our joy, and also because formerly the faithful used to make their offerings in the cathedral or mother-church on this day. This latter name is still kept up in some remote parts of England, though the reason for it has ceased to exist. G. CYPRIAN ALSTON Pomponius Laetus Pomponius Laetus Humanist, b. in Calabria in 1425; d. at Rome in 1497. He was a bastard of the House of the Sanseverino of Naples, Princes of Salerno, but owing to his great admiration for antiquity and the Roman Republic he would not recognize them as connections. When very young he went to Rome and became a pupil of Valla. His brilliant capacities won him admiration and success. He wished to live the life of the ancients. His vineyard on the Quirinal was cultivated in accordance with the precepts of Varro and of Columella, and he was himself regarded as a second Cato. On holidays he went fishing or caught birds in his lime-twigs; sometimes he would simply spend the day in the open air, refreshing himself at a spring or by the banks of the Tiber. One of the most important and first known complete MSS. of Plautus, that of Cardinal Orsini (now Vaticanus 3870), had been brought to Rome in the year 1428 or 1429. It was suggested that the plays it contained should be performed in the palaces of the prelates. Laetus became stage director of the performances. Finally, he and a few kindred souls, Platina, the future librarian of the Vatican, Sabellicus, afterwards prefect of the Library of San Marco of Venice, founded a semi-pagan academy. Its members assumed Latin names and celebrated every year the festival of the Palilia -- anniversary of the foundation of Rome. They also met to commemorate a deceased member. A prelate celebrated Mass. Laetus delivered the eulogy. Latin recitations followed and a banquet closed every meeting. At other times, the members gave Latin farces much like the Atellanae. But Paul II, a pope who did not favour the Humanists, occupied the Chair of Peter. Laetus was looked upon as a scorner of Christianity and conspirator. Venice delivered him into the hands of the pope. Confined in the Castle of Sant' Angelo in 1468, he with Platina and others was tortured. However, he defended himself and reminded them that he had maintained the immortality of the soul, a belief often discussed by the Humanists. On the accession of Sixtus IV (1471) Laetus was released and the academy allowed to continue its meetings. He lectured in the Roman University. He was often seen at daybreak, descending, with lantern in hand, from his home on the Esquiline, on his way to his lectures where many eager hearers awaited him. He was a very conscientious professor, especially learned in Roman antiquities but exclusively a Latinist. He had declined to study Greek for fear of spoiling his Latin style. He went so far as to read the most classical authors only and disdained the Bible and the Fathers. Until the last year of his life he had desired to be buried in an ancient sarcophagus on the Appian Way, but he died a Christian death. Alexander VI wished his obsequies at the church of Aracoeli to be magnificent. More than forty bishops attended. He was buried at San Salvatore in Lauro. In the last period of his life, Pomponius Laetus wrote short antiquarian treatises ("De magistratibus, sacerdotiis et legibus Romanorum"; "De romanae urbis antiquitate"; "Compendium historiae romanae ab interitu Gordiani usque ad Justinum III"). He produced an edition and commentary on the whole of Virgil, under the name of Julius Sabinus or Pomponius Sabinus (Rome, 1487-1490). He owned one of the most precious manuscripts of the poet, the "Mediceus." Besides this, he edited the first edition of Quintus Curtius (about 1470), of Varro's "De lingua latina" (Rome, 1471), of Nonius Marcellus (Rome, about 1470). A little later he published the letters of the younger Pliny (Rome, 1490). We also owe to him the preservation of a part of the work of Festus. His MSS., which were first in the library of Fulvio Orsino, and later at the Vatican, show the extent of his learning, his conscientious collation of authors, his art in reviving classical antiquity in the very land of the pagan past. He had collected in his home on the Esquiline sculptures, and inscriptions. He stands as one of the best representatives of Italian Humanism, uniting great nobility of character and a sincere and artless enthusiasm to a purity of morals rare in such surroundings. DE ROSSI, Roma Sotterranea, I (Rome, 1864), I, 7 (bibliography); DE NOLHAC, La bibliotheque de Fulvio Orsini (Paris, 1887), 198, 213, 373, 450; SABELLICUS, Opera. Epist., XI (Venice, 1560), 56, and Vita Pomponii Loeti (Strasburg, 1510), contemporary biography; BURCKHARDT, Die Cultur der Renaissance in Italien, tr., 279; JORDAN, Topographie der Stadt Rom im Altertum, I (Berlin, 1878), 79: CHATELAIN, Paleographie des classiques latins, XI (Paris, 1896), pl. xi (autographe, m. d'Agricola); KEIL, Pliny's Letters, XIX (Leipzig, 1870); MUELLER, Nonius, II (Leipzig, 1888), 277; SPENGEL, Varro, De lingua lat. (Berlin, 1885), p. xiv; SANDYS, A History of Classical Scholarship, II, 92. PAUL LEJAY Comtesse de La Fayette Marie Madeleine Pioche de la Vergne, Comtesse de la Fayette Author of memoirs and novels, born in Paris, 1634; died there, 1693 (al., 1696). She received a very good education and acquired, among other accomplishments, a remarkable knowledge of Latin and Italian; one of her instructors was the grammarian Menage. Her wit and literary talents soon gave her aleading position in the social life of Paris. She was, with her friend, the Marquise de Sévigné, the best representative of that set of distinguished ladies known as "Les Précieuses", whose influence was so great on the manners and language of the young Court of Louis XIV. She numbered among her friends most of the great men of the time: Condé, Huet, La Rochefoucauld, Bossuet, La Fontaine; she was also for many year the confidante of Princess Henrietta of England, the sister-in-law of Louis XIV. Her first venture in literature was a novel published without the author's name,"La Princesse de Montpensier" (1622). "Zayde", which was published in 1670 under the voluminous novel of Mlle de Scudéry. "La Princesse de Clèves", her masterpiece, appeared in 1678. It is a picture of French social life at the time of the Fronde, although the scenes are laid in the sixteenth century. The moral beauty of the characters reminds the reader of the tragedies of Corneille. It may be considered as the first French "psychological" novel. The style is clear, simple, lively; it shows no other trace of the affectation of the "Précieuses" than a constant care to avoid any word or expression that might seem vulgar. Besides these works should be mentioned: "Memoires de la Cour de France pour les années, 1688, 1689" (Amsterdam, 1731). PIERRE MARIQUE Joseph-Francois Lafitau Joseph-François Lafitau Jesuit missionary and writer, born at Bordeaux, France, 1 January, 1681; died there, 1746. He entered the Society in 1696, and the general, Tamburini, yielding to his entreaties, sent him to Canada in 1711. Appointed to the mission of Sault Saint-Louis (Caughnawaga), he made a thorough study of Iroquois character and usages, as a preparation to his great work "Moeures des Sauvages américains comparées aux moeurs des premiers temps:, publishedin 1724. It was then that he discovered ginseng, a root highly prized as a panacea in China and Tartary, one ounce selling for as high as three ounces of silver. This discovery created an excitement comparable to that caused later by the finding of gold in California and Australia; but the exportation of the root, after promising immense profits to Canadian trade, rapidly decreased, owing to over-production and inferiority of qualitydue to hasty and artificial desiccation. Lafitau's treatise on ginseng (1718) drew public attention to this apparent source of prosperity. In 1717, Lafitau returned to France in the interests of the mission, chiefly toobtain authorization from Court to transfer the Iroquois settlement to its present site, which was preferable to the former on account of its greater fertility. He likewise pleaded for the repression of the liquor traffic. In spite of his wish to return to Canada, where his knowledge of Italian languages and customs rendered him so valuable that Father Julien Garnier wished him to have him recalled, he was retained in France, and there his later years were spent in writing several works, among which, besides those already mentioned, figures his "Histoire des découvertes et des conquêtes des Portugais dans le Nouveau-Monde" (1733). After Charlevoix, Lafitau was the most remarkable historian and naturalist ever sent to Canada by the Society of Jesus. LIONEL LINDSAY Louis-Francois Richer Lafleche Louis-François Richer Laflèche French-Canadian bishop, b. 4 Sept., 1818, at Ste-Anne de la Perade, Province of Quebec; d. 14 July, 1898. He studied the classics and theology at Nicolet College. Having offered his services to the pioneer Bishop Provencher of Red River, he was ordained in 1844, and traveled 750 leagues by canoe to reach St. Boniface. In 1846 he left with Father Taché for the mission of La Crosse island, 300 leagues distant. Besides the Sauteux language, he mastered those of the Crees and Montagnais prevalent in the North-West, and was the first to reduce the latter to grammatical form. In 1849 Pius IX preconized him Bishop of Arath in partibus infidelium. Five years of illness and suffering having left an infirmity in one of his limbs which he bore to the end of his life, he begged to be released from the burden of the episcopate and have Father Taché's name substituted in the Bulls of nomination. In 1851 he directed the almost incredible defense of 60 half-breeds against 2000 Sioux near Turtle Mountain, North Dakota. After a siege of two days (13 and 14 July), the assailants spied the missionary in surplice and stole, and withdrew, convinced that the Great Spirit protected the half-breeds. In 1856 he returned to Canada, where he taught mathematics, astronomy, and philosophy at Nicolet College, of which he was appointed president in 1859. In 1866 Bishop Cook of Three Rivers chose him for coadjutor, and in 1870, while at the Vatican Council, Bishop Lafleche succeeded to the vacant see. He was no less an able administrator than an eloquent orator. Besides his weekly sermons in his cathedral, where he often treated the great social and politico-religious questions of the day, his voice was heard on many important occasions. A dauntless exponent of Catholic truth and an ardent Ultramontane, his utterances were not always acceptable to the group of politicians who inclined towards Liberalism. When, in 1885, contrary to his wish, his diocese was divided, he bowed submissively to the decree of the Holy See, and soon beheld the loss partly repaired by the creation and development of several prosperous industrial centres. Besides five volumes of pastoral letters, Bishop Laflèche published the following works: "Quelques considérations sur les rapports de la société civile avec la religion et la famille" (1866); "Conférences sur l'encyclique 'Humanum Genus'". BENOIT, Vie de Mgr. Tachi (Montreal, 1904); MORICE, Dictionnaire historigue des Canadiens de l'Ouest (Quebec, 1908); DESAULNIERS, Genealogie des familles Richer de la Fleche et Hamelin (Montreal, 1909). LIONEL LINDSAY Jean de La Fontaine Jean de La Fontaine French poet, b. at Chateau-Thierry, 8 July, 1621; d. at Paris, 13 April, 1695. He was the eldest son of Charles de la Fontaine, a deputy-ranger, and Françoise Pidoux. After he had finished his studies at the college of his native town, he entered the Oratory (2 April, 1641) and was sent to the Seminary of Saint-Magloire. At the end of a novitiate of eighteen months, he realized that he was not fitted for the religious life and returned to the world. He studied law and was admitted to the bar a fact now proved by the title given him in several official deeds. In 1647 he married Marie Héricart, who gave him a son in 1653. Their married life proved unhappy, and they agreed to live apart (1658). From his childhood he had shown a strong fondness for poetry. When a boy he used to write verses for his own pleasure. The first work he published was an imitation of Terence's "Eunuchus" (1654). Two years later he was introduced to Fouquet, who granted him a pension with the understanding that the poet should send every month, as a receipt to the financier, some little piece of poetry--ode, madrigal, or rondeau. For six years he divided his time between Paris and Chateau-Thierry, giving six months to his official functions and six months to the pleasures of a courtier's life. In 1664 he was sworn in as gentleman-in-waiting to the Dowager Duchess of Orléans, and was installed in the Luxembourg. It was at this time that he made the acquaintance of Molière, Racine, Boileau, and Chapelle. Three series of "Contes", the first six books of his "Fables", and "Psyché", a novel, were published from 1665 to 1671. The poet was in full possession of his genius and had acquired a great reputation. In 1672, having squandered his fortune, he sold his rangership and settled in Paris. For the remainder of his life he had to depend on the generosity of his patrons. He first lived at Madame de la Sablière's, in the Rue Saint-Honore (1672-93), where he met a most brilliant society and became the intimate friend of men like Turenne, the Prince of Conti, Condé, La Rochefoucauld, and distinguished women like Mme de Sévigné, Mme de La Fayette, Mme de Thianges. In 1674 he published a new series of "Contes", which were seized by the lieutenant of police, and, in 1678, five books of "Fables", that Mme de Sévigné pronounced "divine". He was elected to the French Academy in 1683, but his election was suspended by Louis XIV, on account of the scandal of the "Contes", and finally approved only in the following year, after the poet had publicly atoned for his licentious works in a "Ballade" published in the "Mercure" (January, 1684), and had promised "to be good". When Mme de la Sablière died, in January, 1693, he was sheltered by M. d'Hervart, maître des requêtes in the Parlement of Paris. A few months before, having been taken dangerously ill, he had begun to come back to the faith of his youth. In spite of his bad conduct, he had been indifferent rather than incredulous. The last two years of his life were most edifying. When he died those who put him into his shroud found that he was wearing a hair-cloth. He was buried in the cemetery of the Holy Innocents, in Paris. On account of his vivid and picturesque descriptions of the manners of animals, his wit, and his admirable naïveté, as well as the concise and firm composition of his little poems, he will forever be regarded as the greatest of French fabulists. FAGUET, La Fontaine (Paris, 1886); LAFENESTRE, La Fontaine (Paris, 1895); SAINTE-BEUVE, Portraits litteraires (Paris, 1829); TAINE, La Fontaine et ses fables (Paris, 1853). LOUIS N. DELAMARRE Nicholas-Joseph Laforet Nicholas-Joseph Laforêt Belgian philosopher and theologian, born at Graide, 23 January, 1823; died at Louvain, 26 January, 1872. After the regular theological course at the seminary of Namur, he entered the University of Louvain, where he applied himself especially to the study of Oriental languages, Holy Scripture, and philosophy. In 1848, he was appointed to the chair of moral philosophy at the university, and, the same year, received the doctorate in theology. Two years later he became president of the Collège du Pape. Upon the death of Mgr de Ram, the bishops of Belgium chose Laforêt to succeed him in the rectorship of the university. One of his main undertakings was the foundation and organization of the schools of civil engineering, industry, and mines. He also established a new literary and pedagogical school, the Justus Lipsius Institute. Moreover his example and advice were a constant encouragement for both professors and students. Laforêt was a prothonotary Apostolic ad instar participantium, an honorary canon of the cathedral of Namur, an officer of the Order of Leopold, a commander of the Order of Christ, a member of the Royal Academy of Belgium, and of the Roman Academy of the Catholic Religion. Besides a great number of articles, especially in the "Revue catholique", Laforêt's main works are: "Dissertatio historico-dogmatica de methodo theologiae, sive de auctoritate Ecclesiae catholicae tanquam regula fidei christianae "(Louvain, 1849); "Etudes sur la civilisation européenne considerée dans ses rapports avec le christianisme" (Brussels, 1850); "La vie et les travaux d'Arnold Tits" (Brussels, 1853); "Principes philosophiques de la morale" (Louvain, 1852; 2nd ed., under the title "Philosophie morale", Louvain, 1855); "Les dogmes catholiques exposés, prouvés et vengés des attaques de l'hérésie et de l'incrédulité" (Brussels, 1855-59); "Pourquoi l'on ne croit pas" (Louvain, 1864; Eng. tr. "Why men do not believe", London, s. d., and new ed., New York, 1909; Germ. tr. by Vosen, "Der moderne Unglaube und seine Hauptursachen", Mainz, 1873); "Histoire de la philosophie" (Brussels, 1866-67), which includes only the history of ancient philosophy, the author dying before he completed the work "Les martyrs de Gorcum" (Louvain, 1867; Germ. tr. Münster, 1867); "Le syllabus et les plaies de la société moderne", a posthumous work, including the author's testament (Louvain, 1872). Annuaire de l'universite de Louvain, XXXVII (1873), 261, 296: DE MONGE, Monseigneur Laforêt in Revue catholique, XXXIII (1872), 241; ANON., Bibliographie de l'universite de Louvain (Louvain, 1900), 25; ANON., L'universite de Louvain (BRUSSELS, 1900), 76. C.A. DUBRAY Charles de La Fosse Charles de la Fosse Painter, b. in Paris, 15 June, 1636; d. in Paris, 13 December, 1716, and buried in the church of Saint Eustache. His father was a jeweler, his mother Marguerite Langlois, and he was the seventh of sixteen children. He was educated under under Francois Chauveau, and then in the studio of Lebrun. In 1663 he was in Venice, and attracted the attention of Pierre de Bonzy. He was employed (1969) in decorating the Tuileries, and the churches of Saint Eustache and the Assumption. On 23 June, 1673, he became a member of the academy, and five months afterwards married Elizabeth Beguin, at the church of Saint Sulpice, but had no family. Lord Montagu, when ambassador to Paris in 1688, came into contact with La Fosse, and so much admired his work that he called him to England, and employed him to decorate Montagu House, on the site now occupied by the British Museum. William III begged La Fosse to remain in England and decorate Hampton Court, but Mansart the architect recalled him to Paris, that he might carry out the decoration in the dome of the Invalides. He decorated the dome in fresco with an immense scene representing S. Louis placing his crown and sword in the hands of Christ. The ceiling of the Galerie d'Apollon in the Louvre is also by La Fosse, and he executed a good deal of work at Versailles, including the Salle de Diane and the roof of the chapel, and there are five of his panel pictures in the Louvre. He painted several works for the Trianon which were commissioned in May, 1688. He was one of the finest colourists France ever produced, and had a fine sense of decoration and extraordinary power in composition, but his drawing was inaccurate, and to compare his work with that of Titian and Veronese is to do it far too great honor. La Fosse was intimate with Crozat, and executed some decoration for him at his country house. He exhibited at the Salon in 1699, and in 1704, and his works have been engraved by various artists, especially Audrin, Picart, Thomassin, and Simonneau. JALS, Dictionnaire Critique (Paris, 1872), to which book critics are indebted for almost all the definite information respecting the painter; VILLOT, Notice des Tableaux du Louvre (Paris, 1878); KINGSLEY, History of French Art (London, 1899); also various numbers of the Gentleman's Magazine, with descriptions of the paintings at Montagu House. GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON Modesto Lafuente y Zamalloa Modesto Lafuente y Zamalloa Spanish critic and historian, b. at Ravanal de los Caballeros, 1 May, 1806; d. at Madrid, 25 Oetober, 1866. He received his early education in his native town, but later took courses at the Universities of Santiago, Astorga, and Valladolid, receiving at the last institution the degree of Bachelor of Theology in 1832. He was appointed to the chair of philosophy and later to that of theology at the University of Astoria, but he remained only a short time, for he decided to devote himself to journalism. He moved to Madrid where he published with success a critical and satirical newspaper under the title of "Fray Gerundio", a name which, according to Ferrer del Rio, he borrowed from the work of Father Isla. Under the pseudonyms of Fray Gerundio and Tirabeque, he wrote many capilladas or essays on a great variety of subjects, including the political questions of the day. His articles became so popular that it was not long before his paper was read in every corner of Spain. Lafuente's chief work, however, and the one by which he is best known, is his "Historia general de España", which he published in Madrid (1850-1869, 30 vols.). A second edition (13 vols.) was published in 1874-1875. Among his other works may be mentioned his "Teatro social del siglo XIX" (1846), dealing with the manners and customs of the day; "Viaje aerostático del Fray Gerundio y Tirabeque". The latter is divided into two parts, the first being a review of aerial navigation, and the second, a satire on the political situation in Europe. The important events of 1848 caused him to write his "Revista Europea" which he published as a periodical for about one year. His works are all written in an easy, flowing, popular style. FERRER DEL RIO in LAFUENTE Y ZAMALLOA, Historia general de Espana (Madrid, 1874-75). VENTURA FUENTES Lagania Lagania A titular see in Galatia Prima. The town is mentioned by Ptolemy, V, i, 14, and in several ancient geographical documents, often with an altered name and with no historical information. It received the name of Anastasiopolis in the reign of Emperor Anastasius I (491-518), and is very probably to be identified with the actual Bey-Bazar, chief town of a caza of the vilayet of Angora, with 2500 Mussulman inhabitants. Lagania, or Anastasiopolis, had an episcopal see, suffragan of Ancyra, and mentioned by the "Notitiae Episcopatuum" up to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Lequien (Oriens Christ., I, 485-88) wrongly took these names as indicating two distinct sees, and his list of bishops is very incorrect. It must be revised as follows: Euphrasius, who attended the Council of Nicaea, 325; Theodosius, end of the sixth century; Timothy, his successor; St. Theodore the Syceote, d. 22 April, 613; Genesius, present at the Councils of Constantinople, 680 and 692; Theophilus, at Nicaea, 787; Marianus, at Constantinople, 879. RAMSAY, Historical Geography of Asia Minor (London, 1890), 240; PERROT, Exploration archeologique de la Galatie (Paris, 1872), 217 19; BAUDRILLART, Dictionnaire d'histoire et de geographie eccles., s. v. Anastasiopolis. S. PÉTRIDÈS Pierre Lagrene Pierre Lagrené A missionary in New France, b. at Paris, 12 Nov. (al. 28 Oct.), 1659; d. at Quebec in 1736. He entered the Society at Paris, 10 Oct. (al. 2 Oct.), 1677, studied philosophy at La Fleche (1679-81), and after teaching some time, was ordained priest, and in 1694 was sent to the Canada mission. After a short stay at Lorette, spent in the study of the Huron language, he wee stationed (1697-1701) at Sault St. Louis with the Iroquois, then returned to Lorette for a year. In 1704 he was back at Sault St. Louis, where he remained until transferred to Montreal in 1707, of which residence he was named superior in 1716. This position he still occupied in 1720. During the last eleven years of his stay in Montreal, besides his spiritual ministrations to the transient bands of Indians and the ordinary ministry of the Church, he was director of the Montreal Congrégation des Hommes, then in its infancy. This sodality, affiliated to the Roman, 3 May, 1693, by the General of the Society of Jesus, under the title of the Assumption of Our Lady, passed into the hands of the priests of St-Sulpice, when the last Jesuit at Montreal, Father Bernard Well, died in 1791. To Father Lagrené it owes in great part its admirable organization, which has enabled it to resist to the present the test of time. On 10 August, 1710, Lagrené had the satisfaction of seeing the completion of the sodality chapel, commenced 24 May, 1709, and in taking part in the ceremony of its blessing with the then local superior, Father François-Vaillant de Gueslis. It was Joseph-Séré de La Colombière, brother of the distinguished Jesuit, Claude, who, as vicar-general of the Bishop of Quebec, presided and blessed the chapel. In 1723 Father Lagrené was transferred to Quebec College, there to be prefect of schools. He filled this position until 1735, but other responsibilities were added. Minister in 1724-25, he became director of the sodality in 1730. In 1735 his increasing infirmities incapacitated him for further work. He died at the College of Quebec the following year. Docs. in St. Mary's College Archives, Montreal; Extracts from the MSS. Catalogues of the Society; DE ROCHEMONTEIX, Les Jesuites et La Nouvelle France, III (Paris, 1895), 384. ARTHUR EDWARD JONES Jean-Francois La Harpe Jean-François La Harpe A French critic and poet, b. at Paris, 20 November, 1739; d. February, 1803. He was ten years old when his father, a Swiss nobleman in the service of France, died. He was cared for by Sisters of Charity and then sent as a free scholar to the Collège d'Harcourt. He began his literary career by some satirical couplets, on account of which he was imprisoned at Fort-l'Evêque. At the age of twenty he published "Héroïdes", preceded by "Essai sur l'héroïde", and followed by a second volume, "Héroïdes et Poésies fugitives" (Paris, 1762). In the following year, his tragedy "Warwick" met with a tremendous success. He then became intimately acquainted with Voltaire, whose "son" he professed to be, and whom he imitated so closely that he was nicknamed "the monkey of Voltaire". A few other tragedies--"Timoléon" (1764), "Pharamond" (1765), and "Gustave Wasa" (1766)--were a complete failure. In 1768 he entered the "Mercure" then a famous magazine, and contributed some remarkable articles. His drama, "Mélanie ou la religeuse" (1770), a violent attack upon the religious vows, the representation of which was forbidden by the censors, was enthusiastically received by the public and widely read, although it is the most tedious book that has ever been written. Three years in succession he won the prize in the competition instituted by the Freneh Academy, with his "Eloge de Henri IV" (1770), "Eloge de Fénelon" (1771), and "Eloge de Racine" (1772) respectively. In 1776 he was elected to the Academy. He then once more attempted to work for the stage and force the admiration of the public, but failed anew. His tragedies, "Menzicoff" (1776), "Les Barmécides" (1778), "Jeanne de Naples" (1781), "Les Brames" (1783), "Coriolan" (1784), and "Virginie" (1786), were received worse than coolly. "Philoctète" alone (1783) won some applause. In 1787 he was made professor of literature in the Lycée, a school recently established in Paris by Pilâtre du Rozier. The lectures he gave in that institution were published in eighteen volumes (Paris, 1799-1805) under the title of "Lycée, ou Cours de littérature". This work, although containing excellent chapters, is now antiquated. When the French Revolution broke out, he welcomed it with enthusiasm until he was sent to prison (1794). Once set free, he renounced his former ideas and became a zealous Catholic. His last works bear the stamp of his new-found faith. Among them may be mentioned: "De la guerre déclarée par nos derniers tyrans a la Raison, à la Morale, aux Lettres et aux Arts" (Paris, 1796); an epic in six books, "Le Triomphe de la Religion, ou le Roi Martyr", published after his death; "La prophétie de Cazotte", which was regarded by Sainte-Beuve as a masterpiece. PEIGNOT, Recherches historiques, bibliographiques et litteraires sur la vie et les ouvrages de La Harpe (Paris, 1820); SAINTE-BEUVE, Causeries du Lundi, V; PETIT DE JULLEVILLE, Histoire de la langue et de la litterature francaises, VI (Paris, 1894). LOUIS N. DELAMARRE Jean de La Haye Jean de La Haye Franciscan Biblical scholar, b. at Paris, 20 March, 1593; d. there 15 Oct., 1661. He passed his boyhood in Spain and received the Franciscan habit in the province of St. Gabriel, of the Alcantarine Reform. He taught philosophy and theology, and distinguished himself as pulpit orator. Being called to France in 1620, he was assigned important offices both in the order and at the Court of Louis XIII. De la Haye is the author or editor of some forty folio volumes, besides several unpublished manuscripts. He edited the works of St. Bernardine of Siena, and the writings of St. Francis and St. Anthony of Padua, but his project of bringing out all important works by Franciscan authors in a "Bibliotheca Ordinis Minorum" was not realized. Designed principally for the use of preachers are his commentaries "In Genesim, sive Arbor vitae concionatorum", 4 vols.; "In Exodum, vel Concionatorum virga, percutiens peccatores", 3 vols.; "In Apocalypsim", 3 vols. We have from de La Haye's pen two works of monumental importanee, namely, the "Biblia Magna", 5 vols. (Paris, 1643) and the "Biblia Maxima", 19 vols. (Paris 1660). The text of the Vulgate forms the basis of the two. In the former the author quotes verbatim, after every chapter, the commentaries of Gagnaeus, Estius, Sa, Menochius, and Tirinus, S.J.; whereas in the latter he appends to each extract (1) the various readings of the versions, (2) a paragraph in which the harmony of these readings and the literal meaning of the text are briefly discussed, and (3) annotations drawn from the commentators above cited, but headed, in this case, by Nicolaus Lyranus, O.F.M. The methods followed by the author have been pronounced excellent, and the wonderful assiduity and toil to which the twenty-four volumes bear witness have been the object of undivided praise; yet it has been rightly observed that the prolegomena and his own interpretations of the text are lacking in judgment and solidity. Withal, the "Biblia Maxima", and even more so the "Biblia Magna", will continue to be of invaluable service to the student of exegesis. WADDING, Scriptores (Rome, l908), s. v.; SBARALEA, Supplementum (Rome,1806), s. v.; JUNGMANN in Kirchenlex., s.v. Lahaye; JEILER, ibid., s.v. Haye; APOLINAIRE in VIG., Dict. de la Bible, s.v.; HURTER, Nomenclator. THOMAS PLASSMANN Philippe de La Hire Philippe de la Hire Mathematician, astronomer, physicist, naturalist, and painter, b. in Paris, 18 March, 1640; d. in Paris, 21 April, 1718; was, as Fontenelle said, an academy in himself. His father, Laurent de La Hire, (1606-1656), was a distinguished artist. Philippe first studied painting in Rome, where he had gone for his health in 1660, but on his return to Paris, soon devoted himself to the classics and to science. He showed particular aptitude for mathematics, in which subject he was successively the pupil and associate in original investigation of Desargues. In 1678, he was made a member of the Academy of Sciences, section of astronomy. Beginning in 1679, in connexion with the construction of a map for the Government, he made extended observations in Brittany, Guienne, Calais, Dunkirk, and Provence. In 1683, he continued the principal meridian north from Paris, Cassini at the same time continuing it south, and, in 1684, he investigated the flow and fall of the River Eure in connexion with the water-supply of Versailles. His attainments won for him professorships both at the Collège de France, in 1682, and at the Academy of Architecture. Two of his sons rose to distinction, Gabriel-Philippe (1677-1719), in mathematics, and Jean-Nicolas (1685-1727) in botany. Industry, unselfishness, and piety were noteworthy traits of his character. The chief contributions of La Hire were in the department of pure geometry. Although familiar with the analytic method of Descartes, which he followed in treatises published in 1679, his most important works were developed in the method of the ancients. He continued the work of Desargues and of Pascal and introduced into geometry, chiefly by a new method of generating conics in a plane, several conceptions related to those of recent times. In his exhaustive work on conics, published in 1685, he not only simplified and improved the demonstrations of many well-known theorems, but he also established several new ones, particularly some concerning the theory of poles and polars, a subject not fully developed until the nineteenth century. In this work appears for the first time the term "harmonic". Of the writings of La Hire which were, for the most part, published in the "Mémoirs" of the Academy of Sciences, and which treat of mathematics, astronomy, meteorology, and physics, the following are the most important: "Nouvelle Méthode en Géométrie pour les sections des superficies coniques et cylindriques" (1673); "Nouveaux Eléments des Sections Coniques: Les Lieux Géométriques: Les Constructions ou Effections des Equations" (in one vol., Paris, 1679); "Traité de Gnomonique" (1682); "Sectiones conicæ in novem libros distributæ" (Paris, 1685); "Tables du soleil et de la lune" (1687); "Ecole des arpenteurs" (1689); "Mémoire sur les conchoïdes" (1708); "Traité de mécanique" (Paris, 1729). CHASLES, Aperçu historique sur l'origine et le développement des Méthodes en Géométrie (3rd ed., Paris, 1889); LEHMANN, De La Hire und seines Sectiones Conicæ, in supplement to Jahresbericht des königlichen Gymnasium zu Leipzig (Leipzig, 1888, 1890). PAUL H. LINEHAN Lahore Lahore (LAHLORENSIS). Diocese in northern India, part of the ecclesiastical Province of Agra. Its boundaries comprise the civil Province of the Punjab, except two small portions assigned to Kashmer and Agra respectively. It also includes the native state of Bahawulpur. Down to the sixteenth century Christianity seems never to have come in touch with the Punjab. During the reign of Akbar, and in answer to his invitation, a mission of Jesuits from Goa visited the Mogul court, spending part of their time at Fatehpur-Sikri and part at Lahore (1579-81). Akbar's successor, Jahangir, allowed some Portuguese Jesuits to build a church and establish a mission at Lahore, and assigned a salary for their maintenance. This favor was, however, canceled by the next Mogul emperor, Shah Jahan, who, being a strict Moslem, withdrew the pension and ordered the church to be pulled down. Some fragments of it still remained when Lahore was visited by the French traveler Thévenot in 1665; but these have since been totally effaced, and from that time all traces of Christianity disappeared from the place. About 1637 the Holy See established the Vicariate of the Deccan, which soon afterwards (1669) became the Vicariate of the Great Mogul, with an indefinite extension over the whole of the Mogul empire. But missionary enterprise was limited to the southern parts such as Surat, Golconda, Bijapur, etc., nothing being done for the Punjab. From 1720 this vicariate came to be centered in Bombay, and so acquired that name. In 1784 the northern portion, including the Punjab, was divided off and attached to the mission of Tibet, which had been assigned to Italian Capuchins in 1703. The Prefecture Apostolic of Tibet developed into the Vicariate of Agra in 1822. It continued to include Lahore till 1880, when the Punjab was divided from Agra and made into a separate vicariate. In 1882 the limits of the Vicariate of Lahore were more exactly defined and made to include Kashmer. In 1886, when the Indian hierarchy was established, Agra was elevated into an archbishopric with the Diocese of Lahore as one of its suffragans. In 1887 Kashmer and Kafiristan were separated into a new prefecture Apostolic. Down to 1889 the Lahore diocese was in charge of the Italian Capuchins, but in that year it was taken over by the Belgian province of the same order in whose hands it now remains. The following is a list of the bishops who have governed Lahore: + Paul Tosi, Bishop of Rhodiopolis, Vicar Apostolic of Patna, took charge of the new vicariate on its formation in 1880 and became the first Bishop of Lahore in 1886; + Symphorian Mouard, transferred from the Seychelles in 1888; + Emmanuel van den Bosch, 1891, transferred to Agra in 1892; + Godfrey Pelckmans, 1892; + Fabian Anthony Eestermans, from 1905. Out of a total of 16,000,000 inhabitants the Catholic population is calculated at about 5700. The diocese is served by 38 Capuchin fathers and contains 30 churches and chapels. Of educational institutions for boys there are the following: St. Anthony's High School, Lahore, for Europeans and Eurasians, with 108 pupils; Anglo-vernacular school, Dalwal, with 280 native pupils; St. Francis's primary school, Lahore, under the Tertiary Brothers of St. Francis of Assisi, with thirty orphans; elementary schools at three other places with 300 pupils. Agricultural school orphanage at Maryabad, under the same tertiaries, with thirty orphans. Educational establishments for girls: two under the Nuns of Jesus and Mary, namely, at Lahore with sixty boarders and sixty day-scholars, and at Sialkot with sixty-seven pupils; four under the Sisters of Charity, namely, St. Mary's Convent, Multan, with about eighty-six pupils, St. Joseph's Orphanage, Lahore, with ninety native pupils, including a foundling home and high class school for native girls, Convent of the Sacred Heart, Dalhousie, with forty-six pupils; and St. Vincent's convent dispensary, school, and catechumenate at Khushpur--two under the Franciscan Nuns of the Propagation of the Faith, namely, Convent School with catechumenate at Maryabad, with seventy-five children, and a lunatic asylum for females at Lahore. Total, 5 high schools, 15 middle or primary schools, 2 industrial schools, 5 orphanages, 1 home for abandoned children, 6 free dispensaries, and 1 lunatic asylum. The missionary centres are at Lahore, Multan, Firozpur, Amritsar, Jalandhar, Dalhousie, Sialkot, Mean-Meer, Maryabad, Adah, Sahowala, Khushpur, Francisabad, and Lyallpur. A new cathedral at Lahore, in the Romanesque style, and of notable size and magnificence, built at a total cost of about four lacs of rupees, was consecrated 19 November, 1907. Madras Catholic Directory, 1909, and earlier issues, Directory of Archdiocese of Agra and Suffragan Dioceses (1908); GOLDIE, The First Mission to the Great Mogul (London, 1897, ch. vii-viii; HOSTEN, Jesuit Missionaries in North India (Calcutta, 1907). ERNEST R. HULL Diocese of Laibach Diocese of Laibach (LABACENSIS). Austrian bishopric and suffragan of Görz, embraces the territory of the Austrian crown-land of Carniola (Krain). HISTORY The Diocese of Laibach was founded in the fifteenth century. From the overthrow of the Kingdom of the Avars (811) to the date of the erection of the new see, the region now included in the diocese always belonged ecclesiastically to the Patriarchate of Aquileia, of which is formed one of the five archdiaconates. The German emperors repeatedly invested the patriarchs of Aquileia with the title and authority of Margrave of Krain (as in 1077, 1093, 1210), but the patriarchs were never able to maintain themselves in this position for any length of time. Rudolf of Habsburg secured the territory for the House of Habsburg, and as in the later Middle Ages the secular power of the patriarchs of Aquileia had been almost entirely acquired by the Republic of Venice, Frederick III decided in 1461 to found a separate diocese in order to detach the province ecclesiastically also from Aquileia. The erection of the Diocese of Laibach was confirmed in 1462 by Pius II, who made it directly dependent on the Holy See. The first bishop was Sigismund von Lamberg (1463-88). The new diocese did not include the whole of Carniola, large portions of which were subject to the bishops of Brixen and Freising, while on the other hand parts of Carinthia and Styria, where the episcopal resident of Oberberg was situated, belonged to Laibach. The work of the bishops was greatly hampered by this irregular distribution of their territory. The teachings of Luther gained a footing in the diocese under the second bishop, Christoph Rauber (1495-1536), and still more under his successor, Franciscus Kazianer von Katzenstein (1534-44). The new doctrines found warm supporters in two cathedral canons, Primus Truber and Paul Wiener, so that by the middle of the sixteenth century the greater part of the nobility and almost a majority of the middle class professed Protestantism. Bishop Johann Tautscher (1580-97), who lived most of the time at Graz with Archduke Karl, energetically combated the further advance of the new doctrine, and labored incessantly for the reform of the clergy, the promotion of church services, and the reestablishment of the Catholic Faith. Still greater credit is due to his successor, Thomas Chroën (1598-1630), called the "Apostle of Krain", who in a few years brought about the triumph of the counter-Reformation in the city and diocese. His success was largely due to the aid received from the Archduke Ferdinand, who had become Emperor Ferdinand II in 1597, and from the Jesuits who had been called to Laibach. In 1616 the bishop sent a detailed report of his labors to Pope Paul V (cf. Joseph Schmidlin, "Die kirchlichen Zustande in Deutschland vor dem Dreissigjahrigen Krieg", I, Freiburg, 1908. pp. 33-50; concerning Bishop Chroen see the monograph by Stepischneg, Salzburg, 1856). On the reorganization of the dioceses by Joseph II, Laibach was raised to an archdiocese (1787), the elevation being confirmed by Pius VI in 1788. The Archdiocese of Görz was suppressed (see GORZ), and Laibach received as suffragans the dioceses of Zengg-Modrus, Gradisca, and later also Triest. In 1807 Pius VII dissolved the Archdiocese of Laibach, and made it once more a simple diocese directly dependent on the Holy See. On the re-elevation of Görz to an archdiocese in 1830, Laibach was made suffragan to it and given its present boundaries. The then Bishop of Laibach, Antonious Aloysius Wolf (1824-59), received as compensation the title of prince-bishop. The present bishop is Antonius Bonaventura Jeglic (b. 20 May, 1850, at Begunje; consecrated 12 September, 1897, at Serajevo). STATISTICS The diocese is divided into 5 archdeaneries: Laibach, Upper Krain, Interior Krain Middle Krain, and Lower Krain. These are subdivided into 22 deaneries. At the beginning of 1909 the see contained 17 cathedral prebends, 296 parishes (of which 28 were vacant), I vicarship, 3 ancient chaplaincies, 17 Exposituren (i. e. filial churches joined to the mother church only by some unimportant link to recall their former relations), 235 positions for assistant clergy (95 vacant), 36 other benefices, 321 parish churches, 1000 dependent churches, 11 monastery churches, 229 chapels. Besides the prince bishop there are 16 canons, 444 parish priests, 76 ecclesiastics in other positions, 51 priests retired on pensions, 134 regulars. The population consists of 572,613 Catholics, about 400 Protestants, 290 Orthodox Greeks, 145 Jews. The language spoken by the great majority of the inhabitants of the diocese (about 94 per cent.) is Slovenian. German is spoken in the larger cities like Laibach and Rudolstadt, and in the German-speaking centre of Gotschee. The cathedral chapter consists of 12 regular and 6 honorary canons; they are nominated in part by the emperor, in part by noble families and the provincial council, and are partly the free appointment of the bishop. Since 1493 a collegiate chapter has also existed in connection with the parish church of St. Nikolaus at Rudolfswert; it consists of a mitred provost and 4 members. The consistory of the prince-bishop is made up of the cathedral chapter, 2 honorary canons, and 2 other members. The training of the clergy is provided for by a diocesan theological institute, founded in 1791, which has a pro-rector, 8 professors and 3 instructors; a diocesan clerical seminary with 63 students, and a seminary for boys, the Collegium Aloysianum, founded in 1846, which has 36 students. Ecclesiastical professors give religious instruction in the gymnasium of St Veit near Laibach (190 students), in the 3 gymnasia and the upper high school at Laibach, also in other schools. The religious orders and congregations for men in the diocese are: Cistercians, 1 abbey at Sittich, 12 priests, 3 clerics, and 14 lay brothers; Carthusians, 1 monastery at Pletrije, 29 priests, 31 brothers, Franciscans, 5 monasteries, 49 priests, 17 clerics, 32 lay brothers; Capuchins, 2 monasteries, 8 priests, 6 brothers; Brothers of' Mercy, 1 monastery, 1 priest, 18 brothers; Jesuits, 1 residence, 7 priests, 3 coadjutors; Society of St. Vincent de Paul, 1 mission house, 9 missioners, 9 1ay brothers; Priests of the Teutonic Order, 1 branch monastery, 8 priests, 2 clerics, 1 1ay brother; Salesians, 2 houses, 10 priests, 24 clerics, 33 novices, 7 lay brothers. The religious orders and congregations for women in the diocese are: Ursulines, 187 in 3 houses with which are connected primary schools and 2 seminaries for female teachers; Discalced Carmelite Nuns, 1 convent with 16 sisters; Sisters of Christian Charity, 284 sisters in 17 houses, nearly all of which are connected with hospitals, orphanages, insane asylums, and similar institutions; School Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis, 68 sisters in 4 houses; 1 orphan asylum, and 3 schools; Sisters of Mercy of the Holy Cross, 7 sisters attached to the home for girls, Josephinum, at Laibach. Among the religious associations of the diocese are: the Society of St. Hermagores which, like the Society of St. Charles Borromeo, encourages the diffusion of good literature; the Society of Sts. Cyrillus and Menthodius, which aims to promote religious and national instruction in the elementary schools; the Third Order of St. Francis; the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, and the Congregation of Mary. The Cathedral of St. Nikolaus was built 1700-07 in Renaissance style by the Jesuit Andrea Pozzo. Hardly any large churches of the early Middle Ages still exist, on account of the repeated incursions of the Turks into Krain from 1396. The largest Gothic church of the earlier ages still standing is that of Krainburg, built in 1491, of which the church at Bischoflack, erected in 1532, is a copy. The finest churches in the Barocco style are: the Franciscan church at Laibach (1546), the church of St. Peter (eighteenth century) at the same place, and the church of St. Jakob (1714), also at Laibach. SCHOENLEBEN, Carniola antiqua et nova (Laibach, 1681-); VALVASSOR, Ehre des Herzogtums Krain (1689; new ed., Laibach, 1877-83); DIMITZ, Gesch. Krains (4 Vols., 1874-6); Die osterreich-ungar. Monarchie in Wort u. Bild, VIII (Vienna, 1891); Catalogus Cleri et beneficiorum eccesiasticorum diacesis Labacensis pro 1909 (Laibach, 1909); also various articles in the Mitteilungen des histor. Vereins fur Krain and Archiv fur Gesch. von Krain. JOSEPH LINS Laicization Laicization (Lat. laicus, lay). The term laity signifies the aggregation of those Christians who do not form part of the clergy. Consequently the word lay does not strictly connote any idea of hostility towards the clergy or the Church much less towards religion. Laicization, therefore, considered etymologically, simply means the reducing of persons or things having an ecclesiastical character to a lay condition. But in recent times, especially in France, the word lay has assumed a decidedly anti-clerical and even anti-religious meaning, which has extended also to the derivatives laicize and laicization. This change seems to have originated in the struggles and controversies, at once religious and political, that have arisen in that country in connection with the educational question; teachers belonging to religious congregations (congréganistes) have been driven from the public schools; all religious instruction has been forbidden therein, and this new lay character (laïcité) of the public school has been declared to be essential and inviolable. The expression, once current, has received a formidable extension and an aggressive anti-religious meaning applied to everything relating, whether more or less remotely, to the Catholic Church and even to religion in general. So it is usual to designate as "laicized" any institution withdrawn from the influence of ecclesiastical or religious authority, or from which the priest and his ministry have been excluded. A "lay" school, therefore, is one in which, not only is no place found for the catechism or the priest, but wherein the instruction given ignores all religion and God himself; "lay" legislation is that which is inspired by no religious idea, which looks on society as atheistic, and reduces religious worship to the purely voluntary acts of individuals; finally, the "lay" State, or Government, is one that recognizes no Church, no religion, and which excludes even the name of God from all its institutions or establishments, and from all its acts. An attempt has been made to set up a "lay" morality, i.e. a moral code independent of all revealed religion, as if Christian morality were aught else than the dictates of natural law; while some think they can establish a rationalistic morality without religion and without a Deity, without a future life, and with no real responsibility--a determinist morality which is the very negative of all morality. (See ETHICS.) To laicize, then, is to give this lay character to whatever had not previously had it--or, at least, not entirely. It is to exclude religion from entering in any manner into the life of society as such. In this way education, the courts of justice, the army, the navy, the hospitals--in a word all activities under the control of the public authorities have been laicized in France. Laicization is the externalization and product of the rationalistic, anti-Catholic, and anti-religious movement. It is evident, therefore, that laicization thus understood, goes far beyond "equality", by which the State recognizes equal rights as possessed by various confessions or religions; it is much more than "neutrality", the attitude adopted by the state in its dealings with the divers confessions to which its citizens belong; it is something quite different from "separation", by which the concordats existing between the two powers are dissolved, and the official character of the Church, as hitherto recognized by the State, abolished. In addition to all this, the "laicization" of which we are speaking implies the negation of all religion in matters concerning temporal society; it is the ultimate outcome of absolute Rationalism applied to social life as such. Looked at historically, laicization is the final outcome of what was formerly called "secularization", i.e., the hostile action of the secular power, which has successively despoiled the Church of the prerogatives she enjoyed in European society as moulded by the influence of Christianity for centuries. It is true that all the European nations have not moved with equal rapidity in this matter, and that they are far from having all arrived at the same point in their evolution towards complete secularization. Moreover, it must be recognized that this movement, hastened, in so far as concerns the Catholic religion, by the Reformation, has been retarded and partially eliminated in non-Catholic countries--where the civil power already possesses more or less complete influence, if not authority, over religion--whilst in Catholic countries it is in presence of an independent religious authority which it even accuses at times of being foreign. But if we abstract from local differences, the main lines of this secularizing movement, as yet incomplete, are clearly all the nations of the Christian world. It is advancing towards two not disconnected results: first, it is marking off more and more distinctly the spheres of action of the two powers, "the spiritual and the temporal", as the Gallicans formerly said; secondly, the secular power, while it frees itself from the influence of the spiritual power, confines the latter to a purely religious domain, depriving it gradually of the privileges it enjoyed in the Christian societies of the Middle Ages. It is not the object of this article to give the history of secularization, which rather belongs to the history of each country where it has been attempted or effected. This is only a cursory review, pointing out in their chronological order the various stages and the divers aspects of the movement. If at first we consider the privileged situation of the Church in the Roman empire, and the intimate union of the two powers occasionally confused, we must admit that the Church, though greatly favored, was in real danger of secularization, owing to the excessive power which the imperial authority arrogated to itself in religious affairs. The Church received from the emperors, not only considerable endowments, but numerous privileges: she acquired an official position such as had been held by the ancient pagan religion. The Theodosian Code and, still more, that of Justinian are impregnated with Christianity: the bishops are official personages and the emperor executes ecclesiastical decisions. Yet it is clear that he controls the Church. He is no longer the pontifex maximus, but he assumes the title "Bishop of the Exterior", convokes councils, makes and unmakes bishops, and legislates in ecclesiastical and even spiritual matters. Under these circumstances, the only peril for the Church lay in too close a dependence on the civil authorities--a misfortune that happened to the Byzantine Church after the schism. On a few occasions she did suffer some violence--e.g. certain attacks on the popes, and the laicization of the monasteries by Constantine Copronymus (767). The situation of the Church in the Western kingdoms that rose on the ruins of the empire was different. The two authorities are still closely united, but the power of the king is less, while the Church is the civilizing element, and represents the tradition of government. As a natural result, her influence preponderates; she receives considerable gifts from kings and from the faithful; her privileges and exemptions are constantly extended. Thus, when the feudal order came into being, many ecclesiastical dignitaries were in possession of extensive rights, and some were veritable temporal lords. However, the kings always had influence, and even real power, over the Churches in their realms: they took part in the selection of bishops when they did not elect them; they called the bishops together in councils or mixed assemblies; they authorized and confirmed disciplinary canons, which they afterwards published as state or capitular laws; but they did not interfere with the purely spiritual power. In such a state of affairs the Church had not to fear any hostile civil legislation; yet she had to submit to a certain amount of usurpation on the part of the royal power, particularly in connection with episcopal elections and church property. The institution of the precaria, by which princes bestowed on their lay servants, especially their fellow-warriors, the revenues of churches and monasteries, was really a secularization of the goods of the Church. The abuse had existed in the sixth century, but it developed to an alarming extent under Charles Martel (716- 41), who adopted the system to reward his soldiers (see CHARLES MARTEL; FRANKS). The precaria officially left the Church her property, but the dominium utile, or benefit, of it was transferred at the request, or prayer, of the king (preces, hence precaria), which was equivalent to a command, to the layman whom he wished to recompense. The dominium utile thus acquired was apt to pass to the heirs of the person who acquired it. Under Pepin and Carloman, sons of Charles Martel, the Frankish councils, especially that of Lestines (also called Liftines and Leptines), in 743, corrected the abuse to a certain extent (Hefele, "Hist. des conciles", III, 342 sq.). Canon ii, owing to the circumstances of the times, does not abolish the precaria, but it reserves to the Church a tax of a silver penny per hearth (casata); on the death of the beneficiary the property returns to the Church, though the prince may bestow it again. In this way the Church's right of property was safeguarded against indefinite transmission, and at the same time she enjoyed some portion of the revenues accruing from her property. Although less common, the practice continued for a long time, gradually changing into the system of "commendations". The latter, though differing juridically from the precaria, had the same effect so far as the property of the Church is concerned: the revenues, diverted from their proper purpose, were received by laymen named by the king. This abuse spread extensively in the ninth century, especially under Emperor Lothair, and we find reforming councils of the Frankish Empire, particularly that of Meaux (845), striving to end it. ln the tenth century, when the papacy had grown weak and was unable to counterbalance the civil power, the dignities and property of the Church were invaded by the creatures of kings and emperors: the Othos and their successors made the popes and, at times, the antipopes; they invested the dignitaries with crosier and ring, symbols of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Such secularization would soon have proved fatal to the necessary independence of the spiritual power. The liberation of the Church from secular control was accomplished by Gregory VII. After long years of struggle, the separation of the two powers grew more marked; the dispute about investitures was ended by the Concordat of Worms (1122); lay influence was eliminated from the elections of popes and bishops, from ecclesiastical trials, synods and, to a large extent, from the administration of church property; and under the great popes who succeeded Gregory VII it seemed for a while as if the ideal of the Christian world was realized, the Catholic nations forming one family under the high suzerainty of the pope, the representative of God upon earth, among nations and individuals. This was the apogee: the movement towards secularization began forthwith. In the twelfth century, under the influence of Irnerius, the school of Bologna witnessed a revival of the Roman Law; the laws of the Caesars became the basis of the claims of the secular power; and, while the canonists, finally systematizing the ecclesiastical laws, were establishing the thesis of pontifical power, indirect or even direct, over empires and kingdoms (the Bull "Unam sanctam"), the imperial and royal jurisconsults were building up the opposite thesis, and claiming for secular princes entire independence in temporal matters, authority in ecclesiastical matters not strictly spiritual, and eventually a Divine origin for their power. In the opinion of these jurisconsults ecclesiastical privileges and immunities were graceful concessions of the civil authorities, who could, consequently, withdraw them. From that time laicization had begun, thenceforward carried into effect, not by expedients or by violence, but on principle; it was a battle of systems, in which the secular power, becoming more and more centralized and conscious of its strength, was destined always to prevail. The struggle which, as before, centres around the temporal goods of the Church, begins with Philippe le Bel (1285-1314) and Boniface VIII. The king imposed taxes on church property; after having resisted as a matter of principle, the pope authorized their imposition, provided it was done with his consent. In this way the canonical immunity of ecclesiastical property was violated. Later it was the jurisdiction of the Church in mixed matters which yielded little by little to that of the royal courts: these adjudicated, not only in questions arising out of marriage--e.g. inheritances, legitimacy of children, adultery but also in most cases relating immediately to matrimony or benefices, whether presenting questions of fact or involving bare right of possession; further, the system of appealing against so-called abuse of ecclesiastical power (appel comme d'abus) permitted almost all ecclesiastical acts to be brought, if the State so chose, under the cognizance of the royal judges. Papal Bulls and decrees of councils were recognized only after examination and in virtue of royal authorization; moreover, they had to be ratified in order to obtain the force of laws. In regard to benefices, the pontifical laws were openly resisted; the royal prerogative of nomination to vacant benefices was exercised, and the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges, under Charles VII (1438), applying in France the quasi-schismatical principles of Basle, refused to acknowledge the papal right of reservation and forbade direct appeals to Rome. If the principle of spiritual jurisdiction was safeguarded by the Concordat of 1516 between Leo X and Francis I, this agreement, nevertheless, abandoned to the civil power all control of the temporal possessions of the Church. The clergy of France came to depend more on the king than on the pope: Louis XIII forbade the holding of ecclesiastical assemblies and councils without royal permission; Louis XIV put into practice the most advanced principles of Gallicanism, and regulated the affairs of the Church almost as if he were a Justinian; his parliamentary courts, his grand conseil adjudicated in all ecclesiastical affairs, except questions of dogma and purely spiritual matters. In a word, while the Church was treated with favor and enjoyed numerous privileges, it was only by reason of her yielding to the State all authority in temporal or mixed affairs. Other Catholic countries followed in the same path. The extreme limits of this encroachment of Secular power was reached by the minute ecclesiastical regulations of Joseph II of Austria. In other countries the Reformation greatly advanced the policy of secularization. The privileged situation of the Church in the matter of temporal property had been weakened by the errors of John Hus and Wyclif, and the troubles resulting therefrom. Soon the leaders of the Reformation placed themselves under the protection of the princes and gave them with the property of the Church, an almost absolute authority over the new religious bodies. In many German principalities, in England, and in the countries of Northern Europe, the Church disappeared, her goods were confiscated, pillaged, or else transferred to the new religious organizations. It suffices to recall the secularizations of the Teutonic Knights and their property and then, in England, the confiscation of the monasteries and churches under Henry VIII and his successors. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction was also secularized and taken over by the kings and the civil courts, or at most left in some small degree with the clergy, who were entirely dependent on the civil power. A little more, and the two powers would have blended into one. To return to the Catholic Church, the most complete secularization was that effected by the French Revolution; if the movement seemed at first to be to the advantage of the "constitutional church", a creation of the civil power, and afterwards to that of a vaguely Deistic form of worship, it was to the profit of the sovereign State, freed from all religion, rationalistic if not atheistic. The facts are well known: church property was confiscated and sold; the clergy divided into "jurors", or "constitutionalists", and "non-jurors"--an absolute proscription of the Catholic religion. The functions confided for ages to the Church were again assumed by the State: schools, hospitals, registration of births, marriages, and deaths, marriage itself, and even worship--all was secularized. And when, after the storm, the Concordat of 1801 restored the Church to her official position, everything or almost everything remained secularized. The property that had been confiscated and sold was not returned to her; the places of worship left at her disposal still remained the property of the civil authorities; public teaching had become a function of the State, whose permission she had to obtain for her few schools; civil life and marriage were regulated independently of her, while awaiting the re-establishment of divorce; her tribunals were no longer acknowledged; the members of her hierarchy were officially recognized, but only as functionaries in strict accordance with the articles organiques--in spirit at least, a survival of the old regime; her former immunities were restricted and finally abolished. Like the other developments of the Revolution, the policy of secularization was imitated by the different States in varying degrees. The ecclesiastical principalities of the German Empire which had survived the Reformation were secularized at the beginning of the nineteenth century, and the movement culminated in the suppression of the Papal States, swallowed up in the new Kingdom of Italy. Ecclesiastical property, especially that of the monasteries, already encroached upon by partial secularization in the eighteenth century, was confiscated in Spain (1820, 1835, and 1837), in Portugal (1833), in Mexico (1856), and, for the most part, in Italy (1866). Almost everywhere the ecclesiastical immunities (see IMMUNITY) disappeared, legislation became purely secular, civil marriage was established, and the Church, except in the case of Divine worship, excluded from public service, or participating in it only by the favor of the sovereign State. In this brief exposé it has not been intended to generalize to any great extent. The situation is not the same in all countries; it is only in France that official secularization and laicization have been carried to the extreme limits. On the other hand, we are far from overlooking those deeply rooted general causes of the transformation of modern society which have rendered inevitable a certain amount of secularization. There is no longer unity of faith: various confessions have multiplied and mingled in the same country; temporal interests have assumed a preponderating importance in the life of each state; ideas of religious toleration and liberty have spread and are accepted everywhere. In a word, the ideal harmony between the two powers is no longer capable of realization. Moreover, this marked separation of the two authorities is not without certain advantages for the Church. But while all this must be recognized, it remains true that laicization pushed to extreme limits is contrary to Catholic teaching, and therefore must be condemned; moreover, it is injurious to the real interests of temporal society. To understand the position of the Church in this matter, we must first make allowance for her just protests against violation of her acquired rights. Theoretically, the Church can and does submit to secularization that does not affect her rights as a spiritual society or interfere with the exercise of these rights in concrete social conditions, the demands made upon her naturally varying according to time and place. However, she must condemn any measures that affect her essen- tial rights and the freedom necessary for the exercise of her sacred ministry. No principle can justify in a society composed of Christians the exclusion of every Christian idea, nor in any human society the exclusion of all religion and of the Deity. The Catholic doctrine on the juridical relations of the Church and the State is explained elsewhere (see Pius IX, "Syllabus", props. 39 sq., 77 sq.). But the most superficial attention to the influence of religion, especially of the Catholic religion, on the moral life suffices to show the absurdity and danger of laicization, even when this is not identical with legalized persecution of the religious idea. (See also STATE. For the present progress of laicization in France, see FRANCE, VI, 179 sqq. For the facts relating to the history of the different countries, see ENGLAND; FRANCE, GERMANY, etc. Also INVESTITURES, CONFLICT OF, GALLlCANISM; LOUIS XIV, etc.) The principal facts may be found in SAGMULLER, Kirchenrecht (Freiburg, 1909), 14, 173 sq., containing a full bibliography. On the question of ecclesiastical rights, see CAVAGNIS, Institutiones juris publici ecclesiastici, I (Rome, 1906), WEBER in Kirchenlexikon, s.v. Sacularisation der Kirchenguter (for Germany). A. BOUDINHON James Lainez James Lainez (LAYNEZ). Second general of the Society of Jesus, theologian, b. in 1512, at Almazan, Castille, in 1512; d. at Rome, 19 January, 1565. His family, although Christian for many generations, had descended from Jewish stock, as has been established by Sacchini (Historia Societatis Jesu, II, sec. 32). Lainez graduated in arts at the University of Alcalá (1531), and won his licentiate in philosophy there at the age of twenty (1532). At Alcalá, the young Castilian and his friend Salmerón had heard of Ignatius Loyola. To meet him, they betook them to the great University of Paris (1533) and there fell under the spell of his masterful will. Lainez was the second to Join Loyola and was one of the seven who on 15 August, 1534, made the vows of religion in the chapel of St. Denis, on Montmartre. Three years were now spent by Lainez, in works of charity and zeal, for the most part in Northern Italy. In 1537, Ignatius sent his companions to present themselves to the Holy Father. Paul III discussed doctrinal questions with them. He was struck by their bearing and learning, granted them permission to be ordained priests and to go to the Holy Land. This pilgrimage was prevented by political troubles. Lainez was charged by the pope to teach theology in the Sapienza. His teaching and preaching were productive of immense good in those unsettled days. Rome, Venice, and Vicenza were saved from heresy by his labors. Paul III became an enthusiastic admirer of the new society. He chose three Jesuits, Lainez, Salmerón, and Lefévre as sole papal theologians to the Council of Trent. The latter died in Rome before the council began its sessions. Lainez and Salmerón were joined by two other Jesuits at Trent, Le Jaye who represented the Bishop of Augsburg, and Covillon the theologian to the Duke of Bavaria. At Trent, Lainez came into prominence just as soon as the question of justification was reached. Luther and his followers had gone astray chiefly on this very doctrine. No more important subject could have come before the council. Long discussions preceded the definition, and Lainez and Salmerón stood out most prominently. These dogmatic discussions, in the early sessions of Trent, took place without formality of precedence. The theological discussions were under the charge of Cardinal Cervini, later Pope Marcellus II; he arranged that Salmerón should be among the first speakers on each topic, so as to set down the right doctrine from the outset; Lainez should be the last to speak, so as to sum up the discussion and point out clearly the errors of preceding theologians. The two Jesuits were immensely influential against some of the Lutheran ideas wherewith unfortunately not a few of the theologians of the council were tainted. The bishops asked for copies of the vote of Lainez and Salmerón. While the two papal theologians thus bore the brunt of the battle for Catholic truth in the matter of justification, at Trent, strong influence was brought to bear on Ignatius to send Lainez to do apostolic work in Florence. Salmerón prevented such a loss to the council by telling Ignatius the power of Lainez in Trent. Shortly thereafter, Lainez did his greatest service to the council in the discussion on justification. Jerome Seripando, a most devoted and saintly man, who later presided over the sessions of Trent, tried to combine the Catholic with the Lutheran idea of justification; and defended a twofold formal justice, our own and the imputed justice of Christ (Theiner, "Acta Con. Trid.", I, 235). The answer of Lainez so pleased the Fathers of Trent that they honored it by incorporating it word for word in the Acts of the council, a unique honor. On 13 January, 1547, by unanimous vote, their clear and definite decree on justification was passed unanimously, the doctrines which Lainez had stood for being defined. Hereafter, whereas very few theologians were allowed to speak an hour, Lainez was privileged to address the assembly for three hours or more. We are not surprised to find Salmerón writing to Ignatius that to take away Lainez from Trent "were, without any exaggeration whatsoever, to take away one of its eyes from this council" (Epistolae Salmerón, 20 Jan., 1547). In April, 1547, Lainez went with the council to Bologna, where he spoke on penance and extreme unction. The opposition of Charles V preventing many bishops from reaching Bologna, the council was indefinitely prorogued. When the Fathers met a second time at Trent (1 May, 1551) Lainez (now provincial of the Jesuits in Italy) and Salmerón were there as papal theologians to Julius III. During the previous sessions, Lainez had spoken at a time when the Fathers of the council were already fagged out, and yet he held their attention and carried their votes. Now the first to speak were the papal theologians. Lainez dwelt at great length on the Holy Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass. It is said that the decrees and canons of the Fourteenth Session were at this time written by him (Cartes de S. Ignacio, I, 491). After the death of St. Ignatius (1556) Lainez was elected vicar-general of the Society; about two years later be became its second general (1558). Paul IV now insisted on the triennial election of a general and the chanting of the Office in choir by the Jesuits. His wish was only verbally expressed, and that by a messenger. After his death (1559), at the advice of eminent canonists, Lainez discontinued the choir, and observed the constitutions of the order in regard to the generalate. A new difficulty now confronted him. Twelve votes were cast for Lainez in the effort to choose a successor for Paul IV, the reform party being intent upon electing him. His entreaties and sudden departure for parts unknown saved him from the possibility. To Lainez is due the adoption of the "Constitutions" of the Society, and the importance that higher education was destined to have in working out in detail the general principle of its institution. Notwithstanding the labours incident to the governing of his order, Lainez still busied himself with the battle of the Church against heresy and neglect of ecclesiastical discipline. Pius IV sent him as theologian to the famous Conference of Poissy (1561) along with Cardinal Ippolito d'Este. There he engaged the Calvinistic ministers in dispute before the Queen Regent Catherine de' Medici. In his absence, Salmerón was vicar-general at Rome. Meanwhile the third convocation of Trent was opened (18 January, 1562). Two Jesuits were present, Covillon and Canisius. Pius IV was not satisfied, nor were the party of reform, that the two protagonists of former convocations were absent; Salmerón, Lainez, and Polanco were straightway ordered by the Holy Father to go to Trent as his theologians. Salmerón was the first to arrive. He spoke three hours on communion under one species. Lainez reached Trent in August, 1562. He was the first, as papal theologian, to speak on the Sacrifice of the Mass. His proofs were well under way, when the Fathers voted to allow him the whole of the next day for his discourse, which he delivered from a platform in the body of the cathedral. The opinions of Lainez, not only in matters dogmatic but in the practice of refusing the cup to the faithful, prevailed in the twenty second session. The matter of the next session was exceedingly delicate--the question of orders, involving as it did the origin of episcopal jurisdiction. Lainez was one of the committee appointed to draw up the decrees and canons on the Sacrament of Orders; and to him the rest of the committee consigned that task. At the very outset of the discussions, the question of the Divine right of bishops came up; the discussions were carried on vigorously for nine months. Lainez stood firm for the Divine origin of the powers of the order of bishops, the Divine right of the episcopal body to jurisdiction and the conferring of this jurisdiction upon each individual bishop directly by the pope and not by God. On two other occasions at Trent Lainez defended the papal origin of episcopal jurisdiction. In the end the council left the mooted question out of the decrees of the Twenty-third Session. Lainez remained in the council until its adjournment (4 December, 1563). A little more than a year later (19 January, 1565), he died at Rome. Ribadeneira (Vida del Padre Lainex, III, xvi), who knew Lainez, says he was small of stature and delicate; his eyes were large, clear and full of life; his mind was quick and accurate; his character noble, deep, serious, large minded, firm, and strong. The chief published works of Lainez are "Disputationes Tridentinae", ed. Grisar, 2 vols. (Innsbruck, 1886); for long list of other works, see Hurter, "Nomenclator", and Sommervogel, "Bibliotheque de la Compagnie de Jésus" (Paris, 1893). ASTRAIN, Historia de la Compania de Jesus, I and II (Madrid, 1902, and 1905); IDEM, Los Espanoles en el Concilio de Trento in Razon y Fe, III, IV; DUHR, Geschichte der Jesuiten in den Landern Deutscher Zunge, I (Freiburg im B., 1907); TACCHI VENTURI, Storia della Compagnia di Gesu in Italia (ROMA, 1910). The standard lives are those of RIBADENEIRA and BOERO. WALTER DRUM Laity Laity (Gr. laos, "the people"; whence laikos, "one of the people"). Laity means the body of the faithful, outside of the ranks of the clergy. This article treats the subject under three heads: (1) General Idea; (2) Duties and Rights of the Laity; (3) Privileges and Restrictions of the Laity. GENERAL IDEA Whereas the word faithful is opposed to infidel, unbaptized, one outside the pale of Christian society, the word laity is opposed to clergy. The laity and clergy, or clerics, belong to the same society, but do not occupy the same rank. The laity are the members of this society who remain where they were placed by baptism, while the clergy, even if only tonsured, have been raised by ordination to a higher class, and placed in the sacred hierarchy. The Church is a perfect society, though all therein are not equal; it is composed of two kinds of members (see can. "Duo sunt", vii, Caus. 12, Q. i, of uncertain origin): in the first place, those who are the depositaries of sacred or spiritual authority under its triple aspect, government, teaching, and worship, i.e. the clergy, the sacred hierarchy established by Divine law (Conc. Trid., Sess. XXIII, can. vi); in the second place, those over whom this power is exercised, who are governed, taught, and sanctified, the Christian people, the laity; though for that matter clerics also, considered as individuals, are governed, taught, and sanctified. But the laity are not the depositaries of spiritual power; they are the flock confided to the care of the shepherds, the disciples who are instructed in the Word of God, the subjects who are guided by the successors of the Apostles towards the last end, which is eternal life. Such is the constitution which Our Saviour has given to His Church. This is not the place for a detailed demonstration of this assertion, the proof of which may be reduced to the following points more fully developed under CHURCH: on the one hand, a distinction between the governed and those governing is necessary in every organized society; now Jesus Christ established His Church as a real society, endowed with all the authority requisite for the attaining of its object. On the other hand, in the Church, government has always been in the hands of those who were entrusted exclusively with the teaching of doctrine and the care of Divine worship. If one studies without prejudice the New Testament and the beginnings of Christianity, some doubt may arise on certain matters of detail; but the conclusion will certainly be that every Christian community had its superiors, these superiors had a stable spiritual authority, and this authority had as its end the exclusive care of religious functions (including teaching) as well as the government of the community. There have been differences of opinion concerning the origin of the monarchial episcopacy, which soon became the sole form of ecclesiastical organization; but no one holds that the monarchial episcopacy succeeded a period of anarchy or of government by a community where all had equal authority. The organization of all Christian Churches under the authority of the bishops and clergy, as early as the third century, is so evident as to place beyond all doubt the existence at that time of two distinct classes, the clergy and the laity. Moreover, in all societies among which Christianity had spread, religious service had already its special ministers, and the Christian organization would have retrograded if its worship and its sacrifice had not been entrusted exclusively to a special class. Christ selected the Apostles from among His disciples, and among the Apostles He selected Peter to be their head. He entrusted them with the furtherance of His work; to them he confided the power of the keys, i.e. spiritual authority, for they are the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt., xvi, 19); He gave them the mission to teach and baptize all nations (Matt., xxviii, 18); to them also He addressed those words at the Last Supper: Do this in commemoration of me" (Luke, xxii, 19). As soon as the Church begins to live, the Apostles appear as its leaders; they are distinct from the "multitude of believers"; it is into their ranks that they bring Matthias (Acts, I, 15), and later, by the command of the Holy Ghost, Saul and Barnabas, whom they receive with the imposition of hands (Acts, xiii, 2). Wherever St. Paul founds Churches he gives them leaders "placed by the Holy Spirit to govern the Church of God" (Acts, xx, 28); the Pastoral Epistles reveal to us a directing body composed of the bishops, or priests, and deacons (I Clement., xliii, 4); and they it is, especially the bishops, who perform exclusively the liturgical services (Ep. Ignat., "ad. Smyrn.", 8). If at times the Christian people participate in the Divine service or the government, they never appear acting independently nor even on an equal footing with the heads of the community (cf. Batiffol, "L'Eglise naissante et le catholicisme", Paris, 1909). This distinction between the two classes in the Christian society refers to social rank, not to individual moral perfection. It is true that the clergy, being dedicated to the service of the altar, are thereby bound to strive after perfection; yet neither their virtues not their failing influence in any way their powers. On the other hand, the laity, besides their right to aspire freely to admission into the ranks of the clergy, on complying with the requisite conditions, are exhorted to practise every virtue, even in the highest degree. They can also bind themselves to observe the evangelical counsels, under the guidance of the Church, either in the world, as did the ancient ascetics, or by withdrawing from the world into one of the many religious houses. But ascetics, nuns, and unordained members of religious associations of men were not originally in the ranks of the clergy, and, strictly speaking, are not so even to-day, though, on account of their closer and more special dependence on ecclesiastical authority, they have long been included under the title clergy in its wider sense (see RELIGIOUS). The juridical condition of the laity in the Christian society is therefore determined by two considerations: their separation from the clergy, which excludes them from the performance of acts reserved to the latter; and second, their subjection to the spiritual authority of the clergy, which imposes certain obligations on them, while at the same time it confers on them certain rights. DUTIES AND RIGHTS OF THE LAITY Having come through Baptism to the supernatural life, being members of the Christian society and adopted children of God, the laity belong to the "chosen race", the "royal priesthood" (I Peter, ii, 9) formed of all those who are born again in Christ. They have therefore a right to share in the common spiritual goods of the Christian society, which implies a corresponding obligation on the part of the clergy to bestow on them these goods, in as far as this bestowal requires the intervention of the ministers of religion and of the spiritual authority. But if the laity are to share in these common goods they must employ more or less frequently the means of sanctification instituted by Jesus Christ in His Church, and of which the clergy have been put in charge. Further, the laity, being subject to ecclesiastical authority, must obey and respect it; but in return they have the right to obtain from it direction, protection, and service. Thus, for the laity rights and duties are, as always, correlative. The first duty of a Christian is to believe; the first obligation imparted to the laity is, therefore, to learn the truths of faith and of religion, at first by means of the catechism and religious instruction, and later by being present at sermons, missions, or retreats. If they are thus obliged to learn, they have the right to be instructed and consequently to require their priests to give them and their children Christian teaching in the ordinary way. Second, a Christian's moral conduct should be in keeping with his faith; he must, therefore, preserve his spiritual life by the means which Jesus has established in His Church; The Divine service, especially the Mass, the Sacraments, and other sacred rites. This necessity of having recourse to the pastoral ministry gives rise to a right in the laity as regards the clergy, the right of obtaining from them the administration of the sacraments, especially Penance and the Holy Eucharist, and others according to circumstances; also all the other acts of Christian worship, especially the Mass, the sacramentals and other rites, and lastly Christian burial. These are the spiritual goods destined for the sanctification of souls; if the clergy are appointed to administer them, they are not free dispensers, and they are bound to give their services to the faithful, as long, at least, as the latter have not by their own fault placed themselves in a condition that deprives them of the right to demand these services. Considered from the standpoint of the laity, this recourse to the ministry of the clergy is sometimes obligatory and sometimes optional, according to circumstances. It may be an obligation imposed by a command of the Church, or necessitated by personal reasons; in other cases, it may be a matter of counsel and left to the devotion of each one. This is a subject which exhibits most clearly the difference between a precept and a counsel with regard to our outward Christian life. Assistance at Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation, annual confession, Easter communion, the reception of the viaticum (q.v.) and the last services of religion, the celebration of marriage in the prescribed form, the baptism and religious instruction of children, and, finally, the rites of Christian burial---all these suppose a recourse to the ministry of the clergy which is of obligation for the laity, abstracting from individual cases when there may be a legitimate excuse. On the other hand, more or less frequent confessions and communions, hearing of daily Mass, frequenting the Divine Office, asking for special ceremonies (for instance, churching) celebration of Masses, obtaining services and prayers for the dead or for other intentions, are things that are perfectly legitimate and are counselled, but are optional. We may also mention the obligatory or free acts intended for the personal sanctification of the laity, but which do not require the help of the clergy: private prayer, fasting and abstinence, avoidance of servile work on Sundays and holy days of obligation, and, lastly, in general all that relates to the moral life and the observance of the commandments of God. From these obligatory and optional relations existing between the laity and the clergy there arise certain duties of the former towards the latter. In the first place, respect and deference should be shown to the clergy, especially in the exercise of their function, on account of their sacred character and the Divine authority with which they are invested (Conc. Trid., Sess. XXV, c. xx). This respect should be shown in daily intercourse, and laymen inspired with a truly Christian spirit do homage to God in the person of His ministers, even when the conduct of the latter is not in keeping with the sanctity of their state. In the second place the laity are obliged, in proportion to their means and circumstances of the case, to contribute towards the expenses of Divine service and the fitting support of the clergy; this is an obligation incumbent on them in return for the right which they have to the services of their priests with regard to the Mass and other spiritual exercises. These contributions fall under two distinct classes: certain gifts and offerings of the faithful are intended in general for the Divine services and the support of the clergy; others, on the contrary, are connected with various acts of the sacred ministry which are freely asked for, such as the stipends for Masses, the dues for funeral services, marriages, etc. There is no fixed sum for the former class, the matter being left to the generosity of the faithful; in many countries they have taken the place of the fixed incomes that the various churches and the clergy were possessed of, arising especially from landed property; they have likewise replaced the tithes, no longer recognized by the secular governments. The latter class, however, are fixed by ecclesiastical authority or custom and may be demanded in justice; not that this is paying for sacred things, which would be simony, but they are offerings for the Divine service and the clergy on the occasion of certain definite acts (see OFFERINGS; TITHES). There remains to speak of the duties and rights of the laity towards the ecclesiastical authority as such, in matters foreign to the sacred ministry. The duties, which affect both laity and clergy, consist in submission and obedience to legitimate hierarchical authority: the pope, the bishops, and, in a proportionate degree, the parish priests and other acting ecclesiastics. The decisions, judgments, orders, and directions of our lawful pastors, in matters of doctrine, morals, discipline, and even administration, must be accepted and obeyed by all members of the Christian society, at least in as far as they are subject to that authority. That is a condition requisite to the well-being of any society whatsoever. However, in the case of the Christian society, authoritative decisions and directions, in as far as they are concerned with faith and morals, bind not merely to exterior acts and formal obedience; they are, moreover, a matter of conscience and demand loyal interior acceptance. On the other hand, seeing that in the Church the superiors have been established for the welfare of the subjects, so that the pope himself glories in the title "servant of the servants of God", the faithful have the right to expect the care, vigilance, and protection of their pastors; in particular they have the right to refer their disputes to the ecclesiastical authorities for decision, to consult them in case of doubt or difficulty, and to ask for suitable guidance for their religious or moral conduct. PRIVILEGES AND RESTRICTIONS OF THE LAITY Since the laity is distinct from the clergy, and since Divine worship, doctrinal teaching, and ecclesiastical government are reserved, at least in essentials, to the latter, it follows that the former may not interfere in purely clerical offices; they can participate only in a secondary and accessory manner, and that in virtue of a more or less explicit authorization. Any other interference would be an unlawful and guilty usurpation, punishable at times with censures and penalties. We will apply this principle now to matters of worship, teaching, and government or administration. (1) As to the Liturgy As to Divine service, the liturgy and especially the essential act of the Christian worship, the Holy Sacrifice, the active ministers are the clergy alone. But the laity really join in it. Not only do they assist at the Sacrifice and receive its spiritual effects, but they offer it through the ministry of the priest. Formerly they could, and even were obliged to, bring and offer at the altar the mater of the sacrifice, i.e. the bread and wine; that is what they really do to-day by their offerings and their stipends for Masses. At several parts of the Mass, the prayers mention them as offering the sacrifice together with the clergy, especially in the passage immediately after the consecration: "Unde et memores, nos servi tui (the clergy) sed et plebs tua sancta (the laity) . . . offerimus praeclare Majestati tuae, de tuis donis ac datis", etc. The laity reply to the salutations and invitations of the celebrant, thus joining in the solemn prayer; especially do they share in the Holy Victim by Holy Communion (confined for them in the Latin Liturgy to the species of bread), which they can receive also outside of the time of Mass and at home in case of illness. Such is the participation of the laity in the Liturgy, and strictly they are limited to that; all the active portion is performed by the clergy. Regularly, no layman may sit within the presbyterium, or sanctuary, nor may he read any part of the Liturgy, much less pray publicly, or serve the priest at the altar, or, above all, offer the Sacrifice. However, owing to the almost complete disappearance of the inferior clergy, there has gradually arisen the custom of appointing lay persons to perform certain minor clerical duties. In most of our churches, the choirboys, schoolboys, sacristans, and chanters, serve low Masses and Missae cantatae, occupy places in the sanctuary, and act as acolytes, thurifers, masters of ceremonies, and even as lectors. On such occasions they are given, at least in solemn services, a clerical costume, the cassock and surplice, as if to admit them temporarily to the ranks of the clergy and thus recognize and safeguard the principle of excluding the laity. These remarks apply not only to the celebration of Mass, but to all liturgical services: the laity are separated from the clergy. In processions especially, confraternities and other bodies of the laity precede the clergy; the women being first, then the men, next regular clergy, and lastly the secular clergy. In the administration of the sacraments, the sacramentals, and other like liturgical offices, the same principle applies, and ordinarily everything is reserved to the clergy. But it should be mentioned that the laity may administer baptism (q. v.) in cases of necessity, and though not of practical importance with regard to adults, this frequently occurs when children are in danger of death. In the early ages, the faithful carried away the Blessed Eucharist to their homes and gave themselves the Holy Communion (cf. Tertullian, "Ad uxorem", ii, 5). That was a purely material administration of the sacrament, and hardly differed from the communion ceremony in the church, where the consecrated host was placed in the hand of each communicant. We should mention also that the use of the blessed oil by those who were sick, if that be considered an administration of extreme unction (cf. the Decretal of Innocent I to Decentius of Eugubium, n. 8; serm. cclxv and cclxxix; append. of the works of St. Augustine, really the work of St. Caesarius of Aries). But those practices have long since disappeared. As to matrimony, if the sacrament itself, which is none other than the contract, has as its authors the lay persons contracting, the liturgical administration is reserved to-day, as formerly, to the clergy. With these exceptions, there is nothing to prevent the laity from using the liturgical prayers in their private devotions, from reciting the Divine Office, or the various Little Offices drawn up particularly for them, or from joining in associations or confraternities to practise together and according to rule certain pious exercises, the confraternities having been formed lawfully in virtue of episcopal approbation. (2) As to Doctrine The body of the faithful is strictly speaking the Ecclesia docta (the Church taught), in contrast with the Ecclesia docens (the teaching Church), which consists of the pope and the bishops. When there is question, therefore, of the official teaching of religious doctrine, the laity is neither competent nor authorized to speak in the name of God and the Church (cap. xii et sq., lib. V, tit. vii, "de haereticis"). Consequently they are not allowed to preach in church, or to undertake to defend the Catholic doctrine in public discussions with heretics. But in their private capacity, they may most lawfully defend and teach their religion by word and writing, while submitting themselves to the control and guidance of ecclesiastical authority. Moreover, they may be appointed to give doctrinal instruction more or less officially, or may even become the defenders of Catholic truth. Thus they give excellent help to the clergy in teaching catechism, the lay masters in our schools give religious instruction, and some laymen have received a missio canonica, or due ecclesiastical authorization, to teach the religious sciences in universities and seminaries; the important point in this, as in other matters, is for them to be submissive to the legitimate teaching authority. (3) As to Jurisdiction and Administration The principle is that the laity as such have no share in the spiritual jurisdiction and government of the Church; but they may be commissioned or delegated by ecclesiastical authority to exercise certain rights, especially when there is no question of strictly spiritual jurisdiction, for instance, in the administration of property. The laity are incapable, if not by Divine law at least by canon law, of real jurisdiction in the Church, according to chap. x, "De constit." (lib. I. tit. ii): "Attendentes quod laicis etiam religiosis super ecclesiis et personis ecclesiasticis nulla sit atributa facultas, quos obsequendi manet necessitas non auctoritas imperandi", i.e., the laity have no authority over things or persons ecclesiastical; it is their duty to obey not to command. Therefore no official acts requiring real ecclesiastical jurisdiction can be properly performed by the laity; if performed by them, they are null and void. A layman therefore cannot be at the head of a Church or any Christian community, nor can he legislate in spiritual matters, no act as judge in essentially ecclesiastical cases. In particular, the laity (and by this word we here include the secular authority) cannot bestow ecclesiastical jurisdiction on clerics under the form of an election properly so called, conferring the right to an episcopal or other benefice. An election by the laity alone, or one in which the laity took part, would be absolutely null and void (c. lvi, "De elect.") (see ELECTION). But this refers to canonical election strictly so called, conferring jurisdiction on the right to receive it; if it is merely a question, on the other hand, of selecting an individual, either by way or presentation or a similar process, the laity are not excluded, for the canonical institution, the source of spiritual jurisdiction, is exclusively reserved to the ecclesiastical authority. That is why no objection can be raised against the principle we have laid down from the fact that the people took part in the episcopal elections in the first ages of the Church; to speak more accurately, the people manifested their wish rather than took part in the election; the real electors were the clerics; and lastly, the bishops who were present were the judges of the election, so that in reality the final decision rested in the hands of the ecclesiastical authority. It cannot be denied that in the course of time the secular power encroached on the ground of spiritual jurisdiction, especially in the case of episcopal elections; but the Church always asserted her claim to independence where spiritual jurisdiction was involved, as may be clearly seen in the history of the famous dispute about investitures (q.v.). When jurisdiction properly so called is duly protected, and there is question of administering temporal goods, the laity may and do enjoy as a fact real rights recognized by the Church. The most important is that of presentation or election in the wide sense of the term, now known as nomination, by which certain laymen select for the ecclesiastical authorities the person whom they wish to see invested with certain benefices or offices. The best known example is that of nomination to sees and other benefices by temporal princes, who have obtained that privilege by concordats (q. v.). Another case recognized and carefully provided for in canon law is the right of patronage. This right is granted to those who from their own resources have established a benefice or who have at least amply endowed it (contributing more than one-third of the revenue). The patrons can, from the moment of foundation, reserve to themselves and their descendants, the right of active and passive patronage, not to mention other privileges rather honorary in their nature; in exchange for these rights, they undertake to protect and maintain their foundation. The right of active patronage consists principally in the presentation of the cleric to be invested with the benefice by the ecclesiastical authorities, provided he fulfils the requisite conditions. The right of passive patronage consists in the fact that the candidates for the benefice are to be selected from the descendants or the family of the founder. The patrons enjoy by right a certain precedence, among other things the right to a more prominent seat in the churches founded or supported by them; sometimes, also, they enjoy other honours; they can reserve to themselves a part in the administration of the property of the benefice; finally, if they fall upon evil days, the Church is obliged to help them from the property that was acquired through the generosity of their ancestors. All these rights, it is clear, and particularly that of presentation, are concessions made by the Church, and not privileges which the laity have of their own right. It is but equitable that those who furnish the resources required by the Church should not be excluded from their administration. For that reason the participation of the laity in the administration of church property, especially parish property, is justified. Under the different names such as, "building councils", "parish councils", "trustees", etc., and with rules carefully drawn up or approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, and often even recognized by the civil law, there exist almost everywhere administrative organizations charged with the care of the temporal goods of churches and other ecclesiastical establishments; most of the members are laymen; they are selected in various ways, generally co-option, subject to the approval of the bishop. But this honourable office does not belong to the laity in their own right; it is a privilege granted to them by the Church, which alone has the right to administer her own property (Conc. Plen. Baltim. III, n. 284 sq.); they must conform to the regulations and act under the control of the ordinary, with whom ultimately the final decision rests; lastly and above all, they must confine their energies to temporal administration and never encroach on the reserved domain of spiritual things (Conc. Plen. Baltim. II, n. 201; see BUILDINGS, ECCLESIASTICAL). Lastly, there are many educational and charitable institutions, founded and directed by laymen, and which are not strictly church property, though they are regularly subject to the control of the ordinary (Conc. Trid., Seess. VII, c. xv; Sess. XXII, c. viii); the material side of these works is not the most important, and to attain their end, the laity who govern there will above all be guided and directed by the advice of their pastors, whose loyal and respectful auxiliaries they will prove themselves to be. FERRARIS, Prompta Bibliotheca s. v. Laicus; SAGMULLER, Kirchenrecht (Freiburg, 1909), 48; LAURENTIUS, Instit. Juris eccles., n. 50 sq. (Freiburg, 1908); Kirchenlexicon, s. v. Clerus. A. BOUDINHON Lake Indians Lake Indians Called by themselves Senijextee and possibly identical with the Lahanna of Lewis and Clark in 1805, a small tribe of Salishan stock, originally ranging along Columbia River in northeast Washington from about Kettle Falls to the British line. In 1820 Fort Colville trading-post was established by the Hudson Bay Company in their country, but they remained almost unchanged until Christianized in 1846, chiefly through the efforts of the Jesuit Father Adrian Hoecken, who in that year established the summer mission of St. Paul at the Falls. In 1870 they were officially described as living entirely by hunting and fishing, selling their furs to the traders, well fed and clothed, peaceable, friendly, independent, and Catholic in religion. They numbered then 239. In 1872 they were collected with other kindred tribes upon Colville Reservation in the same territory. With the other confederated tribes they are now attached to the mission of Saint John Francis Regis, at Ward, in charge of the Jesuit Fathers, assisted by the Sisters of Charity of Providence. They numbered 283 in 1908, a considerable increase over earlier figures. (See also KALISPEL INDIANS.) BUREAU CATH. IND. MISSIONS, Reports (Washington), Reports of Commissioner of Indian Affairs (Washington); MOONEY in Handbook Am. Inds., I (Washington, 1907), s. v. Missions; SHEA, Catholic Missions (New York, 1854); DE SMET, Oregon Missions (New York, 1847); WINANS in Report of Commissioner of Indian Affairs (Washington, 1870). JAMES MOONEY Charles Lalemant Charles Lalemant Born at Paris, 17 November, 1587; died there, 18 November, 1674. He was the first superior of the Jesuit missions in Canada, and his letter to his brother dated 1 August, 1626, inaugurated the series of "Relations" about the missionary work in that country. Thwarted by the Trading Company at Quebec in his efforts to evangelize the Indians, he went to France to protest. Attempting to return to America his vessel was captured by Kirke who was then blockading the St. Lawrence and he was sent as a prisoner to England. A second attempt resulted in shipwreck off Cape Canso, and on his way back to France in a fishing smack which picked him up he was wrecked a second time on the coast of Spain. He finally reached America in 1632 after Quebec was restored to the French. He was the friend and confessor of Champlain, who died in his arms. He returned again to France in 1638, where he became procurator of the Canadian missions, vice provincial and superior of the "Professed house" in Paris. It was he who obtained the concession of the Island of Montreal for the colony of Dauversière, and he also got Maisonneuve and Jeanne Mance to engage in the undertaking. When there was question of appointing the first Bishop of Quebec, his candidacy was urged. He is the author of a spiritual work, not generally known, entitled "La vie cachée de Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ", and is not to be confounded with Louis Lallement who is the author of "Les conferences spirituelles". T.J. CAMPBELL Gabriel Lalemant Gabriel Lalemant Jesuit missionary, b. at Paris, 10 October, 1610, d. in the Huron country, 17 March 1649. He was the nephew of Charles and Jerome Lalemant, and became a Jesuit at Paris, 24 March 1630. He arrived in Canada, 20 September, 1646 and after remaining in Quebec for two years, was sent to the Huron missions as de Brébeuf's assistant. He was scarcely there a month when the Iroquois attacked the settlement of St. Ignatius which they burned, and then descended on the mission of St. Louis where they found de Brébeuf and Lalemant. After setting fire to the village and killing many of the inhabitants, they led the two priests back to St. Ignatius where they were tied to stakes and after horrible torture put to death. Lalemant stood by while his companion was being killed. De Brébeuf expired at three in the afternoon. Lalemant's suffering began at six that evening and lasted until nine o'clock next morning. When the Iroquois withdrew, the bodies of the two priests were carried over to St. Mary's where they were interred. Some of the relies of Lalemant were subsequently carried to Quebec. Relations, passim; ROCHEMONTEIX, Les Jesuites de la Nouvelle France; MARTIN, Hurons et Iroquois; FERLAND, Histoire du Canada; Journal des Jesuites. T.J. CAMPBELL Jerome Lalemant Jerome Lalemant Alias Hierosme. Jesuit missionary, b. at Paris, 27 April, 1593, d. at Quebec, 16 November, 1665. He entered the order at Paris, 2 October, 1610. Arriving in Canada 25 June, 1638, he immediately went to the Huron missions as superior. He took the first regular census of the Indians, instituted the organization of the donnés or lay assistants of the missionaries, and re-arranged the different missionary posts making the new establishment of St. Mary's on the Wye the central one. In 1645 he returned to Quebec as general superior. In 1656 he was recalled to France and in 1658 was made rector of the Royal college of La Flèche; but was hardly installed when he was asked for by Laval as Vicar-General of Quebec. He returned with Laval in 1659 and acted as his vicar during all the troubles with the Governors d'Argenson, d'Avaugour, and de Mesy, and also with de Queylus who was an aspirant for the Bishopric of Quebec. He remained superior and vicar-general until the end of his life. He wrote many of the "Relations", and also most of the only volume we have of the "Journal des Jésuites". T.J. CAMPBELL Jacques-Philippe Lallemant Jacques-Philippe Lallemant French Jesuit, b. at St-Valéry-sur-Somme about 1660; d. at Paris 1748. Little is known of him beyond his writings. He took part in the discussion on the Chinese rites, and wrote the "Journal historique des assemblées tenues en Sorbonne pour condamner les Mémoires de la Chine" (Paris, 1700), a defense of his confrère Lecomte against the Sorbonnist, Jacques Lefèvre. In his "Histoire des Contestations sur la Diplomatique" (Paris, 1708) he sided with the Jesuits Hardouin and Papebroch against the Benedictine Mabillon. His principal works, however, are against the Jansenists. In close succession he published: "Le Père Quesnel séditieux dans ses Réflexions sur le Nouveau Testament" (Brussels, 1704); "Jansénius condamné par l'Eglise par lui-même, par ses défenseurs et par St-Augustin" (Brussels, 1705); "Le véritable esprit des nouveaux disciples de St-Augustin" (Brussels, 1706-7); "Les Hexaples ou les six colonnes sur la Constitution Unigenitus" (Amsterdam, 1714), with a number of pamphlets in defense of the same; "Entretiens au sujet des affaires présentes par rapport à la religion" (Paris, 1734-1743). The better to counteract Quesnel's "Réflexions morales", Lallemant composed, in collaboration with other Jesuits (e.g. Bouhours and Michel), "Réflexions morales sur le Nouveau Testament traduit en français" (Paris, 1713-25), which Fénelon styled very pious and capable of guiding the reader through any part of the sacred text. This work, translated into many languages, enjoyed a well-deserved popularity, and the latest edition (Lille, 1836) was warmly praised by the "Revue Catholique". Lallemant is also the author of "Le Sens propre et littéral des Psaumes de David" (Paris. 1709) and of "L'Imitation de Jésus-Christ, traduction nouvelle" (Paris, 1740), of which there have been countless editions and translations. The "Mémoires de Trévoux" (Aug., 1713, and May, 1714) contain several dissertations with Lallemant's initials, and the Jansenists attributed to him several writings like the "Mandement of M. de Vintimille contre les Nouvelles Ecclésiastiques" (1732) and the supplement to the "Nouvelles Ecclésiastiques" (1734-8). DE BACKER AND SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliotheque des Ecrivains de la Compagnie de Jesus, s. v.; QUERARD, Auteurs pseudonymes et anonymes, s. v., BARBIER, Dictionnaire des ouvrages anonymes. J.F. SOLLIER Louis Lallemant Louis Lallemant French Jesuit, b. at Châlons-sur-Marne, 1588; d. at Bourges, 5 April, 1635. After making his studies under the Fathers of the Society of Jesus, he entered that order in 1605, having completed the usual course of study and teaching which is the lot of its younger members, he was ordained, and taught philosophy and theology for some time until he was made master of novices, an office he filled for four years. Having exercised it with success he was appointed director of the fathers in third probation; but after three years in this difficult post he broke down in health, and was sent to the college of Bourget, in the hope that change of occupation would restore him. The hope was not to be fulfilled; and he died after a few months. Lallemant has been called the Balthazar Alvarez of France, and not without reason. His ideals were no less heroic and his efforts after them as uncompromising as those of that great master of spiritual life. Like him also, he expected from others what he did himself. He set, therefore, the highest ideals before his disciples, especially the Fathers of the third probation, and required them to rise to such ideals. Moreover, as Father Balthazar Alvarez may be held to have contributed not a little, through the great masters of spiritual life he formed, to fix that special type of spirituality which characterized the Spanish Jesuits, so to Father Lallemant's teaching may be traced in no small measure the specific spirituality of the French Jesuits, which the eminent men who came under his teaching and formation diffused throughout the French provinces. He is known today chiefly by his "Doctrine Spirituelle", a collection of his maxims and instructions gathered together by Father Jean Rigoleuc, one of his disciples, and detailing very thoroughly his spiritual method. CHAMPION, La Doctrine Spirituelle du P. Louis Lallemant (Paris, 1694), preceded by a life of Lallemant, GUILHERMY, Menologie de l'Assistance de France, 5 April, PATRIGNANI, Menologio della Compagnia di Gesu. HENRY WOODS Teresa Lalor Teresa Lalor Co-foundress, with Bishop Neale of Baltimore, of the Visitation Order in the United States, b. in Ireland; d. 9 Sept., 1846. Her childhood, spent in Co. Kilkenny, gave such evident mani- festations of a vocation to the religious life that Bishop Lanigan of Ossory had made arrangements for her entrance into a convent of his diocese, when she was obliged to accompany her family to America. Arriving at Philadelphia in 1797, she became acquainted with Rev. Leonard Neale, pastor of St. Joseph's church in that city, and under his direction she devoted herself to works of piety and charity. He recognized in her an instrument for the formation of a religious community, and with this object in view an academy was opened for the instruction of girls. But an epidemic of yellow fever carried off Miss Lalor's companions, and as Father Neale was transferred in 1799 from Philadelphia, to become president of Georgetown College, she also went to Georgetown, D. C., and was for a time domiciled with a small community of Poor Clares, exiled from France. On the departure of the Poor Clares from America, Miss Lalor and two companions opened a school of their own in a house which stood within the present grounds of the Visitation convent, the oldest house of the order in the United States. The "pious ladies", as they were called, aspired to become religious, and, as Bishop Neale was greatly in favor of the rule of St. Francis de Sales, he wished to affiliate them with the order founded by the saintly Bishop of Geneva; but the disturbed condition of ecclesiastical affairs in Europe prevented this until 1816, when he obtained a grant from Pius VII for the community to be considered as belonging to the Order of the Visitation, sharing in all the spiritual advantages thereto annexed. Mother Teresa with two other sisters was professed on the feast of the Holy Innocents of that same year, and became the first superioress of the Georgetown Convent. She lived to see three other houses of the institute founded, offshoots of the mother-house: Mobile, in 1832; Kaskaskia (afterwards transferred to St. Louis), in 1833; and Baltimore, in 1837. She was assisted in her last moments by Archbishop Eccleston of Baltimore. She was about seventy-seven years of age, forty-six of which had been spent in the enclosure where her remains repose, with those of Archbishop Neale, in the crypt beneath the chapel of the convent which they founded. LATHROP (GEORGE PARSONS AND ROSE HAWTHORNE), A Story of Courage (Cambridge, 1895); MS. records of the Visitation convent, Georgetown, D. C., a short account of the life of the foundress of the Visitation Order in America. E. DEVITT Cesar Guillaume La Luzerne César-Guillaume La Luzerne French cardinal b. at Paris, 1738; d. there, l821. He studied at the Collège de Navarre, and rose, through the influence of his kinsmen Lamoignon, to the See of Langres (1770), thus becoming duke and peer of the realm. In that Capacity he took part in the Assemblee des Notables (1788) and in the Etats-Généraux (1789). The futility of his efforts to keep the "Constituante" within the limits of moderation caused him to withdraw from that body. In 1791, he refused to take the constitutional oath and emigrated to Constance and Venice where he gave a generous hospitality to the French exiles and wrote extensively. Under the Restoration he returned to France, became cardinal and state minister (1817) and was re-appointed to the See of Langres which he had resigned at the time of the Concordat. His principal works are: "Oraison funèbre de Louis XV" (Paris, 1774); "Considérations sur divers points de la morale chrétienne" (Venice, 1795-1799); "Explication des évangiles des dimanches et des fetes" (Venice, 1807); "Considérations sur la déclaration du clergé de France en 1682" (Paris, 1821). An excellent apologist and a lucid expounder of Catholic faith and Christian ethics, La Luzerne, like Frayssinous, Talleyrand-Perigord and Bausset, was a belated representative of the old Gallicanism. His efforts to revive it failed, owing partly to the fall of the Bourbons and partly because of the galaxy of brilliant writers who, in "L'Avenir" and other publications, gave to France a definite Roman orientation. Vie de la Luzerne in MIGNE, Demonstrations Evangeliques; DEIMIE in Encyclopedie du XIX Siecle, s. v.; ROHRBACHER, Hist. de l'Eg1ise, ed. GAUME, IV (Paris, 1869), 623; BELAMY, La theologie Catholique au XIX6 siecle (Paris, 1904); BAUNARD, Un siecle de l'Eglise de France (Paris, 1902). J.F. SOLLIER Chevalier de Lamarck Chevalier de Lamarck (Jean-Baptiste-Pierre-Antoine de Monet; also spelled La Marck; botanical abbreviation Lam.; zoological abbreviation Lm.) Distinguished botanist, zoologist, and natural philosopher, b. at Bazentin in Picardy (department of Somme), France, 1 August, 1744; d. at Paris, 18 December, 1829. His father, Pierre de Monet, intended him for the priesthood, so Lamarck first studied at the Jesuit college at Amiens. Upon the death of his father, however, he joined, in 1671 the French army in northern Germany, and on the day of his arrival, during the Seven Years' War, was made an offleer on the field of battle for bravery. When twenty-four years old he was obliged, on account of illness, to leave the army with a very small pension. While supporting himself by working as clerk in a bank at Paris, he studied medicine, meteorology, and botany in his spare hours. He never practised medicine, and his numerous meteorological writings have no scientific value; the same is true of his physical and chemical works, in which he opposed Lavoisier. They were all written to support himself and his family. It was otherwise with the different branches of biology; from 1778 he was an able botanist, from 1794 a zoologist, about 1800 began his speculative labours upon the variation of species. In 1778 he wrote in six months the first complete account of the flora of France, "Flore française" (3 vols., Paris, 1778; 3rd ed. edited by de Candolle, 6 vols., 1805-15). Both in the introduction to this work and in several treatises, Lamarck explained the analytical, dichotomous system of determining the species of plants, a system originated by him and now much used. In classification he maintained the principle, in opposition to Jussieu, that a single part, no matter how essential, was not sufficient for the classification of the plant but that, in classification, all parts should be considered. This work led to his acquaintance with Buffon and in 1779 gained his election to the Academy of Sciences. With Buffon's son he then travelled through Holland, Germany, and Hungary. Once more in Paris he became a contributor to the "Encyclopédie méthodique", for which he wrote the first four volumes of the "Dictionnaire de botanique" (Paris, 1783-96). In this work the genera of plants are skilfully treated in alphabetical order from A to P, the great collections of Paris being exhaustively drawn upon. The large atlas "Illustration des Genres", which accompanied the work, contains 900 plates. Lamarck began a "Histoire naturelle des végétaux" (Paris, 1802), as part of the compilation "Suites de Buffon"; Mirbel continued the "Histoire naturelle" from volume III to XV. In the meantime Lamarck had received, in 1789, the position of keeper of the herbarium at the Jardin des Plantes as assistant to Daubenton, but he soon lost it. At no time in his life was he in very prosperous circumstances. When the Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle was reorganized in 1793 there were no professors of zoology. The professorship for the lower animals was offered to the botanist Lamarck, and he had the courage at the age of forty-nine to teach himself zoology. He commenced his zoological lectures in 1794 and carried them on until blindness forced him in 1818 to transfer them to the entomologist Latreille. Lamarck began by separating the animal kingdom into the two important divisions of vertebrates and invertebrates. He sought to develop the classification of invertebrates ("Système des animaux sans vertèbres", Paris, 1801), and established numerous new genera and species for them. His most important zoological work is the "Histoire des animaux sans vertebras" (7 vols., Paris, 1815-22; 2nd ed., 11 vols., 1835-45). Particular mention should be made of Lamarck's investigations concerning molluses, especially his studies of the geologically important fossil molluses. For the last twenty years his reputation has been far greater than in his lifetime in a.steadily increasing degree. His theoretical views concerning life-forms which were often regarded by his contemporaries, as by Cuvier, only as droll, fantastic crotchets, unworthy of notice or even of contradiction, are now considered by many biologists as showing in the highest degree the originality of genius. These views are expressed in numerous treatises issued durmg the period 1802-20 but especially in his work "Philosophie zoologique" (2 vols., Paris, 1809, 1839, 1873, etc.; lately translated into other languages). They are the basis of that form of evolution which as lamarckism, and of late in sharp opposition to Darwin as neo-Lamarckism, has distinguished adherents among botanists, zoologists, and palaeontologists. These adherents, however, do not agree among themselves. Every year in increasing number appear popular and scientific works upon Lamarck and Lamarckism. His ideas were partly influenced by Maillet, Condillac, Rousseau, and especially by Buffon. Lamarck can with more right than Darwin be called the originator of the theory of evolution, just as he was also the first to choose the form of a genealogical tree to illustrate the genetic connection of organisms. According to him only a few species have died out; for the most part they have been modified. However, the word Lamarckism means above all the impelling forces, postulated by Lamarck, of phylogeny: the use or disuse of the organs, occasioned by need, consequently by a factor inherent in the life-form, is said to call forth adaptations which become permanent by heredity. Lamarck was, therefore, a vitalist, not a materialist; he was also neither an atheist, nor irreligious, nor an opponent of the Scriptures. On the contrary, in regard to the creation of man he frankly placed the authority of the Bible higher than his own ideas. At least there is no valid reason for regarding his words relative to this as hypocritical, as many Lamarckians do. Lamarck's name is perpetuated in botany in the genera Monetia, Markea, Lamarchea, and Lamarckia. In 1909 a monument to him was unveiled in the Museum d'Histoire Naturelle at Paris. Of the extensive literature on Lamarck may be mentioned: CUVIER, Eloge de Lamarck (Paris, 1835); COPE,The Origin of the fittest (New York, 1887); PACKARD, Lamarck, the Founder of Evolution (New York, London, and Bombay, 1901); PAULY, Darwinismus und Lamarckismus (Munich, 19O5); LOTSY, Vorlesungen uber Desce: denztheor er, (Jena, 1906-08); BURCKHARDT, Geschichte der Zoologie (Leipsig, 1907); PERRIER, GUIGNARD, and DELAGE in Acad. des Sciences, Inst. de France, CXLIX (Paris, 1909); RADL, Geschichte der biolog. Theorien (Leipzig 1905-09). JOSEPH ROMPEL Alphonse de Lamartine Alphonse de Lamartine Poet, b. at Macon Saône-et-Loire, France, 21 Oct., 1790; d. at Paris, l March, 1869. Born of a noble and Christian family, Lamartine at an early age read selected passages from the Bible, later from Fénelon, Bernardin de Saint-Pierre, Chateaubriand, Mme de Staël, Racine, Voltaire, Parny, and among foreign poets, Tasso, Dante, Petrarch, Shakespeare, Ossian, especially the last, who was then very popular. About the age of twenty he met at the house of one of his relatives at Naples a little cigarette girl called Graziella, who captured his heart or his imagination, and of whom he sang in his works. Two years later, in 1814, when he was a member of the life-guards, he made the acquaintance of a delicate young woman, the wife of a physician named Charles, who died shortly afterwards. This ideal passion and the grief which followed so soon upon its blossoming revealed him to himself. Hitherto he had been an imitator; henceforth he would accept no guide save his own inspiration. Madame Charles is the Julie of his "Raphael", and the Elvire of his poems. He made his entrance into the field of poetry by a masterpiece, "Les Méditations Poétiques" (1820), and awoke to find himself famous; he may be said to have taken glory by storm. His other poetical works are "Les Secondes Méditations" (1823); "Harmonies Poétiques et Religieuses" (1830); "Jocelyn" (1836); and "La Chute d'un Ange" (1838); two fragments of a great epic which he dreamed of dedicating to humanity, and lastly the "Recueillements Poétiques" (1839), in which he returned to lyricism, but without equaling his early works. He had already made himself known in prose. In 1835 he published the "Voyage en Orient", a brilliant and bold account of the journey he had just made, in royal luxury, to the countries of the Orient, and in the course of which he had lost his only daughter, Thenceforth he confined himself to prose. He published volumes on the most varied subjects (history, criticism, personal confidences, literary conversations) especially during the Empire, when, having retired to private life and having become the prey of his creditors, he condemned himself to what he calls "literary hard-labor in order to exist and pay his debts". The most famous of these prose works was the "Histoire des Girondins" (1847). Lamartine had long been taking part in politics, and had been elected a member of Parliament in 1833. He displayed astonishing ability as an extempore speaker, his brilliancy and grace being joined to fluency and action, and he waged a formidable opposition against the government of Louis-Philippe. The "Histoire des Girondins" was an episode in this: it was written with the desire to glorify the principles and the men of the French Revolution, without, however, approving their crimes. Immediately becoming popular the author shared in the provincial government at the downfall of the monarchy (1848). But his popularity was ephemeral and the Coup d'etat of 2 December, 1851, caused his return to literature for the remainder of his life. He died quietly, almost forgotten. In him France lost a great poet; Lamartine may be reproached with not paying sufficient attention to the poetic vocation for which he affected an aristocratic disdain. Hence his lack of revision and faultiness of plot, whenever his plot requires detailed thinking out, as in his longer compositions; hence also his carelessness in rhyme and sometimes even in syntax. Even when he writes, Lamartine is an improviser who abandons himself to nature. But on the other hand he displays great simplicity, imagination, ease, fullness, and melody. When the "Meditations" first appeared they revealed to France an entirely new kind of poetry, one which, according to the phrase of the author, "cessait d'etre un jeu stérile de l'esprit pour renaître fille de l'enthousiasme et de l'inspiration". In fact, despite the softness of the sentiments to which he abandoned his heart, he was a writer of rare elevation. No poet has sung of God with more Christian love than he in his earliest works; though in later life he became a mere spiritualist, he returned in his old age to the religion of his youth, and died the death of a Christian. But at every period he loved to see the Creator through the transparent veil of the creature and to sing to Him hymns of adoration. DE MAZADE, Lamartine, sa vie politique et litteraire (Paris, 1870); OLLIVIER, Lamartine (1874); DE POMAIROLS, Lamartine (Paris, 1889); CHAMBORANT DE PERISSAT, Lamartine Inconnu, 1892; DESCHANEL, Lamartine (Paris, 1893). GEORGES BERTIN Paschal Lamb Paschal Lamb A lamb which the Israelites were commanded to eat with peculiar rites as a part of the Passover celebration. The Divine ordinance is first recorded in Exodus, xii, 3-11, where Yahweh is represented as giving instructions to Moses to preserve the Hebrews from the last of the plagues inflicted upon the Egyptians, viz. the death of the firstborn. On the tenth day of the first month each family (or group of families, if they are small) is commanded to take a lamb without blemish, male, of one year, and keep it until the fourteenth day of the month, and sacrifice it in the evening. The blood of the lamb must be sprinkled on the transom and doorposts of the houses in which the paschal meal is taken. The lamb should be roasted and eaten with unleavened bread and wild lettuce. The whole of the lamb must be consumed -- head, feet, and entrails -- and if any thing remain of it until morning it must be burned with fire. The Israelites are commanded to eat the meal in haste, with girded loins, shoes on their feet, and staves in their hands "for it is the Phase (that is, Passage) of the Lord." The blood of the lamb on the doorposts served as a sign of immunity or protection against the destroying hand of the Lord, who smote in one night all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast. This ordinance is repeated in abridged form in Numbers xix, 11, 12, and again in Deuteronomy, xvi, 2-6, where sheep and oxen are mentioned instead of the lamb. That the Paschal Lamb prefigured symbolically Christ, "the Lamb of God", who redeemed the world by the shedding of His blood, and particularly the Eucharistic banquet, or new Passover, has always remained the constant belief of Christian tradition. JAMES F. DRISCOLL The Lamb (In Early Christian Symbolism) The Lamb (in Early Christian Symbolism) One of the few Christian symbols dating from the first century is that of the Good Shepherd carrying on His shoulders a lamb or a sheep, with two other sheep at his side. Between the first and the fourth century eighty-eight frescoes of this type were depicted in the Roman catacombs. The signification which may be attached to this symbol, according to Wilpert's interpretation, is as follows. The lamb or sheep on the shoulders of the Good Shepherd is a symbol of the soul of the deceased being borne by Our Lord into heaven; whereas the two sheep accompanying the Shepherd represent the saints already enjoying eternal bliss. This interpretation is in harmony with an ancient liturgical prayer for the dead of the following tenor: "We pray God . . . to be merciful to him in judgment, having redeemed him by His death, freed him from sin, and reconciled him with the Father. May He be to him the Good Shepherd and carry him on His shoulders [to the fold] May He receive him in the following of the King, and grant him to participate in eternal joy in the Society of the saints" (Muratori, "Lit. Rom. Vet.", I, 751). In catacomb frescoes this petition is represented as already granted; the deceased is in the company of the saints. Another cycle of catacomb paintings (not numerous) represents a lamb, or a sheep, with a milk-pail either on its back or suspended from a pastoral staff. A unique fresco of this order shows a shepherd milking a sheep, while still another shows milk-pail on an altar between two sheep. The frescoes of this type (of the sheep and milk-pail) were, until recently, generally regarded as symbols of the Eucharist, but Mgr. Wilpert dissents from the received opinion, and regards all frescoes in which allusions to milk occur as symbolic of the joys of Heaven. Both the earlier and the later interpretations depend on a well-known text of the Acts of Sts. Perpetua and Felicitas. While in prison awaiting martyrdom, St. Perpetua tells us she beheld in a vision an immense garden, and in the centre thereof the tall and venerable figure of an old man in the dress of a shepherd, milking a sheep. Raising his head, he looked at me and said, 'Welcome, my daughter.' And he called me to him and he gave me of the milk. I received it with joined hands and partook of it. And all those standing around cried 'Amen'. And at the sound of the voice I awoke, tasting an indescribable sweetness in my mouth." The community of ideas between this description and the catacomb frescoes of the sheep and milk-pail is so apparent that, at first view, the current interpretations of this class of representations would seem to be obviously accurate. Wilpert, however, calls attention to the fact that the things described in the vision of St. Perpetua took place not on earth, but in heaven, where the Eucharist is no longer received . Hence he regards the frescoes of the milk-pail class as symbolic of the joys which the soul of the deceased possess in paradise. The lamb, or sheep, symbol, then, of the first class described, has, in all catacomb paintings and on sarcophagi of the fourth century, always a meaning associated with the condition of the deceased after death. But in the new era ushered in by Constantine the Great the lamb appears in the art of the basilicas with an entirely new signification. The general scheme of apsidal mosaic decoration in the basilicas that everywhere sprang into existence after the conversion of Constantine, conformed in the main to that described by St. Paulinus as existing in the Basilica of St. Felix at Nola. "The Trinity gleams in its full mystery", the saint tells us. "Christ is represented in the form of a lamb; the voice of the Father thunders from heaven; and through the dove the Holy Spirit is poured out. The Cross is encompassed by a circle of light as by a crown. The crown of this crown are the apostles themselves, who are represented by a choir of doves. The Divine unity of the Trinity is summarized in Christ. The Trinity has at the same time Its own emblems; God is represented by the paternal voice, and by the Spirit; the Cross and the Lamb denote the Holy Victim. The purple background and the palms indicate royalty and triumph. Upon the rock he stands Who is the Rock of the Church, from which flow the four murmuring springs, the Evangelists, living rivers of Christ" (St. Paulinus, "Ep. xxxii, ad Severum", sect. 10, P. L. LXI, 336). The Divine Lamb was usually represented in apsidal mosaics standing on the mystic mount whence flow the four streams of Paradise symbolizing the Evangelists; twelve sheep six on either side, were further represented, coming from the cities of Jerusalem and Bethlehem (indicated by small houses at the extremities of the scenes) and proceeding towards the lamb. The lower zone, no longer in existence, of the famous fourth-century mosaic in the church of St. Pudenziana, Rome, originally represented the lamb on the mountain and probably also the twelve sheep; the existing sixth-century apse mosaic of Sts. Cosmas and Damian at Rome gives a good idea of the manner in which this subject was represented. According to the "Liber Pontificalis", Constantine the Great presented to the Lateran baptistery, which he founded, a golden statue of a lamb pouring water which was placed between two silver statues of Christ and St. John the Baptist; the Baptist is represented holding a scroll inscribed with the words: "Ecce Agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit peccata mundi." From the fifth century the head of the lamb began to be encircled by the nimbus. Several monuments also show the lamb with its head surmounted by various forms of the Cross; one monument discovered by de Vogüé in Central Syria shows the lamb with the Cross on its back. The next step in the development of this idea of associating the Cross with the lamb was depicted in a sixth-century mosaic of the Vatican Basilica which represented the lamb standing on a throne, at the foot of a Cross studded with gems. From the pierced side of this lamb, blood flowed into a chalice whence again it issued in five streams, thus recalling Christ's five wounds. Finally, another sixth-century monument, now forming part of the ciborium of St. Mark's, Venice, presents a crucifixion scene with the two thieves nailed to the cross, while Christ is represented as a lamb, standing erect at the junction of the crossbeams. One of the most interesting monument showing the Divine Lamb in various characters is the sarcophagus of Junius Bassus (d. 358). In four of the spandrils between the niches of + raising Lazarus, by means of a rod, from the tomb; + being baptized by another lamb, with dove dominating the scene; + multiplying loaves, in two baskets, by the touch of a rod; + joining three other lambs. Two other scenes show a lamb receiving the Tables of the Law on Mount Sinai and striking a rock whence issues a stream of water. Thus in this series, the lamb is a symbol, not only of Christ, but also of Moses, the Baptist, and the Three Children in the fiery furnace. The fresco the cemetery of Praetextatus, showing Susanna as a lamb between two wolves (the elders), is another example of the lamb as symbol of one of the ordinary faithful. MAURICE M. HASSETT Peter Lambeck Peter Lambeck Generally called LAMBEC[C]IUS, historian and librarian, b. at Hamburg, 13 April 1628; d. at Vienna, 4 April, 1680. After studying under private tutors and at the Johanneum, he entered in 1644 the gymnasium where he came under the influence of Friedrich Lindenborg, and especially of his mother's brother, Lucas Holste (Holstein, Holstenius), the most distinguished philologian, antiquarian, and critic of his time. The latter had early recognized his nephew's gifts, and entered into a lively correspondence with the lad of barely twelve. On his recommendation Peter went in 1645 to Holland to continue his studies, and at the University of Amsterdam, came in contact with many scholars, especially the philologian Gerhard Johann Voss. He later left the Netherlands at his uncle's wish and went to Paris, where his relationship with the celebrated Holste, as well as his own abilities, secured him access to the most distinguished savants of his time. He here received the degree of Doctor of Laws. After finishing his studies, he made a tour through France, Liguria, and Etruria, and spent two years in Rome, where under the special direction of his uncle, who in the interim had become papal librarian, he undertook classical and historical researches. When barely nineteen, his learned work (Lucubrationes criticae in Auli Gellii Noctes Atticas, Paris, 1647) had already brought him the approval of the learned public of Paris. On his return to Hamburg, he was made in 1652 professor of history at the gymnasium, and in 1664 became rector. He had many enemies on account of his success, and, being accused of atheism, decided to give up his position. He was confirmed by his unfortunate marriage in his decision to leave the country and return to Rome. Here he soon won the favor of Alexander VII. Queen Christina of Sweden, then resident at Rome, also exercised a great influence over him, and soon he entered the Catholic Church. To secure a permanent position he went to Vienna, where Emperor Leopold appointed him librarian and court historiographer. In this position he performed great services by his arrangement of the library, and especially by his catalogues of its treasures ("Commentariorum de Bibliotheca Caesarea Vindobonensi libri VIII", Vienna, 1865-79; re-edited by Kollar, 1766-82). These catalogues are even to-day of value, being especially important for the numerous contributions they contain to our knowledge of the Old German language and literature. Of great importance for the history of literature is his "Prodromus Historiae literariae" (Hamburg, 1659), of which a second enlarged edition was issued by J. A. Fabricius (Leipzig, 1710), with a biographical sketch of the author, published separately at Hamburg in 1724. The "Prodromus" was the first comprehensive history of literature, chronologically arranged. Lambeck also published among other works a history of his native town ("Origines Hamburgenses ab anno 808 ad annum 1292", 2 vols., 1652-61), and researches into the history of the Byzantine Empire ("Syntagma originum et antiquitatum Constantinopolitanarum" Paris, 1655). HOFFMANN, P. Lambeck als Schriftsteller u. Bibliothekar (Soest, 1864); KARAJAN, Kaiser Leopold I. u. P. Lambeck (Vienna, 1868). PATRICIUS SCHLAGER St. Lambert St. Lambert (LANDEBERTUS). Martyr, Bishop of Maestricht, b. at Maestricht between 633 and 638; d. at Liège, between 698 and 701. His parents, who belonged to the nobility, gave him a very religious education, and chose as his preceptor St. Landoaldus, priest of the cathedral church at Maestricht. Later, Lambert received instruction from St. Theodardus (668 or 669), whom he succeeded in 670 as Bishop of Maestricht. During the calamitous days of Ebroin, Mayor of the Palace, Lambert, having defended the interests of King Childeric, was forced to flee from Maestricht. While Pharamundus administered his see, Lambert spent seven years (674-681) in the well-known Abby of Stavelot, where he edified the monks by his saintly life. In 681 Ebroin received his well-earned retribution, and Pepin of Heristal became mayor of the palace, at first of Austrasia, but in 687 of the whole domain of the Franks. Pepin, who liked Lambert, permitted him to return to Maestricht and resume the administration of his see. Some time later we find Lambert as a missionary in Toxandria, the Kempenland and Brabant of today. In order to spread the Gospel, he descended the River Meuse as far as Tiel and laboured along its banks in company with St. Willibrord, who had come from England in 691. It is very probable that Lambert came in contact with Sts. Wiro, Plechelmus, and Otger, who had built a church and monastery on the Pietersburg, later called the Odilienberg, near Roermond. St. Landrada aided Lambert in founding the Abbey of Munsterbilsen. For several centuries a controversy has been carried on concerning the manner of the saint's death. According to tradition, Lambert became a martyr to his defence of marital fidelity. The Bollandists, Mabillon, Valois, Lecointe, Pagi and others held, however, that the saint was killed by Frankish nobles in revenge for the failure of a plundering expedition. Kurth in 1876 critically examined the centuries-old tradition and, documents in hand, proved beyond further doubt that Lambert was martyred because of his defence of the marriage tie. Pepin of Heristal lived for many years in irreproachable wedlock with the pious Plectrude, who bore him two sons. Later he entered into unlawful relations with Alpais, who became the mother of Charles Martel. When no one had the courage to remonstrate with Pepin, Lambert went to his court like another John the Baptist. Alpais, fearing that Pepin might heed the admonitions of the saint, appealed to her brother Dodo. The latter sought revenge and caused Lambert to be assassinated in the chapel of Sts. Cosmas and Damian, built by St. Monulphus at Liège. His heart was pierced by a javelin while he was at the altar. The servants of the martyr placed his remains in a vessel, descended the Meuse to Maestricht, and buried them in the cemetery of St. Peter, in the vault of his parents, Aper and Herisplindis, beneath the walls of Maestricht. Between 714 and 723, St. Hubert exhumed the remains and had them translated to Liège, whither he had transferred, presumably as early as 723, his episcopal see. The saint's feast is celebrated on 17 Sept. A large number of churches have St. Lambert as their patron. Acta SS., Sept., V; STEPHANUS, Vita S. Lamberti in MIGNE, P.L., CXXXII, 643; DEMARTEAU, Vie de S. Lambert écrite en vers par Hucbald de St-Amand, et documents du Xme siècle (Liège, 1878); ALBERS, De H. Lambertus, XXe bisschop van Maastricht in Jaarboekje van Alberdingk Thym (Amsterdam, 1896); KURTH, Etude critique sur St. Lambert et son premier biographe in Annales de l'Académie d'Archélogie de Belgique, XIII, 3rd series, III. P. ALBERS Lambert Le Begue Lambert Le Bègue Priest and reformer, lived at Liège, Belgium, about the middle of the twelfth century. The son of poor people, he was ordained priest in a more or less legitimate way, and was probably parish-priest of St-Christophe at Liège. He began preaching against the abuses and the vices of the clergy, protesting against simony, the ordination of sons of priests, and certain customs in the administration of the Sacrament of Baptism and the celebration of Mass. Some of his opinions are not above suspicion, his ideas for instance concerning the day of rest and Masses for the dead. In time he gathered about him a popular following, for whom he translated into the vernacular the Life of the Blessed Virgin, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles of St. Paul, with commentaries; these translations unfortunately have not been preserved. Probably at this period he organized the association known as Béguines, whose name cannot be derived philologically from "to beg" (i.e. to pray), but is probably derived from the name bègue (stammerer) given to Lambert, to whom, in fact, the foundation is attributed by several contemporary and trustworthy authorities. But he also had adversaries, especially among the clergy, and it was to refute them that he wrote a defense of his theories, entitled "Antigraphum Petri". His writings reveal him a man very learned for his time; they abound with quotations, not only from the Bible, but also from the Fathers of the Church (e.g. St. Gregory, St. Augustine, and St. Bernard), and even from profane authors like Ovid, Virgil, and Cicero. Accused of heresy, he was condemned and imprisoned notwithstanding his appeal to the Holy See. He succeeded in making his escape and went over to the antipope Callistus III, who had been recognized by Raoul of Zahringen, Prince-Bishop of Liège. He wrote to the pope several letters in justification of his doctrines and conduct, but the result of these endeavors is not known. In all probability he returned to Liège and died there in 1177. FAYEN, L'Antigraphum Petri el les lettres concernant Lambert le Bigue conservees dans le manuscrit de Glasgow in Compterendu des seances de la Commission royale d'histoire, IX (5th series, Brussels, 1899), 255 sqq.; FHEDERICQ, Les documents de Glasgow concernant Lambert le Begue in Bulletins de l'Academie royale de Belgique, XXIX (3rd series, Brussels, 1895), 148-990; DARIS, Notices histonques sur les Eglises du diocese de Liege, XVI (Liege, 1896), 5; KURTH, La Cite de Liege au Moyen-Age, II (Brussels, 1910), 344. M.A. FAYEN Lambert of Hersfeld Lambert of Hersfeld A medieval historian; b. in Franconia or Thuringia, c. 1024; d. after 1077. On 15 March 1058, he entered the Benedictine monastery of Hersfeld, in Hesse, and was ordained priest in the fall of the same year, at Aschaffenburg, by Bishop Liutpold of Mainz. Immediately after his elevation to the priesthood he started on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land without previously obtaining the permission of his abbot. On 17 September, 1059, he returned to his monastery and asked and obtained from his abbot, Meginher, who was then lying on his death bed, pardon for this act of disobedience. Only once more during the rest of his life did Lambert leave his monastery. It was in the year 1071 when, by order of his abbot, Rudhard, he spent fourteen weeks at the monasteries of Siegburg and Saalfeld, studying the reform which had been introduced into these monasteries from the Italian monastery of Fruttuaria in Piedmont. Lambert was not favorably impressed with the reform. In his opinion the old monastic discipline, if strictly observed, was more in accordance with the spirit of St. Benedict than the reform of Fruttuaria. Lambert of Hersfeld is best known to the world as the author of "Annales Lamberti", a chronicle of the world from its beginning to the year 1077. Up to the year 1040 the Annals of Lambert are little more than a reproduction of preceding annals; from 1040 to 1068 they are more diffuse, and to some extent based on personal observation and the authority of eyewitnesses; from 1068 to 1077 they widen into an elaborate history of the times written in the elegant style of Sallust and ranking among the most perfect literary productions of the Middle Ages. The impartiality and truthfulness of Lambert as a historian were unquestioned until the middle of the nineteenth century. The German historian Ranke ["Zur Kritik frankischdeutscher Reichsannalisten" printed in "Abhandlungen der Berliner Akademie" (Berlin, 1854), 436 sq.] was the first to discredit Lambert's reliability as a historian. His view has been corroborated by the researches of most succeeding historians, some of whom have charged him even with wilful falsifications of historical facts. Lefarth and Eigenbrodt (loc. cit. in bibliography below) attempted to rehabilitate Lambert, but with little success. Though Lambert may not have been a wilful falsifier of historical facts, as has been asserted by Delbruck and Holder-Egger (loc. cit. below) it is an established fact that he was prejudiced against Henry IV, not so much on account of the emperor's encroachments upon the rights of the pope as on account of the injury sustained by the monastery of Hersfeld through an imperial decree concerning the tithes in Thuringia (see Lambert's "Annals", ad annum 1073, pp. 141 sq.). Though not in sympathy with the great ideas of Gregory VII, he was prepossessed in his favor simply because the emperor was his enemy. His method, moreover, of writing history was to a great extent pragmatic. Instead of impartially investigating into the motives of his historical personages, he is often led by his prepossessions and prejudices to give a very subjective coloring to historical facts. Lambert is also the author of "Vita Lulli" a life of Archbishop Lullus of Mainz who founded the monastery of Hersfeld in 768. It was written between 1063 and 1073, is of even less historical value than the "Annals", but, like the "Annals", it is a masterpiece of pure and elegant latinity. His history of Hersfeld, entitled "De institutione ecclesiae Hersveldensis", has been lost, with the exception of the prologue and a few fragments. It was written before the year 1076. His epic on the history of his times has been entirely lost. Some historians thought it was identical with "Carmen de Bello Saxonico", written by an unknown author shortly after the victory of Henry IV over the Saxons (1075), but of late this opinion has lost ground. The complete works of Lambert were edited, with a learned disquisition, by Holder-Egger "Lamperti monachi Hersfeldensis opera" (Hanover, 1894). The "Annals" are printed separately in "Mon. Germ.: Script.", III, 22-263. They are also in P.L., up to the year 1040, CXLI, 450-582, and from the year 1040 to 1077, CXLVI, 1053-1248. Lambert's "Vita Lulli" is also printed in Acta SS., 16 October, VII, 1083-1091 and in "Mon. Germ.: Script.", XV, I, 132-148. Gundlach in "Heldenlieder der deutschen Kaiserzeit" (Innsbruck, 1894-99), II, 191, sq., and Kurze in "Deutsche Zeitschrift fur Geschichtswissenschaft", New Series (Freiburg im Br., 1898), II, 174 sq., attempt to prove that Lambert is identical with Abbot Hartwig of Hersfeld. HOLDER-EGGER, Studien zu. Lambert von Hersfeld in Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft fur altere deutsche Geschichtskunde (Hanover and Leipzig, 1893-4), XIX, 143-213; 371-430; 500-74; MEYER VON KNONAU, Jahrbucher des deutschen Reiches unter Heinrich IV und Heinrich V (Leipzig, 1894), II, 791-856; DELBRUCK, Ueber die Glaubwurdigkeit Lamberts von Hersfeld (Bonn, 1873); DlEFFENBACHER, Lambert von Hersfeld als Historiograph (Wurzburg, 1890); EIGENBRODT, Lambert von Hersfeld und die neuere Quellenforschung (Cassel, 1896); LEFARTH, Lambert von Hersfeld, ein Beitrag zu seiner Critik (Dusseldorf, 1871); KUBO, Beitrage zur Kritik Lamberts von Hersfeld (Halle, 1890); WATTENBACH, Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter (Berlin, 1894), II, 97-109. For an exhaustive bibliography see POTTHAST, Bibliotheca historica medii aevi (Berlin, 1896), I, 705 sq. MICHAEL OTT Lambert of St-Bertin Lambert of St-Bertin Benedictine chronicler and abbot, b. about 1060; d. 22 June, 1125, at St-Bertin, France. He came of a distinguished family, and, when still young, entered the monastery of St-Bertin. He afterwards visited several famous schools in France, having first laid the foundation of his subsequent learning by the study in his own monastery of grammar, theology, and music. For some time he filled the office of prior, and in 1095 was chosen abbot at once by the monks of St-Bertin and by the canons of St-Omer. He was thus drawn into closer relations with Cluny, and. instituted through the Cluniac monks many reforms in his somewhat deteriorated monastery. Needless to say, he encountered no little opposition to his efforts, but, thanks to his extraordinary energy, he finally secured acceptance for his views, and rehabilitated the financial position of the monastery. He was a friend of St. Anselm and exchanged verses, still extant, with Reginald of Canterbury (ed. Libermann in "Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft fur altere Geschichte", XIII, 1888, pp. 528; 531-34). Even during his lifetime, Lambert was lauded in glowing terms for his great learning by an admirer--not a monk of St-Bertin--in the "Tractatus de moribus Lamberti Abbatis S. Beretini" (ed. Holder-Egger in "Mon. Ger. Hist. SS.", XV, 2, 946-53). This work mentions several otherwise unknown writings of Lambert, e.g. "Sermones de Vetere Testamento", also studies on free will, the Divine prescience, original sin, origin of the soul, and questions of physical science. He is probably identical with Lambert, the Canon of St. Omer who wrote the famous "Liber floridus", a kind of encyclopedia of Biblical, chronological, astronomical, geographical, theological, philosophical and natural history subjects, a detailed description of which is given in the "Historia comitum Normannorum, comitum Flandriae". It is an extract or synopsis from different authors, and was begun in 1090 and finished in 1120. POTTHAST, Bibl. Hist. Med. Aevi. I, 705; Biogr. Nat. De Belgigue, XI (1891), 162-66; WATTENBACH, Geschichtsquellen, II (1894), 170 sq. PATRICIUS SCHLAGER Jacques and Jean de Lamberville Jacques and Jean de Lamberville Jacques de Lamberville Jesuit missionary, b. at Rouen, 1641; d. at Quebec, 1710. He joined the Society in 1661, and proceeded to Canada in 1675 to labour almost uninterruptedly on the Iroquois missions until his death. At Onondaga he discerned the soul of a saint in the Algonquin captive, Catherine Tegakwitha, whom he instructed and baptized. He helped his brother Jean to pacify the Iroquois, irritated by Governor de la Barres untimely campaign. After a few years of respite in Quebec and Montreal, he returned to Onondaga at the request of the natives, only to leave it in 1709 through the intrigues of Abraham Schuyler. Like his elder brother, he lived among the Iroquois during a period when the rivalry of the French and English to secure the alliance of that fierce nation endangered the lives of the missionaries. Charlevoix says he was "one of the holiest missionaries of New France"; he was called the "Divine man" by the Indians. Jean de Lamberville Elder brother of the preceding and also a Jesuit missionary, b. at Rouen, 1633; d. at Paris, 1714. He joined the Society in 1656, and came to Canada in 1669. He spent fourteen years with the Onondaga Iroquois. His patriotic aim was to maintain peace between the French and the Iroquois, with the latter of whom his influence was paramount. When Denonville secretly prepared to avenge the humiliating conditions of peace resulting from de la Barres rash expedition, Lambervilles life was greatly exposed through the governors fault, as he had been deceived into convoking the assembly at Cataracoui where several Iroquois chiefs were treacherously captured and condemned to the galleys; his reputation for honesty and uprightness alone saved him. He vainly strove to prevent the devastation of the Tsonnontouan villages, of which the massacre of Lachine (1689) was the retaliation. When the Onondagas and Mohawks harassed the French allies, Lamberville consented to negotiate peace. His wise diplomacy obtained a mitigation of the humiliating terms proposed at Governor Dongans instigation, and Denonville duly praised his ability and devotedness. From France where shattered health forced him to retire, he tried to come back to his mission [,] but death intervened in 1714. The Menology of the Society says that "he had the spiritual physiognomy of Brébeuf." ROCHEMONTEIX, Les Jésuites et la Nouvelle France (Paris, 1896); LINDSAY, N. D. de Lorette en la Nouvelle France (Montreal, 1900); CAMPBELL, Pioneer Priests of North America (New York, 1908). LIONEL LINDSAY Trancribed by W.S. French, Jr. Louis Lambillotte Louis Lambillotte Belgian Jesuit, composer and paleographer of Church music; born at La Hamaide, near Charleroi, Belgium, 27 March, 1796; died at Paris, 27 February, 1855. His name is now chiefly remembered in connection with the restoration of Gregorian music, which he inaugurated and greatly promoted by his scientific researches and publications. At the age of fifteen, he became organist of Charleroi; later he went in a similar capacity to Dinan-sur-Meuse. In 1820 he was appointed choirmaster and organist of the Jesuit College of Saint-Acheul, Amiens. While exercising these functions he also studied the classics, and at the end of five years, in August, 1825, he entered the Society of Jesus. The thirty years of his Jesuit life were spent successively in the colleges of Saint-Acheul, Fribourg, Estavayer, Brugelette and Vaugirard. While occupied in teaching and directing music, he gave himself up more entirely to composition, with a view to enhance the splendour both of the religious ceremonies and the academic entertainments in those newly founded colleges. His powers of composition were necessarily checked by the limited ability of his performers, his orchestra, like his chorus, being entirely recruited from the ranks of the students; nevertheless his facility and his fluency were such that he provided new music for almost every occasion, producing in the course of time, besides his celebrated volumes of cantiques (French hymns or sacred songs), a vast number of motets, short oratorios, masses and secular cantatas, mostly for four-part chorus and orchestra. This music became very popular, especially in educational institutions. Late in life Lambillotte regretted having published those written improvisations without taking time to revise them. After his death a revision of the greater part of them was made and published (Paris, 1870) by his pupil, Father Camille de la Croix, S.J., and by Louis Dessane, organist of St. Sulpice, Paris, and afterwards of St. Francis Xavier New York. The irreligious levity of some of Louis Lambillottes church music is condemned by his own writings in which he upheld the correct principles; that he did not always remember them in practice is owing no doubt to the utterly secular style prevalent in his day. He spent his best energies in seeking to restore to Gregorian music its original sweetness and melodious character. The decadence of the liturgical chant had been brought about by its faulty execution, and this in turn was due to the corrupt versions that had been in use for several centuries. As a practical guide towards a radical restoration the celebrated Benedictine Abbot Dom Guéranger, in his "Institutions Liturgiques", had laid down the principle that "when a large number of manuscripts of various epochs and from different countries agree in the version of a chant, it may be affirmed that those MSS. undoubtedly give us the phrase of St. Gregory." Acting upon this principle, Lambillotte for many years gathered and compared all the documents that were to be found in the Jesuit houses. He next undertook to visit and re-visit almost every country of Europe, exploring libraries, secular as well as monastic, in search of the most ancient MSS. and all treatises bearing on the history or the theory of the chant. His success surpassed all his expectations when, in the library of the former Benedictine Abbey of St. Gall in Switzerland, he found himself in presence of what seems to be the most authentic Gregorian manuscript in existence, i.e. a transcription from the original "Antiphonarium of St. Gregory", brought from Rome to St. Gall by the monk Romanus in the closing years of the eighth century. The doubts of Fétis and Danjou regarding the identity of this document are proved by Lambillotte to be founded on mere conjectures. This volume of 131 pages of old parchment, the ivory binding of which depicts ancient Etruscan sculptures, contains all the Graduals, the Alleluias, and the Tracts of the whole year, in the ancient neumatic notation (a sort of musical stenography), together with the so-called Romanian signs, i.e. the special marks of time and expression added by Romanus. Lambillotte succeeded, not without serious difficulty, in obtaining permission to have a facsimile of this manuscript made by an expert copyist. This he published (Brussels, 1851 ), adding to it his own key to the neumatic notation, and a brief historical and critical account of the document. The appearance of the "Antiphonaire de St. Grégoire" made a deep impression on the learned world, and obtained for its author a Brief of congratulation and encouragement from Pope Pius IX, 1 May, 1852, and a "very honourable mention" from the French Institute, 12 Nov. of the same year. Lambillotte now undertook to embody the results of his investigations in a new and complete edition of the liturgical chant books. He lived to finish this extensive work, but not to see its publication. The Gradual and the Vesperal appeared 1855--1856 in both Gregorian and modern notations, under the editorship of Father Dufour, who had for years shared the labours of Lambillotte. He also published the "Esthétique", a volume of 418 pages, 8, setting forth Lambillottes views on the theory and the practice of Gregorian music. This treatise is the best testimony to the authors untiring zeal and critical ability. Dom Pothier, the learned Benedictine, who has gone over the same ground, and who has just succeeded in completing the Gregorian restoration, says of the "Esthétique" that it is "filled with precious information" (Mélodies Grégoriennes, p. 145, note). At the same time he calls attention to some serious errors in translation and even in reading, on the subject of rhythm, which, he holds, have been conclusively refuted by Chanoine Gontier, in his "Méthode de Plain Chant", pp. 96 etc. De Monter also speaks of grave errors and numerous assertions contrary to its own method, that have crept into the treatise. He attributes the introduction of the sharp into the Gregorian scales to the editors of this posthumous work (p. 207). Lambillottes "Gradual" and "Vesperal" were adopted by only a small number of French dioceses. The time had really not yet arrived for the practical application of theories, nor for the introduction of the full text of St. Gregory. This Lambillotte seems to have felt when he so far yielded to the temper of his generation as to make some of those very cuts and alterations which had been the chief reproach of former editions. Twenty-five years were still to elapse before the classical work in Gregorian music, the "Mélodies Grégoriennes" by Dom Pothier, O.S.B., could make its appearance (Tournay, 1880), and another twenty-five before the teaching of Dom Pothier was to receive official sanction and practical application through the Vatican edition, now in progress of publication. To Father Louis Lambillotte belongs the credit of having successfully inaugurated this important movement. By his writings the issue of Gregorian restoration was forced upon the world; by his researches and especially by the publication of the "Antiphonarium of St. Gregory", this arduous enterprise was placed on a solid, scientific basis. His contemporaries placed the following inscription on his tomb at Vaugirard: Qui cecinit Jesum et Mariam, eripuitque tenebris Gregorium, hunc superis insere, Christe, choris. Receive, O Christ, into Thy choirs above him who sang the praises of Jesus and Mary, and rescued the music of Gregory from the darkness of ages. The detailed list of works is given by SOMMERVOGEL in bibliothèque de la Cie de Jésus, IV (Paris, 1893): also by DE MONTER in Etudes biographiques et critiques, III, Louis Lambillotte et ses frères, which contains a portrait by Jacott, and two autographs (Paris, 1871); DIDOT, Nouvelle biographie générale; FÉTIS, Biographie des Musiciens, 2nd ed.; LE GLAY, Supplém. au Diction. de Feller, 1856; SOULLIER, De le restoration du chant Grégorien in Etudes religieuses, XLVI (1889), 12-15. J.B. YOUNG Denis Lambin Denis Lambin (DIONYSIUS LAMBINUS.) French philologist, b. about 1520, at Montreuil-sur-mer, in Picardy; d. at Paris, 1572, from the effects of the shock given to him by the Massacre of St. Bartholomew. He began his studies at Amiens. He entered the service of the Cardinal de Tournon, whom he accompanied on two visits to Italy (1549-53; 1555-60). In this way he saw Rome, Venice, and Lucca, and was brought into contact with Italian scholars such as Faerno, Muret, Sirleto, Fulvio Orsini. During his sojourn in Venice, at the suggestion of the Cardinal de Tournon, he translated Aristotle's "Ethics" (1558). Later he translated the "Politics" (1567), and also various orations of Æschines and of Demosthenes (1565, 1587). Shortly before his death he published a discourse on the usefulness of Greek studies and on the method of translating Greek into Latin (1572). On his return to France (1561) he was appointed royal professor of Latin language and literature in the Collège de France, but that, same year he was transferred to the chair of Greek. However, excepting his translations and an edition of Demosthenes (1670), his most important works are editions of Latin authors: Horace (1561), Lucretius (1564), Cicero (1566), Cornelius Ne pos (1569). In the matter of these four authors Lambins work shows a marked advance, and opens a new era in the history of their text. He does not, however, indicate with sufficient exactness the manuscripts he consulted. It is evident that for Lucretius he had examined one of the two manuscripts recognized as fundamental by Lachmann. Moreover, the commentary on Horace and Lucretius is extensive and accurate, contains many quotations, correct remarks, and explanations based on a profound knowledge of Latin. Lambin does not affect the rigorous method of modern philologists. Like older scholars he is often capricious, arbitrary, erratic. Despite these defects, common in his day, Lambin's work retains an important value and is consulted even today. In 1559 Muret published his "Variæ Lectiones". Lambin recognized in it some of his own notes on Horace, and accused Muret of having abused his confidence and plagiarized him. In 1561 he published their correspondence. The two former friends, moreover, were separated by their tendencies. Muret had become a friend of the Jesuits, whom Lambin detested on account of their differences with the University of Paris. Lambin was regarded by the Catholics of Italy as inclined to heresy, although on 8 July, 1568, he, with seven of his colleagues, took the oath of Catholicism. Before his death Lambin had undertaken a commentary on Plautus, and had begun the notes on the thirteenth play, the "Mercator". His notes, though imperfect and unmethodical, were published (1576) after his death. LAZERUS (LAZZARI or LAZZERI), De Dionysio Lambino narratio in ORELLI, Cicero, VI (Onomasticum Tullianum, I). 478; URLICHS, Geschichte der klassichen Altertumswissenschaft (2nd ed., Munich, 1891) in MULLER, Handbuch, I, 51; SANDYS, A History of Classical .Scholarship, II (Cambridge, 1908), 188; RITSCHL, Opuscula Philologica, II (Leipzig, 1868), 117; MUNRO, T. Lucreti Cari de rerum natura, 4th ed. I (Cambridge, 1886), 14; POTEZ, Deux années de la Renaissance daprès une correspondance inédite [of Lambin] in Revue d'histoire littéraire de La France, XIII (1906), 458, 658. PAUL LEJAY Luigi Lambruschini Luigi Lambruschini Cardinal, b. at Sestri Levante, near Genoa, 6 March, 1776, d. at Rome, 12 May, 1854. As a youth he entered the Order of the Barnabites, in which he held many important offices. On account of his learning he was made consultor of several Roman Congregations, and in 1815 accompanied Cardinal Consalvi to the Congress of Vienna in the capacity of secretary. After his return to Rome he was made secretary of the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, then recently instituted by Pius VII, and thus took a great part in concluding concordats with various states, especially with Naples and Bavaria. In 1819 he was appointed Archbishop of Genoa and governed the archdiocese with prudence and zeal. His eloquent sermons attracted large audiences, and his pastoral letters exhibit much spiritual unction. In 1827 Leo XII sent him as nuncio to Paris, but the Revolution of July, 1830, compelled him to interrupt his mission. On his return to Rome he was made a cardinal (1831) by Gregory XVI, who, on the resignation of Cardinal Bernetti, appointed Lambruschini Secretary of State. This appointment aroused much discontent among the Romans, but it was soon evident that Lambruschini was the proper man for the post. His character and disposition accorded perfectly with those of the pope: in the ecclesiastico-political relations with other nations both were persuaded that it was time to abandon the conciliatory policy inaugurated by Benedict XIV, a conviction that was soon justified by events. The occasion was the Cologne question, which had arisen in 1837 out of the imprisonment of Mgr. Droste-Vischering, Archbishop of Cologne. The diplomatic documents exchanged at this time between the Holy See and the Prussian Government, and published in 1838, are models of clear exposition, close argument, and elegant form. Gorres described the series as a "calm, vigorous, masculine, and substantial polemic". Lambruschini's firm stand caused the recall of Bunsen, the. Prussian minister at Rome. Next to Consalvi and Pacca, Lambruschini was among the greatest diplomats of the Holy See in the nineteenth century. As regards the internal policy of the Pontifical States, he, like Gregory XVI, was opposed to the constitutional form, and certainly, if we consider the arrogance of Liberalism under Gregory, neither the pope nor his secretary can be charged with serious error. In the first ballot of the conclave of 1846, Lambruschini received a majority of the votes, but not enough for election. When Pius IX was chosen, Lambruschini recognized that he could not follow the policy of the new pope, who favored constitutionalism. He accordingly resigned his office for that of secretary of Briefs, and later that of prefect of rites. In the Revolution of 1848 he was the object of especial hatred; his dwelling was plundered, his bed cut to pieces with daggers, and he himself was scarcely able, disguised as a stableman, to join Pius IX at Gaeta. As the Suburbicarian Bishop of Porto and Santa Rufina he restored the cathedral of Porto. He was also commendatory Abbot of Farfa, where he founded a seminary. He was buried in the college of the Barnabites at Catinari, where he had spent a great part of his religious life. He published "Opere spirituali" in three volumes (Rome, 1838) and later a small work in defense of the Immaculate Conception. Giambattista Lambruschini Brother of the preceding, d. at Orvieto, 24 Nov., 1826. He was vicar-general of Genoa, whence he was expelled by Napoleon in 1800, when he went to Rome. Appointed Bishop of Orvieto in 1807, he was deported to France for not taking the oath. In 1814 he returned to Orvieto. Raffaele Lambruschini Nephew of Luigi and Giambattista, b. at Genoa, 14 August, 1788; d. 8 March, 1873, at Figline in Tuscany. As a priest he was first with his uncle Giambattista at Orvieto. Being suspected of Liberal ideas, he returned to Figline, where he devoted himself to the natural sciences, especially agriculture, and in 1827 founded the "Giornale Agrario Toscano". He also established an educational institution, and published (1836-44) the "Guida dell' educatore", as well as several pedagogical and scholastic works. In 1848 he was elected to the Parliament of the republic, and in 1860 was appointed senator of the realm. He was also consul of the Accademia della Crusca and (1868-69) professor at the Institute of Higher Studies at Florence. SCHLECHT in Kirchliches Handlexikon (Munich, 1907), s.v.; BROSCH, Gesch. des Kirchenstaats, II (1883). U. BENIGNI Joseph Lambton Ven. Joseph Lambton English martyr, b. 1569; d. at Newcastle-on-Tyne. The day of his death is variously given as 23 June, 23 July, and 27 July, and the year as 1592 and 1593; but from a letter of Lord Huntingdon it is clear he died before 31 July, 1592, and Father Holtby's Stonyhurst MS. says he died on a Monday, so that the probable date is 24 July, 1592. He was the second son of Thomas Lambton of Malton-in-Rydall, Yorks, and Katharine, daughter of Robert Birkhead of West Brandon, Durham. He arrived at the English College, Reims, in 1584, and at the English College, Rome, in 1589. Being allowed to curtail his theological course, he was ordained priest when only twenty-three, and sent on the mission on 22 April 1592. He was arrested at Newcastle on landing with the Ven. Edward Waterson, and condemned at the next assizes under 27 Eliz., c. 2. He was cut down alive, and the reprieved felon who acted as hangman refused to complete the sentence, which was at last carried out by a Frenchman practicing as a surgeon at Kenton. GILLOW, Bibl. Dict.Eng. Cath. (London and New York, 1885-1902), s. v.; Catholic Record Society's Publications (London, 1905-), V, 212, 228, 231, 293; CHALLONER, Missionary Priests, I, 298. JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT Diocese of Lamego Lamego (LAMECENSIS). Diocese situated in the district of Vizeu, province of Beira, Portugal. The city has a Gothic cathedral, with a high tower, and a Moorish castle, and is known as the meeting-place of the famous parliament of 1143, which settled the royal succession for the Kingdom of Portugal and established the old feudal Cortes, convened for the last time in 1698; the Cortes of Lamego spoken of in modern Portuguese history is the one called by Dom Miguel after he had dissolved the constitution in 1828. According to local but untenable tradition the city received the Gospel from St. James the Greater, or St. Paul. Many Portuguese authorities mention as first Bishop of Lamego Petrus Rathensis, who is said to have been a disciple of the Apostle St. James, and who subsequently became first Bishop of Braga and a martyr (see BRAGA, ARCHDIOCESE OF). The authentic history of the See of Lamego begins with Bishop Sardinarius, whose signature appears in connection with the Second (Third) Council of Braga (572) among the suffragans of the well-known Martín of Braga. Shortly before this, at the Council of Lugo (569), at the commission of King Theodomir, several new dioceses were created. It is probable, therefore, that the foundation of the See of Lamego took place between 569 and 572. Among its early bishops are: Philippus (c. 580-89), Profuturus (c. 630-38), Witaricus (c. 646), Filimirus (653-56), but scarcely more than their names is known. In 666 a new circumscription of the Lusitanian sees was made, by which Lamego was placed under the jurisdiction of Mérida (Hefele, "Conciliengeschichte", III, 2nd ed., Freiburg im Br., 110). From 693 to 876 there is a gap in the episcopal list of Lamego. On the invasion of the Moors in 714, the Bishop of Lamego, like many of his contemporaries, was obliged to take refuge in the Asturias. It is not until 876 that we again come across a Bishop of Lamego, Argimirus (Flórez, "España Sagrada), who is apparently identical with Argimirus (II) who, in 899, took part in the consecration of the cathedral of Compostela (cf. López Ferreiro, "Historia de la Santa A. M. Iglesia de Santiago de Compostela", II, Santiago, 1899, 192). It is doubtful if even the few known bishops of Lamego who are mentioned during the time of the Moors (except Argimirus, Brandericus, Pantaleon, and Jacobus) resided at all at Lamego; it is probable that they were only titular bishops, especially as Almansur of Cordova destroyed the city in 982. This confusion lasted till Ferdinand the Great reconquered the city in 1057 (or 1038?) and the Church was reorganized. In 1071 a Bishop Peter of Lamego is mentioned in a deed of gift by the Infanta Urraca, daughter of Ferdinand the Great, to the Church of Tuy. The see seems to have been vacant for several decades, as is evident from a letter of Pope Paschal II (1099-1118) to Bishop Mauritius of Coimbra. When Portugal was established as an independent kingdom, in 1143, by Alfonso I, the See of Lamego was revived and the Augustinian Mendo Godinu. (d. 1176) became the first bishop. It was at that time a suffragan of Braga. At the instance of Archbishop Peter of Santiago de Compostela, Innocent III, in 1199, re-arranged the Dioceses of Coimbra, Vizeu, Lamego, and Egitania (the present Guarda), allotting the first two to the Archbishopric of Braga and the last two to Santiago de Compostela (Flórez, op. cit., IV, 274 sqq.; López Ferreiro, op. cit., V, 29 sqq.). Lamego remained a suffragan of Compostela until the Archdiocese of Lisbon was established in 1394, after which it was a suffragan of that see. The diocese was enlarged in 1430, when the district of Riba Coa was ceded to Portugal by the Kingdom of Leon. Until then this district had belonged to the Spanish See of Ciudad Rodrigo, but once joined to Portugal, it became part of the Diocese of Lamego. Clement XIV (10 July, 1770) created the Diocese of Pinhel (Pinelensis) in the aforesaid district, which, however, was suppressed by Leo XIII by the Bull "Gravissimum" (30 Sept., 1881), which replaced Lamego under the metropolitan of Braga and gave new limits to the diocese. Lamego is bounded on the east by the Diocese of Guarda, on the south by that of Vizeu, on the west by Coimbra, on the north by Porto and Braga; it has (1909) 273,741 inhabitants, almost entirely Catholic, 283 parishes, 283 parish churches, 1144 public chapels, 314 secular priests, one college for boys at Lamego conducted by Benedictines; 2 houses of Portuguese Franciscan nuns, one house of Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny, and one of Franciscan nuns. The present bishop (1910) is Francisco José de Vieira e Brito, who was born 5 June, 1850, at Rendufinho (Archdiocese of Braga), studied at Coimbra, was professor of theology at the seminary at Braga, also canon and vicar-general there. On 13 Jan., 1892, he was nominated to the See of Angra (Azores), and in 1902 was transferred to Lamego. He restored the cathedral and the bishop's palace, enlarged the diocesan seminary, and assisted in the foundation of a new Catholic workingmen's club. FLOREZ, Espana Sagrada, XIV (Madrid, 1758), 153-66; DA FONSECA. Memoria chronologica dos excellentissimos prelados de Lamego (Lisbon, 1789); DE FlGUEIREDO, Introduccao para a historia eccles. do bispado Lamecense (Lisbon, 1787); DE AZEVEDO, Historia eccles. da cidade e bispado de Lamego (Porto, 1878). GREGOR REINHOLD Felicite Robert de Lamennais Félicité Robert de Lamennais Born at Saint-Malo, 29 June, 1782; died at Paris, 27 February, 1854. His father, Pierre Robert de Lamennais (or La Mennais), was a respectable merchant of Saint-Malo, ennobled by Louis XVI at the request of the Estates of Brittany in acknowledgment of his patriotic devotion. Of the six children born of his marriage with Gratienne Lorin, the best-known are Jean-Marie (see below) and Félicité. The latter, though delicate and frail in physique, early exhibited an exuberant nature, a lively but indocile intelligence, a brilliant but highly impressionable imagination, and a will resolute to obstinacy and vehement to excess. EDUCATION At the age of five Lamennais lost his mother: his father, absorbed in business, was thus obliged to confide the education of Jean-Marie and Félicité to Robert des Saudrais, the brother-in-law of his wife, who had no children of his own. Jean-Marie and Félicité -- or Féli, as he was called in the family -- were taken to live with their uncle at La Chênaie, an estate not far from Saint-Malo, which Félicité was afterwards to make famous. At La Chênaie there was a well filled library in which works of piety and theological books were mingled with the ancient classics and the works of the eighteenth-century philosophers. Félicité was not very docile at his lessons, and, to punish him, M. des Saudrais would sometimes shut him up in the library. The child acquired a taste for the books he found around him, and read voraciously and indiscriminately all that came to his hands, good and bad. He even multiplied reasons for being shut up in the library, abandoned himself there to his favorite reading, and made such rapid progress that he was soon able to read the classical authors without difficulty. The Revolution was then at its height; the proscribed priests had been obliged to leave France, or to continue from hiding-places their sacred ministrations at the peril of their lives. The Lamennais household afforded an asylum to one such priest, Abbé Vielle, who sometimes said Mass at La Chênaie in the middle of the night. Félicité, who used to assist at the Divine services, derived from these early impressions a lasting and lively hatred of the Revolution. At the same time, his unwise reading, especially of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, seduced his ardent mind and prejudiced him against religion. These prejudices found vent in objections which moved his confessor to postpone indefinitely his First Communion. His father at first intended Lamennais to join him in his business, but the youth obeyed without enthusiasm. Always ill-at-ease in the office, he visited it as little as possible, and gave to reading all the time he could steal from his regular occupation. While he thus succeeded in completing his literary education and acquiring foreign languages, these studies undertaken without teachers or guidance necessarily left gaps in his training, and made him liable to contract dangerous habits of intellectual intolerance. The passions, too, gained a certain mastery over him, drawing him into lapses which he says, not without some exaggeration, in a letter written in 1809 to his friend Brute de Rémur, the future Bishop of Vincennes in Indiana, "the most rigorous austerities, the severest penance would not suffice to expiate". The happy influence of his brother Jean-Marie, who had recently (1804) been ordained a priest, rescued him from this condition. Restored to Christian sentiments, he made his First Communion, and resolved to consecrate himself to the service of the Church. He withdrew to La Chênaie and there gave himself up under his brother's direction to ecclesiastical studies, briefly interrupted (January to July, 1806) to reestablish his threatened health by a sojourn at Paris. The Church of France was then in a struggling and precarious condition, being deprived of material resources and served but poorly by a clergy either enfeebled by age or inadequately prepared to meet the intellectual demands of the time. The two brothers set themselves to labor as best they could for the relief of the Church. In the common task which they imposed on themselves with this aim, the part that fell to Félicité, as being the better suited to his tastes, was chiefly intellectual and literary. In fact the story of his life is almost entirely contained in his books and articles. The first result of the joint labors soon appeared in a book published in 1808 under the title "Réflexions sur l'état de l'Eglise en France pendant le dix-huitieme siecle et sur sa situation actuelle". The first idea of this work and the materials were due to Jean-Marie, but the actual writing was done almost exclusively by Félicité. After describing the evils under which the Church labored in France, the authors point out the causes and propose remedies, among others provincial councils, diocesan synods, retreats, ecclesiastical conferences, community life, and proper methods in recruiting the clergy. Many of these views were calculated to offend the imperial government; the book was suppressed by the police, and was not republished until after the fall of the Empire. Meanwhile, the two brothers had left La Chênaie for the College of St-Malo, in which they had been appointed professors. Félicité was to teach mathematics; for he had to earn a living now that his father, already financially injured by the wars of the Convention, saw his business ruined by the Continental Blockade, and was obliged to surrender all his property to his creditors. This ecclesiastical college having been closed by imperial authority, Félicité withdrew to La Chênaie, while his brother was called, as vicar-general, to Saint-Brieuc. There Félicité completed another work, in which also he had his brother's collaboration, and which was to have been printed and published at Paris in 1814. In opposition to Napoleon, who wished to transfer the right to the metropolitans, the two brothers vindicated the pope's exclusive claim to the canonical institution of bishops. This work marked the beginning of Lamennais' long struggle against Gallicanism. However, the fall of Napoleon, coming some months before the book appeared, made it no longer appropriate, and it thus obtained only a succès d' estime. Lamennais next published a violent article against the imperial university; indeed, when Napoleon returned from Elba, the young writer, thinking himself insecure in France, went over to England, where he found a temporary asylum with M. Carron, a French priest who had established in London a school for the children of émigrés. On his return to France after the Hundred Days, Lamennais made M. Carron his confidant and took up his residence near him in Paris. Under the influence of this worthy priest and on the advice of M. Beysserre, a Sulpician, he decided, though not without strong repugnance and some sharp prickings of conscience, to take Holy orders, and was ordained a priest on 9 March, 1817. STRUGGLE AGAINST INFIDELITY AND GALLICANISM Towards the end of the same year appeared the first volume of the "Essai sur l'indifférence en matière de religion". >From beginning to end the book was a vigorous attack on that indifference which appears (1) among those who, seeing in religion nothing but a political institution, think it a necessity only for the masses; (2) among those who admit the necessity of a religion for all men, but reject Revelation; (3) among those who recognize the necessity of a revealed religion, but think it permissible to deny all the truths which that religion teaches with the exception of certain fundamental articles. While open to some criticism in regard to the development of its ideas and the force of some of the arguments employed, the "Essai" brought to Catholic apologetics a new strength and brilliancy, and at once commanded public attention. Not content with a defensive attitude in the presence of incredulity, it attacks the enemy boldly, supported by all the resources of dialectic, invective, irony, and eloquence. The clergy and all educated Catholics thrilled with joy and hope, when this champion entered the lists armed as none since Bossuet, for it was indeed with Bossuet and Pascal that this priest, yesterday unknown, was now compared. In the pulpit of Notre-Dame of Paris Frayssinous hailed Lamennais as the greatest thinker since Malebranche. Meanwhile, editions of the "Essai" came rapidly from the press; 40,000 copies were sold within a few weeks, it was translated into many foreign languages, and its perusal effected in some places notable returns, in others brilliant conversions to Catholicism. Some of these converts, such as Mme de Lacan (afterwards, by her second marriage, the Baroness Cottu), Benoît d' Azy, Senfft-Pilsach, thenceforth carried on an uninterrupted epistolary correspondence with Lamennais. These letters, with others published since then or about to be published (addressed to such friends as Mlle Cornulier de Lucinière, de Vitrolles, Coriolis, Montalembert, Berryer, Marion, Vaurin, David Richard), add considerably to our knowledge of his writings, and are not the least interesting part of his works. With their aid we can witness the intimate workings from day to day of a mobile and impressionable mind; in them we perceive an aspect of his character which so seldom appears in his other works his loving, kind, and tender disposition, lavish in devotion and of a timidity which sought a refuge in outspokenness. Lamennais was now looked upon as the most eminent personality among the French clergy; visitors flocked to see him; the press solicited his contributions. He promised his collaboration to "Le Conservateur", a royalist paper of the Extreme Right party, for which Chateaubriand and de Bonald were writing. Lamennais, however, cared much less for politics than for religion, and contributed to "Le Conservateur" only in defense of Catholic interests. For him it was not enough to discredit infidel philosophy: he meant to put something else in its place. He believed that the Cartesian rationalism which had recently attacked the foundations of Christian faith, and therefore necessarily of human society, could be combated by a system which should firmly re-establish both. To this object he devoted the second volume of the "Essai", published in 1820. The philosophic system which he expounded in this volume was based on a new theory of certitude. In the main, his theory is that certitude cannot be given by the individual reason; it belongs only to the general reason, that is to the universal consent of mankind, the common sense; it is derived from the unanimous testimony of the human race. Certitude, therefore, is not created by evidence, but by the authority of mankind; it is a matter of faith in the testimony of the human race, not the result of free enquiry. In the last chapters of the book this philosophic system supports an entirely new method of apologetics. There exists, says Lamennais, a true religion, and there exists but one, which is absolutely necessary to salvation and to social order. Only one criterion will enable us to discern the true religion from the false, and that criterion is the authority of testimony. The true religion, therefore, is that which can put forth on its own behalf the greatest number of witnesses. This is the case with the Christian, or rather the Catholic religion. It is in reality the true, the only religion which began with the world and perpetuates itself with it. The result of a primitive revelation, this unique religion has perfected itself in the course of ages without being essentially modified; Christians now believe all that the human race has believed, and the human race has always believed what Christians believe. The last two volumes of the "Essai" (1823) were devoted to this thesis. In these he attempts to prove, with the aid of history, that the chief dogmas of Christianity have been and are still, under various disguises, professed throughout the world. Naturally, these later volumes failed to secure the success which the first had attained. The philosophic system of Lamennais, like his apologetics, called forth serious objections. It was pointed out that this philosophy and apologetics favored scepticism by denying the validity of individual reason. If the latter can furnish no certitude, how can we expect any from the general reason, which is but a synthesis of individual reasons? It was also a confusion of the natural and the supernatural orders, of philosophy and theology, to base both alike on the authority of the human race; and, since according to him both alike are based on human testimony, religious faith was at once reduced to human faith. These criticisms and others irritated Lamennais without convincing him of his error; he submitted his book to Rome and, in reply to his critics, wrote the "Défense de l'Essai" (1821). Rome confined its intervention to giving its imprimatur to an Italian translation of the "Défense de l'Essai". Lamennais himself soon visited the Holy See; Leo XII received him very kindly and at one time even thought of making him a cardinal, despite his excitable character and exaggerated ideas. On his return to France, Lamennais showed a greater determination than ever to combat Gallicanism and irreligious Liberalism. On the occasion of a ministerial ordinance prescribing the teaching of the famous Declaration of 1682 (see GALLICANISM, VI, 384), he published his "Religion considérée dans ses rapports avec l'ordre civil et politique" (1825), in which he denounced Gallican and Liberal tendencies as the joint causes of the harm done to religion, and as equally fatal to society. Irritated by these attacks, a majority of the French bishops, who were moderate Gallicans, signed a protest against this pamphlet which accused them of leanings towards schism. Lamennais was also cited before the Tribunal of the Seine for attacking the king's government and the Four Articles of 1682 in their character of existing laws. Defended by his friend, the great advocate Berryer, he escaped with a fine of thirty francs. From this incident he conceived a lively hostility to the Bourbons, and was all the more energetic in maintaining ultramontane ideas against Frayssinous, Clausel de Montals, Bishop of Chartres, and other representatives of moderate Gallican principles. On the other hand, he derived valuable assistance from a certain number of young men, ecclesiastics and laymen, who gradually formed a group of which he was the centre. Of these the best known are Gerbet, de Salinis, Lacordaire, Montalembert, Rohrbacher, Combalot, Maurice de Guérin, Charles de Sainte-Foy, Eugène and Léon Boré, de Hercé. With them Lamennais founded the "Congrégation de St. Pierre", a religious society whose distinctive duty was to defend the Church by the study of theological and other sciences, by propagating Roman doctrines, by teaching in colleges and seminaries, by giving missions and spiritual direction. Hardly had this congregation come into existence when Mgr. Dubois, Bishop of New York, appealed to it to supply teachers to the Catholic University which it was then proposed to found in that city. The Revolution of 1830 put an end to this project. The congregation at one time possessed three houses -- La Chênaie, Malestroit, and Paris -- but it lived only about four years. Obliged to reckon with the demands of the Liberals, whom the elections had returned to the Chamber of Deputies, the government of Charles X had revived (15 June, 1828) former legislative enactments against the religious congregations -- particularly against the Jesuits, eight of whose colleges were closed. Although ill-disposed towards the Jesuits on account of their lack of sympathy for his philosophic system, Lamennais took up their defense in a book published in 1829 under the title "Progrès de la Révolution et de la guerre contre l'Eglise". His attacks spared neither the king nor the bishops, whom he reproached with their Gallicanism and their concessions to the enemies of religion. Here, for the first time, Lamennais openly broke with monarchy, setting his highest hopes upon political liberty and equal rights. "An immense liberty", he said "is indispensable for the development of those truths which are to save the world." This was what he called "catholicizing liberalism". The work met with enormous success. The bishops themselves protested almost unanimously against the Government's action. Not, however, that they approved of Lamennais' violent language; the Archbishop of Paris in a pastoral charge even condemned the work, and this drew from Lamennais two open letters in which the archbishop's Gallican ideas were unreservedly criticized. When the Revolution broke out the next year (July, 1830), sweeping the Bourbons away and lifting the House of Orleans to the throne, Lamennais beheld without regret the departure of the one, and without enthusiasm the accession of the other dynasty. "Most people", he writes in his letters, "would prefer a republic frankly declared; I am of that number" Thenceforward he thought only of the defense of Catholicism against the triumphant party, who never forgave it the favor it had enjoyed from the fallen monarchy. While laboring to ward off the danger which menaced the Church, he hoped at the same time to ensure its social triumph by setting up its defense on the basis of equal rights, uniting its cause with that of public liberties. With this end in view he founded the journal "L'Avenir" (16 October, 1830) and his "General Agency for the Defense of Religious Liberty". With Lacordaire, Gerbet, Montalembert, and de Coux, he waged a grim battle in defense of Catholics against the hostility of the government, of Roman ideas against the Gallicanism of the clergy, and of his system of the "common sense of mankind" against rationalistic philosophy. The force of his blows, the boldness of his ideas, his outspoken sympathy for every people then in a state of revolt, provoked new accusations against him and gave rise to suspicion of his orthodoxy. To set himself right in the face of all this hostility, he suspended the publication of "L'Avenir" (15 November, 1831), and went to Rome to submit his cause to Gregory XVI. Though accompanied by Lacordaire and Montalembert, he did not find there the pronounced welcome of 1824. He waited a long time, but received no definite answer: then some days after his departure from Rome, appeared the Encyclical "Mirari vos" (15 August, 1832), in which the pope, without expressly designating him, condemned some of the ideas advanced in "L'Avenir" liberty of the press, liberty of conscience, revolt against princes, the need of regenerating Catholicism, etc. At the same time a letter from Cardinal Pacca informed Lamennais that the pope had been pained to see him discuss publicly questions which belonged to the authorities of the Church. LAMENNAIS OUT OF THE CHURCH Having forthwith declared that out of deference to the pope he would not resume the publication of "L'Avenir" Lamennais suppressed the "General Agency", went back to La Chênaie, and there apparently kept silence. In his heart, however, he cherished deep resentment, the echoes of which reached the outer world through his correspondence. Rome was stirred by this behavior, and demanded frank and full adhesion to the Encyclical "Mirari vos". After seeming to yield, Lamennais ended by refusing to submit without reserve or qualification. Little by little, he began by renouncing his ecclesiastical functions (December, 1833) and ended by abandoning all outward profession of Christianity. The amelioration of humanity, devotion to the welfare of the people and of popular liberties, dominated him more and more. In May, 1834, he published the "Paroles d'un croyant", through the apocalyptic diction of which resounds a violent cry of rage against the established social order: in it he denounces what he calls the conspiracy of kings and priests against the people. In this way he loudly declared his rupture with the Church, and set up the symbol of his new faith. Gregory XVI hastened to condemn in the Encyclical "Singulari nos" (15 July, 1834) this book, "small in size, but immense in perversity", and at the same time censured the philosophical system of Lamennais. One after another, all his friends abandoned him, and, as if to break finally with his own past, Lamennais wrote a volume on "Les Affaires de Rome", in which he set forth, very much in his own favor, his relations with Gregory XVI. After this he published only works inspired by his new democratic tendencies, repeating with no great show of originality the ideas of "Les Paroles d'un croyant", the whole foundation of which consisted of a few humanitarian commonplaces, relieved here and there with vague socialism. The Government having in 1835 caused the arrest of 121 revolutionaries in connection with certain disturbances, Lamennais consented to undertake the defense of his new friends before the Peers. Besides some articles in the "Revue des Deux Mondes", the "Revue du Progrès" and "Le Monde", he published a series of pamphlets, e.g. "Le Livre du peuple" (1839), "L'Esclavage moderne" (1839), "Discussions critiques" (1841), "Du passe et de l'avenir du peuple" (1841), "Amschaspands et Darvands" (1843). In these writings he expounds his views on the future of democracy or vents his rage against society and the public authorities. One of his works, "Le Pays et le Gouvernement" (1840) brought down on him a year's imprisonment, which he served in 1841. Mention should here be made of his "Esquisse d'une philosophie", published from 1841 to 1846. It comprises a treatise on metaphysics in which God, man, and nature are studied by the light of reason only. Many of the opinions maintained in this book remind one that it was begun when its author was a Catholic, but there are many others which betray his later evolution; he denies in formal terms the fall of man, the Divinity of Christ, eternal punishment, and the supernatural order. The portions of the work devoted to aesthetics are among the finest that Lamennais ever wrote, while the general tone breathes a spirit of serenity and calm. To this epoch, too, belongs the translation of the Gospels, with anti-Christian notes and reflections. It was not the first work of piety that Lamennais had published. From 1809 he had devoted his moments of leisure to the translation of the "Spiritual Guide" of Louis de Blois. In 1824 he published a French version of the "Imitation of Christ" with notes and reflections, more widely read than any of his works. Then came the "Guide du premier âge", the "Journée du Chrétien", and a "Recueil de piété" (1828). To spread this pious literature he had become connected with a publishing house, the failure of which led to his financial ruin.. The Revolution of 1848 brought to Lamennais a renewal of hope and celebrity. He was elected a deputy for Paris in the Constituent and in the Legislative Assemblies. His plan of a constitution, however, met with no success, and thereafter he confined himself to silent participation in the sessions. He was not more fortunate in a newspaper, "Le Peuple constituant", in which he made common cause with the worst revolutionaries; its existence ended after four months, through failure to furnish its cautionnement. The coup d'état of 1851 put an end to the political career of Lamennais, who relapsed into misery and isolation. Numerous attempts were made to bring him back to religion and to repentance, but in vain. He died rejecting all religious ministration, and after requesting that his body "be carried to the cemetery, without being presented at any church". However regrettable his end, it does not efface the memory of Lamennais' great services to the Church of France. When that Church lay bleeding from the blows inflicted on it by the Revolution, and intimidated by the insolent triumph of infidel philosophy, he consecrated to her relief, both absolute devotion and abilities of the highest order. He was the first apologist to compel the attention of unbelievers in the nineteenth century, and to force them to reckon with the Christian Faith. He was the first who dared to attack Gallicanism publicly in France, and prepared the way for its defeat, the crowning work of the Vatican Council. To him also belongs the honor of having inaugurated the struggle which was to issue in freedom of education (liberté d'enseignement). Despite his justly blamable excesses, we must trace to him that reconciliation between Catholicism on the one hand and popular liberty and the masses of the people on the other, upon which Leo XIII set the final seal of approbation. If a temper impatient of all restraint and a pride overconfident in its own conceits deprived him of the blessings which he was instrumental in securing for others, this is surely no reason why the beneficiaries should forget to whom they owe their happier condition. For the works and historical accounts of Lamennnais published during his life, see QUERARD, Les supercheries litteraires devoilees (2nd ed., Paris, 1870), col. 510-634. Consult also Lettres inedites de J. M. et de F. de Lamennais (Nantes, 1862); (Euvres posthumes de Lamennais (2 vols., Paris, 1863); (Euvres inedites de Lamennais (2 vols., Paris, 1866); Confidences de Lamennais (Nantes, 1886); Correspondance inedite de Lamennais avec le baron de Vitrolles (Paris, 1886); L'intime (2 vols., Paris, 1892); Lettres de Lamennais a Montalembert (Paris, 1898); Lettres de Lamennais a Benoit d'Azy (Paris, 1898); Lamennais et David Richard. Documents inedits (Paris, 1909); BLAIZE, Essai biographique sur M. F. de Lamennais (Paris, 1858); MERCIER, Lamennais (Paris, 1895); SPULLER, Lamennais (Paris, 1892); BOUTARD, Lamennais, sa vie et ses doctrines, I-II (1905-8); MARECHAL, Lamennais et Victor Hugo (Paris, 1906); IDEM, Lamennais et Lamartine (Paris, 1907). ANTOINE DEGERT Jean-Marie-Robert de Lamennais Jean-Marie-Robert de Lamennais French priest, brother of Félicité Robert de Lamennais, b. at St-Malo in 1780; d. at Ploërmel, Brittany, in 1860. On the day after the Concordat of 1801 he carried out the purpose he had manifested since before the Revolution of entering Holy orders. He was ordained in 1804 (25 Feb.) after theological studies pursued both in private and under the direction of Abbé Vielle. We have already spoken of the influence he exercised over his brother Felicite. Older than he by two years, he did not possess his brilliant literary qualities, but he had a more robust constitution, and was temperamentally calmer and more equable. He shared, as we have seen, his brother's education, his studies, and his first labors. But an active ministry was more to Jean's taste. Leaving, therefore, to his brother the exclusively intellectual apostleship, he became, after the suppression of the College of St-Malo, vicar-general to the Bishop of Saint-Brieuc. Later he was also vicar general of the Great Almoner of France, the Cardinal Prince of Troy, and of the Bishop of Rennes. Wherever he went, he did not spare himself--establishing colleges, seminaries, communities of women, and schools. He took an active part in the foundation of the Congregation of St. Peter, of which he had almost always the practical management and for a time the title of superior general. In fact, it was on account of his position in this congregation that he received from Mgr. Dubois the title of Vicar General of New York, when that prelate sought his assistance. His brother's apostasy, while wounding him most deeply, also created for him a great deal of annoyance among the clergy of Brittany. Refusing thenceforth every honor--even that of the episcopacy, which, it is said, was offered him seventeen times--he devoted himself wholly to what was the great work of his life, the Institute of the Brothers of Christian Instruction. He had established it in 1817 to supply the benefits of Christian teaching in country districts too poor to secure the services of the Brothers of the Christian Schools of St. Jean Baptiste de la Salle, who were not allowed to work singly. When he was still vicar general of Saint-Brieuc, he would seek in the fields and assemble in his own home young peasants, whom he himself instructed in the ways of piety and to whom he imparted elementary knowledge. From these gatherings grew his congregation, with which the members of a similar institution established by M. Gabriel Deshayes, Vicar-General of Vannes, soon associated themselves. In 1820 he had about 50 disciples; in 1829 he had 133; over 260 in 1831; 650 about 1837. When he died, 800 were scattered throughout Brittany, Gascony, in the colonies of the Antilles, Senegal, Cayenne, and Haiti, whither they had been sent by the French government. This great and rapid success was due chiefly to the skillful and energetic administration of Jean de Lamennais. For forty years he was the one who attracted and trained the recruits, guided the young teachers, opened and visited the schools. He also won for them the gratitude of the public authorities, and the approbation and praise of Pius IX testified in a Brief of 1 February, 1851; and he built for them a fine mother-house at Ploërmel. He himself was an example of all the Christian virtues to such a degree that forty years after his death, which occurred on 26 Dec., 1860, the process de fama sanctitatis with a view of his beatification was initiated under the patronage of the Bishop of Vannes. His native land has not forgotten him. At Ploërmel a statue has been raised to the memory of this man, who perhaps has done more than any other in the nineteenth century for the Christian education of the people. In the beginning of the twentieth century, before the persecution in France scattered the teaching congregations, his institute was more prosperous than ever and counted among its members about 2700 religious, giving instruction to 75,000 scholars, and distributed among 460 institutions, of which one was in Canada. Several of the works cited in the preceding bibliography contain information also concerning Jean-Marie. Cf. also ROPARTZ, La vie et les aeuvres de Jean-Marie de Lamennais (Paris, s. d.); LAVEILLE, Jean-Marie de Lamennais (2 vols., Paris, 1903). ANTOINE DEGERT Family of Lamoignon Family of Lamoignon Illustrious in the history of the old magistracy, originally from Nivernais. Owing to the nearness of the University of Bourges, the Lamoignons, in the sixteenth century, had the benefit of the excellent juridical instruction given there. Charles de Lamoignon (1514-73) The pupil of the renowned jurisconsult Alciat. Chrétien de Lamoignon (1567-1636) Son of the preceding, was a pupil of Cujas. Both this and the foregoing were members of the Parlement of Paris. Marie des Landes (1576-1651) Wife of Chrétien de Lamoignon, was associated in work with St. Vincent de Paul, who called her the mother of the poor; and she founded an association for the deliverance of those imprisoned for debt. Madeleine de Lamoignon (1609-87) Daughter of Chrétien, whom St. Francis de Sales prepared for her first communion, also assisted St. Vincent de Paul. Owing to her co-operation the saint was able to found the Hotel-Dieu and establish the institution for foundlings. When she died, a contemporary said, "The poor have lost one hundred thousand crowns." Guillaume de Lamoignon (1617-77) Guillaume de Lamoignon, having become in 1644 master of requests in the Parlement, took an active part in the Fronde of the Parlement against Mazarin. He became first president of the Parlement in 1658. The great work which he did towards preparing the codification of French laws has made him famous. A distinguished member of the Society of the Holy Sacrament, he was greatly devoted to the Catholic cause. He induced Colbert to give up his cherished idea of putting back to twenty-seven the age for ordination to priesthood, and the years required for monastic vows to twenty for the women and twenty-seven for the men. He had certain Gallican tendencies, and in 1663 he spoke before the Parlement in favor of the "liberties of the Gallican church" against a thesis suspected of ultramontanism. A nephew of Bishop Potier of Beauvais, a close friend of the Jansenist Hermant, Lamoignon was supposed to sympathize with Port Royal, but he chose Rapin, a Jesuit, as tutor for his sons, whom he also brought into close acquaintance with Bourdaloue. When in 1664 the Jansenists deferred to the Parlement a confutation of Pascal's "Provinciales" written by the Jesuits, the decree which condemned this book nevertheless spared the Jesuits. On this occasion Lamoignon said to the king that he had been "a witness of the unfair outbursts of the Jansenists in all the differences they had with the Society of Jesus; and this Jansenist party, which was being formed in the kingdom on the dissemination of the new teaching, was but a cabal which would become pernicious to the State". It was Lamoignon who, having as first president to settle the dispute that had arisen at the Sainte-Chapelle between the precentor and the treasurer regarding a desk, furnished Boileau with the account of this incident from which the latter evolved the celebrated poem of the "Lutrin". Chrétien-François de Lamoignon (1644-1709) Son of the foregoing, was a member of the French Academy. Nicolas Lamoignon-Bâville (1648-1724) Brother of the preceding, intendant of Poitou (1682-85), and of Languedoc (1685-1718), made himself famous by the measures he adopted against the Protestants of these provinces, and by the manner in which he associated himself with the religious policy of Louvois, of which the revocation of the Edict of Nantes was the culminating point. But it is without proofs that Voltaire accused him of having instigated this revocation. "I never counselled the revocation of the Edict of Nantes", he wrote to his brother in 1708. On the contrary he considered that "in religion hearts must be attacked, for it is there that it resides", and immediately after the revocation he sent for Bourdaloue to come and evangelize the Protestants of Montpellier. >From 1702 to 1704 he helped in the repression of the uprising of the Camisards, occasioned in the Cevennes by English and Calvinistic influences. Malesherbes (1721-94) Malesherbes, who defended Louis XVI and died on the scaffold, was the grandson of Chrétien-François de Lamoignon. FLECHIER, Oraison funebre du president de Lamoignon (Paris, 1677); LAMOIGNON-BAVILLE, Memoires pour servir a l' histoire du Languedoc (Amsterdam, 1734); SAINT-SIMON, Memoires, ed. BOISLISLE, 21 vols. (Paris, 1880-1909); VIAN, Les Lamoignon: une vielle famille de robe (Paris, 1896). GEORGES GOYAU Johann von Lamont Johann von Lamont Astronomer and physicist, b. 13 Dec., 1805, at Braemar in Scotland, near Balmoral Castle; d.. 6 Aug., 1879, at Bogenhausen near Munich, Bavaria. He was educated in a private school in Scotland. Father Gallus Robertson, a representative of the Scotch monastery of St. Jacob at Ratisbon, accidentally met the boy after the death of his father in 1816 and took him to Germany as a novice. At Ratisbon he became especially interested in mathematical and scientific studies under the prior, Benedict Deasson. He did not take Holy orders but, in 1827, was recommended for appointment as assistant to Soldner, the director of the new observatory at Bogenhausen near Munich. His work there was so excellent that, after Soldner's death in 1835, he was chosen director. He was honored by membership in the Royal Bavarian Academy, the Academies of Brussels, Upsala, and Prague, the Royal Society of Edinburgh, etc. In 1852 he also became professor of astronomy at the University of Munich. His scientific achievements are classified under three heads: astronomical, geodetic, and physical. His technical dexterity was such as to make the employment of a mechanician unnecessary. A room in his home was fitted up as a workshop. With the excellent one and one-half inch refractor furnished him in 1836 he studied especially nebulae and star-clusters, laying the foundation for such investigations. From observations of the moons of Uranus he calculated its mass (Memoirs of the Royal Astr. Soc., XI, 1838). The ten volumes of the publications of the observatory, "Observationes Astronomicae e in Specula Regia Monacensi", and the thirty-four volumes of the "Annalen derköniglichen Sternwarte bei Munchen" contain a great deal of material. In 1840 he began to observe the faint stars from the seventh to the tenth magnitude, and recorded 80,000 of them. In geodetic work he added the Bavarian survey to the Austrian, determined the differences of longitude of Vienna, Munich, Geneva, and Strasburg, and completed the astronomical triangulation of Bavaria. In telluric physics he was especially active. He organized a meteorological society which spread all over Germany. Numerous registering instruments of his own construction were set up, and officials attached to the various courts of law were also provided with meteorological instruments made by Lamont himself. He invented a portable theodolite for magnetic measurements and with it he established the constants of the earth's magnetic force for a number of places through Middle Europe, from Spain to Denmark. Owing to lack of funds only three numbers were published of the "Annalen fur Meteorologie und Erdmagnetismus", 1842-4, but these contain a mass of valuable information. For fifty-two years Lamont lived alone in the quiet village near his observatory, greatly respected by the inhabitants. To Munich he went only to deliver his lectures, to attend the meetings of the academic senate, or to spend a social evening in the Catholic Casino. His religious and political views were very decidedly conservative. Not caring for the ordinary pleasures of life, he managed to save a little fortune on his moderate salary, which reached a maximum of 6500 florins yearly at the end. This fortune was devoted to a scholarship for mathematical students, amounting to 72,000 marks in 1883. His larger works are: "Handbuch des Erdmagnetismus" (Berlin, 1849); "Handbuch des Magnetismus" (Leipzig, 1860); "Astronomie und Erdmagnetismus" (Stuttgart, 1851). GUNTHER in Allg. Deutsche Biog., XVII (Leipzig, 1883), 570; VON SCHAFHAUTL in JORG, Hist.-polit. Blatter, LXXXV (Munich, 1880), 54; VON ORFF in Carl's Repertorium, XVI (Leipzig and Munich, 1880), 685. WILLIAM FOX Louis-Christophe-Leon Juchault de La Moriciere Louis-Christophe-Leon Juchault de la Moricière French general and commander-in-chief of the papal army, b. at Nantes, 5 February, 1806; d. at the château of Prouzel, near Amiens, 11 September, 1865. His father was descended from an old Breton family whose device was Spes mea Deus. His mother was Desirée de Robineau de Bougon. He made his classical studies at the college of Nantes, where his professor of philosophy was a priest who afterwards becane the Trappist Abbot of Bellefontaine. As had been the custom for centuries for the sons in his family, he was early destined for the army, and accordingly entered the Ecole Polytechnique, in Paris, in 1826, and two years later the Ecole d'Application at Metz. He left the latter school with a commission as sub-lieutenant in the engineers and was sent to Montpellier. In 1830 he joined the detachment that took possession of Algiers, and was made a captiain of Zouaves as a reward for gallant conduct. For seventeen years he remained in Africa, where he acquired a lasting reputation, acting not only as a valiant soldier, but as a pioneer of civilization, loved and esteemed by the Arabs as well as by his own soldiers. In 1833 he was directed by the French government to organize the "Bureau Arabe", a sort of tribunal whose mission was to serve as mediator between Frenchmen and Arabs. His authority was so great among the native tribes that he never carried any arms while travelling through the country, but only a stick with which to defend himself, and this caused him to be named Bou-Aroua (father with a stick). After the capture of Bougie, he was promoted major and in 1835 lieutenant-colonel of Zouaves. In that capacity he took part in many a coup de main, inspiring his troops with indomitable courage, and always placing himself at the most perilous spot. His intrepidity at the storming of Constantine gained him the rank of colonel (1837). In 1840, after the engagement of Mouzaïa, he was raised to the rank of brigadier-general and was given the command of the division of Oran. In the following year he played a most prominent part in the expedition against Tagtempt and Mascara. Thanks to his skilful tactics and intrepidity, he subdued the tribe of Filtas (1843), and was created lieutenant-general. He next went to Morocco (1844), drove back the Moorish troops at Lalla-Maghnia, and contributed largely to the success of the battle at Isly (1845). Towards the end of that year, he was entrusted with the temporary governorship of Algeria. He then crowned his military career by surrounding Abd-el-Kader, who was compelled to surrender (23 November, 1847). Algeria being pacified, the distinguished soldier thought of retiring from military life and taking an active part in politics. In 1846, having been elected deputy by the district of Saint-Calais (Sarthe), he had opposed the Guizot cabinet and created a stir by his speeches on Algeria and promotion in the army. On 21 April, 1847, he married Amélie d'Auberville. In February, 1848, he held for a few days the portfolio of war in the Thiers-Barrot cabinet, which he gave up when the Revolution burst out, causing the downfall of Louis Philippe. Having been elected to the Constituent Assembly (April, 1848) by the Department of Sarthe, he fought against the popular insurrection in June. On 28 June he again accepted the portfolio of war and directed all his efforts towards the organization of Algeria. When Louis Napoleon, to whose ambition he was strongly opposed, entered upon the presidency of the French Republic (20 December, 1848), he left the Cabinet and continued, as a deputy or as vice-president of the Assembly, to antagonize the Government. In the Coup d'Etat (2 December, 1852), he was arrested, imprisoned, first at Mazas, then at Ham, and finally expelled from France. His political career had lasted only four years; his exile lasted nine years. This was the most distressing period of his life. He first travelled in England and Germany and then settled in Belgium pining in his enforced idleness, and longing for active occupation. It was then that he came back to the faith of his youth. For many years, without being an infidel, he had neglected his religious duties, and even for a time had gone astray with the Saint-Simonians. Yielding to the entreaties of his friend Charles de Montalembert, the great Catholic orator, he began to study one by one all the articles of the Credo. From that time to the day of his death he lived according to his faith as a devout Catholic. In 1860 his cousin, Mgr. de Mérode, induced him to take command of the papal army. It was a hazardous task. Ignoring the jeopardy of his established military reputation, he went to Rome. It took only one year to convince him that the undertaking was hopeless. His 8000 men were defeated by the 50,000 men of Cialdini at Castelfidardo (18 September, 1860), and Ancona was obliged to surrender. He bore this severe blow to his reputation with Christian resignation. Deeming his services no longer useful to the papal army, he returned to France, and went to live in his château of Chaillon (Maine-et-Loire). A national subscription was collected to present him with a sword of honour, but he emphatically declined to receive it, on the ground that he was only a defeated general. The only distinction he ever accepted, under personal pressure from Pope Pius IX, was the Cross of the Order of Christ. His last years were devoted to pious works. He built a church at his own expense for the poor parish of Loroux-Beconnais, and contributed large sums to an orphanage and a Catholic school which he had founded. He took pleasure in reading religious books, among which the Holy Bible, the "Summa Theologica" of Saint Thomas, and the "History of the Church" by Darras, were his favourites. When the encyclical letter of 8 December, 1864, was published, he read it with delight, being happy to find in it an answer to many questions which distressed him. His death was sudden. His name is now extinct, as he left only daughters, having lost his only son in 1859, but his fame will last forever as tbat of a gallant soldier and a true Christian. Oraisons funebres de La Moricière, by PIE (Poitiers, 1865) and DUPANLOUP (Orleans. 1865); KELLER, Le General de La Moricière (2 vols., Paris, 1874); HUGNET, Celebres conversions contemporaines (Paris, 1889); BAUNARD, La foi et ses victoires (Paris, 1892). LOUIS N. DELAMARRE Wilhelm Lamormaini Wilhelm Lamormaini Confessor of Emperor Ferdinand II, b. 29 December, 1570, at Dochamps, Luxemburg; d. at Vienna, 22 February, 1648. His father, Everard Germain, was a farmer and a native of La Moire Mannie: hence the name Lamormaini. Lamormaini studied first at the gymnasium of Trier, and thence went to Prague, where he received his doctor's degree, and in 1590 entered the Jesuit Order. Ordained priest in 1596, he was called to the University of Graz as professor of philosophy in 1600, became professor of theology in 1606, and in 1614 was appointed rector of the Jesuit College at the same place. Between the years 1621 and 1623 he was in Rome, but became in the latter year rector of the Jesuit college at Vienna, and in 1637 rector of the academic college in that city (the present university). From 1643 to 1645 he was provincial of the Austrian province of his order, but was compelled to relinquish this office on account of the gout, which made his visitations a task of the greatest difficulty. During the last years of his life, he established a seminary for poor students in Vienna, the "Ignatius- und Franciskus-Seminarium für Stipendisten". After the death of his fellow Jesuit Martin Becanus in 1624, he became the confessor of Ferdinand II, and as such his name appears in the political affairs of the time. He was an esteemed and influential counselor of the emperor, so much so indeed that his enemies affirmed that it was not the emperor, but the Jesuits who ruled the empire. When the Protestants were compelled to give up all ecclesiastical property taken from the Catholics (Edict of Restitution, 1629), Lamormaini was influential in having it used for the propagation of the Catholic Faith. He also took part in the proceedings against Wallenstein (Jan., 1634). He was offered a large sum by the Senate of Hamburg in recognition of his services on the occasion of the election of Ferdinand III as King of Rome. The city of Augsburg, in gratitude for the services he had rendered to it, erected a costly altar in the church of the Viennese Novitiate. On one occasion only was he placed in an unpleasant position, namely when the Spaniards accused him of espousing the cause of their enemies, the French, and tried to have him banished from court. But Lamormaini was able to vindicate himself. By his advice many Jesuit institutions were established in the empire. He took a leading part in the Counter-Reformation in Austria, Styria, Bohemia, and Moravia. Only a part of the biography of Ferdinand II upon which Lamormaini labored appeared, "Ferdinand II, Romanorum Imperatoris, Virtutes" (1638); this has been republished frequently, and in different languages. Lamormaini was scholarly, pious, unpretentious, and upright. He was called by Urban VIII "verus et omnibus numeris absolutus Jesu socius", a true and perfect companion of Jesus. That he was immoral, that he received hush-money, and that he stirred up his brethren to lie and deceive or to use violence against heretics, are unfounded tales that call for no mention in serious history. DUDIK, Kaiser Ferdinand II. und dessen Beichtvater; IDEM, Kaiser Ferdinand 11. und P. Lamormaini in Hist.-pol. Blatter, LXXVIII (Munich, 1876), pp. 469-80, 600-9; Correspondenz Kaisers Ferdinand 11. und seiner erlauchten Familie mit P. Martinus Becanus und P. Wilhelm Lamormaini, ed. DUDIK in Archiv fur osterr. Gesch., LIV (Vienna, 1876), pp. 219-350, SOMMERVOGEL, Bibl. de la C. de J., IV (Brussels and Paris, 1893), 1428-31; DUHR, Jesuiten-Fabeln (4th ed., Freiburg, l904), passim and particularly pp. 686 sqq. KLEMENS LOFFLER Lampa Lampa (LAMPAE, LAPPA). A titular see in Crete, suffragan of Gortyna, was probably a colony of Tarrha. It was taken by storm and almost entirely destroyed by the Romans. Augustus restored it and in consideration of the aid rendered him in his struggle with M. Antonius, he bestowed on the citizens their freedom, and with it the right of coinage. It has been identified with the modern small village of Polis. The episcopal see is mentioned in the "Notitiae episcopatuum" as late as the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. It was re-established by the Greeks about the end of the nineteenth century; the bishop resides in the monastery of Preveli. Lequien (Oriens Christianus, II, 268) mentions Petrus, who attended the Council of Ephesus, 431; Deneltius, at Chalcedon, 451; Prosdocius, in 458; John, who appealed to Rome against his metropolitan Paul, and attended the Council of Constantinople, 667; Epiphanius at Nicaea, 786. SMITH, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, s.v. Lappa; CORNER, Creta sacra, I, 233, 235, 251. S. PÉTRIDèS Lamp and Lampadarii Lamp and Lampadarii There is very little evidence that any strictly liturgical use was made of lamps in the early centuries of Christianity. The fact that many of the services took place at night, and that after the lapse of a generation or two the meetings of the Christians for purposes of worship were held, at Rome and elsewhere, in the subterranean chambers of the Catacombs (q. v.), make it elear that lamps must have been used to provide the necessary means of illumination. Of these lamps, mostly of terra cotta and of small size, many specimens survive some of them plain, some decorated with various Christian symbols. These admit of classification according to period and locality, the finer work, as in so many other branches of Christian art, being as a rule the earlier (see e.g. Leclercq, "Manuel d'archeologie chretienne" II, 557 seq.); but the subject is too intricate to be discussed here. Of the great metal chandeliers with their "dolphins"--i.e. little arms wrought in that shape and supporting a lamp--which came into vogue with the freedom of the Church in the days of Constantine, something has already been said under the heading CANDLESTICKS. Such "polycandela" long remained a conspicuous feature of Byzantine worship. For the connection of lamps with the liturgy at an earlier age it may be sufficient to quote a few sentences from a recently published homily of the Syrian Narsai, who died A.D. 512, descriptive of the Liturgy. "The priests," he says, "are still, and the deacons stand in silence, the whole people is quiet and still, subdued and calm. The altar stands crowned with beauty and splendor, and upon it is the Gospel of life and the adorable wood [i.e. the cross]. The mysteries are set in order, the censers are smoking, the lamps are shining and the deacons are hovering and brandishing [fans] in likeness of watchers" (Conolly "Liturgical Homilies of Narsai", p. 12). It is curious that in nearly all the earliest representations of the Last Supper a lamp is indicated as hanging over the table. When we remember that the pilgrim who, about 550, wrote the so-called "Breviarius", saw at Jerusalem what purported to be the actual lamp which had hung in the chamber of the Last Supper, preserved there as a precious relic, it is easy to understand that the early Christians may have attached a quasi-liturgical significance to the lighting of lamps during the Holy Sacrifice. At the present day interest principally centres in the lamp which burns perpetually before the Blessed Sacrament, and it has been the custom with many writers (see e.g. Corblet, "Hist. du sacrement de l'Eucharistie", II, 433 sq., and Thalhofer, "Liturgik", I, 670) to represent this as a tradition of very early date. But the testimonies upon which this opinion is based are, many of them, quite illusive (see "The Month", April, 1907, pp. 380 seq.). St. Paulinus of Nola, indeed, seems to speak of a silver lamp continually burning in the church: Paulo Crucis ante decus de limine eodem Continuum scyphus est argenteus aptus ad usum. But there is no indication that this bore any reference to the Blessed Sacrament. It would seem rather to be suggested by the context that it was of the nature of a watch light and a protection against thieves. No really conclusive evidence has yet been produced which warrants us in declaring that the practice of honoring the Blessed Sacrament by burning a light continually before it is older than the latter part of the twelfth century. Still, it was undoubtedly the custom for some hundreds of years before this to burn lights before relics and shrines as a mark of honor the candles burnt by King Alfred the Great before his relics, and used by him to measure the hours, are a famous example--and it may be that this custom generally extended to the place where the Blessed Sacrament was reserved. The constant association of lights with the Holy Grail in the Grail romances is suggestive of this. But the great movement for providing a perpetual lamp before the altar must undoubtedly be traced to the preaching in France and England of a certain Eustace, Abbot of Fleay, about A.D. 1200. "Eustace also laid it down", says Walter of Coventry, speaking of his visit to England, "that in London and in many other places, there should be in every church where it was practicable, a burning lamp or some other perpetual light before the Lord's Body." Shortly after this we begin to find the practice enjoined by synodal decrees (e.g. at Worcester, in 1240 at Saumur, in 1276, etc.), but as a rule these earlier injunctions recognize that, owing to the cost of oil and wax, such requirements could hardly be complied with in the poorer churches. It was not until the sixteenth century that the maintenance of a light, wherever the Blessed Sacrament was reserved, was recognized as a matter of strict obligation. At present the official "Rituale Romanum" (Tit. IV, cap. 1) prescribes that "both by day and night two or more lamps or at least one [ lampades plures vel saltem una] must burn continually before the Blessed Sacrament", and the responsibility of seeing that this is carried out rests with the priest in charge of the parish. It is further directed that the oil used should be vegetable oil, by preference that of the olive on account of its symbolism; but exceptionally, in consequence of poverty or some other reason, a mineral oil, like petroleum, may be employed with the bishop's permission. The language of the "Caeremoniale Episcoporum" (I, xii, 17) might easily suggest that at least in the larger churches more lamps than one should be lit, but always an odd number, that is to say, three at least before the high altar, and five before the altar of the Blessed Sacrament. It seems, however, that this direction of the "Caeremoniale" is to be understood as applying only to greater festivals. During all the Middle Ages the burning of lamps, or sometimes candles, before relics, shrines, statues, and other objects of devotion was a form of piety which greatly appealed to the alms of the faithful. Almost every collection of early English wills bears witness to it, and even in the smaller churches the number of such lights founded by private beneficence was often surprisingly great. It not infrequently happened that every guild and association maintained a special light of its own, and, besides these, we hear constantly of such objects of devotion as the "Jesus light", the "Hok-light" (which seems to have to do with a popular festival kept on the second Monday or Tuesday after Easter Sunday), the "Rood light", the "egg light" (probably maintained by contributions of eggs), the "bachelor's light", the "maiden's light", the "Soul's light", etc. Many of these bequests will be found conveniently illustrated and classified in Duncan and Hussey's "Testamenta Cantiana", Lond. 1906. Lampadarii were slaves who carried torches before consuls, emperors, and other officials of high dignity both during the later Roman Republic and under the Empire. There seems no special reason to attribute to the lampadarii any ecclesiastical character, though their functions were imitated by the acolytes and other clerics who preceded the bishop or celebrant, carrying torches in their hands, in the solemn procession to the altar and in other processions. THALHOFER, Liturgik, I (Freiburg, 1883), 666-81; SCHROD in Kirchenlex., VII, 1970 72; ROHAULT DE FLEURY, La Messe, VI (Paris, 1888), 1-33; LECLERCQ, Manuel d'archeologie, II (Paris 1907), 557-70; GARRUCCI, Storia dell' Arte Cristiana, VI (Rome 1881), plates 472-76; HOTHAM s.v. in Dict. Christ. Antiq. (1880); DE WAAL, in KRAUS, Realencyclopadie, II (1886), 267 78. See also CHEVALIER, Topabibl. A full account of all that is known of the lampadarii may be found in Daremberg and Saglio Dictionnaire des Antiquites, III (Paris, 1904), 909, where fuller references are given. Most other accounts are not reliable. HERBERT THURSTON Lamprecht Lamprecht Surnamed Der Pfaffe (The Priest). German poet of the twelfth century, of whom practically nothing personal is known but his name and the fact that he was a cleric. He is the author of the "Alexanderlied", the first German secular epic composed on a French model. According to the poet's own statement this model was a poem on Alexander the Great by Albéric de Besançon, of which only a portion of the beginning, 105 verses in all, is preserved (discovered and published by Paul Heyse, Berlin, 1856). The poem contained a fabulous account of the life and deeds of the great Macedonian conqueror as it was current in Greek and Latin versions of the early Middle Ages, such as the Greek romance of pseudo-Callisthenes, dating from the third century A.D., the Latin translation of Julius Valerius, the epitome thereof, and especially the free Latin version made by the Neapolitan archpresbyter Leo in the tenth century, known as the "Historia de preliis". A comparison of Lamprecht's opening lines with the fragment preserved of the French original shows that he followed his source with tolerable fidelity, adding, however, occasional moralizing comments or remarks of a learned nature. Altogether there are 7302 verses in short rhymed couplets, the rhyme being very imperfect. Besides Albéric's poem, which, as far as we know it, is based on Valerius, Lamprecht used also the "Historia de preliis" and an "Iter ad paradisum", especially in the narration of the marvels seen by Alexander in the Far East, and in the account of the hero's journey to Paradise. There admittance is refused him, and he is made to realize the emptiness of earthly glory. Thus the close of the poem is distinctly moralizing in tone; the career of the great conqueror is but an illustration of the dictum concerning the vanity of earthly things. The poem seems to have been written in Middle Rhenish territory about 1130, at a time, therefore, when the crusades had brought the East nearer to the Western world, and when stories of its marvels were sure to find an eager audience. We possess three manuscripts of Lamprecht's poem, one from Vorau which is not quite complete, one from Strasburg dating from 1187, which is about five times as extensive as the preceding, and lastly a version interpolated in the manuscript of a Basle chronicle. The relationship of the manuscripts to one another is in doubt. The Vorau manuscript is generally re- garded as the oldest and most authentic; that of Strasburg as an amplified recension. The Basle manuscript is certainly late and inferior in value to the other two. The "Alexanderlied" with German translation was first edited by Weismann (2 vols., Frankfurt, 1850); the best edition is by Kinzel in "Germanistische Handbibliothek", ed. Zacher, VI (Halle, 1884). The Vorau manuscript was edited by Diemer in "Deutsche Gedichte des 11. und 12. Jahrhunderts" (Vienna, 1849), the Strasburg manuscript by Massmann in "Deutsche Gedichte des 11. und 12. Jahrhunderts" (Quedlinburg, 1837), and the Basle manuscript by Werner (Stuttgart, 1882) in "Bibliothek des Literarischen Vereins in Stuttgart", CLIV. Selections were edited by Piper in "Die Spielmannsdichtung", II, 2; in "Kürschners Deutsche National Litteratur", II, pp. 116-82. A modem German translation by Ottmann appeared in "Hendels Bibliothek der Gesamtlitteratur" (Halle, I898). Consult the introduction to the editions and translations above mentioned, especially those of KINZEL and PIPER. ARTHUR F.J. REMY Early Christian Lamps Early Christian Lamps Of the various classes of remains from Christian antiquity there is probably none so numerously represented as that of small clay lamps adorned with Christian symbols. Lamps of this character have been found in all the ancient centres of Christianity, but the Roman catacombs are especially remarkable for the large numbers of these fragile utensils they contain, many of which, however, bear no intrinsic mark of their Christian origin. These clay lamps belong to two categories; the more ancient manufactured in the early imperial period, and the type of the Constantinian epoch. Even in this not very conspicuous department of arts and crafts there was a notable decline between the first and the fourth or fifth century; the clay lamps of the former period are of far superior workmanship to those of the latter. In form also there is a difference between the two species; lamps of the classic period are round with an ascending perforated handle, whereas the lamps typical of the Christian period somewhat resemble a boat or a shoe with an unperforated handle running to a point. In lamps of Egyptian origin the handles were soldered on after the lamp itself was molded. The favorite symbol, though by no means the only one adorning lamps of Christian origin, was the monogram of Constantine. In some instances they were adorned with the figure of a saint, occasionally accompanied by an inscription. Bronze lamps of Christian origin have also been found, and, though far rarer than the clay lamps described, they are of much greater interest. One of the most remarkable is a bronze lamp of the fifth century, now in St. Petersburg, which takes the form of an early Christian basilica. Of equal interest is a bronze lamp in the Uffizi gallery at Florence, it has the form of a ship, with inflated sails and two statuettes of bronze, supposed to represent St. Peter and St. Paul, at the prow. Bronze lamps also exist in the forms of a dove, a duck, a peacock, a crow, etc. The museum of Algiers contains a specimen of a lamp mounted on a pedestal, of excellent workmanship ornamented with the apocalyptic Greek letters A and D, and a dolphin. Many of the gold and silver lamps presented by Constantine the Great to the Lateran Basilica were also in the form of dolphins, as the "Liber Pontificalis" informs us; lamps in the form of the symbolic fish were probably common, though only one of terra cotta is known. The lamps presented by Constantine to the Lateran--a truly imperial gift--comprised altogether 174 chandeliers and candlesticks, which furnished, it is calculated, 8730 separate lights. The most precious of these is the chandelier "of purest gold", weighing fifty pounds and ornamented with fifty dolphins, which hung from the Ciborium; the chains in addition weighed twenty-five pounds. Before the principal altar stood a silver chandelier, weighing fifty pounds, adorned with twenty dolphins. The nave was lighted by forty five silver standards (fara canthara), the right aisle by forty and the left by forty-five. Besides these chandeliers for lamps, the nave contained fifty silver standards for candles, while before each of the seven altars of the basilica stood a candelabrum ten feet high, made of copper inlaid with reliefs in silver representing the Prophets. Gifts of precious candelabra, though fewer in number, were also made by Constantine to the basilicas of St. Peter, St. Paul, Santa Croce, St. Agnes, and St. Laurence ("Liber Pontificalis", ed. Duchesne, I, 172 sqq.). BABINGTON in SMITH AND CHEETHAM, Dictionary of Christian Antiquities (London, 1875-80), s. v. Lamps; LOWRIE, Monuments of the Early Church (NEW YORK, 1901): LECLERCQ, Manuel d'Archeologie Chretienne (Paris, 1907); DE WAAL in KRAUS, Real-Encyklopadie der christlichen Alterthumer (Freiburg, 1882-86), s.v. Lampen. MAURICE M. HASSETT Lampsacus Lampsacus A titular see of Hellespont, suffragan of Cyzicus. The city is situated in Mysia, at the entrance to the Hellespont, opposite Callipolis, in a region known as Bebrycia, which seems to indicate an establishment of Bebryces from Thrace. It was probably called Pityussa prior to its colonization by the Ionian cities of Phocaea and Miletus. The elder Miltiades, when he had been established in possession of Thracian Chersonesus, declared war against the inhabitants of Lampsacus, who made him prisoner, and released him only in submission to the threats of Croesus. During the Ionian revolt Lampsacus fell into the power of the Persians. The "great king" gave its territory to Themistocles that he might supply himself with its wine, which was very famous; but the city itself continued to be governed by native tyrants. After the battle of Mycale (479 B.C.), Lampsacus joined the Athenians, but revolted after the unsuccessful expedition to Sicily; being unfortified, however, it was easily recaptured by the fleet of Strombichides. After the death of Alexander, it was forced to defend itself against the attacks of Antiochus of Syria. It voted a golden crown to the Romans and became their ally. Its prosperity continued under the empire; gold and silver staters of Lampsacus are extant, and its coins of the imperial period range from Augustus to Gallienus. The city possessed a fine piece of sculpture by Lysippus, representing a lion couchant, which was carried off by Agrippa to grace the Campus Martius at Rome It was the home of many famous men, e.g. the historian Charon, Anaximenes the orator, Adimantus, and Metrodorus, a disciple of Epicurus who himself lived at Lampsacus for three years. It must be added that the city was also notorious for the obscene worship that was paid to Priapus. Its name has been conjecturally introduced into the Vulgate (I Mach., xv, 23) in place of the Greek name Sampsace, or Sampsame, in the list of the cities to which the letter of the consul Leucius was sent; and this correction is an excellent one, since no city was known by the name of Sampsace or Sampsame. St. Trypho, martyred at Nicaea, was, according to the legend, buried at Lampsacus. Its first known bishop was St. Parthenius, under Constantine. In 364 the see was occupied by Marcian, a Semi-Arian or Macedonian; in that year there was held at Lampsacus a council of bishops the majority of whom belonged to that party. Marcian, summoned to the (Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, in 381, refused to retract. Other known bishops of Lampsacus were Daniel, who assisted at the Council of Chalcedon (451); Harmonius (458); Constantine (680), present at the Council of Constantinople; John (787), at Nicaea; St. Euschemon, a correspondent of St. Theodore the Studite, and a confessor of the Faith for the veneration of images, under Theophilus. The See of Lampsacus is mentioned in the "Notitiae episcopatuum" until about the twelfth or thirteenth century. Lampsacus is now a village of about two thousand inhabitants, the chief place of a caza in the sanjak of Bigha; it is called in Greek Lampsaki, and in Turkish Lepsek. SMITH, Dict. of Greek and Roman Geography, s. v., LEQUIEN Oriens Christianus, I, 771. S. PÉTRIDÈS Lamuel Lamuel Name of a king mentioned in Prov., xxxi, 1 and 4, but otherwise unknown. In the opening verse we read: "The words of king Lamuel. The vision wherewith his mother instructed him." The name occurs again in verse 4: "Give not to kings, O Lamuel, give not wine to kings . . ." The discourse which is an exhortation to chastity and temperance, is supposed to end with verse 9. Some modern scholars (see Revised Version, Prov., xxxi 1, margin) render the first passage thus: "The words of Lemuel, king of Massa, which his mother taught him." Massa is mentioned in Gen., xxv, 14 (cf. I Par., i, 30), among the sons of Ismael, and his kingdom is consequently supposed to have been in Arabia. In etymological form the name Lamuel is kindred with Jamuel (Gen., xlvi, 10) and Namuel (I Par., iv, 24). In signification it is cognate with Lael (Numb., iii, 24) meaning (a man consecrated) "to God". See LESETRE in VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible, s.v.; DAVISON in HASTINGS, Dict. of the Bible, s.v. Lemuel. JAMES F. DRISCOLL Lamus Lamus A titular see of Isauria, suffragan of Seleucia. In antiquity this village is mentioned by Strabo, XIV, 671, and Ptolemy, V, viii, 4 (and 6). It was situated at the mouth of the River Lamus which formed the boundary between Cilicia Aspera and Cilicia Propria. Lametis was the name of the whole district. To-day it is the wretched village of Adana, with existing remains of an aqueduct and a fortress. In 945, John Courcouas, a Byzantine general, concluded there a treaty of peace with the Arabs. The fortress was seized by Emperor Manuel Comnenus and reconquered by the Armenians after the emperor's departure. In 458 Nounechios, Bishop of Charadrus, bore also the title of Bishop of Lamus. In 787 Bishop Eustathius was present at the second Council of Nicaea. The see is still mentioned in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in the "Notitiae episcopatuum". LEQUIEN, Oriens Christianus, II, 1017; ALISHAN, Sissouan (Venice, 1899), 13, 413. S. PÉTRIDÈS Bernard Lamy Bernard Lamy Oratorian, b. at Le Mans, France, in June, 1640; d. at Rouen, 29 Jan., 1715. At the age of twelve he was placed under the tuition of the Oratorians of his native town, and soon evinced more than ordinary talent and versatility of mind. In 1658 he entered the congregation of the Oratory, and, after studying philosophy at Paris and at Saumur, was appointed professor in the college of Vendome and later at Juilly. He was ordained to the priesthood in 1667, and after teaching a few years at Le Mans he was appointed to a chair of philosophy in the University of Angers. Here his teaching was attacked on the ground that it was too exclusively Cartesian, and Rebous the rector obtained in 1675 from the state authorities a decree forbidding him to continue his lectures. He was then sent by his superiors to Grenoble, where, thanks to the protection of Cardinal Le Camus, he again took up his courses of philosophy. In 1686 he returned to Paris, stopping at the seminary of Saint Magloire, and in 1689 he was sent to Rouen, where he spent the remainder of his days. His writings are numerous and varied. Among them may be mentioned: (1) "Apparatus ad Biblia Sacra", etc. (Grenoble, 1687), translated into French by order of the Bishop of Châlons under the title "Introduction a la lecture de l'Ecriture Sainte" (Lyons, 1689). (2) "Harmonia, sive Concordia quatuor Evangelistarum", a harmony or concordance of the Four Gospels (Paris, 1689). In this work he contends that John the Baptist was twice cast into prison, first in Jerusalem by order of the Sanhedrin, and later by Herod in Galilee. He maintains also that the Saviour and His Apostles did not eat the paschal lamb at the Last Supper, and that the Crucifixion occurred on the day on which the Jews celebrated the Passover. He considers Mary Magdalen, Mary the sister of Lazarus, and the sinner mentioned in Luke, vii, 37 sqq. to be one and the same person. These and other opinions involved him in animated controversy with Bulteau, pastor of Rouen, Jean Piénud, Le Nain de Tillemont, and others (see "Traité historique de l'ancienne Pâque des Juifs", Paris, 1693). (3) "Apparatus Biblicus", which is a development of his introduction (Lyons, 1696; Jena, 1709; Amsterdam, 1710). It was translated into French by Abbé de Bellegarde (Paris, 1697) and by Abbé Boyer (Lyons, 1709). In this work he calls in question the historical character of the books of Tobias and Judith, and maintains that even after the Council of Trent a difference of authority should be recognized between the proto-canonical and deutero-canonical books of the Bible. (4) "Défense de l'ancien sentiment de l'Eglise latine touchant l'office de sainte Madeleine" (Rouen, Paris, 1697). (5) A volume of commentaries on his previous harmony of the Four Gospels (Paris, 1699). (6) A Latin treatise on the Ark of the Covenant (Paris, 1720), a posthumous work published by Pere Desmollets, who prefixed to the volume a biography of the author. REGNIER in VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible, s.v.; INGOLD, Essai de biblioqraphie Oratorienne (Paris, 1880-1882), V, 64-70. JAMES F. DRISCOLL Francois Lamy François Lamy An ascetical and apologetic writer of the Congregation of St-Maur, b. in 1636 at Montireau in the Department of Eure-et-Loir; d. 11 April, 1711, at the Abbey of St-Denis near Paris. While fighting a duel he was saved from a fatal sword-thrust by a book of the Rule of St. Benedict which he carried in his pocket. Seeing the finger of God in this remark- able occurrence, he took the Benedictine habit at the monastery of St-Remi at Reims in 1658. Shortly after his elevation to the priesthood he was appointed subprior of St-Faron at Meaux, but a year later resigned this position out of humility. During 1672-5 he taught philosophy at the monasteries of Mont St-Quentin and St-Médard in Soissons. He was the first of the Maurists to teach the Cartesian system of philosophy. In 1676 he came to St-Germain-des-Prés near Paris where he taught theology until 1679. The general chapter of 1687 appointed him prior of Rebais in the Diocese of Meaux, but he was ordered by the king to resign his office in 1689. The remainder of his life he spent in literary pursuits at St-Denis. He was one of the most famous writers of his times and was an intimate friend of Bossuet. Of his twenty printed works the following are the most important: "Vérité évidente de la Religion chrétienne" (Paris, 1694); "Le Nouvel Athéisme Renversé, ou réfutation du système de Spinoza" (Paris, 1696; 2nd ed., Brussels, 1711); "Sentiments de piété sur la profession religieuse" (Paris, 1697); "De la Connaissance de soi-même" (6 vols., ibid., 1694-8; 2nd ed., 1700), which raised a controversy between the author and Malebranche concerning the disinterested love of God; "L'incrédule amené à la Religion par la Raison" (ibid., 1710); "De la Connaissance et de l'Amour de Dieu" (ibid., 1712); "Lettre d'un théologien à un de ses amis" (ibid., 1699); "Plainte de l'apologiste des Bénédictins à MM. les prélats de France" (ibid., 1699). In the last two treatises the author defends the Maurist edition of the works of St. Augustine against the Jansenists and the Jesuits. TASSIN, Histoire litteraire de la Congregation de St-Maur (Brussels, 1770), 351-67; LE CERF, Bibliotheque historique et critique des auteurs de la Congregation de St-Maur (La Haye, 1726), 185-95. MICHAEL OTT Thomas Joseph Lamy Thomas Joseph Lamy Biblical scholar end orientalist, b. at Ohey, in Belgium, 27 Jan., 1827, d. at Louvain, 30 July, 1907. Ordained priest in 1853 after completing his studies at Floreffe and at the seminary of Namur, he entered the Catholic University of Louvain and received from his professors, Beelen (q.v.), the distinguished exegete and orientalist, and Lefebre, who was well versed in positive theology, his impulse towards Biblical, Oriental, and patristic studies. He obtained the degree of Doctor of Theology in 1859. His career as professor at Louvain began in 1858 and continued uninterrupted till the year 1900, comprising courses in Hebrew, Syriac, introduction to Sacred Scripture, and exegesis. Lamy succeeded Beelen on the latter's retirement in 1875. His writings, too voluminous for enumeration here, are listed in the bibliography of the university down to 1905, under one hundred and fifty-eight entries. His most valuable contributions to learning took the form of editions of many previously unpublished Syriac writings, notably his collection in six volumes of St. Ephraem's hymns and discourses, under the title "Sancti Ephraemi Syri Hymni et Sermones", and his edition of the "Chronicon Ecclesiasticum" of Bar Hebraeus. It is freely admitted that his editions of text are marred by numerous errors, chiefly typographical. He is most widely known by his "Introductio in Sacram Scripturam", in 2 vols., which ran to six editions, an erudite collection of materials valuable in their day. Of his commentaries the most noted are his Latin commentary on Genesis, in 2 vols. (2nd ed., 1883-84), and his French commentary on the Apocalypse (1893-94). Neither in his introduction nor in his commentaries did Lamy grapple with the difficulties of the day; his ideas, acquired in the sixth decade of the nineteenth century, remained unmodified till the end. His "Introduction" passed almost unchanged through six editions. Lamy's numerous articles show his great devotion to the Church, to his university, and to his country, as well as a marked predilection for Biblical and patristic studies. Before his death, which occurred at the age of eighty, Lamy was engaged in the revision and annotation of a French translation of the Bible. Besides his professorial labors, he served his university for thirty years as president of the College Marie Thérèse. By his simplicity, his goodness, his piety, and kindness of heart, he won numerous friends in all ranks of society and exerted a gentle but effective and wide influence for good. Lamy received many honors from learned societies and from his country; he was made domestic prelate (1885) by Leo XIII, and member of the Biblical Commission (1903) by Pius X. LADEUZE in Annuaire de l'Universite Catholique de Louvain (1908), pp. cxxxi-clix, biographical notice, with portrait; ibid., pp. v vi, remarks by the rector, Mgr. HEBBELYNCK; REINHOLD in BUCHBERGER, Kirchliches Handlex., s. V. For bibliography, see Universite Catholique de Louvain. Bibliographie, 1834-1900, 66-72; also Premier Supplement, 1899-1901, 8-9; Deuxieme Supplement, 1901-1903, 11-13; Troisieme Supplement, 1903-1905, 11. JOHN F. FENLON Francesco Lana Francesco Lana Born 10 Dec., 1631, at Brescia in Italy; died in the same place, 22 Feb., 1687. Mathematician and naturalist, he was also the scientific founder of aeronautics. He belonged to the ancient family of the Counts of Lana-Terzi, which had come to Brescia as early as the fourteenth century from the neighbourhood of Bergamo. Trained by able teachers in his native city, he entered the novitiate of the Society of Jesus in Rome on 11 Nov., 1647, and made his philosophical and theological studies in the Roman College of the Society. He later taught the humanities for a short time at Terni, where the town council through gratitude to him and his family granted him the freedom of the city. After this he was mainly engaged as professor of physical science and mathematics, principally at Ferrara, until delicate health necessitated his return to his native Brescia. He there performed the duties of confessor, and was engaged at the same time on the publication of his great work on physical science, "Magisterium naturæ et artis". Eliminating everything that was uncertain, this work was to treat in nine volumes the entire field of the natural sciences on strictly geometrical principles and on the basis of carefully made experiments. Unfortunately Lana himself could publish but two of these volumes (1684, 1686), but a third appeared at Parma after his death. The work found favourable notice in the learned publications of the time, though Lana's principal achievement lay in another direction. In 1670 he had published, as an advertisement for his chief work, a small volume entitled "Prodromo overo saggio di alcune inventioni". In this book Lana describes a series of useful discoveries---for example, methods of cipher-writing and of writing for the blind; an apparatus for speaking at a long distance; also telescopes, microscopes, a sowing machine, etc. Two chapters treat of aeronautics---chapter v, "How to construct birds which will fly through the air", and chapter vi, "Demonstration of the feasibility of constructing a ship with rudder and sails, which will sail through the air". Here Lana distinguishes explicitly between the "heavier than air" and the "lighter than air". Although the various ingenious methods of constructing birds given in chapter v are very interesting, chapter vi is much more important. In this he devises a strictly scientific plan for the making of an airship: he begins by discussing the precedent conditions, then develops the plan, and finally solves the objections which might be advanced. According to his plan four large globes are to be made of very thin sheet metal of such diameter that the weight of the air contained therein will be greater than that of the sheet metal of which the globes are made. When the air is exhausted from the globes by means of a simple process explained by Lana, they will float through the air, and moreover carry a car for passengers. In the second volume of his great work (pp. 291-4), Lana again explains his plan, in which he says he has made some improvements. He also mentions that perhaps wood or glass might be substituted for the envelope of the globes. Lana's plan aroused much interest and discussion. Though the Italian Borelli considered it impracticable, German savants, such as Leibniz and Professors Sturm and Lohmeier, spoke well of it. At all events, Lana's influence on his successors was suggestive and encouraging; although his plan was never carried into execution, the principles so clearly set forth by him form the basis of modern aeronautics, and his importance is becoming ever more clearly recognized in our times. In addition to the works already mentioned, Lana also wrote a drama, "La Rappresantazione di San Valentino", and an ascetical treatise, "La beltà svelata". Biog. universelle, XXIII (Paris, 1819), 311-4; Nouvelle Biog. Générale, s. v.; WILHELM, An der Wiege der Luftschiffahrt, I (Hamm, Westphalia, 1909); IDEM, Die Anfânge der Luftschiffahrt (Hamm, 1909) B. WILHELM The Holy Lance The Holy Lance We read in the Gospel of St. John (xix, 34), that, after our Saviour's death, "one of the soldiers with a spear [ lancea] opened his side and immediately there came out blood and water". Of the weapon thus sanctified nothing is known until the pilgrim St. Antoninus of Piancenza (A.D. 570), describing the holy places of Jerusalem, tells us that he saw in the basilica of Mount Sion "the crown of thorns with which Our Lord was crowned and the lance with which He was struck in the side". The mention of the lance at the church of the Holy Sepulchre in the so-called "Breviarus", as M. de Mely points out (Exuviae, III, 32), is not to be relied on. On the other hand, in a miniature of the famous Syriac manuscript of the Laurentian Library at Florence, illuminated by one Rabulas in the year 586, the incident of the opening of Christ's side is given a prominence which is highly significant. Moreover, the name Longinus -- if, indeed, this is not a later addition -- is written in Greek characters (LOGINOS) above the head of the soldier who is thrusting his lance into our Saviour's side. This seems to show that the legend which assigns this name to the soldier (who, according to the same tradition, was healed of ophthalmia and converted by a drop of the precious blood spurting from the wound) is as old as the sixth century. And further it is tempting, even if rash, to conjecture that the name Logginos, or Logchinos is in some way connected with the lance (logche). Be this as it may, a spear believed to be identical with that which pierced our Saviour's body was venerated at Jerusalem at the close of the sixth century, and the presence there of this important relic is attested half a century earlier by Cassiodorus (In Ps. lxxxvi, P.L., LXX, 621) and after him by Gregory of Tours (P.L., LXXI, 712). In 615 Jerusalem was captured by a lieutenant of the Persian King Chosroes. The sacred relics of the Passion fell into the hands of the pagans, and, according to the "Chronicon Paschale", the point of the lance, which had been broken off, was given in the same year to Nicetas, who took it to Constantinople and deposited it in the church of St. Sophia. This point of the lance, which was now set in an "yeona", or icon, many centuries afterwards (i.e., in 1244) was present by Baldwin to St. Louis, and it was enshrined with the Crown of Thorns (q.v.) in the Sainte Chapelle. During the French Revolution these relics were removed to the Bibliotheque Nationale, and, although the Crown has been happily preserved to us, the other has now disappeared. As for the second and larger portion of the lance, Arculpus, about 670, saw it at Jerusalem, where it must have been restored by Heraclius, but it was then venerated at the church of the Holy Sepulchre. After this date we practically hear no more of it from pilgrims to the Holy Land. In particular, St. Willibald, who came to Jerusalem in 715, does not mention it. There is consequently some reason to believe that the larger relic as well as the point had been conveyed to Constantinople before the tenth century, possibly at the same time as the Crown of Thorns. At any rate its presence at Constantinople seems to be clearly attested by various pilgrims, particularly Russians, and, though it was deposited in various churches in succession, it seems possible to trace it and distinguish it from the companion relic of the point. Sir John Mandeville, whose credit as a witness has of late years been in part rehabilitated, declared, in 1357, that he had seen the blade of the Holy Lance both at Paris and at Constantinople, and that the latter was a much larger relic than the former. Whatever the Constantinople relic was, it fell into the hands of the Turks, and in 1492, under circumstances minutely described in Pastor's "History of the Popes", the Sultan Bajazet sent it to Innocent VIII to conciliate his favour towards the sultan's brother Zizim, who was then the pope's prisoner. This relic has never since left Rome, where it is preserved under the dome of St. Peter's. Benedict XIV (De Beat. et Canon., IV, ii, 31) states that he obtained from Paris an exact drawing of the point of the lance, and that in comparing it with the larger relic in St. Peter's he was satisfied that the two had originally formed one blade. M. Mély published for the first time in 1904, an accurate design of the Roman relic of the lance head, and the fact that it has lost its point is as conspicuous as in other, often quite fantastic, delineations of the Vatican lance. At the time of the sending of the lance to Innocent VIII, great doubts as to its authenticity were felt at Rome, as Burchard's "Diary" (I, 473-486, ed. Thusasne) plainly shows, on account of the rival lances known to be preserved at Nuremberg, Paris, etc., and on account of the supposed discovery of the Holy Lance at Antioch by the revelation of St. Andrew, in 1098, during the First Crusade. Raynaldi, the Bollandists, and many other authorities believed that the lance found in 1098 afterwards fell into the hands of the Turks and was that sent by Bajazet to Pope Innocent, but from M. de Mely's investigations it seems probable that it is identical with the relic now jealously preserved at Etschmiadzin in Armenia. This was never in any proper sense a lance, but rather the head of a standard, and it may conceivably (before its discovery under very questionable circumstances by the crusader Peter Bartholomew) have been venerated as the weapon with which certain Jews at Beirut struck a figure of Christ on the Cross; an outrage which was believed to have been followed by a miraculous discharge of blood. Another lance claiming to be that which produced the wound in Christ's side is now preserved among the imperial insignia at Vienna and is known as the lance of St. Maurice. This weapon was used as early as 1273 in the coronation ceremony of the Emperor of the West, and form an earlier date as an emblem of investiture. It came to Nuremberg in 1424, and it is also probably the lance, known as that of the Emperor Constantine, which enshrined a nail or some portion of a nail of the Crucifixion. The story told by William of Malmesbury of the giving of the Holy Lance to King Athelstan of England by Hugh Capet seems to be due to a misconception. One other remaining lance reputed to be that concerned in the Passion of Christ is preserved at Cracow, but, though it is alleged to have been there for eight centuries, it is impossible to trace its earlier history. The one work of authority which thoroughly discusses all the available evidence is that of M.F. DE MELY published at Paris in 1904 as the third volume of the Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae of the COMTE DE RIANT. It contains authentic drawings never before published and a valuable selection of Pieces justificatives. Besides this all-important work, the reader may be referred to ROHAULT DE FLEURY, Memoire sur les Instruments de la Passion (Paris, 1870), 272- 75; BEURLIER, s.v. Lance in Dict. de la Bible; SCHROD in Kirchenlex., VII, 1419- 22; MARTIN, Reliques de la Passion. HERBERT THURSTON Giovanni Paolo Lancelotti Giovanni Paolo Lancelotti Canonist, b. at Perugia in 1522; d. there, 23 September, 1590. He graduated doctor of law in 1546, and taught that science shortly afterwards (1547 or 1548) in the university of his native town. Except for two short sojourns at Rome, he passed the remainder of his life in Perugia, in the study of law and belles-lettres. He owes his world-wide reputation to his "Institutiones Juris Canonici", the text of which is reproduced in most editions of the "Corpus Juris Canonici". Following the example of Emperor Justinian, who had entrusted to three professors the task of drawing up an elementary work on Roman law entitled the "Institutiones", intended for use in the schools, Lancelotti conceived the plan of a like work on canon law. Paul IV charged him officially with the execution of his plan, and for this purpose he went to Rome in 1557. To his great regret, neither Paul IV who died in 1559, nor his successor Pius IV, gave authentic and official approbation to his work, published by Lancelotti at Perugia in 1563 as an entirely private venture. The "Institutiones" are divided into four books, and treat successively of persons, things (especially marriage), judgments, and crimes. This division was inspired by the principle of Roman law: "Omne jus quo utimur vel ad personas attinet, vel ad res, vel ad actiones". (All our law treats of persons, or things, or judicial procedure.) It is a small and very simple didactic work, and may be considered a clear, convenient resume of canon law. Its divisions have been followed on broad lines by all authors of elementary treatises on canon law, and they have also borrowed its title "Institutiones". Lancelotti, however, erred when he applied to canon law the unsuitable divisions of Roman law. Having been published before the promulgation of the Council of Trent, this work had not the advantage of following its decrees; subsequent editors have remedied this defect by notes and commentaries. The best-known editions are those of Doujat (Paris, 1684; Venice, 1739), and Thomasius (Halle, 1715-17). Lancelotti's other writings are: "Institutionum juris canonici commentarium" (Perugia, 1560; Lyons, 1579), in which he gives the history of his aforesaid work; "De comparatione juris pontificii et caesarei et utriusque interpretandi ratione" (Lyons, 1574); "Regularum ex universo pontificio jure libri tres" (Perugia, 1587); "Quaestio an in cautione de non offendendo praestita comprehendantur banniti nostri temporis" (Lyons, 1587). VERMIGLIOLI, Biografia degli Scrittori Perugini, II (Perugia, 1829), 40 sqq.; SCHULTE, Die Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des canonischen Rechts (STUTTGART, 1875-80), III, 451 sqq.; SCHERER in Kirchenlex, s.v. A. VAN HOVE Archdiocese of Lanciano and Ortona Archdiocese of Lanciano and Ortona (LANCIANENSIS ET ORTONENSIS). Lanciano is a small city in the province of Chieti, in the Abruzzi, Central Italy, between the Pescara and the Trigni, with a majestic view of Mount Maiella. It was the ancient Anxia, a city of the Frentani. Its beautiful cathedral, S. Maria del Ponte, so called because built on bridgework along a precipice, is the work of Michitelli (1619) and has some beautiful paintings by Pozzulaniello (Giacinto Diana). Another beautiful church is S. Maria Maggiore with its Norman portal. Until 1515 Lanciano was subject to the Bishop of Chieti. In 1562 Pius IV, to end a dispute with that bishop, made it an archdiocese without suffragans. The first bishop was Angelo Maccafani, who was succeeded by Cardinal Egidio Canisio (1532); the first archbishop was the Dominican Leonardo Marini (1560). In 1818 the See of Ortona was united to that of Lanciano by Pius VII. Ortona is a very ancient city in the province of Chieti, on the Adriatic Sea, and has a small port from which it carries on commerce with Dalmatia and the Adriatic coast of Italy. Charles I, King of Sicily, assigned the revenues of this port to the Vatican Basilica. It was here that Gregory XII, fleeing from Cividale, landed on Neapolitan territory (1409), and went thence to Gaeta. Ortona was an episcopal see even in the time of Gregory the Great, who mentions the Bishop Calumniosus and his predecessor Blandinus. Another bishop was Joannes, who in 916 was the papal legate at the Council of Altheim. There is no record of a Bishop of Ortona after the tenth century. Pius V in 1570 re-established the see, to which in 1569 that of Campli was united. When, in 1818, Ortona was joined to Lanciano, Campli was assigned to Teramo. The archdiocese has 20 parishes, with 61,000 faithful, 2 religious houses of men, and 6 of women. CAPPELLETTI, Le Chiese d Italia, XXI. U. BENIGNI Land-Tenure in the Christian Era Land-Tenure in the Christian Era The way in which land has been held or owned during the nineteen hundred years which have seen in Europe the rise and establishment of the Church is a matter for historical inquiry. Strictly speaking, the way in which such ownership or tenure was not only legally arranged, but ethically regarded, is a matter for historical inquiry also. But the determination from record of motive and of mental attitude is always a disputable thing, whereas the determination of legal definition and of public acts is a matter of documentary and of ascertainable record. During the last two generations certain theories of the State, based, in their turn, upon a vague and general, but appreciable, philosophy, have made of the ethical history of land-tenure or land owning a capital point of discussion, and, to support what was until lately the chief academic view, recorded and ascertainable history was pressed and even warped into the service of theory. It is the object of this article to set forth what is rigidly ascertainable in the matter, to distinguish it from what is doubtful, and again from what is merely hypothetical. The modern theory to which allusion is here made is the conception that property in all its forms has no direct relation with personality, is not an extension of nor support of human dignity and the human will (which, strictly, can only attach to persons), but is a mechanical arrangement or institution deriving its authority from the State, not from the nature of man and not, therefore, from the purpose of his Creator. In this aspect of property many modern apologists apparently divergent, join. Thus, he who will assert that property is necessary in order to give the required impetus to human effort, or that its acquisition is the proper reward of the virtue (as he imagines it to be) of cunning, or that men must endure it as a necessary evil proceeding from the imperfections of their nature is really at one in his general theory of the thing with his apparently irreconcilable opponent who will assert that property is robbery because its existence tends to produce an inequality in material enjoyment. Again the philosopher who analyses what is called economic or Ricardian, rent, and emphasizes its collective quality, however much he may privately support the laws that defend private property, betrays by his whole method of thought his conception that property is adventitious and not native to man. In general, all that wave of non-Christian and (in its acuteness) anti-Christian thought which the nineteenth century has suffered, regards property, among other human establishments, as a thing not having about it that quality which we call sacred. It reposes upon no ultimate moral sanction: it is a function to be expressed in terms of common or private utility. The far-reaching consequences of this philosophy it is not the purpose of these pages to discuss; it has produced, not only the insecurity and the extended poverty, but also the shameless financial spirit of our time; it has put speculation in the place of production, and removed in so far as it has been powerful the permanent economic bases of society. The opposite philosophy bears no name; and here we have a phenomenon to be paralleled in many another case. Thus we know the modern attitude which regards matrimony as a contract, but we have no name for the view of that vast majority to which such a conception is repulsive. Again, we can hallmark the modern conception that the State has no authority over the citizen -- the theory called Anarchist -- but we have no name for the public and popular philosophy of the vast majority to which such a doctrine is fundamentally immoral. We must proceed, therefore, without a strict nomenclature, and postulate, what all modern observers will immediately admit, the contrast between those who have with regard to property in all its forms the novel attitude described and those who continue to repose in the older conception of, property as a thing connected with the ultimate ethical sense of man. For the purposes of this article the interest of that great quarrel lies in this: that the academies and universities (from which centres of intellectualism, of course, all such novelties, long-lived or short-lived, proceed), in their determination to disestablish the sense of property as an absolute thing, have pressed into their service historical evidence, and this is especially the case in regard to property in land. Man is a land animal: without land he cannot live. All that he consumes and every condition of his material being is ultimately referable to land. Nay, the prime condition of all, mere space in which to extend his being, involves the occupation of land. Land, therefore, in all ages has been safeguarded in a peculiar manner from the perils which attach to the abuse, or even the natural process, of private property in any material. And whether those safeguards have been or are, an assertion of the ultimate dominion of the State over land, or institutions to make inheritance in land secure, or to safeguard it against the fluctuation of fortune, or to guarantee a proportion of it for what is essential to the common life of men, or to forbid its acquisition in more than certain areas by one family -- no matter what the guarantees are or have been, they ultimately repose upon the prime and self-evident truth that without land man cannot be. To the truth that land is necessary for the life of man, another truth equally self-evident lends added force, to wit that, whereas all other forms of property can be replaced, land cannot be replaced. A man or a group of men can if the laws be sufficiently bad or sufficiently laxly observed, forestall the market in wheat so as to control the whole supply of wheat for a certain period, but they cannot control it for more than a certain period unless they also control the land, for wheat is perishable. Perishable, also, is every other form of things subject to private property, with the exception of land. Vest all the land in the community in one family or one group of families, make their tenure of it fixed, and it is self-evident that the whole of the community will be utterly dependent upon it or them. In other words, a State must, if it is to remain a State, set up in the case of land guarantees and safeguards against the perils attaching to the institution of property which it need not set up in the case of other forms of property. We shall, therefore, always find in the historical records of every community, however fixed and absolute its conception of the right of private property in land, some land held in common, some land the property of the State or the municipality, and even that land which is in the hands of individuals or corporations treated legally in a manner different from, stricter than, and contrasting with, the manner in which other forms of property will be treated. Seizing upon this truth, the school of philosophy alluded to above has attempted to establish a scheme of historical progress wholly hypothetical. It has been pretended that men in their first conception of land thought of it as mere space, heritable by none and open to all: that from this men, organized in strict communities, proceeded to give the community rights over land which it forbade to individuals and to leave the government of the tribe or of the village absolute and continual power -- and power habitually and frequently exercised -- to determine a common tillage and a common pasture. Next (this hypothesis imagined) the mutations of allotment grew rarer, and the watching of common rights less jealous, until at last were found -- what every man can now see round him in European civilization -- a number of private properties, and side by side with them a certain proportion of communal and public territory. The rights which are exercised over this last or ancient customs which attach to it are called (in the terminology of the academic theory) "survivals from an original communism in land." Now, before any examination of the true history of land-tenure can be attempted, it is of the first consequence to rid the mind of all such vagaries. There is not a shred of proof in support of such an hypothesis: it is but one out of many which might be framed. It corresponds to the temper, if not of our own day, at any rate of yesterday in the intellectual circle of Europe, it would, were it true, powerfully support one part of their general philosophy and of their general attitude towards human development. But, as there is no proof, the historian must content himself with ignoring it. Lest this statement should seem too abrupt in the ear of those who are accustomed to hear this hypothesis dogmatically affirmed as historical truth, it is but just to notice in passing the type of arguments upon which it reposes. Records are produced and contemporary evidence is given of an absolute communism. These records, as they are commonly legendary or at the best extremely vague, are more relied upon than contemporary evidence, which is in this department very rare and never quite above suspicion. Even admitting that legendary evidence or contemporary observation of isolated instances establishes the possibility of men's tolerating a communism in land, it in no way establishes a progress from communism toward private property. To attempt to do so is to argue in a circle. To call communism wherever it appears, even in a very imperfect form, "primitive," and to call the private property where it appears "a later development," is merely to beg the whole question. It is a process against which the student must be warned, because it is, or has been, of the greatest possible popularity in every department of modern intellectualism. It is logically vicious and often demonstrably insincere. There is no single case determinable in history of a regular progression from communism in land to private property. There are cases innumerable of the domain of private property encroaching, as the years pass, upon the domain of public or communal property. And there are numerous, though less numerous, cases of communal property extending after an earlier restriction and growing at the expense of private properties. But to pretend that a regular scheme of development is ascertainable or observable is simply to affirm as an historical truth something for which we find that no historical evidence exists. With this preface, which, if lengthy, is necessary to any just conception of the business, let us turn to the evidence before us. The limits of the Christian Era form not only the natural limits for an article in such an encyclopedia as this, but also an excellent historical limit wherein to frame our inquiry. For the birth of Christ was, roughly, contemporaneous with the expansion of the art of writing over the tribal civilizations of Northern and Western Europe, and roughly contemporaneous also with that organization of all the known world, and especially of the ancient Oriental states and cities under the united and simple scheme of Roman rule. In other words, one medium in which ancient records could be preserved upon the one hand and new records established on the other, such a medium, coextensive with the whole of our civilization, is roughly contemporaneous with the beginning of the Christian Era. A generation before that era opened saw Gaul occupied by Roman arms, the last limits reached by the same forces, the last independence of the North African littoral extinguished in Cherchel to the West, in the Valley of the Nile to the East, the generation after the founding of the Catholic Church saw the occupation of Britain at one extreme of the Roman boundaries and the complete absorption of Judea at the other. We have, therefore, from the first century of the Christian Era, clear records, and upon the basis of such records we can establish our judgment. What we discover is roughly as follows: The actual tenure of land throughout the whole of this area, to which apply the Roman scheme of law and the Roman appetite for record, regards private property in land as a scheme native and necessary to man. But the absolute quality of this right and the extent of the area over which it is exercised differ very much with the differing sections of the world. The civilization which Rome had superseded in Gaul and was in process of superseding in Britain, the civilization of which she took note, though she did not supersede it, in the Germanies, and which her religion was later to develop in Ireland, was not municipal, but tribal. It is generally assumed that tribal civilization is necessarily nomadic or at any rate so far nomadic as the chase and continual warfare connote. The assumption has in it something of truth, but in its absolute form may be very much exaggerated. Thus we can be certain that the Gaulish clan called the Senones, in spite of their distant expeditions and the colonies which they threw out to the utmost limits of their world, had a fixed seat upon the Yonne, a seat which still remains in the shape of a cathedral city. We can be equally certain that the Avernians were a population rooted in and conditioned by the old volcanic region of central France. Negative arguments too long to detain us here suffice to prove that the boundaries of the Basque people on the north of the Pyrenees have been much the same throughout the whole period of recorded knowledge and remain within a few miles today what they were during the Civil Wars of the Romans. And in general the nomadic character of a tribal system is indefinitely elastic. The tribe may be wholly nomad or it may have settled, while yet preserving its tribal organization and morals, into a fixed set of agricultural villages. This much is certain: that wherever men build, and do not depend for shelter upon tents, the nomadic character of their communities is qualified. Now the importance of such a consideration lies in this: that a community wholly nomad is necessarilyquite apart from any fundamental conceptions of property -- communistic in regard to land. Men passing from place to place without a fixed abode can never conceive of land otherwise than as a mere space over which they progress, or a mere area of soil from which they draw the sustenance of themselves and their cattle. But the converse question immediately proposes itself: Where the tribal system was not wholly nomadic, how far did settled habitation accompany the establishment of private property in land? The answer to this question is of capital importance and we shall return to it after dealing with the other half of the Roman scheme. That other half, the ancient civilization of the Mediterranean, was municipal; that is, the organization of men was in the main an organization of city-states. Agriculture and village settlements existed, the one as a handmaiden to, the other as satellites of, city states which summed up the life of each society. From immemorial time, beyond all record and even beyond the misty horizon of credible legend, men had so lived round the shores of the Mediterranean. Certain picturesque exceptions, numerically insignificant, by their very contrast lent relief to this fundamental character of Mediterranean life. Rare and sparse Semitic tribes wandered in the deserts beyond its south-eastern corner; Berber horsemen harried the steppes which lay behind the cities of Northern Africa. But the whole scheme of life was municipal. In that scheme we discover at the opening of the Christian Era a certain attitude towards the tenure of land neither complicated nor difficult to define. Land was everywhere held as private property: it was bought and sold, the most absolute rights conceivable were granted over it by the Roman State. But this does not mean that the system was simple or that it contained no vestiges of institutions less absolute. Though private property was absolutely established (and that with every appearance of being of immemorial usage), and though it was permitted, in a manner in which most modern states would regard as a peril, to accumulate in vast estates, yet, first, there was always a very large reserve maintained of land belonging to the City and to the imperial Government, and, secondly, not hypothesis, but existing records showed how, in the past, society throughout the Mediterranean, though it could not so much as conceive of communism, had made continual efforts to prevent the growth of a class of free men who should be dispossessed of land. The efforts to attain this ideal, now taking the form of popular outbreaks, now of aristocratic legislation were directed, however, for the most part, towards the proper subdivision of the remaining public lands or to the establishment of a freeholding population upon lands which had been acquired by conquest from an enemy. The institution of slavery must, as the reader need hardly be reminded, be constantly kept in view in connection with such a scheme of society. The State in the Mediterranean, at the time of which we speak, normally, though not everywhere, consisted of a minority of free men, citizens as we should call them, for whom laboured a majority of men not possessed of civic rights and technically no portion of the State at all. Even under such conditions a class was growing up which, though free, was dispossessed of any property in land. It had appeared very early in the history of Rome. and from the early Roman name for it we draw our modern technical term "the proletariat." But there was a constant instinct in favour of increasing the security of the State by the establishment of such landless men as freeholders and proprietors of the diminishing public lands. This, the object of the Gracchi and the achievement of Julius Caesar, though never finally successful, proved the strong tendency of the Roman State to repose upon citizens who should be owners and freeholders. Whether we inherit that conception from the Roman polity alone, or whether it be something native to the European blood as a whole, this much is certain, that from the Roman Civil Wars to our own day, the idea of a large number of absolute owners of land forming the best and most natural basis for a state, has endured unbroken and may be called normal to the political mind of Europe. A number of exceptions indefinitely large might be proposed to so simple a scheme. Local custom varied infinitely, and the learned can discover many a vestige of ancient tenure, but, regarding our starting point as a whole -- regarding as a whole, that is, the civilization of the Mediterranean in the first century of our era -- it was a civilization of freeholders, owners who could buy and sell, balanced by the retention of great areas in the hands of the community for distribution, not for common tillage. To this conception of land tenure (which is almost identical with that of the French Republican tradition which has imposed itself today over the greater part of Western Europe) there was added in the succeeding seven centuries a slow process of modification which is as difficult to estimate in its nature and origins as it is essential to grasp if one is to understand the problem of land in Europe. The absolute ownership of Roman law and of Roman idea remained unchanged in men's minds, in the terminology of their laws, in the phrases of their conversation, and even in the major facts of their society. But there was superimposed upon so simple a conception a novel relationship between the larger and the smaller owners, between the owner and the non-owner who had merely contracted a term of tenure at a rent -- nay, even between the owner and the class that were once his slaves to be bought and sold at will -- which transformed the society of Europe. I say this novel relationship arose most gradually during the first seven centuries; it is widely discoverable in law in the eighth century. The darkness of the ninth century, with its violent Barbarian assault, throws society into a crucible; when the chaotic mass recrystallizes, we find established and henceforward dominating all the Middle Ages, from the later tenth century to modern times, that conception of land tenure to which is roughly, though somewhat inaccurately, given the title Feudalism. It is at this point of moment to return to the thread of tribal organization in order that we may discover how far this change in the habit of the Roman mind between the absolute ownership of the early Empire and the conception of tenure in the Middle Ages proceeded from that exterior and barbarous tribal system, and how far it proceeded from some organic internal change within the structure of Roman society. We have seen that the tribal system was not necessarily nomadic and therefore not necessarily communistic in the matter of land. Its nomadic character varied in intensity, from the purely nomadic hordes who seem to have occupied the great plains of the East of Europe to the more or less fixed clans of the Gauls, with their established central cities or strongholds, and their local ascriptions of areas and boundaries. Upon the tribes to the east of the Roman Empire, we have very little evidence indeed. It is customary to give to this vague group of Barbarians the name Teutonic; and certainly many of its component tribes (though not all) appear to have certain religious customs, and even the names of certain gods, in common at the opening of the Christian Era. As to the homogeneity of this race, we have evidence quite as contradictory as it is slight. Tacitus, whose main object was the production of a polished literary satire, paints an ideal community, all of one highly distinguishable blood, and exactly possessed of every virtue which he desired, but failed, to find in the Roman State of his time. In his "Germania," however, this writer admits, to strengthen his work, a very considerable number of notes which seem to bear the stamp of actual observation, undertaken, not of course by the writer, but by merchants or soldiers whom he may have interrogated. In the preceding century Julius Caesar, a military writer possessing a very different aim and concerned with accuracy rather than with effect, gives a picture far less favourable. Neither writer, it must be remembered, had any way of appreciating the Germanies and their mixed and floating population within any great distance from the Roman lines. But it is remarkable that both insisted upon the nomadic character of these Barbarians. In Caesar's account, paucity of agriculture and the importance of pasture is emphasized; the land is described as held in common by a body which moves from year to year. Their habitations are but temporary huts. The account of Tacitus does not form a consistent whole, and the most important sentence in it for our purpose is so corrupt in the text that no scholar can vouch for it; but it is generally understood to mean that land (whether pasture or arable we cannot tell) was re-allotted year by year; and it is certain that, as with most Barbarians, very large areas of waste were maintained round the settlement of each tribe. There is practically no other testimony with regard to the tribal system east of the Roman empire. .An enormous mass of guesswork has been erected upon the frail basis of obscure customs and supposed vestiges of the past discoverable centuries later when the Germanies were civilized by the Christian armies, and notably by those of Charlemagne, and when written records could first set down what had hitherto been fluctuating and perhaps recent legend. The Western tribal system has another and a much greater importance. We know more about it; it formed the civilization of a much larger number of men, and of men far more cultivated and therefore of more influence upon the Roman mind. Of the Gallic system we know virtually nothing. At the British we can do no more than guess, but the survival of what is called "Celtic" habit in Ireland and its recrudescence (which is also a form of survival) in Wales, after the dissolution of Roman rule, instruct us. The characteristic of that civilization seems to have been an intense bond of blood and of common interest between the members of one clan. Perhaps the most startling evidence of this is that, when the Catholic Church, for all its elaborate organization, strictly kept records, and, as it were, necessary machinery, took into its unity the independent Celtic tribes, even such an institution as the episcopate was influenced by the tribal scheme. and the bishop was at first the bishop of the tribe or of its monastic institute not the officer of a municipality, as he was throughout all the rest of the known world. The proportion of land which could properly be regarded as private property under the tribal system of the West varied indefinitely. Records, of course, only begin to exist with the advent, even after the fail of the Roman Empire, of Roman civilization, letters, religion, and law. Not until modern research was at work could the extent of communal ownership in the tribe be guessed at, for it is an idea alien to the earliest chroniclers who wrote in the Roman tongue and under Roman traditions. Even the Welsh written and oral traditions make it difficult to establish a proportion, and certainly the learned in the fields of Welsh, Scottish, and Irish tribal custom are compelled, for all their learning, to present much more hypothesis than they do direct knowledge. It is perhaps a just summary that the half of the tribal system which lay exterior to the Roman Empire in the British Isles was conditioned as to its proportion of private property against communal by the geographical circumstances in which it lived. The districts it occupied in Great Britain were mountainous; the mountain pastures, and the mountain waste, and the mountain forests were communal. The narrow alluvial belts along the valley streams were in part communal as pasture, in part held co-operatively for tillage, and in some part -- necessarily in the neighbourhood of habitations -- particular and owned. In Ireland, where wide stretches of plain (though of moist plain, suitable chiefly for pasturage) contrasted with the mountain districts, private property in the full Roman sense was modifiedas it was modified, for that matter, in the small private properties of the Welsh and Scottish valleys -- by a political or ethical character common to the whole tribal system, which was its intensely military character -- a character which it should be remembered, the so-called Celtic tribes of the West poured like an invigorating spiritual stream into the life of the early Middle Ages. This character involved intense loyalties to the clan and to the person of a chief. The conception of an individual owning as against the clan, or defending his particular existence and its economic basis as against his chief, was a conception which, though present, was present as a vice and was odious to the spirit of that society. Ownership there was, for there was theft. and a sense of ownership in land, for there are plenty of examples of men raging against unjust spoliation of that form of property as they would rage against unjust spoliation of any other form of property. But the clan was above all military, and the private property, however absolutely felt or universally recognized, was subject to the spirit of sacrifice which is essential to the military temper. A general appreciation of the tribal spirit of the West, though historically of the first importance since the Middle Ages were principally inspired by it, does not greatly affect the particular history of land-tenure, because it bears, both numerically and institutionally, so slight a relation to the vast, compact, and stable civilization of Rome, whose internal transformation can alone explain the gradual change from the Roman conception of ownership to the feudal system. A third province of evidence which would be of the utmost importance to our inquiry is unfortunately lacking and can never be recovered: I mean, the evidence of southern and eastern Britain. There certainly took place an infiltration of tribes, and often perhaps, of single families, from the Germanies into southern and eastern Britain during the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries. There is no manner of doubt that, from a position originally subsidiary and perhaps insignificant under the Roman Empire, the German-speaking population of southern and eastern Britain increased enormously up to the advent of St. Augustine, just before the dawn of the seventh century. There is again no manner of doubt that the attacks of pirates, who were probably also mainly speakers of Teutonic dialects, from being harassing in the third and menacing in the fourth, had become a scourge in the fifth century; and the weight of legend, though it is only legend, is too strong to be ignored where it describes their progress in the sixth. A certain number of Roman towns in Britain were actually taken by assault, some perhaps by the pirates alone, some by a combination of these with other Barbarians such as the Celtic Northerners beyond the Roman Wall. At any rate, although there is no direct record, and even in the way of myth only very misleading traditions, upon the worst 150 years of the business, and though southern and eastern Britain disappears from history during that period, yet we may confidently say that the society resulting from the pirate invasions the resistance of the Roman cities, and the independent British tribes which joined in the fray, was a society exhibiting, after its conversion, a greater number of tribal features than that of any other province formerly imperial. If we had any evidence upon the state of society thus in process of formation, we might establish an interesting body of facts, and it might even appear that what is called "Teutonic" custom was of a sort calculated to affect Roman society in the direction of feudalism. Unfortunately, we possess no such evidence. The first clear description of the mixed society produced by the pirate invasions and the spread of German dialects comes too late for our purpose, and there remains for the historian nothing but the very unprofitable business of guesswork as to what the tribal organization may possibly have been in the homes of the pirates before they took the sea, or among the half-independent British tribes surrounding the Roman societies in the decline of the Roman power. By the time clear records are developed under the influence of the Church, nothing in the way of true tribal organization remains. The Roman municipalities have survived the shock, and are all, with the exception of three, upon their feet. The agricultural arrangements of the village have certain local characteristics which appear to differentiate it from its counterpart in Gaul but these differences are slight and unimportant, and with the exception of the increasing change in the popular language (the German elements of which spread further and further), of a considerable admixture of new blood (how much we cannot tell), of a necessary and obvious loosening of the bonds of society, and of an absence of such military organization as Gaul still preserved, the Roman province of Britain is, at the close of the eighth century, once more a portion of the Roman world. We cannot judge from its then social constitution what former tribal influences may have contributed to the moulding of the State. Yet another source for the transformation in land tenure which Roman society suffered has been suggested. Some have thought that two institutions present in the Roman Empire in the time of its vigour the one military and early discovered especially in the West, the other civil and developed later in the East under Byzantine law -- were the origins of feudalism. The first of these was the military tenure granted by the Crown to veterans upon the frontiers on condition of military service to be rendered when called for. This case of tenure was exceptional so far as the number of individuals was concerned, but had a wide extension upon the long frontiers of the Empire. It bears a strong resemblance, indeed, to one characteristic of later feudalism, to wit, the connection between tenure and military service. But it is quite impossible to establish a link between this exceptional, artificial, and occasional system and that whole state of mind which produced (as we shall see later) the feudal system. There is no trace of the one growing out of the other: one does not find an inherited tenure which began under this Roman military experiment and ended as a true feudal estate. The resemblance between the two is mechanical rather than organic, and the analogy is verbal. On examination we find that there is no affiliation between the spirit of the one and the spirit of the other. The second institution was the tenure called emphyteusis, under which land, the domain of the Crown (and other land as well, but especially land under the domain of the Crown), was granted, not on absolute ownership, but in tenancy for certain fixed dues, and once so granted was granted permanently. This system does indeed nearly resemble in form the beneficium, which overlapped with it, but grew later and flourished more vigorously in the West. It lacks, however, the prime character of the beneficium, to wit, the moral bond between the grantor and the grantee, the conception of a personal favour done by the grantor who expects from the grantee personal loyalty. Now this moral factor was the life of the feudal growth, and though the forms of the grant in the West were undoubtedly influenced by the strict law of the Empire, there is no organic relation discoverable in history between one and the other. A more direct, a more reasonable, and a more demonstrable process produced out of the material of Roman society, and from within its own tradition, the structure of tenure later known as feudalism. For, while various forms of settled tenure which had for their characteristic the holding of land from another, in contradistinction to the fundamental and indestructible idea of ownership, were thus arising in the settled civilization still subject to centralized Roman government and chiefly residing in the eastern portion of Christendom, in the western portion the ideas of the time were expressing themselves in another fashion. The conception of tenure, or holding of another permanently, as distinguished from ownership (an idea as fundamental and as indestructible in the West as in the East), was developing in Gaul through the merging of two quite distinct currents of custom. To comprehend these two currents the reader must first postulate as the basis of all Roman society at the close of the Roman Empire a number of great estates varying in size from many hundreds to many thousands of acres, each in the absolute possession of an owner who tilled his land with slave labour. These estates were the units of society, they were the parishes into which ecclesiastical organization was divided, the villae into which agricultural industry was divided. One family might possess many; no wealthy or important family possessed less than one. It is their grouping which we shall see building up the feudal system; it is their owners whose descendants become the nobility of Europe in the Middle Ages, their chaplains who become the parish priests, their slaves who become the peasantry. This conception once seized, we can understand the nature of the two currents whose fusion resulted in the full production of feudalism, a process we are now about to examine. The two streams were as follows: (1) The great landowners whom the Roman Empire, while it was still governed strictly from one centre, had left absolute proprietors of their estates, began to arrange themselves in a hierarchy of greater and lesser men: the lesser related to the greater by an understanding which later became a contract, and which carried with it a conception of dependence. (2) The great officers of state being identical in so many cases with the owners of large landed estates the two ideas of office and of ownership associated themselves in men's minds, and, while political power became hereditary as the descent of land was hereditary, it became natural, conversely, to think of ownership, however fixed and continuous, as something held from above, since political power, which was at last inseparably associated with ownership must of its nature be held from the supreme authority of the State. We will examine each of these developments separately. Even before the fall of the Empire and the establishment of local generals of armies (some Barbarian, some Roman. and all, soon, a mixture of the two), the tendency of the smaller man to put himself under the protection of the greater man had appeared. It was the decay in public authority which produced this tendency. Property was the prime institution that survived, it had a sanction in the popular mind which survived the power of punishment vested in the laws and police of the Roman State. A man was powerful in proportion to the number of estates he owned in a district; he could exercise that power in a number of ways; he could see to it that religious endowments should go to the person or persons he wished, he could found monasteries, he could influence by the weight of his presence the course of justice; he could advance money where money stood between an individual and punishment, he could be responsible for taxes. The more estates a man owned in a particular district, the more -- as public authority declined, and sense of the sanctity of property remained -- did such a man tend to become the real head of the district, in contradistinction to the weakening authority of political machinery. Again, the anarchic character which war was taking on -- the irresponsible raids of small but fierce groups of Barbarians -- created dangers against which a man best secured himself by establishing a close set of mutual duties between himself and some wealthier man of the neighbourhood. The tendency was opposed to Roman tradition, and, since it worked outside the framework of Roman law. was obviously inimical to the imperial conception, but that conception weakened from generation to generation, and as early as the fifth century one finds this sort of "recommendation" an established custom vigorous and vital, which the dead framework of the imperial law cannot break. When the chieftains of the small invading tribes, principally German, and the generals of armies had seized upon the machinery of government, had become the masters of the tax-collecting authorities, resided in the Roman palace of the capital cities, and came to be called local "kings", all attempt to check this natural tendency ceased. Under the Merovingian Dynasty. which saw, a continued decline of central authority, the institution flourished exceedingly. It became normal and almost universal for the small man with one or two estates to be attached, he and his heirs, in a permanent fashion to the larger local man with many estates. This new link between the greater and the lesser landowners of a district bore various names. Sometimes the lesser man was said to be "in feu" to the greater; the Latin word fides, i.e., "the bond of honour", was a technical word employed. Sometimes the old Latin term " patronage" was used to signify the same thing. In the sixth century men were already taking it for granted; in the seventh, though it had not yet appeared in written law, it had appeared in many a written document, and was almost universal. Towards the end of the seventh century and the beginning of the eighth a special political movement was apparent in society which not only accepted and sanctioned such arrangements, but actively and consciously favoured them. The great officers of the Crown, and notably their chief, the mayor of the palace, had become stronger than the Crown itself. Now these great officers were also the great landowners who formed the head of this hierarchy of innumerable individual contracts or understandings or customary relationships. And as these mayors of the palace came nearer and nearer to grasping the supreme power of the State, the chief force behind them was the crowd of men who owed to them and the great officers. their followers, this "fidelity". The eighth century witnessed a political revolution which finally confirmed and established, brought into the region of positive law, and launched on its career through the Middle Ages, the full institution of "patronage", or, as it was now called, of "seniority". The link of "fidelity" had become the nexus which bound the State together, and feudalism henceforward was the characteristic of society. This political revolution consisted in the advent to supreme power of the old Roman family of Ferreolus. It was one of the great senatorial families of Roman Gaul established in the district of Narbonne in the fifth century. After many adventures, during which the head of the family at one moment migrated into the German-speaking limits of Gaul, and during which more than one German marriage brought into the old paternal Gallo-Roman stock a mixture of blood on the female side, the descendants of the Ferreoli occupied the highest office of state in the eastern portion of the monarchy. A certain Pepin (the Gallic name is characteristic) was mayor of the palace -- head, that is, of the landed hierarchy and chief officer of state in the eastern half -- when, at the end of a series of confused quarrels between the great nobles, he conquered, at the battle of Testry (687), his rival, the other mayor of the palace, the chief officer of the western half of the monarchy. No racial division is apparent in this confused business, but what is now the wealthiest landed family in all Gaul becomes, under Pepin, the head of all Gaulthe master of the whole State. Pepins son Charles broke the invasion of the Saracens, his grandson, another Pepin, was at last crowned king of the whole French State in 757, and it may be said that from that moment the new system of tenure has definitely replaced the old social organization of Rome. For, though Pepins son Charlemagne recovered, and in a sense made perpetual, the idea of European unity which is summed up in the word empire, yet he never permitted the centralized law, which (so far as was possible in so barbaric a society) he established, to interfere with the natural growth of feudalism. On the contrary, he fostered it. And in the capitularies of Charlemagne the institution takes on the force of law. The monarch orders them to be observed, and himself concludes arrangements upon the basis of senioritas or fidelitas at the very moment when he is attempting to revive the old, impersonal and anti-feudal idea of the Empire. Such was the gradual growth of feudal tenure from below. A brief outline must now be given of the second branch of its development, its growth from above. The Roman Caesar in the later times of the Empire entrusted the government of various districts to officials whose military titles sufficiently indicate their origin. A dux (the word we translate by "duke" or leader, was established over one district, a comes (the word we translate by "count"), or companion of the sovereign, over another. And in the nature of things these offices of state were revokable and dependent upon the will of Government. But the process of society we have just described associated such offices, even towards the end of the Empire, with large estates in land. When the Empire had broken down, and the chieftains of tribes or the generals of armies had seized upon the powers of local government, this association of political power with landed estate tended to become universal; and the confusion of ideas was further aided by the institution of the beneficium. As is still the case in all modern European states with the exception of England, very large tracts of each province were public land. Nor did these tracts necessarily diminish with alienation, sale etc., for they were recruited by conquest, confiscation, lapse for lack of heirs, and merger. Under the institution of the beneficium, a great landowner, desiring to attach to himself the services of some important person or institution, gave over to such person or institution the usufruct of a certain part of his land on condition of receiving in return services and fidelity, or, as it was later called, "vassalage". After the breakdown of the Empire, the declining local monarchies -- and notably the Frankish monarchies of the North -- began to "grant such beneficia on a large scale, and by the time of Charlemagne they made inroads into the greater part of the public domain. For generations it was understood that a beneficium was a purely personal contract entered into under the strict conceptions of the Roman law, and, if no term were mentioned, terminable at the latest at the death of the grantor. It is self-evident, however, that, under the pressure of institutions round it, the beneficium would tend to become feudal and hereditary like the rest; and so it did. We have, then, under the Merovingian Kings of France, thoroughly established in custom, and, under the Carlovingian Dynasty, openly apparent in law, a multitude of royal acts which -- whether they are a grant to a faithful servant or the appointment of a trusted man to an office, especially to a local command, or the nomination of one to such a position who is too strong to be refused -- all become daily less and less the voluntary and revokable act of an absolute government, more and more the recognition of an established landed system. Out of these two currents -- the growth of feudalism from below by voluntary interdependence of smaller owners and greater, the growth of feudalism from above by the increasing strong analogy which makes of office and of royal grant a permanent tenure in duty and in honour -- the whole feudal system had been welded when the storm of the ninth century broke upon Christendom. In that storm our civilization nearly disappeared. Its symbol, the imperial name, wholly disappeared; for the establishment of the German Empire in the tenth century and its 300 years' quarrel with Italy, was not universal: it left on one side Gaul, Britain, and the re-conquest of Spain, which was characteristically national, and as characteristically not a European affair. It suffered the fate of all mere names. The violent Barbaric assault upon Christendom which followed the Carlovingian period was calculated to make of the feudal conception a stronger thing than ever. A hierarchy of a military type, based upon local economic power, was absolutely necessary at such a time. Perhaps the best example of the way in which tenure had come to be a necessity for men's minds is the grant of Normandy. The story is simple enough. The pirate invasions, though they could not have brought numerous armies, yet sufficiently and continually harried the coasts of northern France. Their action dated from shortly after the death of Charlemagne and continued into the tenth century. The way out of the difficulty is a symbol of all that society then imagined: the chief of the pirates must be baptized; that is, he must accept the whole body of civilization if he and his followers desire to settle within it. The pirates have come for gain, they have looted enough, and civilization will only permit them to remain within its boundaries if they regularize their position by calling themselves, and living as, Gallo-Roman lords of villages; presumably only the leaders could have such a position, their followers would be tenants under them or armed servants in their halls. Waste village estates, village estates acquired by the forced marriages of heiresses, grants from the Royal domain, would presumably form the basis of this settlement. The head chief (Rollo), for instance must marry the emperors daughter; and most significant of all is the limit of the territory granted and the title of the grantee. Rollo is to be a dux, and he is to be the emperors man, to owe him fidelity, etc. The territorial limits of his jurisdiction are precisely those of an old Roman frontier which has never been allowed to fall into desuetude. Rollo, the dux holds of the emperor, as his man, the province of the Second Lyonnese (Gallia Lugdunensis Secunda). Custom will later give to this district the new name of Normandy, but it will correspond from that day to this with the exact frontiers of the old Roman province. Such a power for absorption has the Roman world even in its worst moment at the end of the fierce Barbaric onslaught, that the new state is within two generations a model of feudalism. The few hundred chiefs are settled as estate-owners in the Roman scheme, side by side with their more numerous Gallo-Roman equals. Their few thousand followers have become serfs villeins, or armed horsemen upon their manors. The whole is arranged in a strict hierarchy under the hereditary dux, the man of his hereditary feudal lord, the king in Paris, and the Second Lyonnese presents a perfect model of the feudal theory. Indeed, it is this fusion of numerous Gallo-Roman lords of estates with a few Barbaric lords of estates interspersed among them that develops the feudal theory most thoroughly and carries it furthest; for the Norman nobility -- in England, in Sicily, and in Palestine -- were the chief organizers of the Middle Ages. We have just used the words villeins and serfs, and at this point in our examination of European land tenure in Christian times, the position of the mass of the people deserves our attention. The feudal development of which we have been giving a description concerned a small minority. That minority consisted of the numerous descendants of the great landowners of the Roman Empire and a certain smaller number of Barbarian adventurers who in the troubles of the fifth century (to which must be added other invasions, especially in the ninth) had acquired estates. These estates were the units of the Roman scheme, and feudalism was the organization of their owners upon the system of tenure we have described. What of the great mass of the population which in Roman times had cultivated the land of these landowners as slaves? These also had been transformed in their social constitution during the Christian centuries, and the transformation, though it is most obscure in its process, is quite clear in its origin and at its end. The Church, between the fifth century and the tenth, had transformed the Roman slave into the European peasant. The word was retained, and serf is but a form of servus, while villein is but a form of villanus, the agricultural slave at work upon a villa, or Roman country estate. But the political position to which those names attached has utterly changed. Slavery as an institution does indeed still linger in the tenth centurythere are traces of it even in the eleventh -- but that slavery is domestic and rare. The man who tills the soil is, at the end of the process we have been describing, not a slave at all. On the other hand his position is quite different from the Roman conception of a citizen or the modern European conception of the same political entity. The Roman estate which has come down, often unchanged even in the details of its boundaries, through all these centuries, we will now call a "manor" (a term probably Norman in origin), for under this name it is alluded to in most textbooks. The medieval, or feudal, manor had at its head a lord who might be an individual, or a corporation such as a monastery or an office such as the Crown or the Archbishopric of Canterbury and these lords were of course the units out of which the feudal hierarchy was built up. To this lord, the representative of the old Roman slaveowners, was still in legal phraseology, due the whole work of the villein. Indeed, it was the definition of a villein that he was one, who, rising in the morning, could not tell of his own will what he should have to do before night. But even if this legal tradition (which by the tenth century was no more than a form of words) had had actual existence in social fact, the villein would have been a very different person from the Roman slave. He had land of his own, a house of his own heriditable in his family, he could not be bought or sold, and it would appear that so long as his work was done there was no constraint over his person. He was subject to the common justice of the land, and not to the arbitrary will of his master, and so forth. But much more favourable than this was his actual position, for custom and common opinion had long forbidden him to give more than a fixed number of somewhat complicated dues, varying from estate to estate, to his lord. Of the old Roman estate only a portion (differing again from parish to parish) remained absolutely under the lords control and was called his "demesne, that is "lords land", from dominium. On this the serf must work so many days of the year under set rules -- sometimes two days a week, sometimes three, always excepting holy days. He must also give a certain amount of produce, usually quite small at stated times, a few eggs at Easter, etc., etc., according to the industry of the place. And he must perform certain services. For the rest, his time was free, and the land apportioned to him was, in nearly every sense, his own. It was his own because it could not be taken from him even under process of debt, nor for that matter could his capital be taken from him under process of debt. It was his own because, though dues and work went with it, yet they could not be raised as, or if, he improved the value of his land: custom forbade it. What is called in modern jargon "the unearned increment" was his, and that is the test of property in land. So was the earned increment which was due to his own labour. More than this, the villein had, side by side with the lord, certain common rights which were of the utmost importance. The common land of the manor, which had formerly been the Roman proprietors as much as any other part, was now used according to careful rules. The lord might only put so many cattle onto it, the villeins each so many. Similar strict communal rights accrued to him in the woods of the place, in the fisheries, the use of the water-ways and of water-power, etc. The village mill was commonly a monopoly of the lords. and one or two other things common to the village life. That is, he took regular and fixed dues of them, but he could not of course, as could a modern proprietor, use them with a single eye to his benefit, or charge what rates he chose. The analogy of feudal ideas which had extended upwards from their origins, the unit landowners of the Roman system, extended also downward from them to the estate which they had formerly owned and of which they were now but the seigniorial holders. The villein was not said to own, but to hold; he held of his lord in return for service, and by a bond which, though it was not military and honourable, as was fides, was yet based upon the same ethical conception of a moral due, rather than an economic contract. The system was complicated by other less common forms of tenure. Thus freeholders were discovered side by side with the villeins -- that is. men whose little properties involved some form of service not thought service or degraded; for instance, it was a common, though not a universal, rule that if a man could prove never to have paid anything but a fixed money due for his land, he was to be deemed a freeholder. And all non-servile work for the lord came in the same category. The tenure of the priest was of another kind, and so forth. There were also numerous lesser people who had very small portions of land (the villein might have anything from 15 or 30 acres to as much as 120 or more), but the general frame of society when feudalism was in its vigour was as we have described it. Caught in the general agricultural system around them were the old Roman municipalities with which this article has not to deal -- Orléans, Chartres, Rouen, Limôges, to take a few Gallic names quite at random, Newcastle, London, Winchester, to take three British names equally at random. And these municipalities were in practice, of course composed of a number of small absolute owners of the land on which their houses and their gardens stood. But so strong was the feudal idea that it was extended by analogy even to the cities. A city would have a lord, very often the Crown, or some bishop, or other great officer of state. The public taxes paid were paid to this lord under the analog of feudal tenure in the village. When the development of commerce during and after the Crusades made the fiction inconvenient, the lords granted charters, that is, written acknowledgments of the towns immemorial customs, and often added to these special immunities from interference, in return for money. Other exceptions to the feudal system are to be found in the allodial lands, which simply means the estates, large or small, which had never got caught in the feudal development at all, but remained held in absolute ownership from an unbroken tradition of Roman institutions. These were especially common in the south of France, and it is characteristic of the organizing power of the Normans that they, in their passion for system, refused to admit so unfeudal a conception within their dominions, so that to this day in England there is technically no such absolute ownership of land possible. Other exceptions again are to be found in the communal arrangements of the mountain valleys -- notably in the Alps and Pyrenees, where the feudal system had never really taken root, and where remote and isolated villages have from time immemorial arranged, and do to this day arrange, their affairs upon an economic system which corresponds to their political republicanism. It should always be remembered that in this most ancient and unchanged of European societies private ownership in land is absolute and most strictly recognized. Communal management attaches only to wood, pasture, and here and there a public field. The next step in our inquiry must be: How this established feudal system proceeded to its decay. To understand the decline of the feudal system and the transformation of the feudal tenure into the land tenure of modern Christendom, it must first be clearly understood that what I have called the indestructible idea of private property in land survived, paradoxical as it may seem, throughout the whole long reign of so-called tenure. It was present when the absolute owners of the Roman estates began to group themselves in Gaul into patrons and clients, "lords" and "men", seniors and juniors; it was present when Charlemagne, in his capitularies, gave the forms of law to the personal link of tenure -- military service and loyalty as the condition of holding; it was present after the irruption of the Barbarians in the ninth century, when feudalism, in a time necessarily military struck its most vigorous roots. It was present when the Norman lawyers, just before and during the Crusades (that is at the end of the eleventh and during the twelfth centuries), codified the feudal system and erected it into a strict machine of law. We know that this idea of private property was present in two ways: (1) we know it as a matter of historic fact, because we find land bought and sold and mortgaged; (2) we know it as a matter of historical judgment, because we find land talked of as property, the personal possessive pronoun used in respect to it, the conceptions of theft in regard to it, of indignation at its unrighteous occupation, the increasing wealth of it as accruing to a particular owner, etc. etc., all alluded to. Had society remained primitive for many centuries after the full statement of feudalism in the ninth and tenth centuries, the logical clash between the feudal theory of holding for service done and the intimate personal sense of property in land, which is common to all Europeans, might never have taken place. It was quite as easy for a family to go on holding an estate from father to son, and to think of it as a private property on the one hand and as a tenure on the other. There was a contract in theory, but no contract in fact. True, treason against the overlord would have involved the loss of the land just as bankruptcy involves it now, but that was a rare contingency and one which the mind regarded as the more exceptional because it was disgraceful. Great lords frequently lost their overlordship, lesser lords less frequently, men with single estates or manors very rarely, monasteries and ecclesiastical bodies hardly ever, villeins, one may say, never at all. And the two conceptions, though contradictory in terms -- the conception of ownership and the conception of tenure -- could have lived peaceably side by side, just as in our society for the moment, the conception of free contract is living peaceably side by side with the contradictory social fact of a proletariat and a capitalist class. What ruined the feudal system was the tendencyas society developed in activity, as values changed as towns grew, as a landless class developed, and as all that accompanies the expansion of a society appeared -- of those who formed the units of feudal societies to define their position with exactitude. Thus. within the village community which was the microcosm of the whole, there came moments when a villein who had long ago commuted his payment in labour for a fixed payment in money was, whether by the change in the value of money or by the rise in the price of labour, more valuable to his lord as a labourer than as payer of dues. The lord would claim service, the villein would dispute in the court his right to service. Again, as between lord and overlord, service in men-at-arms, once natural and normal, might become a fixed and mechanical thing. The overlord might find it profitable to accept a redemption of the military service required. Again, the king, in the primitive feudal conception, was simply the owner of a very large number of estates and of the royal domain (that is the forests and other public land). It was his business to administer the State out of his revenues as a wealthy private gentleman -- far the wealthiest private gentleman of the whole realm. But as civilization increased in complexity he could not do this. The functions of the State increased, the king must come for aids to his underlords, who were bound to give aids by the personal tie of loyalty. It became an intolerable burden; such mere feudal aids must be supplemented by taxation falling upon all. The Crown was coming back by the mere force of things towards what it had been under Roman rule, before feudalism and tenure were heard of. Meanwhile, the link between the underlord and the overlord was growing as weak as the link between the villein and his lord, or the king and his direct feudal tenants. It was against the interest of the royal courts to allow the overlords to grow strong; that interest would in all countries tend to support a man with one manor who might be fighting an action to prevent that manor escheating, on some technical ground, to a wealthier local man who was his feudal superior. And, side by side with all this, increasing commercial activity, by making land more and more a matter of contract, barter, and sale, broke up the old personal tie upon which the ethical conception of feudalism reposed. The dislocation of tenure, its reversion towards ownership, was only part of the universal European movement back towards the high civilization of the Empire which was undertaken in the spring of the eleventh century, and which is approaching its climax in our time -- for the story of the life of Europe is like the story of the life of a comet following its orbit; and in that metaphor one may call the ninth century the point of its course most distant from its centre of activity. The breaking-point between the fundamental and indestructible sense of ownership and the feudal conception which had overlain it for a time came, like the breaking-point of so many other strains, with the Renaissance. But the ownership of land did not go through a revolution, as did so many other institutions of that time; did not change abruptly, as did plastic art, nor suffer a catastrophe, as did religion. The forms of tenure were preserved, as they were used to mask what was now no longer tenure but ownership. Now, from the violent action under feudal forms whereby Henry VIII acquired the land of the Church, and granted it again for ready money to a herd of adventurers, down to our own time there has been no break in the accepted social fact of absolute ownership in land. Tenure, for all practical purposes, disappeared with the sixteenth century. Throughout the seventeenth. the eighteenth, and the nineteenth centuries land has been owned, not held, as a social fact, though in some provinces of Europe (as notably in Britain) legal and technical language has continued to draft conveyances in terms of tenure rather than of ownership. In this revolution, however, a social fact of perhaps more consequence to Christendom than any other of the material kind appeared. It did not concern the relation between the lord of the manor and his overlords; it concerned the condition of the mass of the people. For the fate of the villein or peasant began from the sixteenth century onward to differ profoundly in two types of communities. In those communities which had broken off from the unity of civilization, and were soon to be grouped as Protestant, the lord of the manor tended to become the owner of the land, and in those which remained within the unity of the Catholic Church the villein tended to become the owner of the land. This general formula is the capital historic truth upon which all those interested in the economic development of modern Europe should fix their eyes. Outside the old limits of the Roman Empire fortunes varied. The scanty population of Scandinavia, for instance, drifted away from the Faith, Norway which had never been feudal, became a sort of republic of owning farmers, while Sweden developed a landed aristocracy. Northern and Protestant Germany as a whole, though not entirely, destroyed the ownership of the villein; he was swallowed up by the lord. In Holland, and Denmark, and Switzerland (until the effect of the French Revolution was felt), a process of accretion of power to the lord, a process of diminution of power in the villein -- of economic power, that is -- appeared. But if we contrast the two main contiguous provinces of the old Roman Empire -- Britain, which had taken one lord, Gaul, which, when it suddenly emerged from the Huguenot assault, had taken another -- we shall easily see how true the formula is. In Britain the Crown was rapidly impoverished, until, by the end of the seventeenth century, all feudal links, even nominal, between it and the lords of villages disappeared, save in the tenure known as "sergeantry" and one or two other quaint archaisms. But the link between the villein and the lord was retained in so far as it advantaged the lord. The owner of an estate grew greater at the expense of his tenants. As time went on the common lands were closed, no boundary of custom defended the freeholder, the poor remnants of villein tenure (now called "copyholders", because they held by right of the copy of the roll of the manor) dwindled as a class, and when the industrial revolution had come in to complete the business, it is just to regard agricultural England generally -- with many exceptions and many qualifications due to the complexity of a large society -- as a congeries of large estates, each of several thousand acres, and possessed by a class of anything between 9000 and 20,000 families. More than this, the great towns in their expansion were compelled to expand over the agricultural estates of these great landlords, who were careful not to sell; no central government existed to restrain their appetites, for the nominal power of the Crown was now but a servant, salaried (and most insufficiently salaried) by a landed oligarchy. The peasant had disappeared. If an historical origin be sought for this vast change it may best be found in the Civil Wars which were in their effect the conquest of the small landed class over the executive power of the monarch. In Gaul a precisely opposite development took place. The peasant increased his holding and increased his security in it. Communal rights were in social fact more and more his and less and less the lord's. The executive power of the Crown became greater than ever it had been before, and the nobility, the descendants of the old feudal lords of manors, while preserving intact, and even increasing, their social distinction, were impoverished in every way, losing their political power to the monarch, their land to the peasantry, retaining only the fossils of their old communal jurisdiction. Their impoverishment compelled them to use those fossil rights with harshness; the economic independence of the peasant made their continued usage of such rights more and more difficult, until at last the strain resolved itself in the outburst of the Revolution. In that explosion European society again discovered its original elements. Tenure, even as a fiction, disappeared; the conception of absolute ownership was restored, the control of public lands by public authorities became as absolute as it had been under the Roman Empire, and the orbit of change was completed. It need not be added that the Revolutionary Wars resulted in an extension of these conceptions to the whole of Western Europe. The industrial development of the towns and the growth of a proletariat therein has brought on other problems. It has produced, under the guidance of certain philosophers, many of them not European in descent, the conception of Collectivism, which, as an abstract theory, denies that old indestructible conception of ownership in land and would treat all land as the property of the sovereign. But this academic theory has made, and can make, no progress upon the soil, and it may be confidently said that the old Roman idea of absolute and divided ownership is secure. H. BELLOC Pope Lando Pope Lando (913-14). A native of the Sabina, and the son of Taino, elected pope seemingly in July or August, 913; d. in February or March, 914, after a reign of a little over six months. Nothing more is known of him except that he was a worthy man, and granted a privilege to a church in his native Sabina. Liber Pontificalis, II, 239; KERR, Italia Pontificia, II (Berlin, 1907), 73; MANN, Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages, IV, 147 sqq. HORACE K. MANN Jean-Francois-Anne Landriot Jean-François-Anne Landriot French bishop, b. at Couches-les-Mines near Autun, 1816, d. at Reims, 1874. Ordained in 1839 from the seminary of Autun, he became, after a few years spent at the cathedral, successively superior of the seminary, 1842; vicar-general 1850; Bishop of La Rochelle, 1856, and Archbishop of Reims, 1867. During his ten years stay at La Rochelle he restored the cathedral, organized the Propagation of the Faith and the Peter's-pence collections, and won a reputation as a pulpit orator. A true bishop, he made it a rule to announce personally the Word of God either in his cathedral or in some city of his diocese. At Reims, besides preaching many Advent and Lenten stations, he raised a large subscription for the pontifical army, established several educational institutions, founded an asylum for the aged, and intrusted St. Walfroy to the Priests of the Mission. As a member of the Vatican Council, he deemed inopportune the definition of papal infallibility, but, once decreed, he adhered to its promulgation and even wrote to his diocesans urging them to accept it unconditionally. Lacroix ("Mgr. Landriot pendant l'occupation allemande", Reims, 1898) shows Landriot's influence in allaying the measure of rigor resorted to by the victorious Germans during their occupation of Reims in 1870. In the question of the ancient classics Landriot refused to subscribe to the extreme views of Gaume and "L'Univers". An eloquent preacher, he was also an ascetic writer of note. Beside his pastoral works collected in the "(Euvres de Mgr. Landriot" (7 vols., Paris, 1864-74), we have from his pen, all published in Paris: "Recherches historiques sur les écoles littéraires du Christianisme" (1851); "Examen critique des lettres de l'Abbé Gaume sur le paganisme dans l'éducation" (1852); "La femme forte" (1862); "La femme pieuse" (1863); "La prière chrétienne" (1863); "Le Christ et la tradition" (1865); "Les béatitudes évangéliques" (1865); "Le Symbolisme" (1866); "L'Eucharistie" (1866); "La Sainte Communion" (1872); "L'Autorité et la liberté" (1872); "L'esprit chrétien dans l'enseignement" (1873); "Instructions sur l'oraison dominicale" (1873); "L'Esprit Saint" (1879), etc. La France ecclesiastique (Paris, 1875); L'episcopat francais depuis le concordat jusqu a la separation (Paris, 1907), s.vv., La Rochelle and Reims: biographies by MENU (Reims, 1867), CAUSETTE (Reims, 1874), ARSAC (Reims, 1874), REIDOT (Autun, 1895). J.F. SOLLIER Lanfranc Lanfranc Archbishop of Canterbury, b. at Pavia c.1005; d. at Canterbury, 24 May, 1089. Some say his father was of senatorial rank, others accord him a somewhat humbler station. He received a liberal education according to the standard of the age, notwithstanding the death of his parents during his tender years. On reaching manhood he applied himself to the study and practice of the law with marked success, but left Pavia for the purpose of devoting himself to the pursuit of learning. He made his way to France, and attached himself to a school at Avranches, in Normandy, where he became noted as a teacher. At a later period, a vocation to the religious life developing itself in him, he quitted Avranches secretly, only taking with him one Paul, a relative. His biographer tells us he was robbed on the road, but eventually made his way to Bec, where Abbot Herluin was then engaged in building a monastery which he had recently founded. He was received into the ranks of the little poverty stricken community after the customary period of probation, and applied himself to Biblical studies. In time, he was appointed prior of the monastery by Herluin, and was then enabled to open a school there, which rapidly became famous, and attracted scholars from many parts of Europe, several of whom rose to high rank in after years, especially the future pope, Alexander II, and Anselm, who succeeded Lanfranc both as prior of Bec and as Archbishop of Canterbury. In May, 1050, being in Rome on business, he attended the council there and opposed the heresies that had of late years been broached by Berengarius on the subject of the Sacrament of the Altar, denying the mode of the Real Presence. Through the contents of a certain letter, Lanfranc came to be suspected of sharing Berengarius's erroneous views, but he so ably explained his own opinions that he has stood forth ever since as the principal exponent of the doctrine which has from that date been labeled with the name of Transubstantiation. Needless to say, that doctrine did not take its rise then, or through Lanfranc but his masterly exposition of the Faith (always held by the Church implicitly, and merely enucleated by him) was given with a clearness and precision of definition such as has been handed down through succeeding ages to ourselves. During the same year, at the Council of Vercelli, he once more upheld the orthodox belief against Berengarius, and again at Tours, in 1055, and finally secured the triumph of truth over error, of authoritative teaching over private interpretation, in the definition of the Lateran Council, held under Nicholas II in 1059. At a later date, probably about 1080, he wrote "De Corpore et Sanguine Domini" against the errors which Berengarius had continued to disseminate, notwithstanding various retractations and submissions. All these activities made Lanfranc a man of such note that William, Duke of Normandy, employed him as one of his counsellors. He, however, forfeited the ducal favor about 1052-53, on account of opposing William's union with Matilda of Flanders, on the ground of their relationship within the prohibited degrees of kindred, and was, in consequence, ordered to leave the duke's dominions. On his journey to the frontier he happened to meet Duke William, who roughly asked him why his orders were not being obeyed. Lanfranc jestingly replied that he was obeying them as fast as a lame horse would allow him to do so. William appears to have been mollified by the answer, a reconciliation followed, and it would seem that Lanfranc undertook to forward negotiations for securing the needful dispensation from the pope. This he finally obtained in 1059, as well as the removal of the interdict which had been laid upon Normandy. In 1066 he was appointed to the Abbacy of St. Stephen's at Caen, one of the two abbeys lately founded by Duke William and his wife Matilda as one of the conditions of the papal dispensation from matrimonial impediments, and the ratification of their previously uncanonical union. This year is further remarkable as chronicling the defeat of Harold, King of the English, at Hastings, and the consequent conquest of England by Duke William. It is generally supposed that Lanfranc had much to do with shaping the duke's policy of invasion, obtaining the pope's sanction of the expedition by a papal Bull and the gift of a blessed banner, thereby conferring on the undertaking the appearance of being a holy war against a usurper and a violater of his oath, to some extent, also, identifying It with the cause of ecclesiastical reform, which was well advanced in Normandy, but still very backward in England. Stigand, the Archbishop of Canterbury at that period, was in very bad odour with all parties; and in 1070, at a great council at Winchester, he was deprived of his office on charges of simony and uncanonical election. Lanfranc had been elected to the Archbishopric of Rouen in 1067, but had declined it; now, however, the Conqueror fixed on Lanfranc as his choice of a successor to Stigand, and Lanfranc was at last prevailed upon, unwillingly enough, to yield his consent at the solicitations of his friends, headed by his former superior, Herluin. After receiving the temporalities of the see from William, he was consecrated at Canterbury on 29 August, by the Bishop of London. He entered on the duties of his high station with advantages of name and learning and experience of the world such as few men have ever brought to a similar office. The king's ecclesiastical policy, which he now, as chief counsellor, largely moulded, was without doubt beneficial to the kingdom; for the civil and ecclesiastical courts were separated, and regular synods were held, wherein regulations tending to better discipline were enacted and enforced. The Normanizing of the Church further tended to bring the native ecclesiastics into closer touch with the learning and practice of the Continent; and this was effected by replacing nearly all the Saxon bishops and abbots with Normans, on pretexts grave or slight. Whilst the insularity of the native clergy was thus beneficially broken down, much on the other hand of local practice, laudable in itself, was swept away. Much might well have been retained, but could not stand against the prepossessions of the dominant party, and the effect generally was the destruction of local customs. In particular, the liturgy lost much of its distinctiveness. Hitherto the Saxon Church had kept in close touch with Rome. The old Itala version of the Psalms, for instance--that which is used to this day in the choir of St. Peter's at Rome--was everywhere employed in England; but the Norman superiors supplanted that ancient version by the Gallicana, to which they were accustomed. Proof of this may be seen to this day in corrected codices, such as, for instance, British Museum Additional MS. 37517 (the Bosworth Psalter), which possibly may have undergone revision at the hands of Lanfranc himself. Once, however, that Lanfranc was identified with the English Church, he espoused its cause warmly, upholding the dignity and primacy of his own see, by refusing to consecrate Thomas of Bayeux to the archiepiscopal See of York till he admitted his dependence on that of Canterbury. This dispute was carried to Rome, but was thence referred for settlement back to England, where the case was finally decided in favor of Canterbury at a national council held at Winchester, at Easter, 1072. Thomas made his submission to Lanfranc in a council held at Windsor at Pentecost of the same year. In connection with this incident a grave charge has of recent years been brought against Archbishop Lanfranc by H. Böhmer (in "Die Fälschungen Erzbischof Lanfranks"), who accuses him of having falsified and forged documents in order to secure the primary of the See of Canterbury over that of York. M. Saltet (in "Revue des Sciences Ecclésiastiques", 1907), and others, have dealt with the question, exonerating Lanfranc from any personal complicity in these forgeries, if such they were. Meanwhile Lanfranc had been to Rome in 1071 to receive the pallium from Alexander II, his former pupil at Bec. As Archbishop of Canterbury his influence was so great that he was from time to time consulted by bishops not belonging to his own province or obedience, and he helped in the work of reforming the Church in Scotland. He enforced the observance of celibacy among the clergy in accordance with the decrees renewed in 1076 at a synod held at Winchester; no canons were to be permitted to marry, nor could married men be ordained to the diaconate or the priesthood. But it is clear that at the time a state of degeneracy existed, and that too drastic measures all at once had to be avoided, since clergy already married were allowed to retain their wives. He resisted an attempt to oust the monks at Canterbury and Winchester in favor of secular canons, and secured papal confirmation of the existing practice which had come down from the days of St. Augustine of Canterbury. Many episcopal sees were at this period transferred from obscure villages to rising towns, as Sherborne to Salisbury, Dorchester (Oxon.) to Lincoln, Thetford to Norwich, and Selsey to Chichester. In 1076 he again visited Rome, and, on the return journey, made a tour of Normandy, during the course of which he had the satisfaction of consecrating the church of his old monastic home at Bec. The king's attitude towards the Court of Rome more than once placed Lanfranc in a situation of extreme delicacy. William refused to allow the bishops of England to leave the kingdom for the purpose of visiting the pope without his consent. For this Lanfranc appears to have incurred the blame and was reproved, being, moreover, summoned to Rome, in 1082 under pain of suspension. He did not go, but it was the infirmities of old age, not contumacy, which prevented him from undertaking the long and arduous journey. It is well, also, to remember that a purely political reason for the king's refusal may be assigned, and Lanfranc probably shrank from precipitating a rupture between the pope and the king upon a question of constitutional law. William introduced the system of feudal tenure for Church lands, which he was enabled to do when bestowing them upon Norman ecclesiastics, and required homage for them. But only in time did feudal homage and ecclesiastical investiture come to be confounded. It may be safely said that William never dreamt of encroaching upon ecclesiastical privilege, nor of questioning the spiritual supremacy of the Holy See, even when refusing to comply with the request of Gregory VII that he should do homage for his kingdom, and liquidate certain arrears of Peter's pence. The explanation of the pope's attitude and demand would seem to be that the tribute had come to be looked upon as a token of vassalage, whereas, in its origin, it was unmistakably a free gift. William, while refusing to render homage, promised that the arrears of Peter's-pence should be forthcoming. Capital is sometimes made, too, of the fact that William and Lanfranc adopted a hesitating attitude in the case of the antipope Guibert, or Clement III, in 1084. All that can be justly inferred is that they maintained strict neutrality until such time as the merits of the candidates could be adjudged by proper authority. As that authority was not theirs, neither William nor Lanfranc assumed the prerogative of settling the dispute one way or another. (See Liebermann in "Engl. Hist. Rev.", April, 1901, p. 328.) In fact, no act of theirs can be instanced as showing anything but the most complete and filial submission to the Holy See. (See Martin Rule in "Dublin Rev.", 3rd series, vol. VI, 1881, pp. 406 sqq.) Lanfranc strenuously upheld the rights of his Church of Canterbury, when necessary, by legal action, even against the Conqueror's half-brother Odo of Bayeux. He also showed himself a munificent benefactor to the see, rebuilding the cathedral after its destruction by fire in 1067, improving the archiepiscopal estates by his good management, founding hospitals for the sick and indigent of both sexes, and giving liberally to widows and to the poor. His munificence was not confined, however, to his own see; he contributed largely, for example, to St. Albans, whose abbot, his relative Paul, had initiated there a vast scheme of rebuilding. His lifelong love of learning prompted him to foster studies; and even when immersed in the multitudinous and anxious affairs attached to his office and to his secular position as chief counsellor to the king, his pen was not idle, as the list of his works, which (considering the calls on his time) is a long one, testifies. His writings were published collectively by d'Achery in 1648; they may also be consulted in Migne, P.L., CL, and in Dr. Giles's edition of his works, published in 1844. Other treatises, now lost, have been attributed to him, amongst which are some that should rightly be ascribed to others. When William had to leave England to attend to the affairs of his continental dominions, Lanfranc acted as his vicegerent, or regent, in England, and displayed not only activity and sagacity as a temporal ruler, but military qualities of no mean order as well in the repression of a rising against the Conqueror in 1074. It was probably by his advice, too, that, notwithstanding the violence of that young prince's character, William the Conqueror left England to his second son William Rufus, as by right of conquest, Normandy to his eldest son Robert, by right of inheritance, and only a large sum of money to his son Henry. The choice of Rufus was, doubtless, because, as having been Lanfranc's pupil, and as having received his knighthood from him, the archbishop's influence over him might be presumed to be of some weight. Lanfranc crowned him at Westminster less than three weeks after the Conqueror's death. Lanfranc's name is, with that of his successor, St. Anselm, inseparably coupled with the thorny question of investitures, for the differences between king and primate, which came to a head under St. Anselm, showed their beginnings under Lanfranc. Here it is enough to say that his influence over a great ruler, such as the Conqueror was, prevented any but worthy appointments in the Church. But the root of the future evil lay in regarding sees merely as portions of the temporal fiefs attached to them, instead of keeping their spiritual character wholly separate from their temporal adjuncts. So long as a ruler--such as the Conqueror--was right-minded, no great harm was to be feared, but when a godless savage like William Rufus saw fit to intrude unworthy men into sees, or kept sees vacant in order to enjoy their revenues, then great evils arose, and such men were likely to assume--as Rufus did--that spiritual power and jurisdiction was derived from them by means of investiture with staff and ring, as well as tenure of the temporalities whose outward symbols were at that time, unfortunately, the same instruments. Lanfranc saw clearly the distinction between the civil and ecclesiastical capacities in which the same man might be regarded and might act, and it is related of him that in 1082 he encouraged the Conqueror to arrest his brother, Bishop Odo. The king scrupled to imprison a clerk, but Lanfranc grimly pointed out that he would not be arresting the Bishop of Bayeux (as it was not for an ecclesiastical offence), but the Earl of Kent--a title he held. Again, in 1088, when William de S. Carilef, Bishop of Durham, was being tried for his share in the rebellion of Odo and the Norman lords, that prelate endeavored to shield himself under his episcopal character. Lanfranc reminded him, first, that he was not at the bar as a bishop, but as a tenant-in-chief of the king; secondly, that the bishops judging him were acting in a like temporal capacity. Had that distinction been recognized and borne in mind by William Rufus, the troubles of his reign about investitures need never have arisen. Lanfranc endeavored to check the extravagances of the Red King, who, however, proved deaf to his entreaties and remonstrances. Nevertheless, it is certain that, as long as Lanfranc lived, his influence, slight as it might be, caused Rufus to put some sort of restraint upon his evil nature. His faithlessness to his engagements and promises, however, was a source of bitter sorrow to the aged archbishop, and doubtless hastened his death. It had been his accustomed prayer that he might die of some malady which would not affect his reason or his speech, and his petition was granted. An attack of fever in May, 1089, in a few days brought him to the grave. On 24 May, the last day of his life, his physicians having ordered him a certain draught, he asked to defer it until he had confessed and received the Holy Viaticum. When this was done, he took the cup of medicine in his hand, but instead of swallowing it, calmly breathed his last. He was buried in his own cathedral. In the "Nova Legenda" Lanfranc has the title of Saint, and elsewhere he is called Blessed; but it does not appear that the public honors of sanctity were accorded to him. His character may here fitly be summed up in words written in the "North American Review" (XCII, 257): "An Italian by birth, trained to new thoughts by long residence in France, he brought the subtile mind of his birth-land, refined by the use of French policy, to his new home, and into contact with the clear, hard sense of the English; and ruled in that realm with more than the skill of a native. . . . he was called on . . . so to frame and regulate the institutions of the Church, that they might conform to and sustain the altered constitutions of the State. . . . vigour of intellect and energy of purpose were . . . . demanded in one who must displace an old hierarchy, long and deeply established in the affection of the people, and mainly form anew the entire internal economy of their religious sentiments and worship." In every capacity, as scholar, as author, as politician, and as divine, Lanfranc exhibited the sound sense, rare tact, and singular ability that marked the great man amongst his fellows, and that gained for him a memory enduring through eight centuries even to our own day. HUNT in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.; FREEMAN, Norman Conquest (Oxford, 1887); STUBBS, Constitutional History (Oxford, 1875-78); GILES, Lanfranci Opera (London, 1844); Vita Lanfrancii in MIGNE, P.L., CL (Paris, l854); WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY, Gesta Regum and Gesta Pontificum in Rolls Series; W. AND M. WILKS, The Three Archbishops (London 1858); STANTON, Menology of England and Wales (London, 1887); RULE, Abp. Lanfranc and his Modern Critics in Dublin Rev. (1881), 3rd series, VI, 406 (a very valuable article, as it explodes modern misunderstanding of the ancient chroniclers' statements); Works of Abp. Lanfranc in North Am. Rev. (1861), XCII, 256; CHARMA, Lanfranc, Notice biographique (Paris, 1850); CROZALS, Lanfranc, sa vie, son enseignement, sa politique (Paris, 1877); LONGUEMARE, Lanfranc, Conseiller politique de Guillaume le Conquerant (Caen, 1902); BOHMER, Die Falschungen Erzbischof Lanfranks (Leipzig, 1902); IDEM., Kirche und Staat in England (Leipzig, 1899). HENRY NORBERT BIRT Giovanni Lanfranco Giovanni Lanfranco Also known as CAVALIERE GIOVANNI DI STEFANO. Decorative painter, b. at Parma, 1581, d. in Rome, 1647. As a boy Lanfranro was a page at Piacenza in the service of Count Scotti, and developing a talent for drawing was placed by the count under Agostino Carracci, with whom he remained for some years, but before he was sixteen he had painted a picture of the Virgin and Saints, which was so much admired that it was considered worthy of being placed in the church of Sant' Agostino at Piacenza. On the death of Carracci, Lanfranco went to Rome and assisted Annibale Carracci in decorative work in the Farnese Gallery, in the Vatican, and in various Roman churches. By clever scheming, he was able to carry off a commission which had been promised to Domenichino, his great rival, who was born on the same day as himself, and exerting himself to the utmost of his ability to out-do his opponent, he executed in the cupola of Sant' Andrea della Valle his greatest work, representing the Virgin seated in the clouds, and distinguished by grandeur, daring, boldness of design, and masterly coloring. He was then attracted to Naples and was occupied for a couple of years in painting the cupola of San Gennaro, and in carrying out similar work in San Martino. Here again he was the rival of Domenichino, who was at work at the cupola of the treasury when he died, and Lanfranco was employed to finish the fresco, but he destroyed almost all the work of his great rival, excepting the decorations in the angles, and these still remain to prove that with the solitary exception of the cupola in Rome, Domenichino's work was far more accomplished than that of his persistent rival. After executing this work, he returned to Rome, where he spent the remainder of his life, and his productions pleased Urban VIII so much that he conferred upon him the honor of knighthood. His works can be studied in Madrid, Florence, Paris, Vienna, and Dresden, as well as in the places already mentioned. He left behind him several fine etchings, and a few drawings. BELLORI, Vite de' Pittori Scultori e Archetti Moderni (Rome, 1672), also a similar work on the artist (Rome, 1731), and his description of the Vatican (1751). GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON Matthew Lang Matthew Lang Cardinal, Bishop of Gurk and Archbishop of Salzburg, b. at Augsburg in 1468; d. at Salzburg, 30 March, 1540. After receiving a secular education at Ingolstadt, Tübingen, and Vienna, he entered the chancery of Archbishop Berthold von Henneberg of Mainz, became secretary of Emperor Maximilian I in 1494, imperial councillor in 1501, and chancellor in 1508. The emperor esteemed him very highly, and gave him many ecclesiastical benefices. After being raised to the nobility with the title of "von Wellenburg" in 1498, he became provost of the cathedral of Augsburg in 1500, and shortly after also of that of Constance. In 1503 he was appointed coadjutor, and on 5 October, 1505, Prince-Bishop of Gurk. Though bishop, he remained in the imperial chancery as a layman, not even once visiting his diocese as long as he was Bishop of Gurk (from 1505 to 11 March, 1522). As imperial legate he directed the emperor's negotiations with France, Venice, Hungary, and the pope from 1508 to 1515. On 10 March, 1511, Pope Julius II created him cardinal, but kept him in petto until 24 November, 1512. Despite imperial influence he was unsuccessful in his aspirations to the Sees of Mainz, Magdeburg, Halberstadt, and Trent, but was finally appointed coadjutor of the See of Salzburg in 1514, against the express wish of Archbishop Leonard Keutschach of Salzburg. After the death of the latter, on 8 June, 1519, Lang became Archbishop of Salzburg. On 24 September, 1519, he was ordained priest and on the next day consecrated bishop. Though originally a promoter of the schismatic Council of Pisa, he later effected a settlement between the pope and the emperor, and joined the Lateran Council on 3 December, 1512. It was due chiefly to his influence that Charles V was elected emperor in 1519. He also induced Charles V in 1521 to take measures against Luther, suppressed the Peasants' War in his domain between 1525 and 1526, insisted on church reform at the synods which he held in Mühldorf in 1522 and 1537, and joined the league of Catholic princes at Ratisbon on 7 July, 1524. In 1529 he received the title of "Primate of Germany". Cardinal Lang was a friend of letters but a proud and ambitious prince of the Church. His suppression of Protestantism and his ecclesiastical reforms were dictated rather by political than religious motives. HAUTHALER, Kardinal Matthaus Lang und die religiossoziale Bewegung seiner Zeit, 1517-1540 (Salzburg, 1896); SCHMID, Des Kardinals u. Erzbischofs von Salzburg (1519-40) Matthaus Lang Verhalten zur Reformation (Furth, 1901); LEGERS in Mittheilungen der Gesellschaft fur Salzlburgische Landeskunde, XLVI (Salzburg, 1906), 437-517. MICHAEL OTT Rudolph von Langen Rudolph von Langen Humanist and divine, b. at the village of Everswinkel, near Munster, Westphalia, 1438 or 1439; d. at Munster, 25 Dec., 1519. His family belonged to the nobility; according to Hermann Hamelmann, he received his schooling at Deventer, in the school of Thomas a Kempis, together with Rudolf Agricola, Alexander Hegius, Anton Liber of Soest, Count Maurice von Spielenberg, and Ludwig Dringenberg. But this cannot be possible. Thomas was certainly not a teacher. Count Spielenberg and Dringenberg were much older; possibly Agricola and Liber were his schoolfellows, but where there is no saying. In 1456 he entered the University of Erfurt, and received the degree of B.A. in 1459, and M.A. in 1460. But before this he was made canon of the cathedral of Munster, and provost of the old cathedral in 1462. He went to Rome in 1466 in connection with the election of a bishop. But Hamelmann is wrong in what he has to say about his having been the scholar of the most renowned Italian humanists. He was only there a short time. Neither did Count Spiegelberg go with him, as he went to Rome in 1463, and several of the other scientists mentioned had been dead a long time. But it is true that Langen absorbed many new ideas in Italy. At Munster he was the centre of literary life, as well as of humanistic efforts. He was surrounded by a group of men of similar tastes. He possessed a good classical library, which he liberally placed at the disposal of others. Young Hermann von dem Busche was one of his pupils, to whom he imparted a love of classical literature. Hamelmann says he went to Rome a second time, with Hermann von dem Busche (1486). But this is not very probable. Langen's own literary work is not important. It is true that he was well read, but he lacked poetical talent. He wrote a poem about the destruction of Jerusalem, which has not been preserved; also a prose work, which was published in Deventer about 1485. In 1486 the first printing office at Munster, belonging to Johann Limberg, printed his poems. In 1493 he published the "Rosarium beatissimae virginis gloriosissimaeque dei matris Mariae"; about 1494 an epitaph on Albertus Magnus; and the "Horae de sancta cruce" in 1496. All these, as well as numerous other lesser poetical attempts. met with no better success than the collection of 1846, in spite of their ethical gravity, and his inspiration for all that was noble and good. But Langen's influence upon others was far more important. His most meritorious work was the reform which he brought about in the cathedral school, which took place in 1500. It became a humanistic institution, patterned after the one at Deventer. The course of instruction was changed, and other masters were called. But the school was more indebted to the subrector, Johannes Murmellius, than to the rector, Timann Kemener; the former was one of the ablest German humanists, and the flourishing condition of the school and its widespread influence, which reached to Schleswig and Pomerania, drew numerous scholars. It was by this work that Langen raised the literary life of the town of Munster to the greatest activity. He was a pious and noble man, who led a truly religious life. The inscription on his tomb at Munster lauds him as the patron of scholars and the friend of the poor. PARMET, Rudolph von Langen: Leben und gesammelte Gedichte des ersten Munsterischen Humanisten (Munster, 1869); NORDHOFF, Denkwurdigkeiten aus dem Munsterischen Humanismus (Munster, 1874); HAMELMANN, Oratio de Rudolf Langio von 1580 in Geschichtliche Werke, I, pt. II, 1-34: I, pt. III, 15-371 (Munster, 1905-1908); REICHLING, Die Reform der Domschule zu Munster (Berlin, 1900); BOHMER, Das literarische Leben in Munster (Munster, 1906). KLEMENS LÖFFLER Benoit-Marie Langenieux Benoit-Marie Langénieux Cardinal, Archbishop of Reims, b. at Villefranche-sur-Saône, Department of Rhône, 1824; d. at Reims, 1 Jan., 1905. He studied humanities in Paris at St-Nicolas du Chardonnet, under Dupanloup; and theology at St-Sulpice, where he was ordained, 1850. After nine years as curate at St-Roch, he became successively diocesan promoter 1859; curé of St-Ambroise, 1863; then of St-Augustin, 1868; Vicar-General of Paris, and archdeacon of Notre-Dame, 1871. Made Bishop of Tarbes, 1873, he was, the following year, translated to the archiepiscopal See of Reims. The thirty-one years of his episcopate were fruitful ones. Beside obtaining from the French legislature an appropriation of two millions of francs for the restoration of Reims cathedral, he secured for the Trappists the ancient Abbey of Igny, and for the Oratorians the priory of Binson, erected at Châtillon the colossal statue of Urban II, whose cultus he had promoted in Rome, built in the suburbs of his metropolis the churches of Ste-Geneviève, St-Jean-Baptiste de La Salle, St-Benoit, and Ste-Clothilde, this latter being afterwards made the seat of an archconfraternity of prayer for France, and the place of celebration of the fourteenth centenary of Clovis's baptism. When the law of school secularization came into effect, he filled his see with Catholic schools and founded four asylums for orphans. Created cardinal in 1886, he presided as papal legate over the Eucharistic Congresses of Jerusalem, Reims, and Lourdes. A champion of every noble cause, he took an active part in the beatification of Joan of Arc, the panegyric which he pronounced at Orléans, 1885, being most eloquent. He fought vigorously the anti-religious legislation that was being prepared against Christian education, the religious orders, and the concordat. His "Déclaration des Cardinaux et exposé de la situation faite à l'église de France" (1892), and his "Lettre au Président de la République" (1904), remain as witnesses to his truly episcopal character. However, he cherished above all the title of "Cardinal des ouvriers" given him by the gratitude of the working class, whose interests, spiritual and material, he never ceased to champion. Langénieux enjoyed the friendship of Leo XIII, who consulted him on all matters concerning the Church in France. The universal esteem in which he was held was abundantly proved by the many decorations which European rulers bestowed on him and by the vast concourse of bishops, priests, and people at his two jubilees and at his funeral. His eulogy was pronounced by Bishop Latty, of Châlons, and Bishop Touchet, of Orléans. Beside the pamphlets mentioned above and a number of occasional discourses, we have from Langénieux's pen: eight pastoral letters (Tarbes, 1873); 231 mandements (Reims, 1874-1905); and "Abrege de l'Histoire de la Religion" (Paris, 1874). FREZEL: Son Eminence le Cardinal Langénieux (Reims, 1905); IDEM in L'Episcopat francais (Paris, 1907), s.v. Tarbes. and Reims: COMPANS, Son Eminence le Cardinal Langénieux (Reims, 1887); see also La France chretienne a Reims en 1896 (Paris, 1896). J.F. SOLLIER Simon Langham Simon Langham Cardinal, Archbishop of Canterbury and Chancellor of England, b. at Langham in Rutland; d. at Avignon, France, 22 July, 1376. Nothing is known of his early life, but in 1346 he was already a Benedictine monk of Westminster Abbey, representing his house in the triennial chapter. In April, 1349, he was made prior, and in May he became abbot. In this office he proved very successful, ruling well and carrying out many works, including the completion of the cloisters. He became treasurer of England on 21 Nov., 1360, and Bishop of Ely on 10 Jan., 1362. Before consecration he was also elected Bishop of London, but he refused this see, preferringEly. On 19 Feb., 1363, he received the great seal as chancellor, and he was the first to speak in English when opening Parliament. He was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury on 24 July, 1366, and received the pallium from the pope on 4 Nov., having previously resigned the chancellorship. As archbishop he was vigilant against false doctrine, condemned certain propositions taught at Oxford, removed one Wycliffe--not the well-known heretic of that name--from the headship of Canterbury Hall, and censured the demagogue-priest, John Ball. Blessed Urban V created him Cardinal of St. Sixtus, 27 Sept., 1368. His acceptance of this dignity without the king's leave offended Edward III, who seized the Canterbury revenues on the plea that Langham had by his act forfeited the see. Langham resigned the archbishopric on 27 Nov., and early in 1369 joined the Pope at Avignon, being succeeded at Canterbury by Whittlesey. Subsequently he regained the king's favor, but did not return to his native country, though he held several English preferments in succession, such as the archdeaconries of Wells and Taunton. Gregory XI made him Cardinal-Bishop of Palestrina in July, 1373, and in the following year the monks at Canterbury again elected him as archbishop. The pope refused to confirm this, alleging that he could not spare the cardinal from Avignon. When the Curia was about to return to Rome in 1376, Langham obtained permission to go back to England, but he died before he could carry out this intention. Three years after his death, his remains were translated from Avignon to Westminster Abbey to which he had bequeathed his residuary estate. He was an upright man, and an able, if stern, ruler. WALSINGHAM, Historia Anglicana, Rolls Series (London, 1863-4); MURIMUTH, Continuatio Chronicorum, Rolls Series (London, 1889); HOOK, Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury (London, 1860-1884); WILLIAMS, Lives of the English Cardinals (London, 1868); KINGSFOFD in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v. EDWIN BURTON Langheim Langheim A celebrated Cistercian abbey situated in Upper Franconia (Bavaria), not far from Mein, in the Diocese of Bamberg. Three brothers of the city of Bamberg made a gift of the estate of Langheim to Bishop St. Otto VIII, who, in 1132, offered it to the Cistercians of the Abbey of Ebrac (which was itself founded by Morimond), under the condition that they should establish there a monastery of their order. Encouraged by St. Bernard, Adam, Abbot of Ebrac, accepted the offer. On 1 August, 1132, he laid the corner stone of the new monastery, and in 1142 the buildings were completed. The first to rule this community was Abbot Adam (1141-80), who, by his wisdom and holiness, won the sympathy of the bishops of Bamberg and of the nobles of the surrounding country for the new foundation. Very soon the abbey found itself in possession of considerable revenues, and had a large number of parishes depending upon it. Pope Eugene III and the emperors granted it many privileges. All the ancient historians of the order agree in saying that it surpassed every other monastery in splendor and wealth, while one of its distinctive characteristics was the generous hospitality which it extended to all visitors. But this era of prosperity endured scarcely more than two centuries, for in 1385 the Bishop of Bamberg seized part of the property of the abbey, and in 1429 the Hussites destroyed the buildings by fire. After these misfortunes lt arose again from its ruins, and enjoyed a return of prosperity, until, in 1535, the revolted peasants applied the torch and reduced all once more to ashes. After the abbey had been rebuilt, a period of peace ensued, but in 1632 the Swedish hordes delivered it up to pillage, subjected the monks to every outrage, and left nothing but misery and desolation in their train. It was not until the following century that Abbot Stephen Mösinger (1734-51) had the monastery reconstructed in such proportions and with a splendor that recalled the first abbey. During this interval the bishops had again become favorable to the religious, but failed to restore either the property they had usurped or the old-time privileges. The final catastrophe occurred on 7 May, 1802, when fire destroyed the splendid buildings erected by Stephen Mosinger and put an end to Langheim. On 23 June, 1803, the community, at that time numbering forty-nine members, was secularized by a decree of the Prince Elector of Bavaria. The religious were dispersed to various places, and the last abbot, Candide Hemmerlein, received a pension of 8000 florins, with which he retired to the Castle of Thieb, where he died in 1814. This abbey gave to the Church in Germany many bishops, who distinguished themselves by their zeal in combating error, and in laboring for the conversion of heretics; it also sheltered many writers who were not without merit. We may here mention the monk Engelrich, who wrote the "Leben der hl. Mathilde, Abtissin von Edelstetten"; Simon Schreiner of the seventeenth century, who composed a treatise on the "Vierzehnheiligen", and an "Apologia contra Lutheranos". The Abbot Moritz Knauer, a distinguished mathematician and astronomer, published different works on the natural sciences, also an ascetical work entitled "Tuba Coeli" (1649-64); but the most prolific author was Joachim H. Jaeck, who, after his secularization, published the results of his researches on the history of Bamberg and the surrounding country. In 1210 Langheim founded the Abbey of Plass in the Diocese of Prague, Bohemia. In 1445 Abbot Frederick Hengelein built at Frankenthal, as a dependence of the abbey, a church in honor of the "Fourteen Holy Helpers", which soon became a celebrated and much frequented place of pilgrimage. The care of this church is now confided to the Franciscans. MANRIQUE, Annales Cisterc., 1133; JONGELINUS, Notitia Abbatiarum O. Cist., II, 86; SARTORIUS, Cistercium Bis-Tertium, tit. xxv: DUBOIS, Histoire de l'abbaye de Morimond (Paris 1852); BAIER, Die Cisterziener Abtei Kloster Langheim (Wurzburg, 1896); WITTMANN in Kirchenlex., s.v.; JANAUSCHEK, Originum Cisterciensium. I. E. OBRECHT Richard Langhorne Ven. Richard Langhorne English martyr, b. about 1635, d. at Tyburn, 14 July, 1679. He was the third son of William Langhorne of the Inner Temple, by Lettice, daughter of Eustace Needham of Little Wymondley, Herts. He was admitted to the Inner Temple in November, 1646, and called to the bar in 1654. He married a Protestant lady, Dorothy, daughter of Thomas Legatt of Havering, Essex, and lived at Shire Lane, to the right of Temple Bar. His chambers were in Middle Temple Lane. He was arrested on 15 June, 1667, in connection with the great fire. Arrested a second time on 7 October, 1678, and committed to Newgate without any previous examination, he was kept in solitary confinement for eight months. On 14 June, 1679, he was brought to the bar at the Old Bailey; Oates, Dugdale, Bedloe, and Prance gave evidence against him, and he was found guilty. He was offered a pardon, if he would confess his guilt and also make a disclosure of the property of the Jesuits with which he had become acquainted in his professional capacity. This last he did -- probably with the consent of his fellow-prisoner, the provincial, Fr. Whitbread -- but, as he persisted in declaring his ignorance of any conspiracy, he was executed. His last words were to the hangman: "I am desirous to be with my Jesus. I am ready and you need stay no longer for me." COOPER in Dict. Nat. Biog. (London, 1908-9), s. v.; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath. (London and New York, 1885-1902), s. v.; Calendar State Papers Domestic 1667 (London, 1866), 209; CHALLONER, Missionary Priests, II, 388; INDERWICK, Calendar of the Inner Temple Records (London, 1896-1901), passim. JOHN B. WAINEWRIGHT Richard Langley Richard Langley Layman and martyr, b. probably at Grimthorpe, Yorks, England, date unknown; d. at York, 1 Dec., 1586. From his father, Richard Langley, of Rathorpe Hall, Walton, he probably inherited Rathorpe, but for the greater part of his life continued to reside on his estate at Ousethorpe, in the East Riding. His mother was Joan Beaumont of Mirfield. He married Agnes, daughter of Richard Hansby, New Malton, by whom he had one son, Christopher (b. 1565), and four daughters. (See "Visitation of Yorkshire", ed. Foster, London, 1875.) During the troublous times of the Elizabethan period Langley gave over his energies and a very considerable part of his fortune to assisting the oppressed clergy; his house was freely offered as an asylum to priests. He even constructed a subterranean retreat, perhaps beneath the Grimthorpe dwelling, which afforded them sanctuary. This refuge was betrayed to the President of the North, and on 28 Oct., 1586, a strong band of military was despatched, several justices and ministers of the new religion joining in the quest, to make a domiciliary visitation of the Grimthorpe and Ousethorpe houses. Two priests were found in hiding at the former; at the latter Langley himself was seized. All three were carried to York, committed to prison, and subsequently arraigned before the President of the North, the priests because of their office and Langley for harboring them. During the investigation Langley was steadfast in his adherence to the Faith. He would not take the oath of the queen's ecclesiastical supremacy, nor compromise his religious heritage by seeking to ingratiate himself with the lord president or Privy Council. It was feared that the jury which had first been empaneled to decide upon the case might return a verdict in accordance with the dictates of justice, it was therefore discharged and replaced by another of tried fidelity to the prosecutors. Langley was condemned to death, without any evidence being adduced to establish the fact that he had knowingly sheltered seminary priests, and was hanged, drawn, and quartered at York. His remains were refused honorable burial, despite the importunity of his friends. GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s.v.; MORRIS, Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers, third series; FOLEY, Records of the Eng Prov. of the Society of Jesus, VI (supplemental vol., London, 1880), 316; Ibid., III (London, 1878), 735; DODD, Church History, II, 172; CHALLONER, Memoirs of Missionary Priests, I (Philadelphia, 1839), 120; POLLEN, Acts of Eng. Mar. P.J. MACAULEY Diocese of Langres Langres (LINGONÆ). Diocese comprising the Department of the Haute-Marne. Suppressed by the Concordat of 1801, Langres was later united to the Diocese of Dijon. The bishop bore the title of Dijon and Langres, but the union was never quite complete; there was a pro-vicar-general for the Haute-Marne and two seminaries at Langres, the petit séminaire from 1809 and the grand séminaire from 1817. The See of Langres was re-established in 1817 by Pius VII and Louis XVIII; and Mgr de la Luzerne, its pre-Revolution bishop, was to have been re-appointed; but the parliament did not ratify this agreement, and the bishops of Dijon remained administrators of the Diocese of Langres till 6 October, 1822, when the Bull "Paternae charitatis" definitely re-established the see. The new Bishop of Langres governed 360 parishes of the old Diocese of Langres, 70 of the old Diocese of Châlons, 13 of the old Diocese of Besançon, 13 of the old Diocese of Troyes, and 94 of the old Diocese of Toul. For the legends concerning the Apostolic origin of the See of Langres and the mission ot St. Benignus see DIJON. Mgr Duchesne considers Senator, Justus, and St. Desiderius (Didier), who was martyred during the invasion of the Vandals (about 407), as the first three bishops of Langres; the see, therefore, must have been founded about the middle of the fourth century. Among the bishops who, till 1016, resided at Dijon, and exercised till 1731 spiritual jurisdiction over the territory of the present Diocese of Dijon we must mention: St. Martin (411-20); St. Urban (425-40); St. Paulinus (440-50); St. Aprunculus, the friend of Sidonius Apollinaris and his successor in the See of Clermont (470-84); St. Gregory (509-39), great-grandfather of St. Gregory of Tours, who transferred the relics of St. Benignus; St. Tetricus, son of St. Gregory (539-72), whose coadjutor was St. Monderic, brother of St. Arnoul, Bishop of Metz; Blessed Migetius (589-618); St. Herulphus (759-74), founder of the Abbey of Ellwangen; Blessed Arnoul (774-8); Betto (790-820), who helped to draw up the capitularies of Charlemagne; Venerable Isaac (859-80), author of a collection of canons; Venerable Argrin (889-909); Blessed Bruno of Roucy (980-1015), who brought in the monks of Cluny to reform the abbeys of the diocese; Venerable Lambert (1015-30), who ceded to King Robert of France the lordship and county of Dijon, in 1016; Venerable Gauthier of Burgundy (1163-79); Robert de Torote (1232-40), who became Bishop of Liège in 1240, and established the feast of the Blessed Sacrament; Bertrand de Got (1306-07), uncle of Clement V; Venerable Sebastian Zamet (1615-54), whose vicar-general, Charles de Condren, became later Superior General of the Oratory, and who gave the college of Langres to the Society of Jesus in 1630; César Guillaume de la Luzerne, bishop in 1770, celebrated as an apologist, deputy to the States General in 1789, and an émigré in 1791. He resigned in 1801, was created cardinal and again nominated Bishop of Langres in 1817, dying in 1821; Pierre Louis Parisis (1835-51), celebrated for the part he took in the Assembly of 1848 in the discussions on the liberty of teaching (liberté d'enseignement) and for founding the ecclesiastical college of St. Dizier even before the Loi Falloux (see FALLOUX DU COUDRAY) was definitely passed. Hugh III, Duke of Burgundy, in 1179 gave the city of Langres to his uncle, Gautier of Burgundy, then bishop; later it was made a duchy, which gave the Duke-Bishop of Langres, as the third ecclesiastical peer, the right of precedence over his metropolitan, the Archbishop of Lyons, at the consecration of the kings of France. The chief patron of the diocese is the martyr, Saint Mammes of Caesarea (third century), to whom the cathedral, a beautiful monument of the late twelfth century, is dedicated. The Diocese of Langres honors as saints a number of martyrs who, according to the St. Benignus legend, died in the persecution of Marcus Aurelius, the triplets, Saints Speusippus, Eleusippus, and Melapsippus; St. Neo, the author of their Acts, himself a martyr, St. Leonilla, their grandmother, and St. Junilla, their mother. Among other saints we may cite St. Valerius (Valier), a disciple of St. Desiderius, martyred by the Vandals in the fifth century; the hermit St. Godo (Gou), nephew of St. Vandrillus, in the seventh century; St. Gengulphus, martyr, in the eighth century; Venerable Gerard Voinchet (1640-95), canon regular of the Congregation of St. Geneviève in Paris, called the saint of that congregation; Venerable Jeanne Mance (1606-73); Venerable Mariet, a priest who died in 1704; Venerable Joseph Urban Hanipaux, a Jesuit, the latter three natives of the diocese and celebrated for their apostolic labors in Canada. The diocese was also the birthplace of the theologian, Nicolas de Clémenges (fourteenth-fifteenth century), who was canon and treasurer of the Church of Langres; and of the Gallican canonist Edmond Richer (1560-1631); of the Jesuit, Pierre Lemoine, author of an epic poem of St. Louis and of the work "La dévotion aisée" (1602-71); of the philosopher Diderot (1713-84). The historian, Raoul Glaber, monk of Cluny, who died in 1050, was at the priory of St. Léger in this diocese, when he was touched by Divine grace on the occasion of an apparition. The Benedictine Abbey of Poulangy was founded in the eleventh century. The Abbey of Morimond, the fourth foundation of Citeaux, was established in 1125 by Odolric, lord of Aigremont, and Simon, Count of Bassigny. Blessed Otho, son of Leopold of Austria, Abbot of Morimund, became Bishop of Freising in Bavaria, and returned in 1154 to die a simple monk in Morimond. The Augustinian priory of the Val des Ecoliers was founded in 1212, at Luzy, near Chaumont by four doctors of the Paris University, who were led into this awful solitude by a love of retreat. A religious festival, the "Scourging of the Alleluia" at Langres, now no longer observed, was quite celebrated in this diocese in the Middle Ages. On the day when, according to the ritual, the Alleluia was omitted from the liturgy, a top on which the word Alleluia was written was whipped out of church, to the singing of psalms, by the choirboys, who wished it bon voyage till Easter. The "Pardon of Chaumont" is very celebrated. Jean de Montmirail, a native of Chaumont, and a particular friend of Sixtus IV, obtained from him, in 1475, that each time the feast of St. John the Baptist fell on a Sunday, the faithful, who, having confessed their sins, visited the church of Chaumont, should enjoy the jubilee indulgence. Such was the origin of the great "Pardon" of Chaumont, celebrated sixty-one times, between 1476 and 1905. At the end of the Middle Ages, this "Pardon" gave rise to certain curious festivities; on stages erected throughout the town were represented fifteen mysteries of the life of St. John the Baptist, while frolics of the devils who figured in the punishment of Herod, through the town and the country, on the Sunday preceding the "Pardon", drew multitudes to the festivities, which were finally called the "deviltries" of Chaumont. In the course of the eighteenth century the "Pardon" became a purely religious ceremony. In the Diocese of Langres is Vassy, where in 1562 took place the riots between Catholics and Protestants that gave rise to the wars of religion (see HUGUENOTS). Numerous diocesan synods were held at Langres. The most important were those of 1404, 1421, 1621, 1628, 1679, 1725, 1733,1741,1783, and six successive annual synods held by Mgr Parisis, from 1841 to 1846, with a view to the re-establishment of the synodal organization and also to impose on the clergy the use of the Roman Breviary (see GUÉRANGER). The principal pilgrimages are: Our Lady of Montrol near Arc-en-Barrois (dating from the seventeenth century); Our Lady of the Hermits at Cuves; Our Lady of Victories at Bourmont, St. Joseph, Protector of the Souls in Purgatory, at Maranville. In 1908 there were still thirteen congregations of nuns in the diocese. The Sisters of Providence, founded in 1802, with their mother-house at Langres, were, at the time of the enforcement of the Associations Law, remarkable for the work they were doing in the schools and hospitals. In 1901 the religious congregations had in the diocese 33 écoles maternelles, 1 agricultural orphanage for boys, 6 orphanages for girls, 7 workshops, 1 school of house-keeping, 2 dispensaries, 16 hospitals, hospices, and homes for the aged, 2 houses of retreat, 113 houses for nursing of the sick at home. In 1908, three years after the separation of Church and State, the Diocese of Langres had 226,545 inhabitants, 28 canonical parishes, 416 ancillary parishes, and 49 vicariates. Gallia Chirstiana (nova), IV (1728), 508-651, instrum., 125-222; DUCHESNE:, Fastes Episcopaux, II, 182-90; LUCOTTE, Origines du diocese de Langres et de Dijon (Dijon, 1888); ROUSSEL, Le diocese de Langres, histoire et statistique (Langres, 1873-79); IDEM, Etudes historiques sur les premiers eveques de Langres (Langres, 1886); IDEM, Nouvelle etude sur le diocese de Langres et ses eveques (Langres, 1889); VIGNlER, Decade historique du diocese de Langres, 2 vols. (Langres, 1891-94); JOLIBOIS, La diablerie de Chaumont (Paris, 1838); MARECL, Les livres liturgiques du diocese de Langres: etude bibliographique (Langres, 1892) and supplement (ibid., 1899); FEVRE, Biographie contemporaine des eveques de Langres (Paris, 1903); DUBOIS, Histoire de 1'abbaye de Morimond (Dijon, 1852); CHEVALIER, Topobibl. (1623-5). GEORGES GOYAU Lanspergius Lanspergius (JOHN JUSTUS OF LANDSBERG). Carthusian monk and ascetical writer, b. at Landsberg in Bavaria 1489, d. at Cologne, 11 Aug., 1539. His family name was Gerecht, of which Justus is merely a Latin translation. The appellation, however, by which he is generally known is that of Lanspergius (of Landsberg), from his birthplace. After studying philosophy at the University of Cologne, he joined the Carthusian Order at the age of twenty (1509), entering the Charterhouse of St. Barbara at Cologne. He was named novice-master there in 1520, and in 1530 became prior of the Charterhouse of Cantave near Juliers, where, according to Hartzheim, he was also preacher (concionator) to the Court of William, Duke of Juliers, and confessor to the duke's mother. The unhealthy climate of that country, together with the fatigue resulting from his continuous literary labors and his excessive austerities, so ruined his health, already impaired by various internal complaints, that in 1534, he had to return to Cologne, where, a few years later, he was named sub-prior and remained in that office until his death. He was a monk of saintly life, employing all the time he could spare from his duties towards others in prayer, contemplation, and writing on ascetical and mystical subjects. His literary works comprise paraphrases and homilies on the Epistles and Gospels of the liturgical year, sermons for Sundays and festivals, meditations and discourses on the Life and Passion of Christ, and a variety of treatises, sermons, letters, meditations, etc. on subjects pertaining to the spiritual life. He was not a polemic. Among his productions the only ones of a controversial kind are two dissertations against Lutheran errors and in defense of the monastic life. These two treatises are also all that he wrote in German, his other writings being in Latin. The chief feature of his writings is a deep, ardent, and tender piety. The love of God for man, calling for a corresponding love of man for God, such is his usual theme treated in various ways. One thing particularly worthy of mark is the frequency with which he speaks of the Heart of Christ, and pressingly exhorts every Christian to take the Sacred Heart as an object of special love, veneration, and imitation. Indeed it may perhaps be said that no one before him had laid down and explained so clearly the principles upon which that devotion is grounded, nor had so developed their practical application. He was one of the last, and was perhaps the most precise in language, of those whose written teachings paved the way for Blessed Margaret Mary and her mission, and helped to prepare the Catholic mind for the great devotion of modern times. To him also Catholics owed the first Latin edition (Cologne, 1536) of the "Revelations of S. Gertrude". The best known of his treatises is the "Alloquia Jesu Christi ad animam fidelem", which has been translated into Spanish, Italian, French, and English. The English translation, done by Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel, who died in the Tower under Elizabeth, has reached its fourth edition (London, 1867). A new and revised edition of all the works of Lanspergius in Latin has been issued by the Carthusian press of Notre-Dame-des-Prés (Tournai, 1890), in five quarto volumes. The same press has published separately the treatise "Pharetra Divini Amoris" (18mo., 1892) and a French version of the "Alloquia", bearing the title: "Entretiens de Jésus Christ avec l'âme fidèle" (18mo, 1896). BOUTRAIS, Lansperge-le-Chartreux et la devotion au Sacre-Coeur (Paris, 1878); HARTZHEIM, Biblioth. Colonien, (Cologne, 1747). EDMUND GURDON Lantern Lantern In Italian or modern architecture, a small structure on the top of a dome, for the purpose of admitting light, for promoting ventilation, and for ornament. The name is also given to any such projection, even if it has no such openings and serves merely for decoration. Examples include: + the Karlskirche (church of St. Charles Borromeo), Vienna; + chapel of Montepulciano, Italy; + St. Peter's, Rome; + St. Paul's, London; + St. Isaac's cathedral, St. Petersburg; + Sta Maria della Salute, Venice; + Sta Maria del Fiore, Florence; + the Frauenkirche, Dresden; + church of the Val de Grace, Paris; + St. Stephen's Walbrook, London; + Sta Maria di Monte Santo, Rome; + Madonna of the Little Well, Guadalupe, Mexico; + church of the Oratory, London; + church at Loyola, Biscay, Spain; + La Superga, Turin; + Sta Maria di Carignano, Genoa; + Palermo cathedral. THOMAS H. POOLE Luigi Lanzi Luigi Lanzi An Italian archeologist, b. at Mont Olmo, near Macerata, in 1732; d. at Florence in 1810. In 1749 he joined the Society of Jesus, on the suppression of which, in 1773, the Grand-Duke of Tuscany made him assistant director of the Florentine Museum and curator (antiquario) in 1776. His tomb is in the church of S. Croce, near that of Michael Angelo. He applied himself early to the study of ancient and modern literature (Cicero, Dante, Firenzuola), filled several times chairs of rhetoric, and was elected a member of the literary society of the "Arcadians" (where he was called Argilio Celerio). He wrote in Florence his excellent "Guide to the Museum" (1780), published in the "Giornale di Pisa" (1782). As an archeologist, particularly with regard to Etruscan subjects, Marini styles him the Varro of the eighteenth century. His "Saggio di lingua etrusca e di altre antiche d'Italia" appeared at Rome in 1789 (3 vols.). It was followed by different treatises of the same tenor on ancient paleography, on some ancient vases, and other antiquities. He won still more widespread reputation by his history of modern Italian painting (Storia pittorica dell' Italia dal risorgimento delle belle arti fin presso al fine del XVIII secolo, 3 vols., Bassano, 1795-96). This work, often reprinted (lastly at Venice, 1837-39), was translated into German, French, and English (twice in the latter tongue, by Roscoe, London, 1828, and by Evans, abridged, London, 1831). Lanzi describes the Schools of Art and their development, and opens his narration with the Florentine artists of the thirteenth century, whom he looks upon as the preservers and revivers of art in Italy. He is remarkable for his widespread learning, his masterful grasp of his subject, his sound judgment, and the classic simplicity of his beautiful diction. He never lost his interest in Greco-Roman antiquity, and published at Florence, as late as 1808, a critical edition of Hesiod's "Works and Days", with a Latin and an Italian translation (the latter in three-line stanzas). His qualities as a writer matched his proficiency as a humanist, and he published at Florence (1807) three volumes of "Inscriptiones et Carmina"; he left numerous translations from Catullus, Theocritus, and others, either printed or in manuscript form. Lanzi was always a devout and ascetic priest. A collection of his edifying works on the Sacrament of the Altar, on the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, and on St. Joseph, was published at Rome in 1809. SOMMERVOGEL, Bibliotheque de la compagnie de Jesus, s. v.; MAURUS BONI, Saggio di Studii del P. Luigi Lanzi (Venice, 1815); ALESS. CAPRI, Biografia di Luigi Lanzi (Forli, 1840). G. GIETMANN Laodicea Laodicea A titular see, of Asia Minor, metropolis of Phrygia Pacatiana, said to have been originally called Diospolis and Rhoas; Antiochus II colonized it between 261 and 246 B.C., and gave it the name of his wife, Laodice. The city stood on a spur of Mount Salbacus, one mile from the left bank of the Lycus, between the Asopus and Mount Cadmus; its territory lay between the Lycus and the Caprus. In 220 B.C. Achaeus was its king; then it formed part of the Kingdom of Pergamus, and suffered severely during the war with Mithridates, but recovered its prosperity under Roman rule. About the end of the first century B.C. it was one of the principal cities of Asia Minor, both as to industries and commerce, being famous for its woollen fabrics and its sandals. It had received from Rome the title of free city, and it became the centre of a conventus juridicus, which comprised twenty-four cities besides itself. Its wealthy citizens embellished it with beautiful monuments. One of the chief of them, Polemon, became King of Armenian Pontus--called after him "Polemoniacus"--and of the coast round Trebizond. The city had a school of medicine and gave birth to the two sceptic philosophers, Antiochus and Theiodas. Its coins and inscriptions show evidence of the worship of Zeus, Æsculapius, Apollo, and the emperors. It is frequently mentioned by the Byzantine historians, particularly in the epoch of the Comneni, and was fortified by the Emperor Manuel. The Mongol and Turkish invasions brought on its decay, and then its complete ruin. Its magnificent remains are to be seen near the village of Denizli, formerly and more exactly called Denizli Ladik (Ladik = Laodicea), in the vilayet of Broussa; they consist principally of a stadium, three theatres, an aqueduct, sarcophagi, etc. At the beginning of the Christian era, Laodicea was inhabited, besides its indigenous population of Hellenized Syrians, by Greeks, Romans, and an important Jewish colony. There is extant a letter from the authorities of the city to a Roman magistrate in which the former undertake to refrain from molesting the Jews in their religious observances and customs. These Jews sent regularly to Jerusalem a tribute of twenty pounds of gold. Christianity penetrated into the city from the earliest times: St. Paul mentions the Church of Laodicea as closely united with that of Colossus. It had probably been founded by the Colossian Epaphras, who shared the care of it with Nymphas, in whose house the faithful used to assemble. Paul asks the Colossians to communicate to the Church of Laodicea the letter which he sends to them, and to read publicly that which should come to them from Laodicea, that is, no doubt, a letter which he had written, or was to write, to the Laodiceans (Col., ii, 1 sq.). An apocryphal epistle purporting to be from Paul to the Laodiceans is extant in Latin and Arabic (see APOCRYPHA, I, 614). Some of the Greek MSS. end the First Epistle to Timothy with these words: "Written at Laodicea, metropolis of Phrygia Pacatiana". The Church of Laodicea is one of the seven (see Ramsay, The Seven Churches of Asia Minor, London, 1908) to the bishops of which are addressed the letters at the beginning of the Apocalypse (Apoc., iii, 14-21). The first bishops attributed to the See of Laodicea are very uncertain: St. Archippus (Col., iv, 17); St. Nymphas (Col., iv, 15; already indicated as bishop of Laodicea by the Apostolic Constitutions, vii, 46); Diotrephes (III John, 9). Next comes St. Sagaris, martyr (c. 166). Sisinnius is mentioned in the Acts of the martyr St. Artemon, a priest of his Church. Nunechius assisted at the Council of Nicaea (325). Eugenius, known by an inscription, was probably his successor. The Arian Cecropius was transferred by Constantius to the See of Nicomedia. When Phrygia was divided into two parts, Laodicea became the metropolis of Phrygia Pacatiana: it figures under this title in all the "Notitiae episcopatuum". Some twenty incumbents are known besides those already enumerated; the last occupied the see in 1450. There are extant, in Greek, sixty canons of a Council of Laodicea. That this assembly was actually held, we have the testimony of Theodoret ("In Coloss.", ii, 18, P.L., LXXXII, 619). There has been much discussion as to the date: some have even thought that the council must have preceded that of Nicaea (325), or at least that of Constantinople (381) It seems safer to consider it as subsequent to the latter. The canons are, undoubtedly, only a resume of an older text, and indeed appear to be derived from two distinct collections. They are of great importance in the history of discipline and liturgy; Protestants have often, but quite without reason, invoke one of them in opposition to the veneration of angels. LEQUIEN, Oriens christianus, I, 791 798; SMITH, Dict. Greek and Roman geogr. s.v.; RAMSAY, Cities and bishoprics of Phrygia, 32-83, 344, 542 sq.; ANDERSON in Journal of Hellenic studies, 1897, P. 404; WEBER in Jahrbuch des k. deutschen archaeolog. Instituts, XIII, 1 sq.; BEURLIER in VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible, s. v. Laodicee (good bibliography), Laodiceens, epitre aux; BOUDINHON, Note sur le concile de Laodicee in Comptes rendus du congres scientif. international des catholiques, 1888, II, 420427; HEFELE, Histoire des conciles, tr. LECLERCQ, I, 989 1028. S. PÉTRIDÈS Laos Laos (Vicariate Apostolic) Separated from the Vicariate Apostolic of Siam by a decree of 4 May, 1899. The vast extent of territory of Further India embraced within the ecclesiastical unit is politically divided. The country to the west of the Mekong River, excepting the province of Bassak is included in the Kingdom of Siam; that east of the river is under French rule. The vicariate embraces the whole of the Mekong valley from the frontiers of Cambodia as far as those of China; on the west is the Menam with tributary streams; the mountains of Annam and Tongking form the eastern boundary, excluding the district of Attapeu which is attached to the Vicariate of Eastern Cochin-China. The ranks of the missionaries have been frequently thinned owing to the unhealthy nature of the climate; epidemics of cholera morbus and bubonic plague are of constant recurrence. The vicariate is entrusted to the Paris Society of Missions Etrangères, with residence at Nong-Seng in the province of Nakong-Phanom. The present Apostolic vicar is Mgr Marie-Joseph Cuaz, titular Bishop of Hermopolis Minor. He was born at Lyon France, 8 Dec., 1862; elected 30 April, 1899; preconized 22 June 1899; and consecrated on 3 Sept. of the same year. The history of the territory previous to its formation into a separate vicariate is given in Piolet, "Les Missions" II (Paris, s. d.), xiii; cf. Neher in Kirkenlex VI, 683. The most recent available religious statistics may be found in Indo-China (French), subtitle Present Conditions of the Catholic Church in French Indo-China. Missiones Catholicæ (Rome, 1907); Reinhold in Buchberger, Kirchliches Handlex., s. v.; Annuair Pontifical Catholique (1910); Gerarchia Cattolica (1910); Herder, Konversations-Lexikon, s. v. Lao. P.J. MACAULEY La Paz La Paz DIOCESE OF LA PAZ (PACENSIS). Diocese of La Paz, in Bolivia. The city is the capital of the department of the same name, is the most populous city of the Republic of Bolivia, and since 1899 its capital. It is about thirty miles south-east of Lake Titicaca, is connected by railway with the Peruvian harbour town of Puno, situated on the lake, and is 12,200 feet above sea-level. The city is regularly laid out, but built on very steep ground, and according to the last census (1900) has a population of 54,713, chiefly mestizos (called cholos) and Aymará Indians. The most prominent buildings are a new cathedral built in the eighties of white marble with Corinthian columns, situated on the steep plaza, and the monastic churches of Santo Domingo, San Francisco, and San Juan de Dios. The monasteries attached to these churches, although secularized immediately after the establishment of the republic, were later restored to their respective orders. The most important monasteries of men are San Francisco, La Merced, and La Recoleta; there are also the convents of the Sisters of the Immaculate Conception, and the Carmelite nuns (El Carmen), both new buildings which the city government of La Paz made an unsuccessful attempt, in 1909, to confiscate for school purposes, ostensibly because, unlike the other orders of women in the city engaged in teaching or nursing, these two devoted themselves to the contemplative life (see the protest of Bishop Armentia in the "Boletin Eclesiástico", No. 8, 1909). French Sisters of Charity conduct both the city hospitals and a medical school is attached to the Loaiza Hospital for women. The Academia Aymará was founded in 1900 to foster the study of history, and publishes the "Academia Aymará," (La Paz, 1901--). The Sociedad Geográfica de la Paz, founded in 1889 and reorganized in 1896, with four sections, for astronomy, physics, political science, and commerce respectively, publishes the "Boletin", as well as separate works. Finally, the Institution Lejion, formed in 1908 from the Federación Enciclopédica, Sociedad Enciclopédica Filantrópica, and the Union Filarmónica, for the promotion of the study of natural science, and also of philosophical and sociological studies, issues the "Revista". La Paz is one of the oldest Spanish colonies on the table-land of Old Peru. In 1549 the city was founded by Captain Alonzo de Mendoza (according to others, about 1548, by Diaz de Medina) on the site of an earlier Indian settlement called Chuquiabo ("gold field", because gold was washed here). To commemorate the restoration of peace after the civil war following the insurrection of Gonzalo Pizarro, the city was called Nuestra Señora de la Paz. After the victory of the patriot army under General Sucre at Ayacucho (1824) it was named La Paz de Ayacucho, but the latter designation was used as seldom as the former, and the city, afterwards as before, was called simply "La Paz". One of the most remarkable events in its history was the siege endured during the Indian revolt under Tupac Amaru in 1780, heroically repulsed by the commandant of the town, Sebastiano Segurola. Later, during the South American struggles for independence, La Paz was one of the first cities to join the movement. On 16 July, 1809, citizens and soldiers rose, at first, it is true, only against the French party and in favour of Ferdinand VII, but with the ultimate object of freeing themselves from the mother country. This first uprising was suppressed by General Goyeneche, who was sent from Lima against the insurgents, and had all the chiefs executed. After the battle of Ayacucho La Paz was the head-quarters of General Sucre and since then, at intervals, has been the capital of the country. The Diocese of La Paz was separated from that of Charcas by Paul V, 4 July, 1605 (see LA PAZ, DIOCESE OF). In the records of the Audiencia de Charcas, preserved in the "Archivo General de Indias" at Simancas, Diego de Zambrana y Guzmán appears to have been the first bishop, though he apparently did not take possession of his see. The first bishop vouched for by history was Domingo Balderrama, O.P., who assumed office in 1610 (d. 1615). He was succeeded in 1616 by Pedro de Valencia, who died in 1631, blind and an octogenarian. The next bishop, highly trained in law and literature, was Feliciano de la Vega, from 1628 Bishop of Popayán, who remained for only a year (1639) at the head of the diocese. He published the first synodal constitutions and died in 1640, Archbishop of Mexico. Among the subsequent bishops the following are prominent: Antonio de Castro y Castillo, O.F.M. (1648-53), whose detailed report on his diocese is preserved in the Archivo General de Indias at Simancas (printed in the "Boletin Eclesiástico", 1908-9, No. 5 sqq.); Juan de Queipo; Llano y Valdés (1681-95), who finished the first cathedral (1685) and was subsequently transferred to Charcas. The eleventh bishop, Agustin Rodriguez Delgado, was made Bishop of Panama in 1725 and became bishop of La Paz in 1731, in which capacity, in 1738, he edited the constitutions of the Third Diocesan Synod of La Paz. In 1748 he was appointed Archbishop of Charcas and in 1746 Archbishop of Lima, and died in the same year on his way to Lima. Gregorio Francisco de Campos (1764-87) completed the Franciscan monastery and dedicated it on 23 April, 1784. The twenty-sixth bishop, Juan de Dios Bosque (1874-90), published 29 November, 1883, the synodal constitutions still in force. The actual bishop (the twenty-eighth) Mgr. Nicolàs Armentia, O.F.M., has rendered distinguished services in the geographical exploration of Bolivia. He was born 5 December, 1845, at Bernedo in the Spanish province of Alava, received his early education in Biscaglia and in 1860 entered the French Franciscan province of St-Louis. In 1865 he was sent to the Franciscan college at La Paz, where he was ordained in 1869, after which he laboured from 1871 till 1880 as a missionary among the Indians in Tumupasa and Covendo. In June, 1881, he went to the Araunas and Pacaguaras on business for the Government. With a knapsack on his back containing clothes, provisions, and a sextant, a breviary in one hand and a compass in the other, he traversed the broad territory between the Beni and Madre de Dios Rivers. He followed the Beni for its entire length and examined the surrounding forests, remaining until 1883. After his return to La Paz he published, in 1884, the result of his explorations under the title "Diario de sus viajes á las tribus comprendidas entre el Beni y Madre de Dios y en el arroyo de Ivón en los dos años de 1882 y 1883". In May, 1884, Armentia navigated the Madre de Dios, pushing as far as 10° S. lat., exploring the Ortón River (Tahuamanu), among others, and returning to La Paz in August, 1886. Here, in 1887, he published his second work: "Navegación del Madre de Dios" (in "Biblioteca Boliviana de geografia é historia", I), translated into Italian by Marcellino da Civezza in his "Storia universale delle missioni Francescane" (VII, Florence, 1894, part IV, 503-663). In this Armentia describes, besides the fauna and flora of the countries he traversed, the customs and tongues of the tribes he visited, especially the Araunas, and laid before the Government a plan showing how the work of civilization begun by him among these savages could be most effectively carried on. On 22 October, 1901, Armentia was appointed Bishop of La Paz, and 24 February, 1902, was consecrated at Sucre. He published the "Regla Consueta" of his order in 184 articles (8 Dec., 1903), and wrote a valuable history of the old Franciscan missions in Bolivia under the title "Relación histórica de las misiones Franciscanas de Apolobamba, por otro nombre Frontera de Caupolicán" (La Paz, 1903). The diocese includes the entire Department of La Paz and the Province of Magdalena in the Department of Beni. It numbers 700,000 inhabitants in 72 parishes, served by about one hundred secular priests. The religious congregations represented in the diocese are the Franciscans, with the missionary college of San José, opened at La Paz in 1837; the Franciscan Recollects with various mission schools; the Jesuits with a flourishing college (150 day scholars and 50 interns); the Mercedarians with free schools; the Lazarists with a college; Dom Bosco's Salesians with an institute opened in 1887 (a business and trade school). The Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, the Sisters of the Most Sacred Heart (Picpus Sisters), the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, and the Daughters of St. Anne devote themselves to teaching and works of charity, while the Sisters of the Immaculate Conception and the Carmelite nuns follow the contemplative life. The cathedral chapter has ten canons. MIDDENDORF, Peru, III (Berlin, 1859), 329-43; SCHÜTZ-HOLZHAUSEN, Der Amazonas, 2nd ed. by KLASSERT (Freiburg im Br., 1895), 362 sq.; SPILLMANN In der Neuen Welt, I (2nd ed., Freiburg im Br., 1904), 132; Boletin Eclesiástico de la diócesis de Nuestra Señora de la Paz, monthly (La Paz, 1908--), with a catalogue of bishops in nos. 1-4. Concerning the Franciscan missions of the diocese, cf. the above-quoted work of Bishop Armentia and the bibliography of LA PLATA, DIOCESE OF; BOLIVIA; Acta Ordinis Minorum, XXIV (Rome, 1905), 359 sqq.; MARIANO FERNANDEZ, Conspectus omnium missi onum Ordinis Fratrum Minorum, (Quaracchi, 1905), 175 sqq.; HOLZAPFEL, Handbuch der Geschichte des Franciskanerordens (Freiburg im Br., 1909), 515. Concerning the Salesian Institute see Salesianische Nachrichten, III (Turin, 1897), 160 sqq., 183 sqq. On Bishop Armentia's explorations: MARCELLO DA CIVEZZA, op. cit., VII, pt. IV, introduction, p. xxx sqq.; SCHÜTZ-HOLZHAUSEN, op. cit., 343 sqq.; POLAKOWSKI in Verhandl. d. Gesellschaft für Erdkunde (Berlin, 1888), 475. GREGOR REINHOLD Pierre-Simon Laplace Pierre-Simon Laplace Mathematical and physical astronomer, b. in Beaumont-en-Auge, near Caen, department of Calvados, France, in March (dates given 28, 25, 23, 22), 1749; d. in Paris, 5 March, 1827. The son of a small farmer, he became connected with the military school of his town, first as pupil, then as teacher. At the age of eighteen he went to Paris, and, after convincing d'Alembert of his talents by a letter on the principles of mechanics, obtained a professorship at the military school of the capital. Later he became examiner of the royal artillery (1784) and professor at the Ecole Normale. During the political changes in France he sought favour with Revolution, consul, emperor, and king. In 1799 he accepted from the consul the post of minister of the interior, but, after six weeks, was removed for administrative incapacity. He was a member and even chancellor (1803) of the Senate, and great officer of the Legion of Honour and of the new Order of Reunion. After the downfall of Napoleon (1814) he was nominated Peer of France, with the right of a seat in the Chamber, and in 1817 was raised to the dignity of marquis. His last years were spent in his villa of Arcueil, which became a centre of learned visitors and studious young men (Biot, Poisson, etc.). The Société d'Arcueil was founded with his co-operation. Whereas he remained in undisturbed friendship with his great scientific rival Legrange, other scientists, like Young and Legendre, complained of him for not acknowledging their work. Laplace married at the age of thirty-nine, and a son was born to him in 1789. His scientific discoveries were made between the twentieth and fortieth years of his life. The succeeding thirty-eight years were spent in composing the immortal works: "The System of the World" (1796) and the "Mechanics of the Heavens" (1799-1825). Analysis owes to Laplace mainly the full development of the co-efficients, of the potential and of the theory of probabilities. In the line of celestial mechanics his glory was made by the discovery (announced in 1773) of the invariability of the planetary mean motions and the consequent stability of the solar system. The "Exposition du Système du Monde", in which the results are presented without mathematical deductions, showed such linguistic excellence that it secured him a seat among the Forty of the French Academy (1816) and for a time the presidency of that body (1817). The five volumes of the "Mécanique Céléste" made him the Newton of France. He was admitted to the French Academy of Sciences, first as associate (1773) and then as member (1785), and took a prominent place in the Institute, into which the Academy developed (1796). He was one of the founders of the Bureau of Longitudes and for a while its president. The Royal Society of London and the principal academies of Europe honoured him with membership. Great scientists, like Berthollet, Cuvier, Humboldt, dedicated their works to him. The collected works of Laplace were printed twice: by the Government in seven volumes (1843-47), the Chamber granting forty thousand francs; and again, at the expense of General Laplace (who left seventy thousand francs for the purpose) and his niece the Marquise of Colbert, in thirteen volumes (1878-1904), under the auspices of the Academy of Sciences. An English translation of the "Mécanique Céléste" by Dr. Bowditch appeared in Boston (1829-39) in four volumes. Laplace was born and died a Catholic. It has been asserted that to Laplace the Creator was an hypothesis. The origin of this assertion lies in the misinterpretation of a passage of the "Système du Monde" (Oeuvres, VI, 1835, p. 480), where it is evident that by "vain hypotheses" Laplace meant the Deus ex machina of Newton and the "perpetual miracle" of Leibniz's Harmony. It is true that Laplace indulges in a frivolous remark against Callistus III both in the "Theory of Probabilities" (Introduction, also separately as "Essai Philosophique") and in the "System of the World" (IV, iv). He partly atoned for it by omitting the remark in his fourth edition of the "Essai". Death prevented him from doing the same in the sixth edition of the "Système du Monde", the correcting of which he had commenced during his last illness. He died at his home in Paris, Rue du Bac, attended by the curé of the Foreign Missions, in whose parish he was to be buried, and the curé of Arcueil, whom he had called to administer the last comforts of religion (de Joannis, p. 27). POISSON, Discours pononcé aux Obsèques de M. le Marquis de Laplace in Connaissance de Temps pour l'an 1830; FAYE, Sur l'Origine du Monde (Paris, 1884); DE JOANNIS, Formation Mécanique du Système du Monde (Amiens, 1897), reprinted from Etudes, LXXI (Paris, 1897); FOURIER, Eloge historique de Laplace in Mèmoires de l'Acadèmie des Sciences (Paris, 1831). JOHN G. HAGEN Lapland and Lapps Lapland and Lapps About 150,000 square miles of the most northerly regions of Europe, from the Atlantic Ocean to the White Sea, from the Pole and the Arctic Ocean to the 62° N. lat., are occupied by a partly stationary, partly nomadic people of Mongolian race, usually designated as "Lapps", while their neighbours call the territory over which they migrate "Samelads" and the people themselves "Same", though many prefer the term Fjelman (mountaineers). The country is rich and varied. Radiant days and midnight sun alternate with months of night and twilight, contrasts that can scarcely be found elsewhere on earth. Deep obscure forests surround bright sheets of water; majestic rivers hurry over mighty cataracts to the sea; here ice-capped mountain peaks tower skyward; there innumerable herds of reindeer pasture in the grassy river valleys. The earth conceals all kinds of treasure, thus the inexhaustible iron mines at Gellivare are well known (in 1901 output 1,200,000 tons) as among the richest in the world. The total number of Lapps (the nation as such has exerted no influence on the development of mankind and therefore has no individual history) is about 30,000, of whom 2000 live on Russo-Finnish, 8000 on Swedish, and 20,000 on Norwegian territory. This singular race is divided into three different groups: mountain, forest, and fisher Lapps. The first two are nomadic and almost entirely dependent upon reindeer. Nearly all the needs of the Lapps are supplied by this useful creature, which closely resembles a stag. The flesh provides his food; from its milk he obtains cheese; from the hide, clothes, leather, foot and tent covering, while the antlers yield material for knife blades, vessels, etc. During the winter the mountain Lapps move down from their storm driven heights to the sheltering valleys. Here they linger until spring and while here slaughter superfluous animals. They conceal their provisions in storehouses (njallas) to save them from depredation. Into the part of the cuoptes (that is sheds resting on piles) not used to dry meat, they bring tools and sledges for the summer. On the approach of spring they return to the green mountain meadows where the reindeer calve and then, having abundant food, supply milk for nourishment and for making cheese. The dwellings of these Lapps consist of an easily movable kata, or conical hut, with skins fastened over the poles and ceilings and in winter roofed over with turf. These huts are fifteen to sixteen feet in diameter at the base and from six to fifteen feet in height. They have two entrances but no windows. The smoke from the fireplace in the middle escapes through an opening above. Around the hearth men and dogs, parents, with children and servants, lie on fir or birch twigs covered with skins. Less laborious than the lives of the mountain Lapps are those of the forest Lapps who have fixed places of abode and dwell in log-houses. Twice a year, in spring and autumn, they leave their hearths and devote themselves to hunting and fishing. The rest of the time they are employed, like the mountain Lapps, in breeding reindeer. The forest Lapp is in every respect more favoured than the rest of his race, and enjoys such luxuries of civilization as salt, meal, coffee, and tobacco. The fisher Lapps have few resources, and at the best have only a few reindeer to dispose of. They are industrious and depend solely on the often insufficient results of their toil. Absolute pauperism is frequent among them. As to physical traits, the Lapps are usually small and slight in figure like the Scandinavians and Russians; their heads are broad, the profile sharp and the expression somewhat sad. Their complexion is yellowish and the long jaw and pointed chin develop only a scanty beard. They love gay coloured clothes adorned with rude ornaments of silver or tin and make them with much skill. They are not lacking in mental capacity and few Lapps are totally illiterate. Education is provided by means of a few established schools and the aid of travelling teachers. Kindness and gentleness form the bright side of the Lapps' character. Thieving is rare. It is natural that an isolated people, but too frequently the victim of natural forces, should be given over to superstition. Formerly the Lapps were polytheists. Ibmel appears to have been invested with a sort of leading rôle among the gods, and his name is still used figuratively. To-day most of the people profess, at least outwardly, the Confession of Augsburg. There are several parishes, e.g. Kautokeins and Karajok in Norway, Karesuanda and Jukkejarin in Sweden where religious service is held in both the Scandinavian and Lapp languages, or only in the latter. It is abridged and the attendance is slack. About four times a year, however (at the so-called Helgdagar), the contrary is true. The multitudes who assemble at that time combine business and pleasure, markets and popular sports with religious celebrations. A few thousand Lapps were Christianized in the sixteenth century by monks from the Russian island-monastery of Solowetzkoij and were enrolled as members of the Orthodox Church. Their new "religion" was no more seriously taken than the Protestant Christianity of the Southern Lapp. Attempts at conversion were certainly made during the Middle Ages from Upsala, the archbishop of which was the protector of the nomads of the northern provinces, tributary to Sweden; the missions, however, made no real progress, though at the time of the Calmar Union (1397) the rich Lapp, Margarethe, took a lively interest in them and a priest named Tolsti was sent to preach the Gospel and erect churches for them. After the schism, Gustavus I Vasa took the matter up again and is said to have sent Brigittine monks from Vadstena to these northern missions. Charles IX had some chapels built, caused the Lapp language to be used by preachers, and laid the foundations for much of the work done later. In Norway, instruction in their native language were first given the Lapps in 1714 at the instigation of Thomas of Westen. This brought about conversions, but in 1774 when the instructions were once more confined to Danish, the neophytes fell away. In the middle of the eighteenth century an unsuccessful mission was undertaken by the Moravian Brotherhood. Since then much has been done to Christianize and civilize these people. Numerous grammars, dictionaries, and readers have been written, religious tracts disseminated, and even portions of the Holy Scriptures translated into their language. Since the repeal of adverse legislation, the Catholic Church has likewise endeavoured to gain an influence over these poor nomads. Unlike the Protestant missionaries, fathers of families, the unmarried Catholic priests have chosen the severe winter season for their work. The results, indeed, are yet moderate, though the future offers relatively favourable prospects. SCHEFFER, Histoire de La Laponie, tr. from the Latin (1678); HARTUNG AND DULK, Fahrten durch Norwegen und die Lappmark (1877); ESCARD, Le prince Roland Bonaparte en Lapponie (1886); ROLAND BONAPARTE, Note on the Lapps of Finmark (1886); BAUMGARTEN, Nordische Fahrten, (Freiburg, 1889); IDEM, Durch Skandinavien nach St. Petersburg (Freiburg, 1890); Katholische Missionen (1897-8 and 1900-1); SCHULZE, Abr iss einer Geschichte der Brüdergemeinden (1901); VAHL, Lapperne og den lapske Mission (1866); FRIIS, Lappisk Mythologi, Eventyr og Folkesagn (Christiania, 1871); IDEM, Lexikon Lapponicum (1885--); STORM, Hist. top. skrifter foerfattede i Norge i det 16de aarhundrede (1895); HOLFBERG, Genom Sveriger byjder (1883); Svenska Turistforeningens Reschandboecker, VI: Schweden (1900); Svenska Turistforeningens aroskrifter (1882--) gives full instruction on Lapland, its nature and inhabitants, as far as they concern Sweden. Each volume is furnished with an index. A systematic summary of works on Lapland previous to 1899 appears in the Annals for 1899 (pp. 416, 418); see HAZELIUS, Meddelanden fran Nordiska, Meeseet (1898); LALIN, Nord. Museets Fataburen (1906) with the criticism of FELLMAN, Anteckningar under min vistelse i Lappmarken (Helsingfors, 1906), of especial value for Russian Finland. PIUS WITTMANN La Plata (Argentina) La Plata DIOCESE OF LA PLATA (DE PLATA). The city of La Plata, capital of the Argentine Province of Buenos Aires, is situated on the right bank of the Rio de la Plata, about 35 miles south-east of the city of Buenos Aires. In 1895 the inhabitants numbered 45,410, and 80,000 in 1907, most of them foreigners, with Italians predominating. When, in 1880, the city of Buenos Aires was ceded to the Federal Government, the national Congress resolved to build a new capital for the Province of Buenos Aires. The foundation stone of this new capital was laid, 19 November, 1882; it was named La Plata, and grew rapidly in the '80s, but came to a standstill in 1890, and has not recovered yet. The far-famed artificial harbour assures the town an important future, though its nearness to Buenos Aires has temporarily checked its development. Among the important buildings belonging to the town are those of the National University of La Plata, which was developed, in 1905, out of the provincial university, and now (1909) has four faculties and a yearly budget of 1,080,000 pesos (about $440,000). Attached to the university are the library and university extension, containing 41,000 volumes, the Museo de la Plata, founded in 1877, with valuable anthropological, palaeontological, zoological, and mineral collections, and an astronomical observatory erected in 1882. The parish church of San Ponciano, built in 1883, served as pro- cathedral until 1901, when the present large Gothic cathedral took its place. The See of La Plata, by wish of the Argentine Government, was founded at the same time as the Sees of Santa Fe and Tucumam, by Bull of Leo XIII, "In Petri Cathedra," 15 February, 1897, and canonically established 30 May, 1897, by an edict of Archbishop Udalislao Castellano of Buenos Aires. It is a suffragan of Buenos Aires, with jurisdiction over the Province of Buenos Aires and the Territory of Pampa Central, both of these formerly belonging to the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires. The diocese and the cathedral are under the Patronage of the Immaculate Conception, while the Province of Buenos Aires is under the patronage of St. Martin of Tours. The Archbishop of Buenos Aires took charge of the new diocese until the appointment, in 1898, of the first bishop, Msgr. Mariano Antonio Espinosa. The present bishop (1909), Msgr. Nepomuceno Terrero y Escalada, was appointed in 1900. There is also an auxiliary bishop, Msgr. Francisco Alberti, titular Bishop of Siunia. On 29 December, 1909, the diocese numbered 1,700,000 inhabitants, mostly Catholics; 130 parishes; 260 secular priests and 60 religious. The communities of men are represented in the diocese by: Franciscans, Dominicans, Fathers of the Sacred Heart from the Diocese of Bayonne, Pallottines, Community of the Divine Word, Passionists, Salesians -- to whom, since 1896, the Mission of Pampa Central has been entrusted (see PATAGONIA) -- as also Brothers of the Christian Doctrine and Marists. The female communities are: Daughters of Our Lady of Mercy, Sisters of Mary Help of Christians, Poor Sisters of St. Joseph of Buenos Aires, Sisters of the Divine Saviour, of the Blessed Sacrament, of St. Anthony, of the Divine Master, Vincentians, Sisters of the Garden, of Our Lady of Lujar, of the Rosary (native and French), of the Child Jesus, of Mercy, of the Good Shepherd, Franciscan Tertiaries, Sisters of the Cross, of St. Camillus, of the Immaculate Conception, Capuchins, Sisters of the Holy Ghost, Little Sisters of the Poor, French Sisters of St. Joseph, Servants of Mary, of the Holy Union, Dominicanesses of the Annunciation, Franciscans of Charity, of Saint Martha, and Sisters of the Poor of St. Catherine of Siena. Boletin Eclesiastico de la diocesis de la Plata (1898-); La Lectura del Domingo, Publicacion semanol de instruccion religiosa, etc. (La Plata, 1883-); SCHUPP, Ein Besuch am La Plata (Freiburg, 1891), 211-32, reprinted by SPILLMANN, In der Neuer Welt, I (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1904), 227-31; Salesianische Nachrichten, XV (Trent and Turin, 1909), 249-54 (Reports of the Salesian Missionaries of Don Bosco in Pampa Central). GREGOR REINHOLD La Plata (Bolivia) La Plata ARCHDIOCESE OF LA PLATA/DE PLATA (OR CHARCAS) La Plata, besides being the metropolitan see of Bolivia, is one of the three principal cities of that republic. The other two are La Paz and Cochabamba. The city owes its origin to the famous silver mines of Potosi, which are nearby. Owing to the chill climate of Potosi, which is about 13,000 feet above the level of the sea, the wealthy mine-owners conceived the idea of seeking a more pleasant habitation for their families, in a milder temperature, about sixty miles to the north-east. The city is said to have been founded as early as 1536, under the name of Villa de la Plata (Silver City); it was also long called, from the district in which ft is situated, Charcas, or popularly, Chuquisaca (Golden Gate). After the victory of General Sucre near Ayacucho (1824), it was named in his honour, Sucre. La Plata is built on a plateau, 8837 feet above the level of the sea, on the Cochimayo, a tributary of the Pilcomayo, flowing into it from the left, and is the metropolis of the department of Chuquisaca, numbering 20,907 inhabitants (1900), chiefly Indians and Mestizos. The city is the residence of the archbishop, has a medical institute founded in 1905, with a meteorological observatory, a museum of anatomy and natural history, a Franciscan missionary college, built in 1837 by Father Herrero, O.F.M., a flourishing college of arts and industries of the Salesians of Don Bosco (connected with the Oratory), an Oratory of St. Philip Neri, also a geographical society, whose principal work has been the "Diccionario geografico del departamento de Chuquisaca" (Sucre, 1903). The many churches of the city are for the most part unattractive, the exteriors covered with unsightly stucco work, the interiors with wretched paintings. The only one worthy of note is the Cathedral of Nuestra Senyora de Guadalupe, a building with three naves and an imposing tower. This cathedral is remarkable for its wealth of treasures in silver, which, however, have recently diminished in importance, a part having been melted down by President Melgarejo. The miraculous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, about seven feet in height, and encrusted with diamonds, rubies, emeralds, and pearls, is still in the church, and is valued at about two million dollars. Of the twenty-four massive silver candelabra, there are two at present weighing each about 110 pounds. Also in the cathedral are a large number of valuable paintings, among others a "Madonna de la Paz" by Murillo, a "Martyrdom of St. Bartholomew" by Ribera, a "Crucifixion of St. Andrew" by Montufar. In the adjoining chapel of San Juan de Mata are two artistic statues of St. Clement and St. Aquila, both containing relics of the saints. The spacious sala capitular, or chapter hall, contains the portraits of all the archbishops. The Diocese of La Plata, or Charcas, was erected by Bull of Julius III, 27 June, 1552, as a suffragan of Lima. On 4 July, 1605, Paul V founded two new dioceses out of La Plata territory, La Paz and Santa Cruz de la Sierra, and on 20 July, 1609, raised La Plata to metropolitan rank. The province formerly embraced, in addition to the two above-mentioned dioceses, practically all the territory now comprised in Chile, Argentina, Panama, Paraguay, etc. To-day the boundaries of the ecclesiastical Province of La Plata coincide with those of the Republic of Bolivia, embracing only the suffragan Dioceses of La Paz, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, and Cochabamba, erected in 1847. The list of bishops of La Plata comprises six names; that of the archbishops, thirty-six, including the present incumbent of the see. Prominent among them are: Alonso de Peralta (1609-16), who died in the odour of sanctity; Fernando de Arias y Ugarte (1627-30), previously Bishop of Quito and Archbishop of Santa Fe de Bogota, held the first provincial synod in 1629, was a true father to the Indians, and died, in 1638, Archbishop of Lima; Gaspar de Villaroel, O.S.A. (1659-67), formerly Bishop of Santiago de Chile and Arequipa, also known as a writer on canon law and exegetics (Hurter, "Nomenclator literarius," 2nd ed., Innsbruck, II, 1893, 138); Cristoval de Castilla y Zamora (1655-82), natural son of Philip II of Spain, who built the archiepiscopal seminary and the former archiepiscopal palace (now the president's mansion); Bartolome Gonzalez y Poveda (1683-92), who expended a hundred thousand pesos on the erection of the side aisles and the tower of the cathedral; Pedro Miguel de Argandonya (1761-76), formerly Bishop of Cordova de Tucuman, who built the charter hall and held the second provincial synod in 1776, during the course of which his death occurred; the Discalced Carmelite Jose Antonio de San Alberto (1785-1804), a veritable father of the poor, who founded the local Oratory of St. Philip Neri and was also a writer of some merit on ascetical subjects; the Benedictine Benito Maria de Moxo y Francoli (1807-16), a well-trained scholar, the author of homilies and also of some polished poems in Latin and Italian, who died at Salta, in Argentina, having been banished thither by General Rondeau; Pedro Puch y Solona (1862-85); who assisted at the Vatican Council. The present (thirty-sixth) archbishop is a Franciscan, Sebastiano Francisco Pifferi, born, 4 November, 1848, at Castelmadama in the Diocese of Tivoli, Italy. He entered the Franciscan Order, 9 November, 1863, made his profession, 20 January, 1868, and was ordained to the priesthood, 14 May, 1871. He first worked in Bolivia as commissary general of his order, and in 1905 was appointed titular Bishop of Jericho and coadjutor of the aged Archbishop Miguel de los Santos Taborga (1898-1906), on whose death (30 April, 1906) he succeeded to the archiepiscopal See of La Plata. STATISTICS According to a communication from Archbishop Pifferi, of January, 1910, the Archdiocese of La Plata embraces the departments of Chuquisaca, Potosi, Oruro, and Tarija, with an approximate area of 165,200 sq. miles, and a population of 805,299. The archdiocese is divided into 13 deaneries (vicariates forane), and comprises 135 parishes, over 200 vice-parishes, with 172 secular priests and 99 regular priests, besides 10 regular clerics not priests, and 26 lay brothers, in 6 monasteries of men, and 159 sisters in 21 houses. There are 70 students in the seminary. The 10 mission stations among the pagan Indians, and 7 mixed stations are all attended from the missionary colleges of the Franciscans. The religious congregations represented in the archdiocese are as follows: Franciscans, with monasteries at Sucre, Potosi, Oruro, and Tarija, all in the province of San Antonio de las Charcas. Of these four monasteries, Potosi (founded 1547), Sucre (mentioned above), and Tarija (1607), have flourishing missionary colleges in charge of missions among the pagan Indians. Moreover, the Oratorians of St. Philip Neri have an oratory at Sucre; Don Bosco's Salesians a college of arts and industries (with oratory) at Sucre; the Lazarists, a house at Sucre; the Discalced Carmelite nuns, monasteries at Sucre and Potosi; the Poor Clares and the Servants of Mary, each a house at Sucre; the Augustinian nuns, a monastery at Potosi; lastly, the Daughters of St. Anne have foundations at Sucre, Potosi, Orura, Tarija, and Tupiza. In addition to 14 religious schools, there are 2 educational institutions for boys (with 360 pupils) and one for girls (with an attendance of 1200), and 6 hospitals and hospices. Besides the Spanish language, there are Indian dialects still in use -- Quichua, Aymara, and Guarani. St. Barbara, virgin and martyr, is patroness of the diocese. SCHUTZ-HOLZHAUSEN, Der Amazonas, 2nd ed. prepared by KLASSERT (Freiburg im Br., 1895), 363 sqq.; SPILLMANN, In der neuen Welt, I (2nd ed., Freiburg im Br., 1904), 132 sqq.; Diccionario geografico del departamento de Chuquisaca, ed. GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY OF SUCRE (Sucre, 1903): TABORGA, Un Capitulo de la historia de la epoca colonial (La Plata, 1905) (with list of bishops), pp. 41-51. On the Franciscan missions of the archdiocese, cf. FERNANDEZ, Conspectus omnium missionum Ordinis Fratrum Minorum (Quaracchi, 1905), 173-88; also CARDUS, Las misiones Franciscanas entre los infideles de Bolivia (Barcelona, 1886); CORRADO, Il collegio Francescano di Tarija e le sue missioni, Italian tr. by VILLORESI (Quaracchi, 1885); MARTARELLI, El Colegio Franciscano de Potosi y sus misiones (Potosi, 1890); DE NINO, Una pagina o sea continuacion de la historia de misiones Franciscanas del colegio de Potosi (Potosi, 1908); ARMENTIA, Relacion historica de la misiones Franciscanas de Apolobamba, por otre nombre Fronterra de Caupolican (official ed., La Paz, 1903). On the Salesians at Sucre, Salesianische Nachrichten, XV (Trent and Turin, 1909), 286. GREGOR REINHOLD Albert Auguste de Lapparent Albert Auguste de Lapparent French geologist, b. at Bourges, 30 Dec., 1839; d. at Paris, 12 May, 1908. He made a brilliant course of studies at the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, graduating there the first of his promotion, and at the School of Mines. Having been appointed mining engineer in 1864, he was chosen by Elie de Beaumont as a member of the staff entrusted with the task of drawing the geological map of France. From 1866 to 1880 he contributed, with Delesse, articles on geology to the "Annales des Mines". In 1874 he was made secretary of the committee on the submarine tunnel between England and France, and conducted the soundings with such skill that his report was pronounced most valuable and served as a basis for subsequent inquiries on the question. The French Government gave him the Cross of the Legion of Honour. Towards the end of 1875 a chair of geology and mineralogy was founded for him at the Catholic University of Paris. For a few years he occupied that position without severing his connexion with the mining department, and when the leave of absence he had obtained was cancelled (1880), he preferred to give up his official position and continue to teach a science so dear to him in an atmosphere more congenial to his religious convictions. In 1880 he was elected president of the Geological Society of France. Two years later he began to write his "Traité de Géologie", published at Paris in 1884, the style of which work was as remarkable as its contents. He treated the subject in a new way, abandoning the old methods and laying the foundation of the scientific history of the earth. Instead of confining himself to a dry description and to a mere enumeration of fossils, he ventured to make hypotheses on terrestrial dynamics, as well as on the past and present evolutions of the earth. In 1885 appeared his "Cours de Minéralogie", which gained him the presidency of the French Society of Mineralogy, and a prize from the Academy of Sciences. Not long afterwards he began at the Catholic University his lectures on physical geography, a work of such merit that he was offered the chairmanship of the central committee of the Society of Geography in 1895, and was sent to represent the society at the international congress held in London. In 1896 he published his "Leçons de Géographie Physique", a work of decided originality. Lapparent was the first to treat this subject in France, and the success of his lectures at the Catholic University, the first ever given in this department, prompted the French Government to establish a similar chair at the Sorbonne. His chief qualities as teacher consisted in the clearness and method of his treatment. He saw at once the essential points of a question and showed them in a new light. Hence the enduring success of his publications, which were many times reprinted. However deep and complicated the subject, his treatment made for simplicity. In recognition of his services to science, he was elected to the Academy of Sciences in June, 1897, and in May, 1907, when Berthelot died, de Lapparent succeeded him as secretary of that academy. De Lapparent was not only a prolific author of original scientific works, but also, in the highest sense of the term, a remarkable "popularizer". Considering that the proper rôle of the scientist, holding by his work the closest communion with truth in this world, is to spread this truth abroad, he set forth in words perfectly simple and clear, but withal perfectly exact, the great problems of contemporary science. The style in which he did this derived an added dignity from the very simplicity in which he clothed these abstract themes. He never had recourse to that pretentious pomp of style with which ignorance is wont to mystify the lay mind. De Lapparent's writings embodied the most abstract thoughts, staightway illuminated, however, by his marvellous gift of simplification. His articles in "Le Correspondant" are masterpieces. They were always cordially welcomed, not only by the laity, but also by his colleagues in the world of science. In these articles he gave to the world in popular form his tetrahedral theory of the form of the earth, a theory as simple in principle as it was pregnant in possible applications. He also made known Brückner's curious theory of meteorological periodicity, and discussed the question of the flattening of the earth, a subject to which he succeeded in imparting much new life and significance. In this same happy style de Lapparent wrote that remarkable little work, "Some Thoughts about the Nature of the Earth's Crust", which, although based upon a series of lectures delivered by him to a lay audience, shows wonderful philosophic grasp and scientific comprehension. MICHIELI, Rivista d. fis. nat. e sci. nat. (Pisa, 1908), 225-42; PERVINQUIERE in Revue scientifique (Paris, 1908), 609-14; Le Correspondant (Paris, 1908). LOUIS N. DELAMARRE __________________________________________________________________ Indexes __________________________________________________________________ Index of Scripture References Genesis [1]1 [2]1:3 [3]12 [4]15 [5]17:17 [6]17:17 [7]18 [8]49:10 Exodus [9]19:6 [10]29:29 Leviticus [11]4:3 [12]25:10 Numbers [13]13:8 Deuteronomy [14]6:4 [15]101 Joshua [16]15:25 1 Kings [17]10:1 Psalms [18]2:2 [19]4:2 [20]4:6 [21]5:6 [22]29 [23]42 [24]113 Ecclesiastes [25]11:9 Song of Solomon [26]1 Isaiah [27]2:12 [28]61:2 Ezekiel [29]13:5 Daniel [30]9:24-26 Joel [31]2:31 [32]3:13 Malachi [33]4:5-6 Matthew [34]1:1 [35]1:18 [36]1:19 [37]1:20 [38]1:21 [39]1:21 [40]1:24 [41]2:13 [42]4:18-22 [43]4:22 [44]8:11 [45]8:11 [46]9:20 [47]9:27 [48]10:3 [49]10:3 [50]10:4 [51]12:36 [52]12:46 [53]13:55 [54]13:55 [55]13:55 [56]13:57 [57]16:18 [58]16:18-19 [59]16:19 [60]16:19 [61]16:27 [62]17:11 [63]18:18 [64]19:27-28 [65]19:28 [66]20:23 [67]21:41 [68]24:6 [69]24:14 [70]24:27 [71]24:27 [72]24:29 [73]24:30 [74]24:31 [75]24:37 [76]24:42-43 [77]25:31-46 [78]27:56 [79]27:56 [80]27:56 [81]28:56 Mark [82]1:1 [83]1:15 [84]1:19 [85]3:17 [86]3:18 [87]3:18 [88]3:19 [89]3:31 [90]5:38-39 [91]6:3 [92]6:3 [93]6:3 [94]9:40 [95]10:37 [96]10:47 [97]12:20 [98]13:32 [99]15:40 [100]15:40 [101]15:40 [102]15:40 Luke [103]1:31 [104]2:1-7 [105]2:11 [106]2:39 [107]2:42-51 [108]3:1 [109]3:23 [110]3:29 [111]4:16 [112]4:22 [113]5:1-11 [114]5:10 [115]6:15 [116]6:16 [117]6:16 [118]6:16 [119]8:19 [120]10:18 [121]11:52 [122]12:28 [123]13:33 [124]16:17 [125]16:24 [126]17:30 [127]18:8 [128]21:25-26 [129]21:34 [130]23:2 [131]23:43 John [132]1:17 [133]1:35 [134]1:45 [135]2:20 [136]5:3-4 [137]5:26-27 [138]5:28 [139]6:14 [140]6:39-40 [141]6:42 [142]6:71-2 [143]7:3 [144]7:53-8 [145]8:6 [146]12:4-6 [147]19:25 [148]19:25 [149]19:25 [150]21 Acts [151]1:6-7 [152]1:13 [153]1:13 [154]1:13 [155]1:25 [156]2:16-21 [157]4:13 [158]6:13-14 [159]9:27 [160]9:34 [161]10:42 [162]12:1-2 [163]12:2 [164]12:15 [165]12:17 [166]12:17 [167]15 [168]15 [169]15:11 [170]15:13 [171]17:5-9 [172]17:7 [173]21 [174]21:1 Romans [175]1:3-4 [176]2:5-16 [177]2:15 [178]2:15-16 [179]9:7 [180]15:24 [181]16:21 1 Corinthians [182]4:5 [183]4:5 [184]6:2 [185]15:5-7 [186]15:7 [187]15:23 [188]15:24 [189]15:52 2 Corinthians [190]5 [191]5:10 Galatians [192]1:2 [193]1:19 [194]1:19 [195]1:19 [196]1:19 [197]1:19 [198]2 [199]2:2 [200]2:9 [201]2:12 [202]2:17 [203]4:28 Philippians [204]2:6 Colossians [205]4:11 1 Thessalonians [206]4:15 [207]4:16 [208]5:2 [209]5:2 2 Thessalonians [210]1:5 [211]2:3 [212]2:3 [213]2:7 [214]2:8 [215]2:19 1 Timothy [216]6:14 2 Timothy [217]4:1 [218]4:1 [219]4:8 Titus [220]2:13 Philemon [221]1:1 [222]1:1 Hebrews [223]9:27 [224]11:17 James [225]2:21 [226]5:7 1 Peter [227]2:3 [228]4:13 2 Peter [229]3:10-13 1 John [230]2:18 Jude [231]1:1 [232]1:1 Revelation [233]3:3 [234]14:15 [235]15:3 [236]20:4-6 [237]20:12 [238]20:12 Tobit [239]8:10 2 Esdras [240]9 Sirach [241]11:28-29 [242]44:16 [243]48:10 __________________________________________________________________ This document is from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Calvin College, http://www.ccel.org, generated on demand from ThML source. References 1. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=1&scrV=0#j-p1087.1 2. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=1&scrV=3#k-p4.1 3. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=12&scrV=0#j-p1087.2 4. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=15&scrV=0#i_1-p1104.1 5. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=17&scrV=17#i_1-p1105.1 6. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=17&scrV=17#i_1-p1105.2 7. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=18&scrV=0#j-p1087.2 8. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=49&scrV=10#k-p18.4 9. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Exod&scrCh=19&scrV=6#j-p1087.4 10. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Exod&scrCh=29&scrV=29#j-p905.1 11. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Lev&scrCh=4&scrV=3#j-p905.2 12. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Lev&scrCh=25&scrV=10#j-p2226.2 13. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Num&scrCh=13&scrV=8#j-p1987.1 14. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Deut&scrCh=6&scrV=4#j-p963.5 15. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Deut&scrCh=101&scrV=0#j-p1663.1 16. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Josh&scrCh=15&scrV=25#j-p2280.1 17. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=1Kgs&scrCh=10&scrV=1#j-p905.3 18. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=2&scrV=2#j-p905.5 19. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=4&scrV=2#k-p989.1 20. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=4&scrV=6#k-p989.1 21. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=5&scrV=6#j-p2435.1 22. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=29&scrV=0#j-p1101.6 23. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=42&scrV=0#j-p2421.1 24. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=113&scrV=0#j-p963.6 25. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Eccl&scrCh=11&scrV=9#j-p2386.1 26. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Song&scrCh=1&scrV=0#j-p1689.1 27. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=2&scrV=12#j-p2400.3 28. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=61&scrV=2#j-p2249.1 29. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Ezek&scrCh=13&scrV=5#j-p2400.2 30. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Dan&scrCh=9&scrV=24#j-p905.4 31. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Joel&scrCh=2&scrV=31#j-p2400.1 32. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Joel&scrCh=3&scrV=13#j-p1254.2 33. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Mal&scrCh=4&scrV=5#j-p2406.1 34. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=1&scrV=1#j-p905.6 35. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=1&scrV=18#j-p905.6 36. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=1&scrV=19#j-p1970.1 37. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=1&scrV=20#j-p1970.1 38. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=1&scrV=21#j-p904.7 39. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=1&scrV=21#j-p904.8 40. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=1&scrV=24#j-p1970.1 41. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=2&scrV=13#j-p1971.2 42. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=4&scrV=18#j-p169.3 43. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=4&scrV=22#j-p169.7 44. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=8&scrV=11#i_1-p1107.1 45. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=8&scrV=11#j-p1096.3 46. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=9&scrV=20#k-p989.3 47. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=9&scrV=27#k-p989.3 48. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=10&scrV=3#j-p180.4 49. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=10&scrV=3#j-p183.2 50. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=10&scrV=4#j-p2281.1 51. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=12&scrV=36#j-p2417.1 52. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=12&scrV=46#j-p1973.1 53. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=13&scrV=55#j-p180.9 54. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=13&scrV=55#j-p1967.1 55. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=13&scrV=55#j-p1973.7 56. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=13&scrV=57#j-p906.2 57. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=16&scrV=18#k-p370.2 58. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=16&scrV=18#k-p371.1 59. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=16&scrV=19#k-p367.1 60. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=16&scrV=19#k-p368.1 61. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=16&scrV=27#j-p2415.2 62. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=17&scrV=11#j-p2406.3 63. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=18&scrV=18#k-p370.1 64. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=19&scrV=27#j-p2415.7 65. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=19&scrV=28#j-p2415.6 66. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=20&scrV=23#j-p1853.1 67. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=21&scrV=41#j-p2415.5 68. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=24&scrV=6#j-p2409.3 69. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=24&scrV=14#j-p2404.1 70. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=24&scrV=27#j-p2400.4 71. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=24&scrV=27#j-p2413.4 72. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=24&scrV=29#j-p2409.1 73. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=24&scrV=30#j-p2412.1 74. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=24&scrV=31#j-p2415.3 75. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=24&scrV=37#j-p2413.6 76. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=24&scrV=42#j-p2413.3 77. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=25&scrV=31#j-p2418.1 78. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=27&scrV=56#j-p180.17 79. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=27&scrV=56#j-p163.1 80. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=27&scrV=56#j-p181.5 81. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=28&scrV=56#j-p167.2 82. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=1&scrV=1#j-p905.7 83. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=1&scrV=15#j-p1092.1 84. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=1&scrV=19#j-p169.4 85. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=3&scrV=17#j-p169.1 86. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=3&scrV=18#j-p180.5 87. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=3&scrV=18#j-p183.3 88. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=3&scrV=19#j-p2281.2 89. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=3&scrV=31#j-p1973.2 90. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=5&scrV=38#j-p172.2 91. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=6&scrV=3#j-p180.10 92. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=6&scrV=3#j-p963.1 93. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=6&scrV=3#j-p1967.2 94. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=9&scrV=40#j-p905.9 95. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=10&scrV=37#j-p172.1 96. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=10&scrV=47#k-p989.4 97. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=12&scrV=20#j-p1092.2 98. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=13&scrV=32#j-p2413.1 99. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=15&scrV=40#j-p180.16 100. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=15&scrV=40#j-p163.2 101. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=15&scrV=40#j-p167.3 102. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=15&scrV=40#j-p181.6 103. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=1&scrV=31#j-p904.6 104. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=2&scrV=1#j-p1971.1 105. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=2&scrV=11#j-p905.10 106. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=2&scrV=39#j-p961.1 107. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=2&scrV=42#j-p1972.1 108. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=3&scrV=1#j-p947.2 109. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=3&scrV=23#j-p947.1 110. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=3&scrV=29#j-p904.1 111. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=4&scrV=16#j-p963.3 112. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=4&scrV=22#j-p1973.6 113. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=5&scrV=1#j-p169.5 114. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=5&scrV=10#j-p169.6 115. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=6&scrV=15#j-p180.6 116. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=6&scrV=16#j-p180.21 117. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=6&scrV=16#j-p183.4 118. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=6&scrV=16#j-p2281.3 119. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=8&scrV=19#j-p1973.3 120. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=10&scrV=18#j-p1092.3 121. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=11&scrV=52#k-p371.2 122. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=12&scrV=28#i_1-p1107.2 123. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=13&scrV=33#j-p906.3 124. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=16&scrV=17#k-p989.5 125. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=16&scrV=24#k-p989.5 126. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=17&scrV=30#j-p2400.23 127. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=18&scrV=8#j-p2407.2 128. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=21&scrV=25#j-p2409.2 129. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=21&scrV=34#j-p2413.5 130. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=23&scrV=2#j-p906.4 131. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=23&scrV=43#j-p2386.3 132. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=1&scrV=17#j-p905.8 133. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=1&scrV=35#j-p169.2 134. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=1&scrV=45#j-p1973.5 135. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=2&scrV=20#j-p949.1 136. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=5&scrV=3#j-p1447.1 137. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=5&scrV=26#j-p2415.1 138. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=5&scrV=28#j-p2411.3 139. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=6&scrV=14#j-p906.1 140. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=6&scrV=39#j-p2400.24 141. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=6&scrV=42#j-p963.2 142. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=6&scrV=71#j-p2281.4 143. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=7&scrV=3#j-p1973.4 144. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=7&scrV=53#j-p1451.1 145. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=8&scrV=6#j-p963.4 146. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=12&scrV=4#j-p2283.1 147. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=19&scrV=25#j-p180.18 148. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=19&scrV=25#j-p167.1 149. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=19&scrV=25#j-p181.7 150. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=21&scrV=0#j-p1455.1 151. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=1&scrV=6#j-p2413.2 152. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=1&scrV=13#j-p180.7 153. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=1&scrV=13#j-p183.5 154. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=1&scrV=13#j-p180.22 155. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=1&scrV=25#j-p2386.7 156. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=2&scrV=16#j-p1254.1 157. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=4&scrV=13#j-p165.1 158. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=6&scrV=13#j-p1095.1 159. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=9&scrV=27#j-p184.3 160. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=9&scrV=34#j-p904.5 161. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=10&scrV=42#j-p2400.5 162. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=12&scrV=1#j-p173.1 163. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=12&scrV=2#j-p177.3 164. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=12&scrV=15#j-p180.13 165. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=12&scrV=17#j-p180.13 166. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=12&scrV=17#j-p184.4 167. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=15&scrV=0#j-p181.1 168. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=15&scrV=0#j-p1096.1 169. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=15&scrV=11#j-p184.8 170. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=15&scrV=13#j-p184.6 171. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=17&scrV=5#j-p904.3 172. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=17&scrV=7#j-p906.5 173. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=21&scrV=0#j-p181.1 174. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=21&scrV=1#j-p184.11 175. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1&scrV=3#j-p940.1 176. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=2&scrV=5#j-p2400.6 177. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=2&scrV=15#j-p2418.3 178. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=2&scrV=15#j-p2397.1 179. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=9&scrV=7#i_1-p1107.3 180. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=15&scrV=24#j-p177.5 181. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=16&scrV=21#j-p904.4 182. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=4&scrV=5#j-p2400.7 183. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=4&scrV=5#j-p2417.2 184. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=6&scrV=2#j-p2415.4 185. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=15&scrV=5#j-p183.6 186. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=15&scrV=7#j-p180.14 187. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=15&scrV=23#j-p2400.12 188. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=15&scrV=24#j-p906.6 189. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=15&scrV=52#j-p2411.1 190. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=2Cor&scrCh=5&scrV=0#j-p2386.4 191. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=2Cor&scrCh=5&scrV=10#j-p2400.8 192. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=1&scrV=2#j-p182.1 193. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=1&scrV=19#j-p180.11 194. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=1&scrV=19#j-p182.1 195. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=1&scrV=19#j-p184.2 196. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=1&scrV=19#j-p181.2 197. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=1&scrV=19#j-p181.3 198. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=2&scrV=0#j-p1096.2 199. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=2&scrV=2#j-p180.12 200. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=2&scrV=9#j-p184.7 201. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=2&scrV=12#j-p184.9 202. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=2&scrV=17#j-p940.2 203. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=4&scrV=28#i_1-p1107.4 204. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Phil&scrCh=2&scrV=6#k-p231.1 205. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Col&scrCh=4&scrV=11#j-p904.2 206. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=1Thess&scrCh=4&scrV=15#j-p2411.2 207. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=1Thess&scrCh=4&scrV=16#j-p2414.1 208. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=1Thess&scrCh=5&scrV=2#j-p2400.21 209. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=1Thess&scrCh=5&scrV=2#j-p2410.2 210. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=2Thess&scrCh=1&scrV=5#j-p2400.10 211. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=2Thess&scrCh=2&scrV=3#j-p2407.1 212. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=2Thess&scrCh=2&scrV=3#j-p2408.1 213. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=2Thess&scrCh=2&scrV=7#j-p2400.18 214. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=2Thess&scrCh=2&scrV=8#j-p2400.14 215. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=2Thess&scrCh=2&scrV=19#j-p2400.13 216. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=1Tim&scrCh=6&scrV=14#j-p2400.15 217. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=2Tim&scrCh=4&scrV=1#j-p2400.9 218. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=2Tim&scrCh=4&scrV=1#j-p2400.16 219. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=2Tim&scrCh=4&scrV=8#j-p2400.20 220. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Titus&scrCh=2&scrV=13#j-p2400.17 221. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Phlm&scrCh=1&scrV=1#j-p2386.5 222. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Phlm&scrCh=1&scrV=1#j-p2400.22 223. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=9&scrV=27#j-p2386.2 224. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=11&scrV=17#i_1-p1107.5 225. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Jas&scrCh=2&scrV=21#i_1-p1107.6 226. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Jas&scrCh=5&scrV=7#j-p2400.11 227. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=1Pet&scrCh=2&scrV=3#j-p905.11 228. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=1Pet&scrCh=4&scrV=13#j-p2400.19 229. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=2Pet&scrCh=3&scrV=10#j-p2410.1 230. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=1John&scrCh=2&scrV=18#j-p2408.2 231. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Jude&scrCh=1&scrV=1#j-p180.20 232. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Jude&scrCh=1&scrV=1#j-p181.4 233. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=3&scrV=3#j-p2410.3 234. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=14&scrV=15#j-p1254.3 235. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=15&scrV=3#j-p906.7 236. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=20&scrV=4#j-p2386.8 237. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=20&scrV=12#j-p2397.2 238. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=20&scrV=12#j-p2418.2 239. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Tob&scrCh=8&scrV=10#k-p989.2 240. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=2Esd&scrCh=9&scrV=0#j-p1087.3 241. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Sir&scrCh=11&scrV=28#j-p2386.6 242. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Sir&scrCh=44&scrV=16#j-p2406.4 243. file:///ccel/h/herbermann/cathen08/cache/cathen08.html3?scrBook=Sir&scrCh=48&scrV=10#j-p2406.2